6 ms·

Not everyone is blaming Google. However, many are rightly taking the position that Google has to be held responsible for actions of its contractors, which is a

by teyc 15y ago

Not everyone is blaming Google. However, many are rightly taking the position that Google has to be held responsible for actions of its contractors, which is a different thing. Google has taken the first steps, which is to sack those people. Next it has to undertake review of all the sites that these people accessed and make good any damage they caused.

steve8918 15y ago
So, if you visit HN from your place of employment, your employer should be held responsible for every single obnoxious act you make? Or if you go to Amazon.com and post a negative review on a book, the author should sue your employer? That's ridiculous. You're basically arguing that all employers should strictly limit the websites that any employee visits, since the employer should be held accountable for their employees actions. If the contractors did something against the terms of their employment and got fired, that's one thing. But to hold the employer responsible and say they should "make good" on the actions of their employees is wrong.
- teyc 15y ago
  I was equally surprised and dismayed when I learnt of this initially, but it is already established as a point of law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability So in the case of the luxury cruise ship sinking, or Exxon Valdez, the ship owner is responsible the cost of cleanup.
  - res0nat0r 15y ago
    "Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment (sometimes referred to as 'scope of employment')" So the contract company, the actual employer of these people should be responsible from the sounds of it, not Google.
    - teyc 15y ago
      On the surface of it yes. However, there are cases where people who work as contractors are viewed as employees by the law. Here's the reason why: these people work on Google's premises; Google probably dictates what time they have to show up for work; and generally tells them how to perform that work. I don't have the names of the legal cases where the precedents were set off the top of my head, but under those circumstances, the court has ruled that vicarious liability continues to apply.
      - res0nat0r 15y ago
        I worked onsite for a large pharmaceutical company in their corporate HQ for 6 years, but never was considered any employee of that company. I couldn't access many services and perks of that company even though I was in their datacenter and on site every day for years. This was the point of hiring me via my consulting company was to move the liability, cost and responsibility to a 3rd party, which also seems to be the case here. This can be a good or bad thing depending on the situation. The original company can show it is cheaper to use a contracting company, but also as seen in the Gulf oil spill, there can be a lot of finger pointing between companies on who is responsible for damage where when it comes time to deal with real problems.
        teyc 15y ago
        In your case, any mistakes you make is unlikely to affect a third party. But should a third party be involved, they'll try to pin the blame on the pharma, not you, the pharma has the cash. In which case, they'll be arguing to the judge that the way you work makes you more like an employee than a contractor, even though you don't enjoy the benefits of being an employee.
  - steve8918 15y ago
    In the second paragraph of the first section: "whereas an employee acting in his or her own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and will not subject the employer to liability." A Google contractor adding false information to OpenStreetMap is undertaking a "frolic", unless that was specifically his job at Google. If Google specifically told him to do it, then yes Google should be held liable, however, if the contractor is killing time and being an asshole while twiddling his thumbs, Google will not be held liable.
    - teyc 15y ago
      Oh yes, you are right. I had forgotten about "frolic". I wonder how this point will pan out with the case of Costa Concordia.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  At what point does liability end? I'm not talking about where current laws stand - I'm asking where you think it ought to end. If the employee was acting without the knowledge of anyone, then sure, you can argue the case that the employee went rogue and the company should be shielded from liability. But in the case of Mocality, it certainly looks like a concerted effort - someone from management surely knew about it, or perhaps even ordered it. The fact that Larry himself isn't aware/didn't approve seems rather moot. So the question is: how far up does it have to go before something is considered an act of the corporation?
Natsu 15y ago
There are some who are saying "yes, seriously" to the idea that Google overlords sanctioned this. I really don't buy that. It would be just as absurd to claim that they were double agents planted by competitors. Now then, saying that Google owes some of these folks more than just an apology is perfectly reasonable in my view. I think they owe Mocality money for whatever business & reputation damage they suffered. OSM is said to have suffered about 20 troll edits from two people, if the article's update is to be believed. I'm not really sure how best to make that right, but maybe Google can go through the logs and help fix everything.

by teyc 15y ago

steve8918 15y ago

So, if you visit HN from your place of employment, your employer should be held responsible for every single obnoxious act you make? Or if you go to Amazon.com and post a negative review on a book, the author should sue your employer? That's ridiculous. You're basically arguing that all employers should strictly limit the websites that any employee visits, since the employer should be held accountable for their employees actions. If the contractors did something against the terms of their employment and got fired, that's one thing. But to hold the employer responsible and say they should "make good" on the actions of their employees is wrong.

teyc 15y ago
I was equally surprised and dismayed when I learnt of this initially, but it is already established as a point of law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability So in the case of the luxury cruise ship sinking, or Exxon Valdez, the ship owner is responsible the cost of cleanup.
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  "Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment (sometimes referred to as 'scope of employment')" So the contract company, the actual employer of these people should be responsible from the sounds of it, not Google.
  - teyc 15y ago
    On the surface of it yes. However, there are cases where people who work as contractors are viewed as employees by the law. Here's the reason why: these people work on Google's premises; Google probably dictates what time they have to show up for work; and generally tells them how to perform that work. I don't have the names of the legal cases where the precedents were set off the top of my head, but under those circumstances, the court has ruled that vicarious liability continues to apply.
    - res0nat0r 15y ago
      I worked onsite for a large pharmaceutical company in their corporate HQ for 6 years, but never was considered any employee of that company. I couldn't access many services and perks of that company even though I was in their datacenter and on site every day for years. This was the point of hiring me via my consulting company was to move the liability, cost and responsibility to a 3rd party, which also seems to be the case here. This can be a good or bad thing depending on the situation. The original company can show it is cheaper to use a contracting company, but also as seen in the Gulf oil spill, there can be a lot of finger pointing between companies on who is responsible for damage where when it comes time to deal with real problems.
      - teyc 15y ago
        In your case, any mistakes you make is unlikely to affect a third party. But should a third party be involved, they'll try to pin the blame on the pharma, not you, the pharma has the cash. In which case, they'll be arguing to the judge that the way you work makes you more like an employee than a contractor, even though you don't enjoy the benefits of being an employee.
- steve8918 15y ago
  In the second paragraph of the first section: "whereas an employee acting in his or her own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and will not subject the employer to liability." A Google contractor adding false information to OpenStreetMap is undertaking a "frolic", unless that was specifically his job at Google. If Google specifically told him to do it, then yes Google should be held liable, however, if the contractor is killing time and being an asshole while twiddling his thumbs, Google will not be held liable.
  - teyc 15y ago
    Oh yes, you are right. I had forgotten about "frolic". I wonder how this point will pan out with the case of Costa Concordia.
potatolicious 15y ago
At what point does liability end? I'm not talking about where current laws stand - I'm asking where you think it ought to end. If the employee was acting without the knowledge of anyone, then sure, you can argue the case that the employee went rogue and the company should be shielded from liability. But in the case of Mocality, it certainly looks like a concerted effort - someone from management surely knew about it, or perhaps even ordered it. The fact that Larry himself isn't aware/didn't approve seems rather moot. So the question is: how far up does it have to go before something is considered an act of the corporation?

Natsu 15y ago

There are some who are saying "yes, seriously" to the idea that Google overlords sanctioned this. I really don't buy that. It would be just as absurd to claim that they were double agents planted by competitors. Now then, saying that Google owes some of these folks more than just an apology is perfectly reasonable in my view. I think they owe Mocality money for whatever business & reputation damage they suffered. OSM is said to have suffered about 20 troll edits from two people, if the article's update is to be believed. I'm not really sure how best to make that right, but maybe Google can go through the logs and help fix everything.