3 ms·
You think their job responsibilty was to publically shame their employer? (With private internal documents no less)
by JamesBarney 6y ago
You think their job responsibilty was to publically shame their employer? (With private internal documents no less)
- pseudalopex 6y agoWhat private internal documents did she publish?
- JamesBarney 6y ago> “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 policies, which included the exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents and private data of other employees.” I assume this was to release to the press to shame/pressure Google, and wasn't corporate espionage. But what reason do you think she was doing it for?
- pseudalopex 6y agoBut did she release documents to the press? Exfiltration of confidential documents could mean just forwarding emails to herself or an employment lawyer.
- JamesBarney 6y agoI don't know if she's released them to the press. What's your best guess for why she was running a script to exfiltrate a bunch of e-mails related to Gebru? Mine is it involves releasing them to the press.
- choppaface 6y agoDr Gebru was talking with a lawyer before they fired her. Mitchell was likely contributing to the case because she herself was experiencing retaliation from Google. At this point it doesn’t really matter if it goes to the press or ends up in a complaint—- Google’s retaliation here is illegal. You can’t reproach an employee for simply talking to a lawyer and that’s exactly what Jeff Dean and co did.
- JamesBarney 6y agoTalking to a lawyer != running a script to exfiltrate confidential corporate documents, even if the purpose is to help you talk with a lawyer.
- pseudalopex 6y agoLegal counsel is a common exception to NDAs. Different jurisdictions have different specific rules.
- pseudalopex 6y agoWho said she ran a script to exfiltrate a bunch of emails related to Gebru? The Google statements I saw weren't so specific. She allegedly copied the documents a month ago. The simplest explanation of why they aren't public is she didn't want them to be. I don't think it's useful to speculate about her motives when we don't even know what she did specifically.
- JamesBarney 6y agoThe verge and the observer mentioned it. I swear I also saw it on another site that was more reputable too but I can't remember which one.