11 ms·

I don't see what the point of the article might be (except as click bait to get ad views, of course). I had exactly the same training when I worked at IBM, ev

by tytso 6y ago

I don't see what the point of the article might be (except as click bait to get ad views, of course). I had exactly the same training when I worked at IBM, every year. "Never talk about dominating the market", yadda yadda yadda. It's sound legal advice that I would expect all corporate employees would get. VMWare won't want their employees to talk about how they dominate the VM indusrty; EMC wouldn't want their engineers talking about their enterprise storasge arrays "crushing the competition", and so on. And at all companies, the standard line is, "never send in e-mail anything that you wouldn't want to see on the front page of the New York Times, or might cause you to be deposed as a witness in a courtroom." And it's not just about anti-trust; you also never want to talk in any kind of discoverable medium how an engineering short-cut in the development of your product (say, like a 737) is going to cause people to get killed. All of this is not unique to Google, but applies to any company with half-way competent lawyers and a half-way competent HR department.

elefanten 6y ago
It's absolutely (clickbait) to get ad views -- that's the whole company's business. It's also a political stance that aligns with said company's political disposition and (more importantly) chosen market segmentation. Finally, this company (desperately wants to believe that it) stands to increase its profitability if it strikes back against the forces that have lowered that profitability.
mywittyname 6y ago
> And it's not just about anti-trust; you also never want to talk in any kind of discoverable medium how an engineering short-cut in the development of your product (say, like a 737) is going to cause people to get killed. I would. If I spoke up about something dangerous to management, and they ignore the problem in a way that allowed someone to die because of it, I abso-fucking-lutely do not want to be their scapegoat. Leaving a paper trail is an important security measure here (and good ethics).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tytso 6y ago
  If you must leave a paper trail, you send it to the product counsel and to the technical lead with the heading that this is privileged communication for the purpose of getting legal advice. (At least in the US; the legal situation around privileged communications may be different in different countries.)
  - chrononaut 6y ago
    IANAL but I thought the idea of directing an email or communication to a colleague and CC'ing counsel and adding "privileged communication" doesn't actually make it privileged communication unless it's also truly an attempt to get legal advice. Although maybe that's your point, because then it would be discoverable? If it's privileged communication and remains as such than it cannot be discovered, so I am not sure what paper trail is being left? I am confused.
    - Arelius 6y ago
      Yeah, definitely don't just cc your counsel, mark it and expect it do be protected. While that may contribute to the argument that it's protected neither of those are sure-fire ways to make sure the communication is actually not discoverable
  - rriepe 6y ago
    People that never represent you: Your company's lawyer and your company's HR person
Nullabillity 6y ago
> And it's not just about anti-trust; you also never want to talk in any kind of discoverable medium how an engineering short-cut in the development of your product (say, like a 737) is going to cause people to get killed. You don't see the fucking problem with this policy? Ultimately, I guess the solution here is that this "training" ought to be considered as damning as the kind of speech that it tries to forbid. This is like trying to get out of a drunk driving ticket by smoking weed and wearing a blindfold.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  No, it's not like that at all. What you don't want is a bunch of nerds with no idea what they are talking about writing an email that says "I don't think this follows standard safety practices" because then that will be admitted into court even if the author has no knowledge whatsoever about industry standard practices. The training is more about getting nerds to shut the hell up, and less about some great conspiracy against humanity.
  - iguy 6y ago
    I get that damping down language on "dominating the market" isn't going to hurt anyone. But on engineering matters, it does seem problematic to put legal before technical. Instead of people using the medium they would otherwise use to communicate something they are concerned about, they are supposed to stop, think about the company's image, and instead remember to bring it up in person tomorrow? Don't dare email a guy you know on the other production line to see if he's noticed the same pattern? This does seem like a nudge toward sweeping problems under the rug.
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      I don't believe that delay is part of the training. As I recall, the training advises people with such concerns to raise the matter with their product counsel immediately. ETA by the way, the training does not discourage people from making statements of fact in discoverable docs, it discourages people from drawing conclusions of law. If you emailed Bob down on the production line to mention that you had 42 failed gFrobs on Tuesday, and asked Bob how many he had, that's not discouraged. If you were to instead mail Bob and said "Those Panamanian safety regulators are gonna be pissed, LOL!" that is discouraged.
tytso 6y ago
Oh.... and if you are sure that your product has flaws that might cause people to get killed, or cause medical information to be inappropriately leaked, etc., the proper path is to schedule a meeting with your team lead and the product counsel on the issue. Not only did I have to certify that I received this kind of training every year at every large corporation that I've worked at (and yes, this includes Google), this was also covered in my MIT Sloan School class, "Legal issues for I/T Managers" that I took as continuing education when I worked in MIT Network Operations and served as Tech Lead for Kerberos V5 development. I'm really surprised at the comments in Hacker News on this article. Doesn't everyone get this fundamental, basic legal training? IMHO every single practicing engineer should!
- Nullabillity 6y ago
  > Not only did I have to certify that I received this kind of training every year at every large corporation that I've worked at (and yes, this includes Google), this was also covered in my MIT Sloan School class, "Legal issues for I/T Managers" that I took as continuing education when I worked in MIT Network Operations and served as Tech Lead for Kerberos V5 development. Welp, that says a lot about MIT's ethics education.
  - julienb_sea 6y ago
    The right way to handle an engineering problem with ethical implications is to handle it carefully, internally and via the appropriate channels. It is wholly inappropriate to make something public that very likely can be handled appropriately without the public fallout. I would call it unethical to your coworkers to create unnecessary damage to your team or your company by ignoring the appropriate process for handling sensitive internal issues. If things are being shoved under the rug by management, that is an entirely different issue.
    - Nullabillity 6y ago
      > I would call it unethical to your coworkers to create unnecessary damage to your team or your company by ignoring the appropriate process for handling sensitive internal issues. That argument would call it unethical for a robber to tip off the police about their gang's upcoming heist. > If things are being shoved under the rug by management, that is an entirely different issue. If those processes were known to be effective then they would be sold based on that, not on how they keep you out of trouble.
Animats 6y ago
It's an antitrust instruction employees at very large companies are given. If you're #1 to #4, it's important. If you're #326 in your industry, it's not an issue.
dboreham 6y ago
I think the idea is that there are people who think their desire to do whatever they want is more important than their employer's right to limit bad publicity and legal risk. A quick re-watch of the movie Erin Brockovich might illuminate why this could happen but there are obviously other reasons.
ardy42 6y ago
> And it's not just about anti-trust; you also never want to talk in any kind of discoverable medium how an engineering short-cut in the development of your product (say, like a 737) is going to cause people to get killed. It's not my responsibility to help cover the company's ass if my they take a shortcut that gets people killed or help them avoid legal consequences for illegal or boundary-pushing behavior. My highest loyalty is not to their shareholders, and paying me a salary doesn't change that.
- xmprt 6y ago
  That's 100% but you'll also likely be in headlines and go to court because of it. So neither of you are wrong. The company is covering their own ass and part of that is telling their employees that it's important not to leak stuff.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    > That's 100% but you'll also likely be in headlines and go to court because of it. So neither of you are wrong. Beats going to court and then to prison because you made a convenient scapegoat.
int_19h 6y ago
The point of the article is the claim that Google wasn't so extreme about this before. If true, this means that they're seriously concerned with the ongoing anti-trust probes, and don't see them as something that's likely to go away.

by tytso 6y ago

elefanten 6y ago

It's absolutely (clickbait) to get ad views -- that's the whole company's business. It's also a political stance that aligns with said company's political disposition and (more importantly) chosen market segmentation. Finally, this company (desperately wants to believe that it) stands to increase its profitability if it strikes back against the forces that have lowered that profitability.

mywittyname 6y ago

> And it's not just about anti-trust; you also never want to talk in any kind of discoverable medium how an engineering short-cut in the development of your product (say, like a 737) is going to cause people to get killed. I would. If I spoke up about something dangerous to management, and they ignore the problem in a way that allowed someone to die because of it, I abso-fucking-lutely do not want to be their scapegoat. Leaving a paper trail is an important security measure here (and good ethics).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tytso 6y ago
If you must leave a paper trail, you send it to the product counsel and to the technical lead with the heading that this is privileged communication for the purpose of getting legal advice. (At least in the US; the legal situation around privileged communications may be different in different countries.)
- chrononaut 6y ago
  IANAL but I thought the idea of directing an email or communication to a colleague and CC'ing counsel and adding "privileged communication" doesn't actually make it privileged communication unless it's also truly an attempt to get legal advice. Although maybe that's your point, because then it would be discoverable? If it's privileged communication and remains as such than it cannot be discovered, so I am not sure what paper trail is being left? I am confused.
  - Arelius 6y ago
    Yeah, definitely don't just cc your counsel, mark it and expect it do be protected. While that may contribute to the argument that it's protected neither of those are sure-fire ways to make sure the communication is actually not discoverable
- rriepe 6y ago
  People that never represent you: Your company's lawyer and your company's HR person

Nullabillity 6y ago

> And it's not just about anti-trust; you also never want to talk in any kind of discoverable medium how an engineering short-cut in the development of your product (say, like a 737) is going to cause people to get killed. You don't see the fucking problem with this policy? Ultimately, I guess the solution here is that this "training" ought to be considered as damning as the kind of speech that it tries to forbid. This is like trying to get out of a drunk driving ticket by smoking weed and wearing a blindfold.

jeffbee 6y ago
No, it's not like that at all. What you don't want is a bunch of nerds with no idea what they are talking about writing an email that says "I don't think this follows standard safety practices" because then that will be admitted into court even if the author has no knowledge whatsoever about industry standard practices. The training is more about getting nerds to shut the hell up, and less about some great conspiracy against humanity.
- iguy 6y ago
  I get that damping down language on "dominating the market" isn't going to hurt anyone. But on engineering matters, it does seem problematic to put legal before technical. Instead of people using the medium they would otherwise use to communicate something they are concerned about, they are supposed to stop, think about the company's image, and instead remember to bring it up in person tomorrow? Don't dare email a guy you know on the other production line to see if he's noticed the same pattern? This does seem like a nudge toward sweeping problems under the rug.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    I don't believe that delay is part of the training. As I recall, the training advises people with such concerns to raise the matter with their product counsel immediately. ETA by the way, the training does not discourage people from making statements of fact in discoverable docs, it discourages people from drawing conclusions of law. If you emailed Bob down on the production line to mention that you had 42 failed gFrobs on Tuesday, and asked Bob how many he had, that's not discouraged. If you were to instead mail Bob and said "Those Panamanian safety regulators are gonna be pissed, LOL!" that is discouraged.

tytso 6y ago

Oh.... and if you are sure that your product has flaws that might cause people to get killed, or cause medical information to be inappropriately leaked, etc., the proper path is to schedule a meeting with your team lead and the product counsel on the issue. Not only did I have to certify that I received this kind of training every year at every large corporation that I've worked at (and yes, this includes Google), this was also covered in my MIT Sloan School class, "Legal issues for I/T Managers" that I took as continuing education when I worked in MIT Network Operations and served as Tech Lead for Kerberos V5 development. I'm really surprised at the comments in Hacker News on this article. Doesn't everyone get this fundamental, basic legal training? IMHO every single practicing engineer should!

Nullabillity 6y ago
> Not only did I have to certify that I received this kind of training every year at every large corporation that I've worked at (and yes, this includes Google), this was also covered in my MIT Sloan School class, "Legal issues for I/T Managers" that I took as continuing education when I worked in MIT Network Operations and served as Tech Lead for Kerberos V5 development. Welp, that says a lot about MIT's ethics education.
- julienb_sea 6y ago
  The right way to handle an engineering problem with ethical implications is to handle it carefully, internally and via the appropriate channels. It is wholly inappropriate to make something public that very likely can be handled appropriately without the public fallout. I would call it unethical to your coworkers to create unnecessary damage to your team or your company by ignoring the appropriate process for handling sensitive internal issues. If things are being shoved under the rug by management, that is an entirely different issue.
  - Nullabillity 6y ago
    > I would call it unethical to your coworkers to create unnecessary damage to your team or your company by ignoring the appropriate process for handling sensitive internal issues. That argument would call it unethical for a robber to tip off the police about their gang's upcoming heist. > If things are being shoved under the rug by management, that is an entirely different issue. If those processes were known to be effective then they would be sold based on that, not on how they keep you out of trouble.

Animats 6y ago

It's an antitrust instruction employees at very large companies are given. If you're #1 to #4, it's important. If you're #326 in your industry, it's not an issue.

dboreham 6y ago

I think the idea is that there are people who think their desire to do whatever they want is more important than their employer's right to limit bad publicity and legal risk. A quick re-watch of the movie Erin Brockovich might illuminate why this could happen but there are obviously other reasons.

ardy42 6y ago

> And it's not just about anti-trust; you also never want to talk in any kind of discoverable medium how an engineering short-cut in the development of your product (say, like a 737) is going to cause people to get killed. It's not my responsibility to help cover the company's ass if my they take a shortcut that gets people killed or help them avoid legal consequences for illegal or boundary-pushing behavior. My highest loyalty is not to their shareholders, and paying me a salary doesn't change that.

xmprt 6y ago
That's 100% but you'll also likely be in headlines and go to court because of it. So neither of you are wrong. The company is covering their own ass and part of that is telling their employees that it's important not to leak stuff.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > That's 100% but you'll also likely be in headlines and go to court because of it. So neither of you are wrong. Beats going to court and then to prison because you made a convenient scapegoat.

int_19h 6y ago

The point of the article is the claim that Google wasn't so extreme about this before. If true, this means that they're seriously concerned with the ongoing anti-trust probes, and don't see them as something that's likely to go away.