3 ms·

> clear and repeated violations of our data security policies Who’s data did they access? What data was accessed? How was that data used? Google knows they’re

> clear and repeated violations of our data security policies Who’s data did they access? What data was accessed? How was that data used? Google knows they’re in a bind, because if a few SJWs accessed internal Google data in a “bad way” (as viewed outside the Bay Area monoculture) then that’s going to be a really bad look, maybe even worse than a hacker.

anonuser123456 7y ago
Why is this comment down voted? The three questions here are SUPER relevant to how Google operates. Everyone I know at Google says "The easiest way to get fired is to access user data in a non-permitted way." If they just subscribed to public calendars, it doesn't sound like such a big deal (after all... the data is public). But if they used an internal API or used their position to elevate their privilege, that's a big deal.
- tialaramex 7y ago
  My understanding is that these employees were looking through people's calendars and documents to figure out who was negotiating for Google with outfits like the Border Patrol, so they could pressure these people to stop and so they could let outside press know the status of any discussions. So say Alice who is a Search Engine Data Analyst finds that Daryl over in Corporate Finance has a meeting "CBP update Washington". Alice reasons that CBP is US Customs & Border Patrol who she believes are inhumane and Google shoudn't work wit them - and she pulls up all Daryl's other meetings and sets an alert to tell her if Daryl books any other meetings with the word CBP in. Alice gets fired. The problem for this current plan is that sure it looks like Alice is being fired for _snooping on corporate plans_ which historically wasn't against Google's rules but is also not a legally protected activity. Sure, she was snooping on those plans for the same reason she was organizing (to stop Google working with CBP), but that doesn't make her fired for organizing. The most senior person I knew properly at Google left citing this sort of ethical problem as one reason, they felt that working on products that might be used by people who had beliefs they disagreed with was unacceptable. Weirdly they left to work for... a famous AAA video games vendor that specifically brought them on to add obviously unethical monetisation features to future games which prey on people with gambling addiction and other problems. We have agreed to disagree on whether this is outright hypocrisy.
  - andreilys 7y ago
    Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    > We have agreed to disagree on whether this is outright hypocrisy. At the very least the game company doesn't have the power of the state to force their shitty loot box gambling on people where CBP et al do. That is CBP /will/ use the tools Company X develops on anyone and the video game you can not buy. They may be ruining a game you want to play but no one is forced to play the Gashapon MTX Slot machine games.

anonuser123456 7y ago

Why is this comment down voted? The three questions here are SUPER relevant to how Google operates. Everyone I know at Google says "The easiest way to get fired is to access user data in a non-permitted way." If they just subscribed to public calendars, it doesn't sound like such a big deal (after all... the data is public). But if they used an internal API or used their position to elevate their privilege, that's a big deal.

tialaramex 7y ago
My understanding is that these employees were looking through people's calendars and documents to figure out who was negotiating for Google with outfits like the Border Patrol, so they could pressure these people to stop and so they could let outside press know the status of any discussions. So say Alice who is a Search Engine Data Analyst finds that Daryl over in Corporate Finance has a meeting "CBP update Washington". Alice reasons that CBP is US Customs & Border Patrol who she believes are inhumane and Google shoudn't work wit them - and she pulls up all Daryl's other meetings and sets an alert to tell her if Daryl books any other meetings with the word CBP in. Alice gets fired. The problem for this current plan is that sure it looks like Alice is being fired for _snooping on corporate plans_ which historically wasn't against Google's rules but is also not a legally protected activity. Sure, she was snooping on those plans for the same reason she was organizing (to stop Google working with CBP), but that doesn't make her fired for organizing. The most senior person I knew properly at Google left citing this sort of ethical problem as one reason, they felt that working on products that might be used by people who had beliefs they disagreed with was unacceptable. Weirdly they left to work for... a famous AAA video games vendor that specifically brought them on to add obviously unethical monetisation features to future games which prey on people with gambling addiction and other problems. We have agreed to disagree on whether this is outright hypocrisy.
- andreilys 7y ago
  Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing
- rtkwe 7y ago
  > We have agreed to disagree on whether this is outright hypocrisy. At the very least the game company doesn't have the power of the state to force their shitty loot box gambling on people where CBP et al do. That is CBP /will/ use the tools Company X develops on anyone and the video game you can not buy. They may be ruining a game you want to play but no one is forced to play the Gashapon MTX Slot machine games.