4 ms·
> Google’s head of security and risk operations responded to [a message about an incident] to clarify what had happened. They noted that an “officer arrived at
by im3w1l 9mo ago
> Google’s head of security and risk operations responded to [a message about an incident] to clarify what had happened. They noted that an “officer arrived at reception without notice” and that the agent was “not granted entry because they did not have a warrant and promptly left.”
This seems like a very reasonable way to handle it.
Edit: Disclosure: I'm not an American.
- pavel_lishin 9mo agoTelling the police to come back with a warrant sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't. And these guys aren't the police.
- motbus3 9mo agoWhy did he go there without a warranty in the first place? Was he following someone who entered the building? Would that be weird similar to the weird mustached guy from the 40s?
- Refreeze5224 9mo agoICE has been going around without judicial, as opposed to administrative, warrants, relying on threats and coercion to be let in and to arrest people. That's what this probably is.
- moralestapia 9mo agoThe story doesn't make sense, tbh ... One single guy. What was he supposed to do after they let him in? Just start asking people about their legal status? I doubt Google has many illegal immigrants working there ... I doubt there's even one. Then this guy finds them, allegedly, does he just arrests them and take them out the building? All by himself? With all the cameras and phones on the planet recording it? Inside Google, from all places? It just doesn't make sense. From the article: >Google’s top brass—including CEO Sundar Pichai and DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis—have remained silent on Pretti’s killing even inside the company, sources say. Why would they, though?
- xp84 9mo agoI agree, I don't need to hear my CEO's opinions on whatever controversy is big today. Run the company, focus on that.
- pavel_lishin 9mo agoI'd like to hear my CEO say that he won't allow goons into the building to drag me away to a concentration camp.
- moralestapia 9mo agoThere's not much a CEO can do about that ... (nor it should).
- watwut 9mo agoCEO are among the few people who can actually do something about that.
- moralestapia 9mo agoI don't follow. Do you have a concrete example?
- moralestapia 9mo ago>No. A classic.
- tamarinddreams 9mo agoCEOs restructure. Haliburton for example seems to have head quarters psychizophrenia. Google headquartered in the US is weak. Google headquartered in Ireland can play the negotiation farce and will either win in the end or will be able to write off the US in a better position. Similarly they can move anyone who is uncomfortable to other GEOs individually. Kind of a weak move that may be enough if the current administration falls apart.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 9mo agoThe thing is, they are required to have a warrant, but I don't believe they are required to show you the warrant. In which case what exactly should they do?
- throw_away_8080 9mo agoNot a lawyer, but I think this is common knowledge: They are required to not only show it but provide a copy of the warrant on request. Furthermore the warrants are scoped, if the warrant specifies searching for firearms and the search your hard drive it can't be used in court unless you verbally allow it. Don't resist, but don't consent.
- mullingitover 9mo agoThere was a recent secret internal ICE memo stating that they determined they were free to essentially engage in unconstitutional home invasions[1]. If they decided to batter down the doors at Google there is nothing stopping them. The only thing keeping them in check is the courts, and that practically operates in geologic timeframes compared to the rate they are breaking laws. [1] https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-trump-00d0ab0338e82341fd91b160758aeb2d https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-...
- mc32 9mo agoThat’s where they will use an “administrative warrant” to arrest someone with a final order of removal. So not citizens’ houses but one where someone is in the country illegally with a final order of removal.
- tekla 9mo agoDespite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property. If they find a illegal immigrant on public streets, they can be detained, but still cannot enter a private residence (even if occupied by an illegal immigrant) as it would violate the 4th amendment.
- dragonwriter 9mo ago> Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property. Even an actual judicial arrest warrant doesn't (legally) allow them to enter private party on suspicion that the target might be there. Search is a separate thing from seizure, and you need a judicial search warrant to search a private residence or the non-public areas of a business for a person, no matter what authority you might have to arrest them should you find them.
- mc32 9mo agoThat makes sense. But that raises a separate unrelated question; how do bailbondsmen seem to be able to take their targets in, are they violating the law or are criminals gullible or something else?
- roryirvine 9mo agoIt's pretty common to treat unauthorised entry attempts as a serious security incident. The minimum follow-up actions I'd expect would be filing a police report, sending all-staff emails reminding people to be on the lookout for tailgaters, and reviewing security at reception. If there was a specific risk of ongoing intrusion attempts, then I'd also expect legal action (eg. injunctions or restraining orders) to be taken in mitigation. It's perfectly reasonable for staff to want to seek assurance that those sort of basic measures to ensure their safety are underway.