
Google contractors sacked after vandalizing OpenStreetMap - there
http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/17/2714044/google-contractors-sacked-vandalism-openstreetmap
======
Eliezer
As soon as your company grows beyond the point where everyone else has the
same personality type you do, you'd be amazed at how hard it is to run
_perfect_ herd over everyone else's ethics. Anyone who thinks that this sort
of thing requires management approval from Google simply has no concept at all
of how difficult it is to scale trust and supervision. Google is effectively a
_small country_ at this point.

Someday a YCombinator company is going to make front-page news after having
tried to spread smallpox using dirty blankets, and someone is going to suggest
that Paul Graham must have tacitly suggested it was a good idea, and they are
going to be stupid.

~~~
teyc
It is very different.

Paul Graham is an investor, not a manager. If PG ran a company that hired a
contractor who did some dirty deeds, PG would be in a load of hot water.

~~~
Eliezer
Have you ever hired a contractor? They, um, don't always do what you want.

~~~
Jach
For those not in the know, SIAI had an unfortunate contractor theft incident
in 2009. <http://lesswrong.com/lw/5fo/siai_fundraising/4156>

------
steve8918
Wow, the comments blaming Google for this are ridiculous.

I'm no Google apologist. But it was 20 edits from 2 people. We have no clue
what their motivation was, but probably they were just being assholes.

If an asshole Google employee started trolling on HN, posting 20 obnoxious
comments, and pg tracked the IP addresses back to the same IP address as this
incident, do you think he should raise a stink and say that Google is trying
to take down HN because it's a competitor of Google+?

Come on, that's ridiculous. Is this really the effort of Google? They have
tens of thousands of employees, and hundreds of thousands of computers all
over the world. Google attempted to poison an open source map using 2
employees and 20 edits? Come on. If they redirected 0.01% of their traffic to
that website, they could probably keep them down indefinitely.

The one scary thing, however, is that if you do do something obnoxious, like
get into a flame war with someone, or if you add some false information to
wikipedia for whatever reason, and the owner of the website complains online
about it, you could get fired, even if your comments were completely
"anonymous". That to me is scarier than any of this other stuff.

~~~
teyc
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
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
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>

So in the case of the luxury cruise ship sinking, or Exxon Valdez, the ship
owner is responsible the cost of cleanup.

~~~
steve8918
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
Oh yes, you are right. I had forgotten about "frolic".

I wonder how this point will pan out with the case of Costa Concordia.

------
tylermenezes
So let's see here. Google "contractors" in Kenya get caught stealing customers
red-handed. Then "contractors" in India take over where they left off. They
also start messing with OpenStreetMap.

And somehow, no one at Google had any idea? Oh, please. If this was Microsoft,
you'd all be raising hell, but because it's Google everyone is talking about
how great they are for dropping the contractors? I'm disappointed in you all.

~~~
chc
These contractors are a full continent _plus_ an ocean away from the
Googleplex. It seems pretty plausible to me that nobody high on the totem pole
had any idea about the particulars of what they were doing. I doubt they even
know everything that the thousands of full-time employees who work right down
the hall are doing.

~~~
ww520
Not that I'm taking side on this Google fiasco but distance is not an excuse
in these days of distributed workspace and multi-national corporations. If
distance is an acceptable excuse, BP didn't have to take responsibility for
the oil spill happened in the Mexico Gulf since it's an ocean away in a
different continent.

~~~
chc
You seem to have taken my comment out of context. I didn't say distance
excuses anything, just that it presents logistical challenges. The comment I
was replying to suggested that Google _had to have known_ , so I was
explaining that, no, the higher-ups at Google very well might not have had a
clue. This does not appear to have been a major campaign of great strategic
importance to the company, it didn't involve a lot of people and it wasn't
anomalously using any resources, so I have no trouble believing that it simply
slipped under the radar. You might say that was negligence on Google's part,
but I don't think you can call it malice.

------
Steko
"Not working on Google projects anymore" doesn't imply the same thing as
"sacked" where I come from.

I think people want a better explanation then what we've seen so far.
Vandalizing wikipedia for teh lawlz is one thing, vandalizing OSM with
potentially dangerous things like switching one way streets is another kettle
of fish. Especially when your employer (err employer's employer) runs a well
known competitor.

~~~
waitwhat
They were contractors. Google isn't their employer and can't sack them. All
they can do is ensure that they no longer work on Google projects.

~~~
dredmorbius
The wording is ambiguous.

And the term "sacked" can certainly be used to apply to service providers /
contractors:

[http://www.governoruduaghan.org/infocus_listing.php?head=3&#...</a> <a
href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-11-18/delhi/28100828_1_dda-
land-agency-delhi-development-authority"
rel="nofollow">http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-11-18/delhi...</a>
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/3741846/BBC-sacks-
contractor-over-licence-fee-warning-letters-containing-false-statistics.html"
rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/3741846/BBC-
sa...</a>

------
dredmorbius
Good on Google for (apparently) taking appropriate corrective action in this
case.

As comments at TheVerge note: this is the third notable instance of contractor
misbehavior in very recent weeks for Google. Seems to me that the company
needs to tighten up its contractor vetting and oversight markedly. This is a
general outsourcing problem: delegating work to another entity means you've
created a new obligation within your organization to oversee that work.

It's hardly new, and it's hardly specific to business. Apple, Dell, HP,
Microsoft, and other are currently dealing with fallout from outsourced labor
practices, particularly in China (Foxconn / Shenzhen), but also India and
elsewhere. The US government has seen much criticism over its outsourced
contracts. BP has had some disagreements with its contractors Cameron
International, Andarko Petrolium (Mitsui Oil exploration), Weatherford
International, Transocean, and Halliburton over fish-oiling services rendered.

What might be interesting would be to see a clever and distributed solution by
Google. My expectations aren't high, but it's definitely a wicked problem and
they'd be a good crew to tackle it.

~~~
Steko
"Good on Google for (apparently) taking appropriate corrective action in this
case."

Considering:

(1) this is the same India contractor that was involved in the scandal last
week.

(2) The new infractions happened after that scandal broke.

(3) As far as we know they are still giving their business to this contractor.

Then you have to seriously doubt whether "appropriate corrective action" has
been taken.

~~~
dredmorbius
Well:

1: If this is the case, Google have correctly identified the source and it
turned out to be the same in both cases.

2: Mocality broke on Friday. The OSM incidents were reported Monday, and
apparently had been ongoing for at least a few days prior. I'd say they're
largely coincident.

3: It does take some time for a business to respond, especially where
contractual issues are involved. I suspect in this case the OSM report was a
final straw / accelerator in Google's decision process.

Speaking for myself, _I_ used the term "apparently" as we've just got Google's
report of their action, I haven't seen it verified elsewhere. Though I'd be
inclined to believe their statement (lying at this point would be a Really
Dumb Move[tm]).

Really, given the scale of operations, this is lightning action on Google's
part.

As I noted, the problem here is that there are three incidents (two tied to
the same contractor) of malfeasance in Google's name (if indirectly, through
contractors, on Google's part). This speaks to shoddy practices, or in best
light, considerable room for improvement.

------
joebadmo
Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained
by stupidity."

This seems to apply to several levels of this incident, up to and including
this discussion of it.

Most, if not all, of the discussion here in both directions is speculation. It
seems to me that it's still early. The Google detractors here will be much
more persuasive, to me at least, if they come back in a few weeks and Google
has still not issued a strong apology and full, detailed explanation.

~~~
eternalban
> Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately
> explained by stupidity."

I can see why Occam's Razor should be accepted at face value, but Hanlon's
appears to be just a just-so idea without any logical foundation other than
appealing to certain human prejudices.

In any event, "Google detractors" can say whatever they want, but to claim
that people running Google are "stupid" or that the company is governed by a
mindset characterized by "stupidity" is really hard to swallow.

~~~
phillmv
Actually, I think it's a really optimistic saying.

Think of it more as, "Until we rule out incompetence, we shouldn't assume
malice – and incompetence is far more common than malice".

------
guard-of-terra
Why did these contractors do that?

It's not like they sweared on forums or watched porn. Vandalizing OSM is an
effort-intensive task. You dont't do that because of lack of control. You do
that because you were told to, or motivated to in any other way.

I don't see how they could do that accidentally; therefore we should seek why
they did that; who knew what they were doing; and how it could happen at all.

What were their job? What were they brought in for?

~~~
chc
Say I bring you in to help promote certain properties versus rivals X, Y and
Z. Now pretend you lack a good sense of ethics. Think of a few obvious ways to
help my product beat these other products. I'm sure you can come up with
something plausible that's similarly lousy.

A company I worked for once hired a guy to help them build up a social media
profile and agreed on a pay scheme similar to "$X for every 100
followers/friends". He followed every follow-back spammer he could find and
got paid rather well for gaining about 20 actual readers. I guarantee you this
was not what the company wanted, but it's easy to create perverse incentives
if you're not careful.

~~~
gcb
i think that's what the original commenter said.

did google hired them to 'overcome OSM in that region?' or to 'improve google
maps?'

------
DavidChouinard
Let's drop "Google Contractors" for simply "Google." It doesn't diminishes the
act and it's clearly a PR sleight of hand.

~~~
Pewpewarrows
Google definitely holds some of the blame here, and I'm glad to see that
they've been completely transparent and apologetic with every instance of
Contractor shadiness that's cropped up in the past couple of weeks.

But don't try to drop facts because it doesn't suit your argument. They were
contractors working for Google. Saying anything less than that is dishonest.
You could just as easily fall further down the slippery slope and condemn the
entire human race for the actions of a couple of contractors, because the
contractors were humans.

~~~
Geee
Why do you think Google hired these contractors? Why use contractors on these
kind of dirty jobs? Do you honestly think that Google wasn't aware of what
they were doing?

~~~
mdwrigh2
Do you really think Google stands much to gain from scamming Kenyan businesses
and messing up Open Street Maps (who, might I add, have received donations
from Google)?

~~~
guard-of-terra
We have to build a mental model of what's happening.

We have two at the moment: First, that one or more than one of workers in
Google in India for some reason had strange sort of hatred towards OSM, not
caused by they working for Google, which caused them to vandalize OSM objects
in certain cities located in different hemisphere. Second, that they for
reasons unknown were told to do that; Or the measure of their achievements
could be influenced by OSM maps being worse; the profit has to be short-term
and obvious for lower-level workers to fall for it.

First seems to be highly improbable; second seems just improbable :) Right now
second wins. Any other mental models?

~~~
guard-of-terra
Third model: a third party could be hurting Google by clumsily hurting OSM
using double agents. Their goal was to make it to the news and then make
Google take a PR hit.

Who could be behind this?

------
rickmb
Is there any evidence Google is actually taking any action like so some
Google-apologists are quick to claim?

Are there any official statements? Basically all a see after these incidents
is Google only responding when being pressed by individual reporters, and even
then only in very superficial terms.

Sweeping it under the rug seems to be a more appropriate description of
Google's response to some extremely serious accusations. This isn't just a
random act of drunken mischief by someone that just happens to be a Google
employee. We're talking criminal activities undertaken by people being paid by
Google, using Google's corporate infrastructure and aimed at Google's
competitors.

~~~
nostromo
> We're talking criminal activities undertaken by people being paid by Google,
> using Google's corporate infrastructure and aimed at Google's competitors.

Yikes, I think you're getting overly excited. Two contractors in India
errantly changed the direction of a street and suddenly it's a "serious
accusation" of "criminal activity"?

For me this falls somewhere between, "meh" and "mischievous prank" -- strongly
leaning towards "meh."

~~~
pyre
Truly. The other accusations are more serious than these OpenStreetMap ones.

------
puranjay
Retarded comments by Google fanboys, saying that these contractors worked out
of Google's control and hence, the company cannot be held responsible for
their actions.

Please tell me one thing: why the hell would any contractor go out of his way
to sabotage your competition?

This can happen only if the management has insinuated in a wink-wink, nod-nod
way that vandalizing the competition might yield certain rewards.

And please, if this practice continues and everyone just sweeps it under the
carpet as something 'contractors and not the company did', then soon we'll
have an army of contractors hired by Samsung, MS, Facebook, et al going around
planting bombs in competitors' HQs.

Someone has to own up. If my dog shits on your lawn, I still have to clean it
up.

------
teyc
This is barely enough. Google now needs to make full reparations and find out
exactly what was modified and return them to the correct values. The SysAdmins
time on OSM is not free. Under tort, Google should be on the hook for
malicious alteration of map data of its employees and contractors. Contractors
or not, Google will have to exercise more oversight.

Perhaps someone can release a little utility that trawls through Apache logs
called HasGoogleAlteredYourData?

------
roshanr
I wonder if this was the result of unintended consequences of poorly designed
incentives. May be - and this is just a wild hypothesis - Google's directive
to the vendor was to improve their maps data and incentives were based on
their data being better than OSMs. Which leads to some of the contractors
realizing that it would be easier to be "better" than OSM by making OSM worse.

------
dazbradbury
Google's Response: "The two people who made these changes were contractors
acting on their own behalf while on the Google network. They are no longer
working on Google projects."

This does not mean they were sacked. This does not mean Google were actively
seeking to destroy OSM data. I'm pretty sure if they wanted to do that, they
could do so without anyone finding out.

Two people, changing some OSM data (maliciously or otherwise), from their work
PC's, is NOT newsworthy in my opinion. The original accusation, yes. If they
provide more details of the attacks, definitely. This post however, is not.

~~~
bartl
I don't think they were out to destroy OSM data.... I think that they were
likely out to discredit OSM as a reliable source for maps.

------
mathattack
Seems like an overall issue with vendor management.

------
ck2
If Google keeps getting taken advantage of by contractors, just imagine what
happens on all the local/state/federal government contracts that has little to
no oversight.

------
milkmiruku
"...and that the contractors in the OSM case just happened to be working in
the same office."

Does anyone know how big this office is?

------
Stormbringer
Yet another standout example of Google's non-evilness.

------
Geee
I'm wondering why Google is so stupid to use their own IP address for these
dirty jobs? I guess that's the real mistake the contractor was doing from
Google's point of view. They were probably instructed to use random proxies
around the world, but somehow this particular 'contractor' didn't manage to do
that.

~~~
ajross
So you think the senior evil overlords at Google made a affirmative decision
to deliberately sabotage OpenStreetMap to make it look bad in comparison to
Google Maps. And that they instructed their agents to cover their tracks.

Seriously?

~~~
BuschnicK
If so, that were some particularly inept secret agents...

~~~
ajross
That's exactly what I'm thinking. I mean, I know corporate espionage exists,
but really. If this was really your goal why traceable sabotage? Why not break
the logical connectivity at big intersections so they render correctly but
break navigation algorithms? Why not offset a city 100m to the south to break
GPS matching? "Deleting main roads" from a traceable IP is just... dumb.

