3 ms·

They were operating from within the Google network, while (presumably, otherwise they shouldn't be onsite) working for Google - hence the difference between bei

by eCa 15y ago

They were operating from within the Google network, while (presumably, otherwise they shouldn't be onsite) working for Google - hence the difference between being a contractor and an employee is pretty small. We have contractors onsite where I work. If they did something bad (especially if it is in any way related to what we do, as in all those recent Google cases) I would say that we would be to blame to the same extent as if they were employed by us. What Google should do, and probably should have done after the Kenyan thing, is terminate any and all contracts with the contracted firm.

BuschnicK 15y ago
Where does one draw the line? This feels a lot like group punishment: one member of the group does wrong, the whole group gets punished. Is that just? Should Google then proceed not to hire Indians again (assuming that was actually the contractor's nationality)? Also, to all the folks implying malicious intent: What does Google stand to gain from sabotaging Open Street Maps? Especially after sponsoring it for some years in a row via Summer of Code and similar initiatives?
- AJ007 15y ago
  Yes, groups are routinely punished for actions of members. In the case of businesses, sometimes that means closing up shop, firing everyone, and sending the owners or bad actors to prison. Google can gain by saying, look, our maps are more accurate. Of course, it would have taken an idiot to believe that would work, just like someone who believes that they can change history by editing Wikipedia articles. I suspect there is pretty much zero chance that someone higher up at Google would be that dumb. Then again, one of the co-founders of this company thought it was ok to break US law in regard to illegal pharmaceutical sales. This has nothing to do with nationality. This has to do with vetting the quality and trustworthiness of those with access to Google's network, employee or otherwise. That is a pretty damn big deal in my opinion.
- eCa 15y ago
  I would think that companies routinely end contracts with other businesses due to the actions of one or some of their employees. This is not group punishment, this is ending contracts with entities that misbehaves in serious ways in your name. Of course Google should continue to use Indians at their discresion. Anything else would be group punishment. Google doesn't stand to gain anything from sabotaging Open Streets Maps, but that does not mean that they are not responsible for sabotage in their name. That is not a contradiction.

by eCa 15y ago

BuschnicK 15y ago

Where does one draw the line? This feels a lot like group punishment: one member of the group does wrong, the whole group gets punished. Is that just? Should Google then proceed not to hire Indians again (assuming that was actually the contractor's nationality)? Also, to all the folks implying malicious intent: What does Google stand to gain from sabotaging Open Street Maps? Especially after sponsoring it for some years in a row via Summer of Code and similar initiatives?

AJ007 15y ago
Yes, groups are routinely punished for actions of members. In the case of businesses, sometimes that means closing up shop, firing everyone, and sending the owners or bad actors to prison. Google can gain by saying, look, our maps are more accurate. Of course, it would have taken an idiot to believe that would work, just like someone who believes that they can change history by editing Wikipedia articles. I suspect there is pretty much zero chance that someone higher up at Google would be that dumb. Then again, one of the co-founders of this company thought it was ok to break US law in regard to illegal pharmaceutical sales. This has nothing to do with nationality. This has to do with vetting the quality and trustworthiness of those with access to Google's network, employee or otherwise. That is a pretty damn big deal in my opinion.
eCa 15y ago
I would think that companies routinely end contracts with other businesses due to the actions of one or some of their employees. This is not group punishment, this is ending contracts with entities that misbehaves in serious ways in your name. Of course Google should continue to use Indians at their discresion. Anything else would be group punishment. Google doesn't stand to gain anything from sabotaging Open Streets Maps, but that does not mean that they are not responsible for sabotage in their name. That is not a contradiction.