4 ms·

> 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 expli

> 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.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    > Do you know that the people who did the information gathering didn't do the leaking? Were this criminal court, the burden of proof would be on Google to show that people who did the information gathering did do the leaking. This is, of course, the court of public opinion, so one's own biases will come into play on who one assumes is telling the truth. But Google's internal statement (at least, what of it we've seen) doesn't connect the dots tightly enough to eliminate reasonable doubt.
robrenaud 7y ago
Read carefully. The leaking was not explicitly blamed on the people that were fired.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  Yes it is, from the Google statement: > We want to be clear that none of these individuals were fired for simply looking at documents or calendars during the ordinary course of their work. > To the contrary, our thorough investigation found the individuals were involved in systematic searches for other employees’ materials and work [...] This information, along with details of internal emails and inaccurate descriptions about Googlers’ work, was subsequently shared externally.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    The passive voice of "was subsequently shared externally" does not apply to the object of the earlier sentence ("these individuals"). If the individuals were actually the leakers, Google could have used a more direct and natural wording, like "These individuals subsequently leaked some of this material." But the statement doesn't use this very natural wording, it uses a strange, highly passive, construction. One is left to wonder why. To be fair, you're not the only person who fell for this trick, I know a lot of very smart people who didn't notice this until it was pointed out, but it is a trick. Edit: replying to your other comment, You're asking me to prove a negative, that these individuals didn't leak anything. Why should I do that when they haven't even been explicitly accused of having leaked something? No one, not the employees, and not google, as claimed they leaked anything. Google claimed that some stuff was leaked. This is true. And yes, its hard to read Google's statement and come to that conclusion. That's intentional it was worded the way it was very carefully. That's the point. They're being duplicitous.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      I'm not asking you to prove a negative though, I'm asking if you have any proof that what Google says is untrue since you say that it is. Using a passive voice doesn't mean that it's untrue, I actually find the Google wording to be more natural than your version. Is there anything beyond the semantics of the Google statement that makes you feel that it's false?

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.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  > Do you know that the people who did the information gathering didn't do the leaking? Were this criminal court, the burden of proof would be on Google to show that people who did the information gathering did do the leaking. This is, of course, the court of public opinion, so one's own biases will come into play on who one assumes is telling the truth. But Google's internal statement (at least, what of it we've seen) doesn't connect the dots tightly enough to eliminate reasonable doubt.

robrenaud 7y ago

Read carefully. The leaking was not explicitly blamed on the people that were fired.

malvosenior 7y ago
Yes it is, from the Google statement: > We want to be clear that none of these individuals were fired for simply looking at documents or calendars during the ordinary course of their work. > To the contrary, our thorough investigation found the individuals were involved in systematic searches for other employees’ materials and work [...] This information, along with details of internal emails and inaccurate descriptions about Googlers’ work, was subsequently shared externally.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  The passive voice of "was subsequently shared externally" does not apply to the object of the earlier sentence ("these individuals"). If the individuals were actually the leakers, Google could have used a more direct and natural wording, like "These individuals subsequently leaked some of this material." But the statement doesn't use this very natural wording, it uses a strange, highly passive, construction. One is left to wonder why. To be fair, you're not the only person who fell for this trick, I know a lot of very smart people who didn't notice this until it was pointed out, but it is a trick. Edit: replying to your other comment, You're asking me to prove a negative, that these individuals didn't leak anything. Why should I do that when they haven't even been explicitly accused of having leaked something? No one, not the employees, and not google, as claimed they leaked anything. Google claimed that some stuff was leaked. This is true. And yes, its hard to read Google's statement and come to that conclusion. That's intentional it was worded the way it was very carefully. That's the point. They're being duplicitous.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    I'm not asking you to prove a negative though, I'm asking if you have any proof that what Google says is untrue since you say that it is. Using a passive voice doesn't mean that it's untrue, I actually find the Google wording to be more natural than your version. Is there anything beyond the semantics of the Google statement that makes you feel that it's false?