5 ms·

More specifically, the "specialized software" was TortoiseSVN, and the "downloaded over 14,000 ... downloaded 9.7 GB" was an SVN checkout. An SVN client being

More specifically, the "specialized software" was TortoiseSVN, and the "downloaded over 14,000 ... downloaded 9.7 GB" was an SVN checkout. An SVN client being used to access an SVN repository is hardly unusual, certainly not in the way insinuated by the wording presented.

jsmthrowaway 9y ago
If I recall, Google/Waymo claimed in their filing that he had never used the Subversion repository in question from that laptop in the course of his employment, until that moment. They further claim he actually searched MoMA for how to access it as well as how to do end-to-end setup. He then left not long after that checkout. That is unusual, if true.
- kbenson 9y ago
  Yes, but it was also a previously unused laptop, so it's not all that unusual for someone setting up a work system to make sure their work access is set up. It is odd that it happened towards the end, and that it wasn't used afterwards, but I can also see it being something I might do in preperation if I had to take a short trip and hadn't set up a remote work laptop yet or my prior one was causing problems. That it wasn't used might have been that he ended up not doing any work (or any work that required the laptop) during the period he wanted it. A single normal SVN checkout during the setup would get every file in the repo by default. Basically, I don't think it's hard to construct an entirely innocent narrative of events (assuming SVN access was normal for him). The later developments do make it look fishy, but since I doubt anyone would have thought anything amiss with the list of actions without the later events, it's far from a smoking gun when taken by itself.
  - huac 9y ago
    Google alleges he then copied the files onto a portable hard drive and wiped the laptop, which shows a pretty strong intent to deceive.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      Sure, when it's summarized like that, it sounds bad, and it maybe bad. But compare that to this slightly expanded timeline summary from reading the actual filing[1]: The laptop in question connected to Google only 3 times between March 2, 2015 and November 25, 2015, despite being configured to connect every 15 minutes. ~ 2 hours on Oct 22, ~2 hours on Nov 20, and "briefly" on Nov 25. (My interpretation? It was almost always off and not in use). Windows was reinstalled on Nov 26th. On Dec 3, searched were done on Google's internal search system for how to log in and setup access through SVN to the driving car project ("chauffer"). Tortoise SVN was downloaded and installed on Dec 11. It then "downloaded over 14,000 files from the SVN repository". (My interpretation? A SVN checkout of the entire repo was done). A USB card reader was attached on Dec 14 for about 8 hours. On Dec 18, the laptop was reinstalled with Goobuntu (Google's custom Ubuntu). The machine stayed on and checking in to Google normally from the time of the install until Dec 21, when it received a "machine certificate", within a minute of which it was not seen again on Google's networks, despite being configured to connect every 15 minutes (My interpretation? It was off again). The filing goes on to talk about some Google drive exports of documents that don't necessarily look good for Levandowski. My purpose here isn't to convince anyone that he's innocent, just to point out that Google's allegations are worded in a way to cast the most suspicion while being technically true. Through the omission of the timeline it sounds like his actions were all taken at once, which looks a little more premeditated, when instead it was over a period of a couple weeks. It's entirely possibly that Levandowski purposefully obfuscated his actions by spreading them out temporally, so this isn't evidence he didn't do what is alleged, but I think it's important people have the facts before making judgments based on Waymo's lawyer's accounting, which is obviously as beneficial to Waymo as possible, as should be expected. 1: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3515476-Declaration-of-Gary-Brown-PUBLIC.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3515476-Declaration-...
      - huac 9y ago
        Sure, Google's interpretation is not particularly generous. But even the most charitable reading of the facts would find that Levandowski downloaded the files to an external disk, relatively close to when he left the company. All of that is bad for Levandowski, but it's unclear if any of those files got used by Uber, which is where the case may very well fizzle out.
  - hackunomatter 9y ago
    Well, if he has a rock-solid benign explanation, why doesn't he come on the stand and testify?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - zaphar 9y ago
      Taking the fifth is not automatically a sign of guilt despite what some people might think. As I understand it it's not out of the realm of possibility for a lawyer to advise doing so even for completely innocent clients. It's not hard to get tripped up on the stand and sound guilty even when you aren't.
      - tjalfi 9y ago
        This. The video Don't Talk to the Police[0] has several concrete examples of how not taking the fifth amendment can be to your disadvantage. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
        joshuamorton 9y ago
        This is not a criminal proceeding.
        kbenson 9y ago
        But the case has been referred to the authorities for a possible criminal case. In that light, there may be more reason to keep quiet.
      - bradleyjg 9y ago
        It's one thing to take the fifth out of an abundance of caution when all it might do is raise some suspicion. It's another thing when doing so is likely to cost you $250MM. It's hard to look at this course of events and conclude that Levandowski probably did nothing wrong.
taneq 9y ago
Reminds me of the "accessed X thousand confidential documents" in the Carmack trial, as a way of saying "copied his mbox file."

jsmthrowaway 9y ago

If I recall, Google/Waymo claimed in their filing that he had never used the Subversion repository in question from that laptop in the course of his employment, until that moment. They further claim he actually searched MoMA for how to access it as well as how to do end-to-end setup. He then left not long after that checkout. That is unusual, if true.

kbenson 9y ago
Yes, but it was also a previously unused laptop, so it's not all that unusual for someone setting up a work system to make sure their work access is set up. It is odd that it happened towards the end, and that it wasn't used afterwards, but I can also see it being something I might do in preperation if I had to take a short trip and hadn't set up a remote work laptop yet or my prior one was causing problems. That it wasn't used might have been that he ended up not doing any work (or any work that required the laptop) during the period he wanted it. A single normal SVN checkout during the setup would get every file in the repo by default. Basically, I don't think it's hard to construct an entirely innocent narrative of events (assuming SVN access was normal for him). The later developments do make it look fishy, but since I doubt anyone would have thought anything amiss with the list of actions without the later events, it's far from a smoking gun when taken by itself.
- huac 9y ago
  Google alleges he then copied the files onto a portable hard drive and wiped the laptop, which shows a pretty strong intent to deceive.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    Sure, when it's summarized like that, it sounds bad, and it maybe bad. But compare that to this slightly expanded timeline summary from reading the actual filing[1]: The laptop in question connected to Google only 3 times between March 2, 2015 and November 25, 2015, despite being configured to connect every 15 minutes. ~ 2 hours on Oct 22, ~2 hours on Nov 20, and "briefly" on Nov 25. (My interpretation? It was almost always off and not in use). Windows was reinstalled on Nov 26th. On Dec 3, searched were done on Google's internal search system for how to log in and setup access through SVN to the driving car project ("chauffer"). Tortoise SVN was downloaded and installed on Dec 11. It then "downloaded over 14,000 files from the SVN repository". (My interpretation? A SVN checkout of the entire repo was done). A USB card reader was attached on Dec 14 for about 8 hours. On Dec 18, the laptop was reinstalled with Goobuntu (Google's custom Ubuntu). The machine stayed on and checking in to Google normally from the time of the install until Dec 21, when it received a "machine certificate", within a minute of which it was not seen again on Google's networks, despite being configured to connect every 15 minutes (My interpretation? It was off again). The filing goes on to talk about some Google drive exports of documents that don't necessarily look good for Levandowski. My purpose here isn't to convince anyone that he's innocent, just to point out that Google's allegations are worded in a way to cast the most suspicion while being technically true. Through the omission of the timeline it sounds like his actions were all taken at once, which looks a little more premeditated, when instead it was over a period of a couple weeks. It's entirely possibly that Levandowski purposefully obfuscated his actions by spreading them out temporally, so this isn't evidence he didn't do what is alleged, but I think it's important people have the facts before making judgments based on Waymo's lawyer's accounting, which is obviously as beneficial to Waymo as possible, as should be expected. 1: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3515476-Declaration-of-Gary-Brown-PUBLIC.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3515476-Declaration-...
    - huac 9y ago
      Sure, Google's interpretation is not particularly generous. But even the most charitable reading of the facts would find that Levandowski downloaded the files to an external disk, relatively close to when he left the company. All of that is bad for Levandowski, but it's unclear if any of those files got used by Uber, which is where the case may very well fizzle out.
- hackunomatter 9y ago
  Well, if he has a rock-solid benign explanation, why doesn't he come on the stand and testify?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - zaphar 9y ago
    Taking the fifth is not automatically a sign of guilt despite what some people might think. As I understand it it's not out of the realm of possibility for a lawyer to advise doing so even for completely innocent clients. It's not hard to get tripped up on the stand and sound guilty even when you aren't.
    - tjalfi 9y ago
      This. The video Don't Talk to the Police[0] has several concrete examples of how not taking the fifth amendment can be to your disadvantage. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        This is not a criminal proceeding.
        kbenson 9y ago
        But the case has been referred to the authorities for a possible criminal case. In that light, there may be more reason to keep quiet.
    - bradleyjg 9y ago
      It's one thing to take the fifth out of an abundance of caution when all it might do is raise some suspicion. It's another thing when doing so is likely to cost you $250MM. It's hard to look at this course of events and conclude that Levandowski probably did nothing wrong.

taneq 9y ago

Reminds me of the "accessed X thousand confidential documents" in the Carmack trial, as a way of saying "copied his mbox file."