13 ms·

> the right to surveillance on personal property Wait, what? I don't think I've seen that before, what does this mean exactly?

by defen 8y ago

jahn716 8y ago
I had the exact same reaction. Shouldn't this worry the employees the most?
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  I work at Google and have absolutely no clue what he's referring to. My best guess is that it has something to do with the permissions you give Google if you add a work profile/account to your phone. But that isn't required.
  - snowflakeandrey 8y ago
    That makes a lot of sense, and a legitimately personal decision. Some people don't want to share root access on the personal phone with their employer. Other people don't want to carry a separate phone for work.
  - fishywang 8y ago
    Also for Android users the exact point of work profile is that the surveillance is limited to only the work profile portion of your phone.
    - scarmig 8y ago
      You can imagine different tiers of security, where a work profile gives you minimal access to corp while a fully managed setup gives you more substantive access to corp resources and allows a company to enforce more security and visibility into the client device.
      - fishywang 8y ago
        Yes, but at circa 2016 you cannot get higher tier of security on your personal device. You have to use a Google issued phone to get that.
  - jonny_eh 8y ago
    On iPhones it just allows them to wipe your phone if it's lost.
ChuckMcM 8y ago
Well, I can't quote my copy as I'm under NDA from sharing it, however if you have a copy that you signed then carefully read the section about "equipment that you use to access your google work account".
- deogeo 8y ago
  An NDA on the contract itself? Sounds shady as hell.
  - jkaplowitz 8y ago
    Pretty common in general. I recently saw a lawyer provide a template independent contractor agreement which had such a provision in the boilerplate, entirely unrelated to Google or any other huge company. I agree it's shady, but I suspect it's there so that they don't have to specifically negotiate to add it when a special-case deal is agreed to. (They may say they don't negotiate, but there are exceptions at any company.) They can't seriously expect their standard form agreement to stay NDA-confidential when they've had 6 to 8 figures of people sign versions of it, regardless of what the agreement requires. If there has ever been litigation over Google's legalese - even a dispute over whether forced arbitration applies - the copy in the court record is probably either public or unsealable upon request to the court. (I'm a former Google employee, didn't have any role related to employee contract language, not a lawyer, certainly not speaking for them.)
    - deogeo 8y ago
      > Pretty common in general. Even more worrisome.
    - Bartweiss 8y ago
      > I agree it's shady, but I suspect it's there so that they don't have to specifically negotiate to add it when a special-case deal is agreed to... They can't seriously expect their standard form agreement to stay NDA-confidential Yep. Basically the same logic as companies with competitive salaries trying to keep wage info quiet, even in the age of Glassdoor. It's not that there's something to hide about the standard version, and it's not that the terms or even text will stay private. But it adds a hurdle to people comparing notes on exactly what they signed, and when somebody does get a special exemption, it stops them putting up a point-by-point guide for everyone else. > They may say they don't negotiate, but there are exceptions at any company. Presumably Google is big enough to have standards and make case-by-case decisions, but it's sort of horrifying how many smaller companies approach contracts as an exercise in seeing what they can get away with. Employment-prohibiting noncompetes and personal-time invention assignment clauses get casually tossed in, then pulled back out after no greater negotiation than bothering to ask. It's not hard to see why contracts are under NDA when so many companies pretend their ridiculous terms are a standard form that everyone else signed.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
throwaway987988 8y ago
Yeah, this is real. On a throwaway for obvious reasons, but this is from an employment contract I've seen in the past: "I acknowledge that I have no reasonable expectation of privacy in any computer, technology system, email, handheld device, telephone, or documents that are used to conduct the business of the Company. As such, the Company has the right to audit and search all such items and systems, without further notice to me, to ensure that the Company is licensed to use the software on the Company’s devices in compliance with the Company’s software licensing policies, to ensure compliance with the Company’s policies, and for any other business-related purposes in the Company’s sole discretion. I understand that I am not permitted to add any unlicensed, unauthorized, or non-compliant applications to the Company’s technology systems and that I shall refrain from copying unlicensed software onto the Company’s technology systems or using non-licensed software or web sites. I understand that it is my responsibility to comply with the Company’s policies governing use of the Company’s documents and the internet, email, telephone, and technology systems to which I will have access in connection with my employment." tl;dr: Any device you so much as check your work email on (which taints it as a device "used to conduct the business of the Company"), is subject to search by the Company "for any ... business-related purposes in the Company’s sole discretion" (meaning the stuff about software licensing is superfluous). So ultimately the employee has, as stated, "no reasonable expectation of privacy". This is a case of reach-as-far-as-you-can lawyer'ing in a setting where there's likely to be little push-back from most job candidates. Takeaway: Go over this stuff with a fine-tooth comb and threaten to turn down offers from companies who try to pull this. Then if you _have_ to take the job, keep a hard boundary between your work and personal systems.
- ilaksh 8y ago
  I had a contract with something like that in it. I told him "this says you can spy on my computer" and he was quite surprised. He had received the document from a lawyer and truly had no idea it was in there. So when I told him we had to remove the section there was no problem.
- marssaxman 8y ago
  This all sounds completely normal. Do people actually imagine that the hardware they use at work is somehow theirs, and not their employer's? "Keep a hard boundary between your work and personal systems" has always been the right answer. I am surprised that this does not seem obvious to everyone.
knopyPusher 8y ago
I work in Google as well, and I simply don't check my personal Gmail from work machines. They can monitor my work laptop as much as they want. This is coming from a firefox-using privacy paranoid Googler. I have no idea what this guy is talking about.
- ionised 8y ago
  You're privacy paranoid but work at Google?
  - moccachino 8y ago
    Keep your friends close...
  - C1sc0cat 8y ago
    Hopefully they are working on the security team :-)
- NowThenGoodBad 8y ago
  It’s not just the programming companies that have clauses or practices about stuff like that, many companies in different industries do too. It just blows me away how lazy or thoughtless most people are. It’s the company’s network or machine or both. The business done on there should be for work for them and nothing more. You breach ethical lines when you start doing personal stuff unless stated otherwise in your contract/agreement with them. If I gave you my laptop to borrow for a day, you bet I’ll be making sure you didn’t do something funky to it. I’ll also be making sure you didn’t do something to get me on a government watch list. If there’s a reason to try to get statistical data from your usage, I might check that out too. To me, it’s common sense, it’s not yours so respect it for the reason it was given to you to use. Period. For your personal stuff: don’t trust it on their network or with their software. You exist to make them money regardless of whether you get paid directly for it. Assume 0 privacy on the clock and that your device might be compromised if used on their network, so just don’t do it.
- IWeldMelons 8y ago
  It does not seem to make sense. Google has access to each and any Gmail account, and it does not matter whether you login in from your home machine, or do this at work (on Google's premises).

> the right to surveillance on personal property Wait, what? I don't think I've seen that before, what does this mean exactly?

by defen 8y ago

> the right to surveillance on personal property Wait, what? I don't think I've seen that before, what does this mean exactly?

jahn716 8y ago

I had the exact same reaction. Shouldn't this worry the employees the most?

joshuamorton 8y ago
I work at Google and have absolutely no clue what he's referring to. My best guess is that it has something to do with the permissions you give Google if you add a work profile/account to your phone. But that isn't required.
- snowflakeandrey 8y ago
  That makes a lot of sense, and a legitimately personal decision. Some people don't want to share root access on the personal phone with their employer. Other people don't want to carry a separate phone for work.
- fishywang 8y ago
  Also for Android users the exact point of work profile is that the surveillance is limited to only the work profile portion of your phone.
  - scarmig 8y ago
    You can imagine different tiers of security, where a work profile gives you minimal access to corp while a fully managed setup gives you more substantive access to corp resources and allows a company to enforce more security and visibility into the client device.
    - fishywang 8y ago
      Yes, but at circa 2016 you cannot get higher tier of security on your personal device. You have to use a Google issued phone to get that.
- jonny_eh 8y ago
  On iPhones it just allows them to wipe your phone if it's lost.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

Well, I can't quote my copy as I'm under NDA from sharing it, however if you have a copy that you signed then carefully read the section about "equipment that you use to access your google work account".

deogeo 8y ago
An NDA on the contract itself? Sounds shady as hell.
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  Pretty common in general. I recently saw a lawyer provide a template independent contractor agreement which had such a provision in the boilerplate, entirely unrelated to Google or any other huge company. I agree it's shady, but I suspect it's there so that they don't have to specifically negotiate to add it when a special-case deal is agreed to. (They may say they don't negotiate, but there are exceptions at any company.) They can't seriously expect their standard form agreement to stay NDA-confidential when they've had 6 to 8 figures of people sign versions of it, regardless of what the agreement requires. If there has ever been litigation over Google's legalese - even a dispute over whether forced arbitration applies - the copy in the court record is probably either public or unsealable upon request to the court. (I'm a former Google employee, didn't have any role related to employee contract language, not a lawyer, certainly not speaking for them.)
  - deogeo 8y ago
    > Pretty common in general. Even more worrisome.
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    > I agree it's shady, but I suspect it's there so that they don't have to specifically negotiate to add it when a special-case deal is agreed to... They can't seriously expect their standard form agreement to stay NDA-confidential Yep. Basically the same logic as companies with competitive salaries trying to keep wage info quiet, even in the age of Glassdoor. It's not that there's something to hide about the standard version, and it's not that the terms or even text will stay private. But it adds a hurdle to people comparing notes on exactly what they signed, and when somebody does get a special exemption, it stops them putting up a point-by-point guide for everyone else. > They may say they don't negotiate, but there are exceptions at any company. Presumably Google is big enough to have standards and make case-by-case decisions, but it's sort of horrifying how many smaller companies approach contracts as an exercise in seeing what they can get away with. Employment-prohibiting noncompetes and personal-time invention assignment clauses get casually tossed in, then pulled back out after no greater negotiation than bothering to ask. It's not hard to see why contracts are under NDA when so many companies pretend their ridiculous terms are a standard form that everyone else signed.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

throwaway987988 8y ago

Yeah, this is real. On a throwaway for obvious reasons, but this is from an employment contract I've seen in the past: "I acknowledge that I have no reasonable expectation of privacy in any computer, technology system, email, handheld device, telephone, or documents that are used to conduct the business of the Company. As such, the Company has the right to audit and search all such items and systems, without further notice to me, to ensure that the Company is licensed to use the software on the Company’s devices in compliance with the Company’s software licensing policies, to ensure compliance with the Company’s policies, and for any other business-related purposes in the Company’s sole discretion. I understand that I am not permitted to add any unlicensed, unauthorized, or non-compliant applications to the Company’s technology systems and that I shall refrain from copying unlicensed software onto the Company’s technology systems or using non-licensed software or web sites. I understand that it is my responsibility to comply with the Company’s policies governing use of the Company’s documents and the internet, email, telephone, and technology systems to which I will have access in connection with my employment." tl;dr: Any device you so much as check your work email on (which taints it as a device "used to conduct the business of the Company"), is subject to search by the Company "for any ... business-related purposes in the Company’s sole discretion" (meaning the stuff about software licensing is superfluous). So ultimately the employee has, as stated, "no reasonable expectation of privacy". This is a case of reach-as-far-as-you-can lawyer'ing in a setting where there's likely to be little push-back from most job candidates. Takeaway: Go over this stuff with a fine-tooth comb and threaten to turn down offers from companies who try to pull this. Then if you _have_ to take the job, keep a hard boundary between your work and personal systems.

ilaksh 8y ago
I had a contract with something like that in it. I told him "this says you can spy on my computer" and he was quite surprised. He had received the document from a lawyer and truly had no idea it was in there. So when I told him we had to remove the section there was no problem.
marssaxman 8y ago
This all sounds completely normal. Do people actually imagine that the hardware they use at work is somehow theirs, and not their employer's? "Keep a hard boundary between your work and personal systems" has always been the right answer. I am surprised that this does not seem obvious to everyone.

knopyPusher 8y ago

I work in Google as well, and I simply don't check my personal Gmail from work machines. They can monitor my work laptop as much as they want. This is coming from a firefox-using privacy paranoid Googler. I have no idea what this guy is talking about.

ionised 8y ago
You're privacy paranoid but work at Google?
- moccachino 8y ago
  Keep your friends close...
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  Hopefully they are working on the security team :-)
NowThenGoodBad 8y ago
It’s not just the programming companies that have clauses or practices about stuff like that, many companies in different industries do too. It just blows me away how lazy or thoughtless most people are. It’s the company’s network or machine or both. The business done on there should be for work for them and nothing more. You breach ethical lines when you start doing personal stuff unless stated otherwise in your contract/agreement with them. If I gave you my laptop to borrow for a day, you bet I’ll be making sure you didn’t do something funky to it. I’ll also be making sure you didn’t do something to get me on a government watch list. If there’s a reason to try to get statistical data from your usage, I might check that out too. To me, it’s common sense, it’s not yours so respect it for the reason it was given to you to use. Period. For your personal stuff: don’t trust it on their network or with their software. You exist to make them money regardless of whether you get paid directly for it. Assume 0 privacy on the clock and that your device might be compromised if used on their network, so just don’t do it.
IWeldMelons 8y ago
It does not seem to make sense. Google has access to each and any Gmail account, and it does not matter whether you login in from your home machine, or do this at work (on Google's premises).