4 ms·

>but at Google that was also the approval standard for deploying such an extension...I don't really see how Google could be in the right here though. I don't s

>but at Google that was also the approval standard for deploying such an extension...I don't really see how Google could be in the right here though. I don't see how Google isn't in the right here. The approval process for this security tool was designed to minimize red-tape and maximize contributions because the goal was security, and the assumption was that the lax process wouldn't be abused. The clear intent of the tool is not to push the political agenda. It was there to warn about security-related issues while browsing. She abused the process and deserved to be reprimanded. Here's an example .. like most companies we have a wiki that anybody can edit. The intent is to get contributions from everybody around product-related issues (e.g. debugging a particular problem, how to configure the product for a specific use-case). Nobody polices usage of this wiki, and the wiki has no specific access controls to bar any individual from editing any page. Certainly though if someone started putting in notes at the top of some of the pages to push a political agenda that would be an abuse of the process, wouldn't you say?

CharlesColeman 7y ago
> Certainly though if someone started putting in notes at the top of some of the pages to push a political agenda that would be an abuse of the process, wouldn't you say? Just to be clear: the message she communicated wasn't about some divisive social issue, it was warning employees to not break federal labor law. https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >Just to be clear Then be clear. We both know what she was doing, why be obtuse? This was an activist power-play. Every article that is written about this lists the action as activism. Again, why pretend otherwise? But if you want more clarification: it's not her job as a SECURITY ENGINEER to send warnings about federal statue compliance through a security tool. I also have yet to have anybody demonstrate that Google was breaking any federal law, and I highly doubt they would. They have entire departments that deal with legal complience. And you linked to a labour consulting company website, which I take is where this actvist decided to helpfully issue threats to senior management through the security tool she was tasked with maintaining so they think twice about contracting them. This is a such a clear violation on her part that I am flabbergasted that you would actually defend the move. She deserved to be fired for her arrogant stunt. You don't get to dictate compliance policy (as an early 20-something tech-sister, who knows nothing) to a company employing 50,000 people.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > This was an activist power-play. Every article that is written about this lists the action as activism. Again, why pretend otherwise? When you use the words like activist and activism you evoke images of people pushing for new things that are politically decisive in some way. The message she got fired over was expressed pretty settled interpretation of federal labor law that Google recently agreed to disseminate. It's like calling it an "activist power play" to remind the government of the First Amendment when if it tried to censor something or other. It's a stretch. If anyone's being activist, it's the people who are trying to treat the expression of those rights as some kind of inappropriate activism. > I also have yet to have anybody demonstrate that Google was breaking any federal law, and I highly doubt they would. They have entire departments that deal with legal complience. Why do you "highly doubt" Google would break the law? In the past they've broken federal law in pretty obvious ways over labor practices. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-google-settle-antitrust-lawsuit-hiring-collusion https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo... They've also been forced to display the list of rights in question as part of a settlement with the NLRB: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/13/googles-settlement-on-speech-with-nlrb-requires-posting-rights.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/13/googles-settlement-on-speech... Apparently that list is what the notification in question linked to. > And you linked to a labour consulting company website, which I take is where this actvist decided to helpfully issue threats to senior management through the security tool she was tasked with maintaining so they think twice about contracting them. I linked to a screenshot of the message we're actually discussing. You can see the so-called "threat" yourself: > go/nlrbnotice Policy > Do not violate go/nlrbnotice. Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities. > View Policy > This is a such a clear violation on her part that I am flabbergasted that you would actually defend the move. Black people sitting at lunch counters was once "such a clear violation" of corporate policy, too, but it was pretty defensible, no? Sometimes you have to take a broader view of something than whether it violated policy or not. I'm not saying this action is fully equivalent to a lunch-counter sit-in, however I do think Google's reaction here was unsupportably harsh. The worst they should have done was issue a reprimand. I'm also "flabbergasted" by the over-the-top condemnation of this engineer's actions.
    - 7y ago

CharlesColeman 7y ago

> Certainly though if someone started putting in notes at the top of some of the pages to push a political agenda that would be an abuse of the process, wouldn't you say? Just to be clear: the message she communicated wasn't about some divisive social issue, it was warning employees to not break federal labor law. https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg

macspoofing 7y ago
>Just to be clear Then be clear. We both know what she was doing, why be obtuse? This was an activist power-play. Every article that is written about this lists the action as activism. Again, why pretend otherwise? But if you want more clarification: it's not her job as a SECURITY ENGINEER to send warnings about federal statue compliance through a security tool. I also have yet to have anybody demonstrate that Google was breaking any federal law, and I highly doubt they would. They have entire departments that deal with legal complience. And you linked to a labour consulting company website, which I take is where this actvist decided to helpfully issue threats to senior management through the security tool she was tasked with maintaining so they think twice about contracting them. This is a such a clear violation on her part that I am flabbergasted that you would actually defend the move. She deserved to be fired for her arrogant stunt. You don't get to dictate compliance policy (as an early 20-something tech-sister, who knows nothing) to a company employing 50,000 people.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > This was an activist power-play. Every article that is written about this lists the action as activism. Again, why pretend otherwise? When you use the words like activist and activism you evoke images of people pushing for new things that are politically decisive in some way. The message she got fired over was expressed pretty settled interpretation of federal labor law that Google recently agreed to disseminate. It's like calling it an "activist power play" to remind the government of the First Amendment when if it tried to censor something or other. It's a stretch. If anyone's being activist, it's the people who are trying to treat the expression of those rights as some kind of inappropriate activism. > I also have yet to have anybody demonstrate that Google was breaking any federal law, and I highly doubt they would. They have entire departments that deal with legal complience. Why do you "highly doubt" Google would break the law? In the past they've broken federal law in pretty obvious ways over labor practices. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-google-settle-antitrust-lawsuit-hiring-collusion https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo... They've also been forced to display the list of rights in question as part of a settlement with the NLRB: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/13/googles-settlement-on-speech-with-nlrb-requires-posting-rights.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/13/googles-settlement-on-speech... Apparently that list is what the notification in question linked to. > And you linked to a labour consulting company website, which I take is where this actvist decided to helpfully issue threats to senior management through the security tool she was tasked with maintaining so they think twice about contracting them. I linked to a screenshot of the message we're actually discussing. You can see the so-called "threat" yourself: > go/nlrbnotice Policy > Do not violate go/nlrbnotice. Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities. > View Policy > This is a such a clear violation on her part that I am flabbergasted that you would actually defend the move. Black people sitting at lunch counters was once "such a clear violation" of corporate policy, too, but it was pretty defensible, no? Sometimes you have to take a broader view of something than whether it violated policy or not. I'm not saying this action is fully equivalent to a lunch-counter sit-in, however I do think Google's reaction here was unsupportably harsh. The worst they should have done was issue a reprimand. I'm also "flabbergasted" by the over-the-top condemnation of this engineer's actions.
  - 7y ago