6 ms·

There are ways to raise issues related to product safety that don't potentially leave you in the very uncomfortable position of being a witness in a court proce

by tytso 6y ago

There are ways to raise issues related to product safety that don't potentially leave you in the very uncomfortable position of being a witness in a court proceeding. (Trust me, this is not going to be a pleasant experience, so if you don't care about your fiduciary duty to your employer, you might want to learn how to raise these issues so you can meet your engineering ethical demands and at the same time, not risk landing you and your company in a super-uncomfortable position, whether it's in a lawsuit, or at a congressional hearing. "No Senator, that's not exactly what I meant....")

Nullabillity 6y ago
> so if you don't care about your fiduciary duty to your employer Your duties are to: 1. Society at large 2. Your users 3. Yourself 4. Your company In that order. > you might want to learn how to raise these issues so you can meet your engineering ethical demands and at the same time, not risk landing you and your company in a super-uncomfortable position, whether it's in a lawsuit, or at a congressional hearing. Or the company could, y'know, keep its shit together and steer clear of stuff that people raise congressional hearings about, rather than just trying to sweep it under the rug.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  >the company could keep its shit together and steer clear of stuff that people raise congressional hearings about I'm sorry but is this not exactly what is being said? To steer clear of instructing other employees to perform anti-competitive behavior? I think you may be misinterpreting the parent post.
  - Nullabillity 6y ago
    No, the discussion is about acknowledging that behaviour is anti-competitive.
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      I don't see how. Acknowledging what behavior is anti-competitive is generally done by a court, not by us random posters on HN. (If you're a federal prosecutor with some authoritative insight here then please disclose :)
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      That's the point of the training. Determination of whether a behavior is anti-competitive is specifically not something a software engineer is trained in. They aren't lawyers. The law on this topic is huge, nuanced, and deeply technical. Google isn't comfortable with individual untrained software engineers speculating on law for the same reason it isn't comfortable with the lawyers getting it and modifying the privacy coding---people are trained in disciplines that they are highly skilled in, and it's important to let them do their jobs.
      - int_19h 6y ago
        In this particular case, I think Google is far more worried about new legislation passing that would redefine what "anti-competitive" means, such that it's definitely applicable to Google - and that its own employees pointing out instances of monopoly abuse would contribute to the probability of such a law, and its severity. But in this context, from the perspective of society as a whole trying to decide what the law should be, the personal opinion of Google employees does matter, regardless of what's presently legal.
      - Nullabillity 6y ago
        > That's the point of the training. Determination of whether a behavior is anti-competitive is specifically not something a software engineer is trained in. They aren't lawyers. The law on this topic is huge, nuanced, and deeply technical. This is ultimately an ethical question, not a legal one. But I guess if you come in with the mindset of "might makes right" then you won't see the distinction. > Google isn't comfortable with individual untrained software engineers speculating on law for the same reason it isn't comfortable with the lawyers getting it and modifying the privacy coding--- Surely the equivalent would be lawyers weighing in on the spec of what the "privacy coding" should do. Which is very much something that they ought to do? > people are trained in disciplines that they are highly skilled in, and it's important to let them do their jobs. This whole discussion is a perfect example of why this silo mentality is fucking toxic. You don't need to be a chef to point out that the food is rancid.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  How do you imagine the company "keeps its shit together" if employees are going around like a disorganized bag of cats making legally discoverable documents about topics they don't understand? The training this story is about is how the company keeps its shit together. They remind employees that doing things correctly, safely, and within the law is a shared responsibility.

by tytso 6y ago

Nullabillity 6y ago

> so if you don't care about your fiduciary duty to your employer Your duties are to: 1. Society at large 2. Your users 3. Yourself 4. Your company In that order. > you might want to learn how to raise these issues so you can meet your engineering ethical demands and at the same time, not risk landing you and your company in a super-uncomfortable position, whether it's in a lawsuit, or at a congressional hearing. Or the company could, y'know, keep its shit together and steer clear of stuff that people raise congressional hearings about, rather than just trying to sweep it under the rug.

cycloptic 6y ago
>the company could keep its shit together and steer clear of stuff that people raise congressional hearings about I'm sorry but is this not exactly what is being said? To steer clear of instructing other employees to perform anti-competitive behavior? I think you may be misinterpreting the parent post.
- Nullabillity 6y ago
  No, the discussion is about acknowledging that behaviour is anti-competitive.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    I don't see how. Acknowledging what behavior is anti-competitive is generally done by a court, not by us random posters on HN. (If you're a federal prosecutor with some authoritative insight here then please disclose :)
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    That's the point of the training. Determination of whether a behavior is anti-competitive is specifically not something a software engineer is trained in. They aren't lawyers. The law on this topic is huge, nuanced, and deeply technical. Google isn't comfortable with individual untrained software engineers speculating on law for the same reason it isn't comfortable with the lawyers getting it and modifying the privacy coding---people are trained in disciplines that they are highly skilled in, and it's important to let them do their jobs.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      In this particular case, I think Google is far more worried about new legislation passing that would redefine what "anti-competitive" means, such that it's definitely applicable to Google - and that its own employees pointing out instances of monopoly abuse would contribute to the probability of such a law, and its severity. But in this context, from the perspective of society as a whole trying to decide what the law should be, the personal opinion of Google employees does matter, regardless of what's presently legal.
    - Nullabillity 6y ago
      > That's the point of the training. Determination of whether a behavior is anti-competitive is specifically not something a software engineer is trained in. They aren't lawyers. The law on this topic is huge, nuanced, and deeply technical. This is ultimately an ethical question, not a legal one. But I guess if you come in with the mindset of "might makes right" then you won't see the distinction. > Google isn't comfortable with individual untrained software engineers speculating on law for the same reason it isn't comfortable with the lawyers getting it and modifying the privacy coding--- Surely the equivalent would be lawyers weighing in on the spec of what the "privacy coding" should do. Which is very much something that they ought to do? > people are trained in disciplines that they are highly skilled in, and it's important to let them do their jobs. This whole discussion is a perfect example of why this silo mentality is fucking toxic. You don't need to be a chef to point out that the food is rancid.
shadowgovt 6y ago
How do you imagine the company "keeps its shit together" if employees are going around like a disorganized bag of cats making legally discoverable documents about topics they don't understand? The training this story is about is how the company keeps its shit together. They remind employees that doing things correctly, safely, and within the law is a shared responsibility.