4 ms·
I was initially tempted to side with Google, a code review process is not just rigorous enough for catching features being sneaked in. However, it looks like t
by ramraj07 7y ago
I was initially tempted to side with Google, a code review process is not just rigorous enough for catching features being sneaked in.
However, it looks like the sole purpose of the extension is to warn employees about security issues in websites, and this engineer coopted that to show a union forming message.
The final paragraph suggests that there's legal precedence for doing this:
“You’re allowed to put posters up on the wall to help organize your workers, and this can be seen as kind of a digital extension of that,” said Veena Dubal, a professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. “Whether or not you’re in a union or there’s a union being formed, the law protects organizing activities by employees in the workplace organizing to improve their working conditions.”
- makomk 7y agoI don't buy this analogy. If there's one thing news reporting has demonstrated over the last few years, it's that Google is not lacking in actual digital equivalents of noticeboards where people can put up the equivalent of posters. This seems like she decided that wasn't aggressive enough and implemented the political equivalent of slipping adware into a browser extension instead.
- hannasanarion 7y agoPutting adware into a browser extension that is already just adware (pops up messages on sites the employer doesn't want you to visit) is not a security risk.
- freyr 7y agoIt's not about being a security risk. This person used their access as a developer to alter internal security tools to promote their own messaging. That shows a profound lack of judgement, and it's not surprising their access would be revoked.
- foxyv 7y agoApparently Google was already doing this with other sites. Why is this one different? It wasn't like she put up something that was illegal or could increase Google's liability. It's one thing to say: "Hey we don't like that one, change it." It's another to fire someone when they engage in a protected activity. If she had put it up and refused to take it down I could understand firing her. But this is suspect for sure.
- ummonk 7y agoI don't think it was just security issues, but policy issues in general, so co-opting it was perfectly reasonable.
- tanilama 7y agoBut everyone's laptop is NO public place, and this extension is installed under the endorsement and requirement of the company. For someone who doesn't agree with her message, this is best case to shove a message down your throat, worst case a security breach to their computer.
- ummonk 7y agoWhat do you mean by "someone who doesn't agree with her message"? You mean someone who believes that Googlers don't "have the right to participate in protected concerted activities"? That would just be ignorant of the law.
- joshuamorton 7y agoHow is it possible to disagree with the message "You as an employee have a right to engage in protected concerted activity?" This is just a legal fact.
- trenning 7y agoBut those laptops are company property right?