4 ms·

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?
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Semantics matter, since we're now at the phase of the process where legal counsel would be involved drafting these statements (even if they're internally targeted, because Google knows its internal confidential broadcasts to employees will be leaked).
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      > I'm asking if you have any proof that what Google says is untrue since you say that it is To be clear, I believe that everything Google has actually stated is factual. You're just drawing wrong conclusions from partial information. So in one sense, no, because Google hasn't lied. I don't have any proof that I could share. But yes, I have strong reasons to believe the things I'm stating. As an aside, are you a native English speaker? There's some very interesting cultural aspects when assigning blame. In American English, its the norm to assign blame directly "John leaked the documents.", whereas in other cultures/languages, a passive structure is more common "John had the documents. The documents were leaked." This would be a common and correct way of blaming John for leaking something in some cultures, but in English it isn't. Presumably Google and its lawyers are primarily English speakers.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        I am a native English speaker, I just find the original statement to be more natural and less forced. Out of curiosity if you think that the statement is true, but constructed in a way that hides information, what do you think actually happened? If I understand your position it looks something like this: 1. The four people mentioned setup watches on people's calendars, went looking for information on people... the targets of their searches weren't part of their every day work life. 2. They shared that information with someone (no one knows who) but not the press or externally. 3. The people who had the information shared with them then leaked it externally. 4. Google found out and fired the original four people from step 1 and wrote a memo deliberately masking step 2. It's possible the above is accurate (please let me know if I got your position incorrect), but I don't think the wording of Google's announcement alone is enough to prove that. I'm apt to take it at its face value, especially because step 1 is by far the worst part in my mind and that doesn't seem to be in doubt. That's why I'm curious if you have some inside knowledge or something (your bio says you work at Google).
- username90 7y ago
  This statement was written by very well paid professionals, they wouldn't make a vague statement like that if they knew for a fact that these people leaked the material.

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?
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Semantics matter, since we're now at the phase of the process where legal counsel would be involved drafting these statements (even if they're internally targeted, because Google knows its internal confidential broadcasts to employees will be leaked).
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    > I'm asking if you have any proof that what Google says is untrue since you say that it is To be clear, I believe that everything Google has actually stated is factual. You're just drawing wrong conclusions from partial information. So in one sense, no, because Google hasn't lied. I don't have any proof that I could share. But yes, I have strong reasons to believe the things I'm stating. As an aside, are you a native English speaker? There's some very interesting cultural aspects when assigning blame. In American English, its the norm to assign blame directly "John leaked the documents.", whereas in other cultures/languages, a passive structure is more common "John had the documents. The documents were leaked." This would be a common and correct way of blaming John for leaking something in some cultures, but in English it isn't. Presumably Google and its lawyers are primarily English speakers.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      I am a native English speaker, I just find the original statement to be more natural and less forced. Out of curiosity if you think that the statement is true, but constructed in a way that hides information, what do you think actually happened? If I understand your position it looks something like this: 1. The four people mentioned setup watches on people's calendars, went looking for information on people... the targets of their searches weren't part of their every day work life. 2. They shared that information with someone (no one knows who) but not the press or externally. 3. The people who had the information shared with them then leaked it externally. 4. Google found out and fired the original four people from step 1 and wrote a memo deliberately masking step 2. It's possible the above is accurate (please let me know if I got your position incorrect), but I don't think the wording of Google's announcement alone is enough to prove that. I'm apt to take it at its face value, especially because step 1 is by far the worst part in my mind and that doesn't seem to be in doubt. That's why I'm curious if you have some inside knowledge or something (your bio says you work at Google).
username90 7y ago
This statement was written by very well paid professionals, they wouldn't make a vague statement like that if they knew for a fact that these people leaked the material.