> "People who believed in that openness would just expect that everyone's work schedule, and lots of other information besides, would be online so that all thei

> "People who believed in that openness would just expect that everyone's work schedule, and lots of other information besides, would be online so that all their coworkers could effectively coordinate." If that's an accurate characterization of what the employee doing the calendar tracking was doing, then I agree that it was reasonable in the context of Google employment. However that would mean the article is very misleading as I suspected. The article says the subjects of the tracking felt unsafe, which says to me the tracked employees weren't sympathetic to the cause and believed motive for the tracking to be intimidation or harassment. I have never and would never work for google so I can't say for sure, but I doubt openness as espoused by the company ever meant using openness to intimidate or harass others. IF that is what the employee in question was in fact doing, then it seems plainly unreasonable to me that anybody would defend it. I find it hard to believe such behavior was ever part of [official] company culture.