5 ms·

Earlier this year Google e-mailed all employees and noted that accessing docs outside the scope of your job responsibility is forbidden and a fire-able offense.

Earlier this year Google e-mailed all employees and noted that accessing docs outside the scope of your job responsibility is forbidden and a fire-able offense. I think this policy change marked the end of the open culture you speak of. Whether this was a legitimate policy change or a change simply made to find reasons to fire activists, I don't know. But, it was made clear many months ago that digging around to access docs outside your spec could result in a firing.

malvosenior 7y ago
> Whether this was a legitimate policy change or a change simply made to find reasons to fire activists, I don't know. From the outside it seems like a very legitimate policy change. If my co-workers are stalking my calendar to find meetings they politically disagree with so they can pressure me and/or leak it to the press, well that's super creepy. I think this is a perfect example of why "full transparency" can actually be conducive to a toxic working environment. Even if it wasn't formally against the rules the intent behind that type of stalking should get anyone who engages in it fired. It's literally harassment. I think Google's change in policy is for the best here as it codifies common sense.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  As an aside, can you explain what a meeting someone might "politically disagree with" is, and how you could have such a meeting without bringing politics into the workplaces? More on topic, I'll note that nowhere did anyone use the word "politics" except you.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    From the article: > Rivers had said she was being targeted for protesting against U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is testing a Google cloud product. Berland was active in protests against YouTube for its handling of hate speech policies. As others have stated in this thread, they were apparently policing people's meetings around these topics. If you don't like your company's legal clients, quit. Do not stalk your co-workers, harass them and leak info about them to the press.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      That's not correct. Rivers wasn't fired for anything related to calenders or meetings. None of the four employees in question have been accused of leaking anything to the press. Google's statement insinuates many things that aren't actually true.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        > Google's statement insinuates many things that aren't actually true. Do you have any sources that back that statement up? Google's accusations are very explicit about what these people were doing: > To the contrary, our thorough investigation found the individuals were involved in systematic searches for other employees’ materials and work. This includes searching for, accessing, and distributing business information outside the scope of their jobs — repeating this conduct even after they were met with and reminded about our data security policies. This information, along with details of internal emails and inaccurate descriptions about Googlers’ work, was subsequently shared externally.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        > Google's accusations are very explicit about what these people were doing: Are they? If you can quote for me where Google actually states these people leaked material, I'll concede the point, but they don't. Google says two things: 1. These four individuals searched for information that was outside of their job scope 2. Information these individuals searched for (along with other information) was shared externally They don't claim that the individuals that did 1 also did 2, in fact the statement is carefully worded to not make that claim, but to still heavily imply it. The untrue (or at least, unsubstantiated) insinuation in this case is that any of these people leaked things to the press.
        malvosenior 7y ago
        I think it's extremely difficult to read Google's statement and come to this conclusion. Again, do you have any evidence to suggest that what your saying is true? Do you know that the people who did the information gathering didn't do the leaking? If there's a source that states that, I'd love to read it.

malvosenior 7y ago

> Whether this was a legitimate policy change or a change simply made to find reasons to fire activists, I don't know. From the outside it seems like a very legitimate policy change. If my co-workers are stalking my calendar to find meetings they politically disagree with so they can pressure me and/or leak it to the press, well that's super creepy. I think this is a perfect example of why "full transparency" can actually be conducive to a toxic working environment. Even if it wasn't formally against the rules the intent behind that type of stalking should get anyone who engages in it fired. It's literally harassment. I think Google's change in policy is for the best here as it codifies common sense.

joshuamorton 7y ago
As an aside, can you explain what a meeting someone might "politically disagree with" is, and how you could have such a meeting without bringing politics into the workplaces? More on topic, I'll note that nowhere did anyone use the word "politics" except you.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  From the article: > Rivers had said she was being targeted for protesting against U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is testing a Google cloud product. Berland was active in protests against YouTube for its handling of hate speech policies. As others have stated in this thread, they were apparently policing people's meetings around these topics. If you don't like your company's legal clients, quit. Do not stalk your co-workers, harass them and leak info about them to the press.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    That's not correct. Rivers wasn't fired for anything related to calenders or meetings. None of the four employees in question have been accused of leaking anything to the press. Google's statement insinuates many things that aren't actually true.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      > Google's statement insinuates many things that aren't actually true. Do you have any sources that back that statement up? Google's accusations are very explicit about what these people were doing: > To the contrary, our thorough investigation found the individuals were involved in systematic searches for other employees’ materials and work. This includes searching for, accessing, and distributing business information outside the scope of their jobs — repeating this conduct even after they were met with and reminded about our data security policies. This information, along with details of internal emails and inaccurate descriptions about Googlers’ work, was subsequently shared externally.
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        > Google's accusations are very explicit about what these people were doing: Are they? If you can quote for me where Google actually states these people leaked material, I'll concede the point, but they don't. Google says two things: 1. These four individuals searched for information that was outside of their job scope 2. Information these individuals searched for (along with other information) was shared externally They don't claim that the individuals that did 1 also did 2, in fact the statement is carefully worded to not make that claim, but to still heavily imply it. The untrue (or at least, unsubstantiated) insinuation in this case is that any of these people leaked things to the press.
        malvosenior 7y ago
        I think it's extremely difficult to read Google's statement and come to this conclusion. Again, do you have any evidence to suggest that what your saying is true? Do you know that the people who did the information gathering didn't do the leaking? If there's a source that states that, I'd love to read it.