
Google Fires Four Workers, Including Staffer Tied to Protest - phissk
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-25/google-fires-four-employees-citing-data-security-violations
======
docdeek
>> In one case, among other information they accessed and copied, an
individual subscribed to the calendars of a wide range of employees outside of
their work group. The individual set up notifications so that they received
emails detailing the work and whereabouts of those employees, including
personal matters such as 1:1s, medical appointments and family activities —
all without those employees’ knowledge or consent. When the affected Googlers
discovered this, many reported that they felt scared or unsafe, and requested
to work from another location. Screenshots of some of their calendars,
including their names and details, subsequently made their way outside the
company.

Yikes - this seems to go beyond labor organizing within the company.

~~~
Traster
I think this is probably just a deliberate and horrendous mis-representation.
I don't know how Google's internal systems work and would love someone who
works there to comment further. However, in the public Google calendar I can
set up alerts for all the meetings someone else has (useful for secretaries
etc.). And so if you just sign up for those alerts you're going to get:

> received emails detailing the work and whereabouts of those employees,
> including personal matters such as 1:1s, medical appointments and family
> activities — all without those employees’ knowledge or consent.

Except that that is how Google has designed its calendar system. If you put
your medical appointments into your calendar without marking them private then
yes, they're going to be public.

So basically, Google seems to have managed to take a feature in its own
Calendar App, and the default behaviour of meetings on Google and dressed it
up like stalking.

~~~
Spooky23
The privilege to take an action is not a justification of the action.

Google designed their calendar this way to support work. It doesn’t sound like
these people were using resources for work purposes. That’s almost certainly a
violation of the work rules. Pushing blame on the employee being tracked is
ridiculous.

Companies are not democracies, and unless you are an executive with a contract
or are in a collective bargaining agreement, you serve at the pleasure of your
management. If you’re irritating your management for reasons and want to stick
around, you need to work in the rules.

~~~
maxlybbert
> Pushing blame on the employee being tracked is ridiculous.

I’ve never worked at Google, so while I can’t say for certain, I doubt the
calendar has a “notify me about the juicy bits” checkbox. It’s certainly
useful for me to know when my manager will be in the office or in some
meeting, and if my manager marks the meeting “private,” I can know that he
won’t be available at a particular time even if I don’t know what he’ll be
busy doing.

If he finds it creepy that I know when he’ll be at the dentist, or be in a 1:1
with his boss, he needs to make sure the appointment is marked as private; I
can’t do anything about it.

So, yes, I believe in this case, it makes sense to blame the people being
tracked for publicity posting information that they didn’t want others to
know.

~~~
ic147
From the article: > an individual subscribed to the calendars of a wide range
of employees outside of their work group.

Following your manager's calendar makes sense. Doing the same for people
outside of your group is suspicious imo, unless you're working with that
team/person.

~~~
emiliobumachar
How plausible is it that they were following people outside their group for
union reasons, e.g. to call them for a union meeting, rather than anything
more nefarious?

~~~
antpol
That is ok usage, but in the discussed case we already know that people
followed were later doxed not called to discuss unions. Big difference

~~~
vanniv
Also, we know that the people being tracked complained that they felt unsafe.

~~~
manicdee
While they were being tracked or only once the case was being built and the
tracking was revealed?

Who are these people? Managers? Would the union organisers have been tracking
calendars to find times the managers are not walking the aisles so the
unionists could talk to the staff about unionising?

In such a circumstance I imagine I as a hypothetical manager being coerced
into a union-busting exercise could arrange to feel threatened by this
calendar-monitoring behaviour.

As for the copies outside the office: we want to bring the union lawyers and
membership folks around to talk about joining the union, here’s the manager’s
schedule for the next week.

Believe nothing of what you read and only half of what you see.

It is every aggrieved party’s interest to claim they thought the world was
going to end, because the only negotiating direction is away from that
extreme.

------
dataduck
I don't know if Google's story here is honest, but the two protesters'
certainly aren't. They were not organizing anything to do with improving the
working conditions or treatment of their co-workers - they were explicitly
attempting to subvert company policy for their own political ends, in ways
which are highly controversial and likely went against the wishes of many of
their peers. There is no reasonable way you could call this legitimate union
activity.

While others have rightly pointed out that Google's statements about stalking
and harassment are vague enough that they could refer to reasonable
activities, I have no doubt that people engaging in this kind of political
intrigue would have to resort to some kind of harassment at some point.

I'm not saying that Google is right here. But the fired protesters are
definitely in the wrong.

~~~
hos234
Google is a political entity. Anyone controlling info flow is.

There are lot of people in Google deluding themselves that this is not true,
while taking decisions that effect millions of people. Who elected them? That
contradiction will always create political tensions.

If they don't want to be political they should stick to tech like phones and
browsers and sell off Search and YouTube. Until that happens don't call
polical objections and resistance wrong.

~~~
koheripbal
You cannot accept a paycheck from a company, while also be trying to subvert
it internally.

It is crazy you don't understand that.

~~~
dspillett
If you aren't part of the company you can't subvert it internally because you
aren't internal. Your logic seems rather flawed. Unless you are expecting them
to work for the company for free while trying to subvert it.

~~~
stale2002
No, they could work somewhere else, while attempting to oppose Google.

~~~
dspillett
But that is not "trying to subvert it internally".

~~~
stale2002
Regardless, they should still leave and try to oppose it while working
somewhere else.

------
Fiadliel
Google’s statement is, in my opinion, disingenuous.

Including personal information on your work calendar without using privacy
controls is pretty bad practice, though obviously some people occasionally did
it. There is no indication that this information was a target of the fired
employees. There is also no indication that these personal events were
included in screenshots “outside the company”. And that phrase encompasses a
wide range of possibilities, I suspect that Google made it so general because
the specifics would have sounded more benign.

The statement in general is designed to cast the four in the worst possible
light.

~~~
ggambetta
> There is no indication that this information was a target of the fired
> employees.

This bit?

 _" The individual set up notifications so that they received emails detailing
the work and whereabouts of those employees, including personal matters such
as 1:1s, medical appointments and family activities"_

~~~
Fiadliel
They obviously subscribed to work calendars in order to follow the work
activities of those people. There is no other technical way to do that.

There isn’t a way to separate out personal events — which shouldn’t be there,
or at least should be marked private.

That this information was included, does not indicate that it was a target; it
does indicate that it was a useful way for Google to attack their actions.

~~~
eloisant
There is a way - use different calendars for work and home. Preferably with
different accounts (work account vs personal account).

You can then blend the 2 calendars either in the mobile app, or by importing
one to the other account.

I'm a bit surprised to hear some people would use their work calendar for
personal activities, I don't see why you would do that.

~~~
jmkd
Because you have one life and busy days and personal and professional merge
with a lunchtime meeting then an afternoon doctor's appointment etc.

When you are back to back most days (common at Google) you can't be juggling
multiple calendar accounts all the time, not least because a personal event
doesn't show on your professional cal meaning someone can try to double book
that slot.

~~~
svrtknst
Idk, I use Google Calendar (browser, android app) and currently run work
calendar, private calendar, and facebook events seamlessly. Don't think I've
spent much time at all setting it up, either.

~~~
monocasa
Other people can't see the other calendars though.

------
DSingularity
“Show me the man and I'll show you the crime”

I think our attitude should be cautiously skeptical of any Google provided
reason for firing these individuals. It could very well be that their alleged
behavior was technically against company policy but in line with typical
Google employee behavior. It might just be a convenient reason to fire them
given their unionizing efforts.

I really wish a jury of peers is used to fire people in this age of
disproportionate corporate power.

~~~
jm4
That’s a ridiculous idea. It’s a job, not a judicial system. I suspect our
real disagreement is around your “disproportionate corporate power” remark. I
believe that’s how it’s supposed to be. The people running the company have
more power than the workers. If the workers don’t like it, they can go to
another company they more prefer or start their own. And don’t tell me it’s
not possible. Google is only 20 years old. Facebook is younger than that. Both
started in college.

The power lies with the corporation because that’s where the risk and
responsibility is. You don’t risk much driving to your job at a big company
and collecting your check every two weeks. You risk everything and take on
responsibility for a lot of people when you’re the one who starts the company
or who has to lead it or a large portion of it.

~~~
SkyBelow
>It’s a job, not a judicial system.

That doesn't change that they can easily misrepresent the facts in a way that
any person subjected to similar treatment would view it as lying. And given
the power differential, they will likely be unable to use the court system to
protect themselves against such attacks.

This is a weakness in our current system the strong use to exploit the weak.
Isn't that something we should look down upon and punish?

~~~
jm4
And that's when you take it up with the real judicial system, not some quasi-
judicial "jury of my peers" in the company.

~~~
DSingularity
A jury of peers is a cornerstone of justice. When the accused is an employee
where better to find peers than within the same work environment?

------
icotyl
The mental gymnastics some of us are using to justify the bad actions of these
employees are astounding.

Making documents and calendars accessible is one example of Google’s “open
culture.” When these features are abused in an attempt to strong arm a company
or coworkers into kowtowing to each of your demands, that’s sabotage of the
company’s culture at the expense of tens of thousands of your coworkers who
may not share your political views on every issue. Say your piece, keep saying
it if you feel so compelled, but don’t cross the line into unethical behavior
and cry “retaliation!” when you’re caught.

------
commandersaki
If Heather Adkins endorses the message that these employees were terminated
for sharing internal Google data to the outside, then that was probably the
case. I don't think we have to care who these employees were or why they did
what they did; they severely broke policy.

But I'm absolutely sure there's an element of "rules for thee but not for me".

~~~
bogwog
So in your eyes a senior Google executive is a trustworthy and unbiased person
in this controversy?

~~~
thu2111
Adkins has been around a long time and is well known internally. She has
always played it straight as far as I know. She isn't some faceless Voice of
Google, she has her own reputation to consider and one she has built.

Now let's look at the people on the other side: a nobody who has been
describing her own employer as literally evil in public, to anyone who will
listen, but who mysteriously failed to leave of her own accord. Google isn't
actually evil or even close to it, only someone seriously mentally unstable
could believe that, and would such a person harass political opponents by
leaking their private lives onto the internet (presumably to somewhere they
hoped would cause those employees problems?). Absolutely they would. Googlers
already have form in leaking screenshots of internal sites to highlight
political disagreements.

~~~
bogwog
> Google isn't actually evil or even close to it, only someone seriously
> mentally unstable could believe that

Personally, I think anyone who "trusts" a corporation as large as Google is
mentally unstable. There are very clear, well-documented instances of Google
being _objectively evil_ , and there's no sign of this changing. Maybe you
don't follow that news?

> She isn't some faceless Voice of Google, she has her own reputation to
> consider and one she has built.

So you're telling me that if her boss instructed her to read a prepared
statement or be fired, she'd give up her position atop a mountain of gold just
to appease some random fanboys on the internet?

> and would such a person harass political opponents by leaking their private
> lives onto the internet (presumably to somewhere they hoped would cause
> those employees problems?). Absolutely they would.

Now you're assaulting the character of a person you don't know for no good
reason.

~~~
thu2111
_There are very clear, well-documented instances of Google being objectively
evil_

Look, the English language has a limited range of words for describing
malicious acts. We have simple words like bad, wrong. We have more complex
words like criminal, illegal, immoral. We have nuanced words like suboptimal,
misguided, psychotic, naive. And at the extreme end we have evil.

Is there a word for something/someone _worse_ than evil? I'm struggling to
think of it. You'd have to start saying things like, well, maybe Google is
evil but Hitler/Mao/Stalin were _really really evil_. There just isn't
anywhere you can go from there.

Google is not evil in any mature usage of the English language. You may not
like its business model, perhaps you think Google should charge you money for
its services and dispose of the ads. You may disagree with some of the
decisions its executives make. But nothing Google has ever done even begins to
justify using the most extreme words in the English language, not even close,
not even remotely in the same general area. If you describe Google this way
you're saying they're the worst thing that could possibly exist, which is
foolish in the extreme. It's just crying wolf: why would anyone pay attention
if one day you discover an organisation that is actually doing much worse
stuff? Nobody will care because they'll just write you off.

 _Now you 're assaulting the character of a person you don't know for no good
reason._

The "assault" is simply me evaluating the likelihood of competing claims,
based on (in one case) actually having met and had direct experience of Ms
Adkins when I used to work at Google, and in the other case public words and
actions of someone I never met. Based on that evidence I judge it likely that
Google's claims are true, albeit, this is only a weak judgement as it's
ultimately he said/she said.

~~~
bogwog
Lol you just wrote three whole paragraphs to say Google isn’t as bad as
Hitler. I don’t even know what to say to that. How far gone into fanboyitis
must one be to reach that point?

Ok, maybe Google isn’t as bad as Hitler. I’ll give you that. Maybe that’s why
they chose the slogan “don’t be evil” many years ago, since that was the
lowest they could possibly set the bar at the time. Can we at least agree then
that Google is “very very bad”? Where does that vocabulary fall on your
quantitative scale of evil? It should be sufficiently far from Hitler to have
a focused discussion, I hope.

> actually having met and had direct experience of Ms Adkins when I used to
> work at Google

So you’re not only biased in favor of Google, you’re also biased in favor of
this lady. Doesn’t seem like anyone is going to change your mind then. Good
luck with your less-evil-than-Hitler corporate overlords.

------
z92
Anyone else thinks Google is getting too much protests, walkouts, processions
compared to other big companies like MS in its peak days? It even missed a
defense contract of $10B because its employees didn't like it, which MS picked
up happily.

I wonder how it's like working there now a days.

~~~
googleisevil6
Google wouldn't have won that contract anyway. Contrary to the hn echo chamber
Google is a distant 3rd in cloud and that too because of brand recognition.
Their offerings are subpar

~~~
goatinaboat
4th. Everyone always forgets Aliyun. Google is an also-ran in cloud and will
probably scrap it at some point. Look out for it on
[https://killedbygoogle.com/](https://killedbygoogle.com/)

~~~
googleisevil6
How much revenue is Aliyun? And what about the second in Chinese? (Tencent?)

I do hope Aliyun starts offering in the US soon- would benefit competition.

~~~
wanghq
> In 2018, in the Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) segment of the cloud,
> Alibaba Cloud had 43% market share while Tencent had an 11.5% market share
> in 2018.

source: [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-vs-tencent-battle-
clo...](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-vs-tencent-battle-
cloud-013100994.html)

Aliyun (Alibaba Cloud) is doing business in US:
[https://alibabacloud.com/](https://alibabacloud.com/)

------
telaelit
This is just the start. As software becomes less specialized and more
engineers are less skilled (ie. coming from boot camps, self taught, etc),
you’ll see a lot more organizing efforts which means more union busting.
Workers deserve rights, including the right to organize.

~~~
concordDance
This was union busting? I didn't see anywhere a mention that these employees
were organizing for pay/working conditions/benefits/et

------
chooseaname
Controversy aside, I wish Google would come out and say, "These employees had
an 'at will' employment contract that we (Google) terminated.", and leave it
at that. I'm pretty curious what would come of that, in the media and
elsewhere.

~~~
g_sch
Even with "at will" employment, workers still have some protection from
termination. For example, anti-discrimination laws prohibit people from being
fired for a number of reasons, including their race, gender, sexuality, etc.
Another form of protection covers union activity. This is what's at issue
here.

------
OptionX
Its funny how Google liked so much to virtue signal its own pseudo-progressive
agenda and hired to suit and now has it biting in the ass. One day companies,
large and small will learn to stop being political as a PR move since its
never worth it in the long run.

------
lingnan
Still, I'd ask: why do you work for Google if you realize your value and goals
are more aligned with something otherwise? By such it might actually be a good
thing for one to be fired - it's not easy to make sure a company is not evil
if its business motivation / culture doesn't by itself advocate for a positive
non-evilness; it's better to find another company that has much simpler and
better reasons for "not be evil".

~~~
elicash
Some people don't subscribe to your belief that rather than improve your
workplace you should just leave. Google created a culture and set of values
and recruited based on that. So of course they shouldn't be surprised when the
people who were recruited on those values try to live up to them, even when
there's some push back. Nor should they be surprised when people bring
additional values they may personally hold to the companies where they work.

Yes, it might be "simpler" to just leave whenever you meet resistance on the
job -- but it's also less rewarding.

Finally, I'd add that there are no perfect workplaces. There are also shared
problems across entire industries.

~~~
elcaminocomplex
> Google created a culture and set of values and recruited based on that.

Company culture changes. Companies change. The fact that you were told one
thing or a company had a particular reputation when you joined doesn’t mean
that thing will always hold true.

Union busting and discrimination are illegal. Terminating someone’s at-will
employment because they are acting against the company’s interest isn’t.

From what I have read thus far, this situation sounds a lot more like the
latter than the former despite some of the people involved claiming it’s the
former.

Perhaps more facts will come out to support that position, but in the meantime
I am with the grandparent post. These people want to have their cake (i.e.
some of the largest total compensation packages in the industry) and eat it
too (force policy by protesting management choices expecting no consequences).

~~~
fzeroracer
How do you think company culture changes, if not due to people pushing the
company in a certain direction?

It seems odd that you don't dispute that companies change, yet seem to dislike
people trying to make a company change. Or do you believe it's only bad when
the workers want things to change but find it acceptable when upper management
fucks over the company culture?

~~~
elcaminocomplex
> It seems odd that you don't dispute that companies change, yet seem to
> dislike people trying to make a company change.

I don’t “dislike” people trying to make a company change. There are ways to
change companies from within, discreetly, by building consensus around those
things you would like to change. It isn’t easy, and there is no guarantee of
success. Often people trying to do exactly that end up losing their positions,
or end up not advancing, as a result of being “out of step” with the culture.

That doesn’t appear to be what’s happening here at all, though. You have
employees trying to publicly exert pressure on management. You cannot do that
and expect no consequences.

~~~
elicash
You can't retaliate against employees for speaking out publicly and expect no
consequences, either. This is going to hurt Google -- in the public eye and
with its workforce.

~~~
elcaminocomplex
> This is going to hurt Google

Possibly.

> in the public eye

I seriously doubt that. People are busy and have a lot of things to be
concerned about. The general perception of SV employees doesn't seem to be
very favorable from what I've seen, either within the Bay Area or beyond. The
average worker in middle America is not going to feel much compassion for
people making $200k a year who end up out of work because they publicly
challenge their employer.

> and with its workforce.

That's the calculus that they (Google management) needs to compute. How do
they deal with this situation without angering so many people that they end up
losing people they want to retain. The other side of that is of course the
absolute disinterest in keeping people who are not key contributors but are
likely to be "activist".

FWIW, I know ~50 people at Google, and although I am not in touch with most of
them on a very regular basis, of the ones I have been in touch with exactly 0
of them have any sympathy for the positions of the people who are making a
public scene.

What they are concerned with is the company being seen as a place where people
are running amok and the work isn't seen as the first priority by the
employees. That can be demoralizing to the rest of the staff who are
interested in having impact and can affect recruiting if potential recruits
think the company is a big hot mess.

------
nmeofthestate
As always with these stories you have to read between the lines to work out
what kind of culture-war zealots Google is having to contend with.

~~~
throw_m239339
Anybody who interact with the US IT scene, especially the silicon valley knows
what's up. From GitHub to NPM to Google it's political shitshow after
political shitshow. It's rogue employees brainwashed by a cunning, sophistic
and insidious ideology, transforming the workplace into a political
battleground with the goal of making it impossible for people without "the
right politics" to work there, under guise of "unionizing".

First it was tech conferences, then open source communities, now it's IT
businesses themselves that need to be in the service of that ideology. These
people are trying to turn IT into the same ideological shithole they turned
academia into...

~~~
gddvhy
Right. And I don't get what their plan is. In academia they may leverage
external support, e.g. someone outside makes generous donations to a
university on monthly basis and then hints that if that wrong white male isn't
fired or expelled, the donations might stop. Google can't be manipulated this
way and obviously, these activists will be lucky to get any support outside
their circles.

~~~
thu2111
Just keep up the moral and psychological pressure, that's all it takes. Look
at the constant leftward drift in academia. Not all of that is rich donors
mysteriously interested in political agendas that involve increasing their own
tax rate; most of it isn't.

The sort of people who would politically oppose them are conservatives, who by
their very nature tend to be ... conservative. That is, careful about
challenging the status quo and uninterested in activism. So frequently they
just stay quiet and don't talk much about their views: that's why the walkouts
and Googler activists on Twitter always seem to have the same agenda. It
_looks_ like Googlers all agree but they don't, not at all.

But this has an insidious impact in two forms:

1\. People whose own convictions aren't that strong can be easily swayed by
constant arguments of the form, "if you disagree with me you're evil and bad"
because everyone wants to be good and they're not being supplied with
intellectual ammo with which to fight back.

2\. People who are trying to calculate the cost of resistance look around and
don't see any allies, just a big angry mob, so feel they have to fold even if
they disagree.

The correct way to handle this sort of situation is for senior managers to
have strong and relatively small-c conservative convictions, such that
progressive placard-waving activism is swiftly dealt with via firings with
everyone being made clear on why those people got fired (political arguments
do not belong in the workplace).

Google doesn't have that and we can see the result.

------
Traster
I think it's worth including here a link to the protesters statement,
especially because one of the employees states that they were categorically
told they were not fired for leaking company information.

[https://medium.com/@GoogleWalkout/googles-next-moonshot-
unio...](https://medium.com/@GoogleWalkout/googles-next-moonshot-union-
busting-7bd2784dc690)

------
croissants
Are there any numbers for how Google employees at large actually feel about
the claims made by organizers (unionization, retaliation, harassment, bad work
environments, etc)?

It's hard to tell from the outside how many people actually there agree with,
disagree with, or are indifferent to, the efforts of the people who have been
fired.

~~~
elchin
There aren't. The petitions are always for a given cause, not the counter-
cause.

~~~
croissants
Sure. But people who think the status quo is not bad are unlikely to petition
for it. So there seems to be a selection problem here.

~~~
icotyl
Yeah, I think you are in agreement.

It’s worse than that though, because I’d be afraid to say anything contrary to
the activist’s opinions. I don’t want to be stalked or harassed. The company
is extremely tolerant of what employees say, the activists not so much.

------
claudeganon
Judging from the content of this thread, Google’s investments in union busting
consultants and their PR strategies are paying out in spades.

~~~
throw_m239339
> Judging from the content of this thread, Google’s investments in union
> busting consultants and their PR strategies are paying out in spades.

Or people aren't fooled by the positive coverage for fired workers and
political agitators and know what's really going on, and this has absolutely
nothing to do with union busting, just individuals who can't tell a workplace
from a culture war battlefield.

~~~
claudeganon
Sure, it’s the four fired workers that are conspiring with media to defame the
just Google, and not the obscenely wealthy tech company with its armies of
lawyers, consultants, and paid influence campaigns shaping the narrative.
Seems plausible.

------
gddvhy
First they get fired J.D. (he who must not be named, or you would get banned
by the mods if you dare to) by leaking internal docs and celebrate that like a
new year. Now they leak other people's calendars, get fired for that and cry
for help. I don't understand who they have as their allies.

------
balozi
Spinning this as a union busting move is disingenuous at best.

------
stjohnswarts
Do no evil; unless the opposite affects your bottom line.

~~~
iamtheworstdev
Worth noting that "do no evil" was officially removed from their mission
statement or whatever several years ago.

~~~
BickNowstrom
Incorrect on many fronts.

It is "don't be evil". It was in their code of conduct, not mission statement.
It is not removed from their code of conduct, in fact, it is the final
conclusion of the document:

> And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t
> right – speak up!

[https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-
conduct/](https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/)

The last edit is from 2018, not several years ago. And its updated cousin
motto "Do the right thing" became more prominent.

I suspect a journalist had a diff bot running on the code of conduct, created
a story around it about removal, because that would actually constitute a
story worth paying journalist wages for, and then the media ran with it,
without doing checks of their own. And now, here you are. And I am ignoring
the fact that an evil company announcing its future plans by removing
references to "evil" in their mission statements is downright James Bond-level
of ridiculous.

~~~
saalweachter
Also, "don't be evil" was originally a subversive message within Google,
scrawled on whiteboards by a handful of people who were concerned about the
direction of the company ~20 years ago.

Nothing new under the sun, etc etc.

------
isignal
[https://medium.com/@laurenceb/my-remarks-at-the-town-hall-
on...](https://medium.com/@laurenceb/my-remarks-at-the-town-hall-on-friday-
november-22-686839bb8c7c) for a personal account by one of the ousted
engineers. Not sure who is right but it presents the other side.

------
m3kw9
Not defending Google or anything but correlation doesn’t imply causation, as
Bloomberg tries to imply.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
_" Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows
suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'."_ \--Alt-
text from XKCD #552

------
neonate
[https://outline.com/4FxdG8](https://outline.com/4FxdG8)

------
jstewartmobile
The washington post version had a little more detail:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/11/25/google-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/11/25/google-
fires-software-engineer-center-san-francisco-worker-rally/)

Hard to muster much sympathy for anyone here--whether it be the machine, or
its acolytes. These bastards all loved that sweet, sweet institutional power
back when it was advancing their own agenda.

~~~
alecco
> “To the contrary, our thorough investigation found the individuals were
> involved in systematic searches for other employees’ materials and work,”
> according to the memo. “This includes searching for, accessing, and
> distributing business information outside the scope of their jobs.”

People who were idealists, now are turning Machiavellian.

~~~
jstewartmobile
After Snowden and the Assange book, I strongly doubt that any idealists are
applying to Google.

My gut tells me that when the machine went their way, they were obedient
little soldiers. When it didn't, they took matters into their own hands.

------
lawrenceyan
Paywalled. Would appreciate a link from a source that's readable.

~~~
justkez
I saw it this morning via BBC - appreciate it's not the same article.

'Thanksgiving Four' say Google is punishing them:
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50554931](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50554931)

~~~
masonic
That was already submitted also.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21636361](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21636361)

------
axilmar
No one should be held responsible for accessing something that is public.

If a person puts a personal event in a calendar and leaves the event as
public, it's their fault, not mine if I access it.

If I leave the door of my house open, and someone enters and steals my tv,
it's my fault.

So, unless these four people hacked the calendars, i.e. systematically
searched for and found weaknesses in the software, exploited them to get
access to private calendars, they are not guilty of anything.

It's obvious that Google is really scared of unionizing and their moves were
done to scare the shit out of the rest of the employees.

EDIT:

Yes, stealing another person's belongings is theft (morally and legally
wrong). The 'it's my fault' part goes to the act of getting access to
something: if I leave my door open and someone walks in, it's my fault. If
they steal my TV, it's their fault as well, but this does not erase my fault
of leaving the door open.

~~~
goalieca
> If I leave the door of my house open, and someone enters and steals my tv,
> it's my fault.

Seeing a public calendar is equivalent to seeing into your neighbours house
because they left the front door open. Not stealing your damn tv. Stealing the
tv is clearly theft. Only your overlords at the insurance company would ever
try to claim it’s your fault for someone stealing your stuff.

~~~
koheripbal
Setting up an alert on someone's calendar is equivalent to having someone
followed.

Then sharing a screenshot of that calendar outside the company is like posting
a video of you secretly filming them as you follow them around all day.

No reasonable person would not consider that incredibly creepy behavior.

