6 ms·

Well this is interesting: >>At least one Coast Guard employee has been required to sign a non-disclosure agreement with the company regarding the San Francisco

by deletes 13y ago

Well this is interesting: >>At least one Coast Guard employee has been required to sign a non-disclosure agreement with the company regarding the San Francisco project An inspector with an unidentified California agency said he, too, had to sign such a document.<< EDIT: On a second thought, it must be common practice for various inspectors to sign NDA's since they see private corporate stuff. Thus the signage of the document has no role in whether inspector would be allowed on board or not.

markdown 13y ago
So if they hadn't signed the agreement, the Coast Guard would have been denied access to the vessel? It's incredible how much power corporations have in the US.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  yes, i kind of imagine how the Chinese bistro nearby (less than a mile from Google) wouldn't let, say, a city inspector in until s/he signs NDA/etc... I guess the bistro owner is just not aware about such an idea :)
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Allowing inspectors into the restaurant is a requirement of the license to operate it.
    - TallGuyShort 13y ago
      The same is true of newly constructed buildings and, I would imagine, commercial barges.
- ars 13y ago
  I agree. Since when does the Coast Guard need to ask permission to inspect a vessel? But, maybe they would need a warrant, and by getting permission they avoid that? Don't know.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    The vessel is already in the country/state, so the 4th Amendment applies.
    - chrislipa 13y ago
      You'd think so, but unfortunately, our government disagrees. https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-co...
      - rhizome 13y ago
        I'm not seeing much in that description of the border exception that would touch this vessel, which appears to be something akin to "at port," much less a vessel controlled by a company with as many legal resources as Google. It would be a shitshow if the USCG just stormed in there.
    - yardie 13y ago
      Ask any boater how any interaction with the Coast Guard goes. They wield an incredible amount of power in search and seizure and centuries of court precedence. Unlike the TSA they are pros at security theater, even if you think you are right you are almost always wrong. The barge is not in a lake, it's in a bay and border rules take precedence.
- zyxley 13y ago
  My guess would be that the Google head honcho on-site asked nicely and offered some sort of carrot (e.g. "we will tell you our other spooky floating facility plans in advance"), and that the Coast Guard employee was "required" to sign the NDA by a boss who liked the deal.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    I'll guess the converse, that it was the lead investigators who put on their best manners.
- saraid216 13y ago
  I love HN. Coast Guard denied access to Google warehouse: corporations have too much power. NSA suspected of gaining access to Google warehouse: government has too much power.
  - znowi 13y ago
    I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. In particular that government and corporations are working together at high level, while maintaining opposing stance in public. When you're a huge corp like Google that operates around the globe, you can't help but to rub elbows with the government - collaborate and make concessions, if necessary (e.g. PRISM). The sad part is that the lack of privacy is advantageous to both government and corporations. One get better ad targeting, another tracking and control. So they're one team on this. The dispute is who and how will get to use the data.
  - markdown 13y ago
    I wasn't comparing the power a corporation has to the power wielded by the government; It was more corporation vs person. I don't think I'd have the power to tell the US Coast Guard to fuck off if they approached me as I sped across the harbour in my little speedboat.
  - gngeal 13y ago
    False dichotomy. Both of them can have too much power simultaneously! :)
  - TallGuyShort 13y ago
    If both corporations and the government act outside or above the law, then they both have too much power, right? (Note that I don't actually believe Google has violated any laws here - just commenting on the perception).
e12e 13y ago
> On a second thought, it must be common practice for various inspectors to sign NDA's since they see private corporate stuff. WTF? AFAIK it is common practice that you're not allowed to talk about stuff you see in line of duty, as cop, or any other kind of government empowered inspector? To me this sounds completely redundant -- either the coast guard employee in question is already under much more powerful obligation to keep quiet than some corporate civil law NDA -- or this is completely outside the law, and just a show of force by private corporate interest...
- mattlutze 13y ago
  There is nothing precluding separate NDAs for individual instances that enforce different terms than a duty-required blanket non-disclosure policy enforces.
  - e12e 13y ago
    I can't think of a situation where it would(should) be legal for a government agent to accept any kind of NDA in order to perform his or her job. Either there are secrets that you come in contact with in line of duty that you shouldn't share -- or there aren't. In the first instance, your employer should be able to make sure you don't talk about it; in the latter talking about it would probably be in the public interest.
    - mattlutze 13y ago
      I see no reason for government agents to be treated differently legally than private individuals when business secrets are requested to be exposed. Coast Guardsmen have no special right to the inner workings to a private company's data center, for example. If their duty is to board a boat and insure there is no contraband or whatever, I cannot imagine they're also given a blanket right to learn trade secrets and then be at their own discretion to disclose those. It's absolutely plausible to require an NDA before exposing such information.
      - e12e 13y ago
mcv 13y ago
I'd expect some degree of confidentiality to be standard when government agencies inspect private stuff. The NDA shouldn't be necessary.
ZoFreX 13y ago
From the same article: > Ensign Connan Ingham said that no non-disclosure agreements had been signed but that some local agency officials "have been asked by the owner not to talk about it." Which is it? :/

by deletes 13y ago

markdown 13y ago

So if they hadn't signed the agreement, the Coast Guard would have been denied access to the vessel? It's incredible how much power corporations have in the US.

VladRussian2 13y ago
yes, i kind of imagine how the Chinese bistro nearby (less than a mile from Google) wouldn't let, say, a city inspector in until s/he signs NDA/etc... I guess the bistro owner is just not aware about such an idea :)
- rhizome 13y ago
  Allowing inspectors into the restaurant is a requirement of the license to operate it.
  - TallGuyShort 13y ago
    The same is true of newly constructed buildings and, I would imagine, commercial barges.
ars 13y ago
I agree. Since when does the Coast Guard need to ask permission to inspect a vessel? But, maybe they would need a warrant, and by getting permission they avoid that? Don't know.
- rhizome 13y ago
  The vessel is already in the country/state, so the 4th Amendment applies.
  - chrislipa 13y ago
    You'd think so, but unfortunately, our government disagrees. https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-co...
    - rhizome 13y ago
      I'm not seeing much in that description of the border exception that would touch this vessel, which appears to be something akin to "at port," much less a vessel controlled by a company with as many legal resources as Google. It would be a shitshow if the USCG just stormed in there.
  - yardie 13y ago
    Ask any boater how any interaction with the Coast Guard goes. They wield an incredible amount of power in search and seizure and centuries of court precedence. Unlike the TSA they are pros at security theater, even if you think you are right you are almost always wrong. The barge is not in a lake, it's in a bay and border rules take precedence.
zyxley 13y ago
My guess would be that the Google head honcho on-site asked nicely and offered some sort of carrot (e.g. "we will tell you our other spooky floating facility plans in advance"), and that the Coast Guard employee was "required" to sign the NDA by a boss who liked the deal.
- rhizome 13y ago
  I'll guess the converse, that it was the lead investigators who put on their best manners.
saraid216 13y ago
I love HN. Coast Guard denied access to Google warehouse: corporations have too much power. NSA suspected of gaining access to Google warehouse: government has too much power.
- znowi 13y ago
  I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. In particular that government and corporations are working together at high level, while maintaining opposing stance in public. When you're a huge corp like Google that operates around the globe, you can't help but to rub elbows with the government - collaborate and make concessions, if necessary (e.g. PRISM). The sad part is that the lack of privacy is advantageous to both government and corporations. One get better ad targeting, another tracking and control. So they're one team on this. The dispute is who and how will get to use the data.
- markdown 13y ago
  I wasn't comparing the power a corporation has to the power wielded by the government; It was more corporation vs person. I don't think I'd have the power to tell the US Coast Guard to fuck off if they approached me as I sped across the harbour in my little speedboat.
- gngeal 13y ago
  False dichotomy. Both of them can have too much power simultaneously! :)
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  If both corporations and the government act outside or above the law, then they both have too much power, right? (Note that I don't actually believe Google has violated any laws here - just commenting on the perception).

e12e 13y ago

> On a second thought, it must be common practice for various inspectors to sign NDA's since they see private corporate stuff. WTF? AFAIK it is common practice that you're not allowed to talk about stuff you see in line of duty, as cop, or any other kind of government empowered inspector? To me this sounds completely redundant -- either the coast guard employee in question is already under much more powerful obligation to keep quiet than some corporate civil law NDA -- or this is completely outside the law, and just a show of force by private corporate interest...

mattlutze 13y ago
There is nothing precluding separate NDAs for individual instances that enforce different terms than a duty-required blanket non-disclosure policy enforces.
- e12e 13y ago
  I can't think of a situation where it would(should) be legal for a government agent to accept any kind of NDA in order to perform his or her job. Either there are secrets that you come in contact with in line of duty that you shouldn't share -- or there aren't. In the first instance, your employer should be able to make sure you don't talk about it; in the latter talking about it would probably be in the public interest.
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    I see no reason for government agents to be treated differently legally than private individuals when business secrets are requested to be exposed. Coast Guardsmen have no special right to the inner workings to a private company's data center, for example. If their duty is to board a boat and insure there is no contraband or whatever, I cannot imagine they're also given a blanket right to learn trade secrets and then be at their own discretion to disclose those. It's absolutely plausible to require an NDA before exposing such information.
    - e12e 13y ago

mcv 13y ago

I'd expect some degree of confidentiality to be standard when government agencies inspect private stuff. The NDA shouldn't be necessary.

ZoFreX 13y ago

From the same article: > Ensign Connan Ingham said that no non-disclosure agreements had been signed but that some local agency officials "have been asked by the owner not to talk about it." Which is it? :/