

“We got geeks”: Inside Google's ugly war against the homeless in LA - avolcano
https://pando.com/2015/06/22/we-got-geeks/0f5e37dd20647915deca221f540649016f6f3612/

======
blacksmith_tb
This could all be true, and it's ugly if it is, but GOOG is so big that I
wouldn't be surprised if their left hand doesn't know what their right hand is
doing. In SF, they have donated millions to homeless relief efforts [1], and
in San Jose they've donated hundreds of Nexus 5s with service to homeless
folks [2].

1: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/11/google-
homelessnes...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/11/google-homelessness-
idUSL1N0TV2OL20141211) 2: [http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/mobile4all-
scheme-nexus-...](http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/mobile4all-scheme-
nexus-5-homeless-news/)

~~~
mindcrash
If a spokesperson is asked to comment, but he simply refuses to say anything
on the matter on the record its pretty much guaranteed that there is some
knowledge about the matter higher up, since this is the easiest way to not
have to admit or deny anything for people who handle PR.

------
chambo622
A lot of accusations in this article, which presents a very one-sided take on
the issue. The author knew what they wanted to say and found information and
anecdotes to support it.

Not saying that's wrong, but I think Google should have been engaged more
deeply for this piece and had their side of the story represented (I'd be
interested to hear what they have to say about some of these allegations).
Talking to security guards (likely contractors) and expecting them to say or
do anything other than their job is unreasonable. And basically accosting
Google reps with all of this "evidence" and expecting them to sit down to a
conversation that already had a guaranteed outcome is equally so. As it is,
I'm not convinced Google is doing anything illegal here.

~~~
greenyoda
_" I think Google should have been engaged more deeply for this piece and had
their side of the story represented"_

Google was asked to comment, but refused. The article states:

"A Google spokesperson declined my offer to sit down and watch the footage,
and refused to comment on the record regarding allegations that company
security guards had been intimidating the homeless."

~~~
cbd1984
Because anything they could have said would have been twisted to fit the
author's narrative.

The only thing worse than having "no comment" is having your actual comments
used to hang you.

------
csbrooks
This is sickening. Google's private security has no right to tell anyone what
to do on a public sidewalk.

~~~
calbear81
They can tell people not to impede access to driveways and doors but they
can't physically remove them if they're on the public sidewalk.

I generally agree but they should have the right to tell someone not to do
something (with threat of calling the cops) but no right to enforce it. For
example, it would not be unreasonable to expect the security to ask someone to
not urinate or defecate on the sidewalk in front of the entrance.

------
JoeAltmaier
Against some of the homeless. On one block near their new installation.
Article tries (and fails) to make it seem like Google is systematically pitted
against every homeless person in LA.

~~~
drivingmenuts
From the sound of it, Google is overstepping their bounds, literally. They
have no control over the public sidewalks or anything else off their property,
but they're exerting it anyway.

I get that they're staying mum about the whole thing, for now, but they're
going to need to address it sooner or later.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Agreed. Note the strong-arm tactics are actually being done by local
contractors. What is it about LA that makes everyone want to be a thug?

------
exgoogler
These are socially-acceptable hate crimes, however, in California, a hate
crime is an upgradable felony.

Given that the police in LA are complicit in similar egregious, systematic
abuse of homeless people on a daily basis, involving the feds is a wise
option, given that Lynch is now in charge of DoJ.

------
thanatropism
So -- this is what's left of NSFWCorp?

