4 ms·
I think sending it to external accounts probably triggered this, there is no way this would not have raised a red flag in any company. I mean, Alphabet is the s
by actuator 6y ago
I think sending it to external accounts probably triggered this, there is no way this would not have raised a red flag in any company. I mean, Alphabet is the same company where a person took self driving documents with him to start a new company.
Hopefully, if it was just normal conversations and after identities had been redacted, their access is restored. Still, analysing this information on their work machine itself and then sending out a summary seems like a better course of action than this.
- fossuser 6y agoSomewhat related - Levandowski (the crook that stole the self driving docs) was just pardoned by Trump. The pardon was supported by Thiel, Luckey, and other Founders Fund people. I find this pretty irritating, but I guess when you’re in the company of actual war criminals like Eddie Gallagher then the bar is pretty low.[0] —— Separately, from the drama I’ve seen around the recent AI ethics stuff, I’d bet money Google is on the right side of this and the activists are not. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25843040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25843040
- bergstromm466 6y ago> Levandowski (the crook that stole the self driving docs) Why is your username 'foss user' when you're showing you are for intellectual property rights by calling this person a crook?
- ALittleLight 6y agoTrue, but it's only Google/Alphabet saying she sent data to external accounts and I don't think they're especially trustworthy. If she sent secret info to outsiders she deserves to be fired, but if Google is investigating her because they think she's looking for evidence of discrimination then Google deserves whatever civil and legal penalties apply.