16 ms·

“After conducting a review of this manager’s conduct, we confirmed that there were multiple violations of our code of conduct, as well as of our security polici

• monocasa 6y ago
  The rumor going around is that she thought she was going to be retaliated against, and the documents were her backing up some of her emails in case she was fired illegally to discuss with her lawyer.
  • notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    Since she's an at will worker, it'll be difficult to prove she was fired illegally
    • monocasa 6y ago
      All the more reason for her to have a copy of her emails.
      • NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
        "I know, since I'm worried I'm going to get fired for vague non-specific reasons, I'm going to directly violate company policy and get terminated for cause" is an odd game plan.
        • monocasa 6y ago
          I assume there was something extremely incriminating in the emails if she backed them up.
        • yuliyp 6y ago
          "company policy" at large corporations is not designed to do anything other than provide cover for the corporation to do what it wants.
          • knorker 6y ago
            Is "no e filtration of company data" an arbitrary "gotcha" policy?
            • monocasa 6y ago
              If it comes out that they mean discussing specific emails with an employment lawyer, then yeah, kind of.
              • knorker 6y ago
                It's a theory. If she doesn't sue then we can assume that's not what happened. If she does sue, then it'll probably still be a secret settlement, so we won't know. :-( Personally i don't believe this theory. Because it's so easy to counter what google said, then, and google's lawyers are not that stupid.
                • monocasa 6y ago
                  Google has already publicly misrepresented facts in this saga.
                  • knorker 6y ago
                    oh? specifically?
            • yuliyp 6y ago
              Did you ever leave a notebook that had work notes at home or in your car? Ever gotten an e-mail on your work account that should have gone to a personal one? Use any SaaS service that would get access to company data?
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • refenestrator 6y ago
    She probably should have discussed this plan with her lawyer before exfiltrating the documents.
    • monocasa 6y ago
      Who's to say she didn't. Some of the wrongful termination suits I've seen personally lived and died based on if an employee had their own copy of emails. Discovery doesn't always work against an entity that's already behaving illegally.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • refenestrator 6y ago
        To paint the poles, this reasoning is radically different if you're talking about a 10-employee shop or a global corporation. She should have talked to her lawyer first.
        • monocasa 6y ago
          > Who's to say she didn't
          • refenestrator 6y ago
            > Who's to say she didn't I'm saying that either she didn't or her lawyer fucking sucks.
            • monocasa 6y ago
              'Wrongful termination doesn't tend to hit the court system like you think it should unless you have hard evidence, particularly in at will states' is absolutely something I've heard from lawyers.
              • 6y ago
  • kmlx 6y ago
    with employees like these who needs competitors...
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • d1zzy 6y ago
    And how does that matter in terms of: 1. Google's statement, is it still accurate then? Seems to me. 2. Firing the employee. There's one thing for the law to shield employee from legal repercussions in a situation of them sending communications to their lawyer and quite another for the company still being within rights to fire them because of that. A large set of perfectly legal actions can get you fired at almost any workplace.
• crazygringo 6y ago
  It's so vague it's hard to draw any conclusion without specifics. "Exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents" could be nefariously downloading proprietary research for personal gain... or innocently downloading a Slides presentation to your personal phone as a PDF in preparation for a client meeting in case it's impossible to connect to their Wi-Fi. Or saving e-mail communications with your manager in case you need them for personal legal defense purposes. Companies can be amazing at twisting innocent actions into horrible-sounding policy violations when they want. I'm not saying this is the case, I'm just saying we don't have enough information to jump to a conclusion.
  • belltaco 6y ago
    According to an Axios scoop from Jan, she was running a script to find emails in her Inbox related to Gebru and sending thousands of files "to multiple external parties". https://i.imgur.com/fDV9kKV.png https://i.imgur.com/fDV9kKV.png
    • 5600k 6y ago
      Would anyone suspect that an AI set her up? One could be fully capable of that. This whole thing may be ironic- in more than one sense. I’m kidding of course... or am I?
      • asimovfan 6y ago
        It is disappointing that this message is being downvoted.
        • doctor_eval 6y ago
          Yeah, it was my first thought! Very Roko's basilisk. Especially if it’s being downvoted by the AI.
        • newsbinator 6y ago
          If an AI set her up, why would it let us discuss it here?
• marricks 6y ago
  It’s pretty cool we can just take Google at it’s word after a 5 week investigation with literally no details coming out. Google also decided to drop this bombshell on a Friday the same day they are announcing a rebranded ethics team. It’s clear they wanted to bury this story and the leaders of the old team. I for one don’t plan to in any way give Google the benefit of the doubt here...
  • jeffbee 6y ago
    A company, Google included, will not comment on the circumstances of an employee's exit unless provoked. It is uncharacteristic for them to comment at all. If they are willing to go public with any statements, that indicates to me that they feel their reasons are iron-clad.
    • monocasa 6y ago
      Or they think that the PR win for going to the press early is worth more than the lawsuits. Comparing this situation to your standard firing situation isn't going to add up. The calculus is different, as can be seen from the mere fact that it's being discussed here and has news articles written about it.
      • prepend 6y ago
        Unlikely I think as if they weren’t iron clad, they would muffle up and prepare for the wrongful termination lawsuit that will only be greater if they lie about the departure. Since a lie would be slander, damage reputation and lead to lots more money. I think them issuing this statement means they feel confident in their defense. It also being so specific seems more credible since that’s something to easy to verify (emailing company info out of company).
        • tdeck 6y ago
          A wrongful termination lawsuit will drag on for years, and won't conclude until the discontent surrounding this particular issue has dissipated.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• bryan0 6y ago
  “Cut and dry”? Given how google fired a previous AI ethicist in an entirely misleading way (“We accept and respect her decision to resign from Google”), it would be naive to take google at their word here.
  • notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    Of all the things to argue about how that incident went down, this is the worst. She sent an email with a list of demands saying if they weren't met, she'd work on an exit date with the company. The company couldn't meet those demands. By her own words she would be exiting the company, they worked out that exit date with her in that email: right now
    • monocasa 6y ago
      The State of California is very clear that the sequence you've outlined is a firing. An employee needs to be the sole one setting the last date for it not to be a firing.
      • knorker 6y ago
        This is just arguing semantics. It can both be true that she was the initiator of her departure, and legally it's a firing.
        • monocasa 6y ago
          It's not semantics. They didn't work "out that exit date with her in that email". They told her she was no longer an employee effective immediately. That is a firing, legally and otherwise.
          • knorker 6y ago
            I disagree. "Meet my three impossible demands or I'll quit" is not clearly "not initiating my departure".
        • 6y ago
• systemvoltage 6y ago
  Meanwhile, Timrit is spinning up more choas on Twitter: https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1362886704361791488 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1362886704361791488 At this point, I am moving past all this drama. This corporate soap opera televised on Twitter needs to cease. If the person fired thinks that it was illegal, they should settle this in the court with Google. A company can fire anyone for any reason that's legal just the way you can leave the company for any reason.
  • knorker 6y ago
    Yeah, Timnit is Trump, yelling BS on twitter but wisely choosing to not lie in court.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • that_guy_iain 6y ago
    It seems Timrit is upset that someone got fired via personal communication channels. Well, when you're locked out of the corporate one for security violations. That's what is going to happen.
  • loopz 6y ago
    Agreed. We as human beings need to choose not to be manipulated through these very effective communications means. Outrage is just not good enough without constructiveness. Villifying everyone who disagrees with your "clan", is not fair argument. That "one's own side wins" through these means.. nothing good will come out of it!
  • Cacti 6y ago
    > To the VPs at Google, I pity you. Wow, sounds like a real pleasant personality. Jesus what is this third grade.
    • 6y ago
• bg24 6y ago
  What is a business-sensitive data? If I am working on my laptop and download a 1GB customer orders CSV to my laptop for analysis, is that sensitive data? Who does not do it? Private data for other employees - is that like downloading the accessible intranet profile of an user (say in the HR portal), or hacking into HR portal to download their private info? In a 1k+ employee company, who does not look up employee details everyday?
  • knorker 6y ago
    Your personal laptop? Well, first of all how do you have access to bulk download PII? Second, yes at FANG this meant you not only had to go around policy, but also technical means. And there's lots of training saying "don't do that". At smaller companies it's ok to let PII flow. At FANG not so much. They really want to stop having EU fines and be dragged in front of congress.
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
  The thing is, if a company wants to fire an employee they can usually find a reason. It takes extreme care for a person to work for any length of time at a company that wants to fire that person. The employee must change the behaviour that is causing the company to want to get rid of them. It is usually not expected people will change their behaviour and as such, HR and outside lawyers are always available to assist companies with these "problem employees". It is possible that there are many employees who are committing "fire-able offenses" at many companies but because the companies are not trying to get rid of these employees, these offenses go undetected or no serious action is taken if they are discovered. That's life. The question here is whether Google wanted this employee gone, and if so, why. It sounds like she was reading documents associated with the other employee on her team who was fired. We are not told of any actual damage that was caused. The quoted statement in the top comment states "After conducting a review of this manager's conduct...". They have discretion over what they choose to do after the review. They wanted this employee gone. Why?
  • virgilp 6y ago
    > They wanted this employee gone. Why? Speculation? Because she was good friends with Gebru, and was continuing the (internal) drama that they wanted stopped. Assuming that Jeff Dean actually took the right decision in firing Gebru (I tend to believe so) - Google really can't blink here; they'd be at the mercy of vocal employees if they did. It's basically a cancer-like situation, you either cut it all & apply radiotherapy (however unpleasant), or it will overwhelm & kill you.
  • d1zzy 6y ago
    You don't need a fireable offense to fire an "at will" employee. I'm not even sure you need a reason for it. There are restrictions in terms of not being able to fire a person because of their gender, race, etc but beyond that anything goes. https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment-overview.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-e... "At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences. At-will also means that an employer can change the terms of the employment relationship with no notice and no consequences. For example, an employer can alter wages, terminate benefits, or reduce paid time off. In its unadulterated form, the U.S. at-will rule leaves employees vulnerable to arbitrary and sudden dismissal, a limited or on-call work schedule depending on the employer’s needs, and unannounced cuts in pay and benefits." Welcome to the US :D
• skywhopper 6y ago
  Does it? As pointed out, this could mean a lot of things and I suspect the majority of Google’s tech employees are “guilty” of violating this particular guideline, including the execs and the investigators involved in this case. Getting “sensitive” data on a personal device is actually really easy to do and just goes overlooked until they want a reason to fire you. But the part of this that stands out to me is that they are giving this much detail to the press. The standard reply is always that “personnel matters are confidential” even when the person being fired has been publicly accused of something criminal. But for this case Google chose to make specific public allegations. Now why do you think they would do that?
• throwawaygooge 6y ago
  The language that Google use is consistent with simply bcc-ing outgoing e-mails to a personal account and a lawyer's account. That is exactly what I have done and would do whenever my job has been threatened - so that I have access to relevant written evidence after my e-mail is switched off.
  • cecja 6y ago
    You are doing something illegal every time you are doing it which can be used if you sue them for wrongful termination. Make a hard copy and if you need it electronically let the court do it's thing.
  • d1zzy 6y ago
    And you should expect to be fired for doing so. I think both parties can be right to act as they did.