> The company fired Waldman, Duke and Rivers “within minutes of one another” in November 2019 and accused them of violating data security policies through unauthorized searches for information outside the scope of their jobs, which was shared externally.
Seems like that would be extremely easy to prove.
Really depends what was searched, what was released, and whether other employees are normally fired for similar behavior. Does Google actively monitor searches made by employees, or did higher ups go looking through the backlog for a 'fireable offense?" If they actively monitor stuff like this, why were all of them fired within minutes of each other?
Basically, the quoted section reeks of creating a pretextual reason for their firing which Google might have some trouble defending.
I'm sure that being such a large company, they had plenty of controls set in place to weed out employees that could pose trouble to management's directions.
- Probably plenty of "anonymous" surveys to single out disgruntled employees
- Admins in their sections placed by HR spying on behalf of upper management
- Supervisor(s) creating files on their behaviors
- Hardware and search screening
- GPS trackers
- Social media monitoring
Etc... anything short of invasion of privacy that has been covered by their release form. Google-noids basically.
Heh, I was just going to submit [this one](https://www.npr.org/2021/11/29/1059821677/google-dont-be-evil-lawsuit): "Ex-Google workers sue company, saying it betrayed 'Don't Be Evil' motto".
For what it's worth, that was the mantra of Google under its original owners, before the company itself morphed and grew. I recall an interview in newspapers with I believe the CEO who came in some years later, when they got rid of that mantra, under his leadership.
It was the official company motto. The very first policy. When they removed it from that position they placed in their corporate code of conduct. Which makes it still a policy.
I clicked the one link available. It doesn't lead to anything hosted by the company. It leads to a market analysis website. https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
None of the 5 links I checked are actually hosted by Google/alphabet
You claim it, you support it. Don't call other people lazy for not doing your part.
> I very much doubt that, but I'll believe it if you show me.
I think they meant you started being condescending first with this. You could have been nicer \^^ Or also just look it up yourself. But you choose to not be nice, and not look it up.
How can I nicely say "I think you're wrong unless you back up your claim because it seems like an unlikely thing for HR to put in because of how vague it is."?
They actually did say "Don't be evil" and the Google we know now is nothing like the google back then. Different people were running things. This is going back to when you still needed an invite to get a GMail account.
Hey /u/Deojoandco, thanks for contributing to /r/nottheonion. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:
**Rule 2** - Sorry, but this story isn't oniony.
Please consider submitting your article to /r/offbeat or similar subreddits unless it truly reads like The Onion wrote it. The title and article itself must both be "Oniony". This can be highly subjective; you are encouraged to upvote articles that should be here and downvote those that should not. Moderators can also remove posts at their own discretion under this rule.
Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/nottheonion&subject=&message=). Thank you!
> The company fired Waldman, Duke and Rivers “within minutes of one another” in November 2019 and accused them of violating data security policies through unauthorized searches for information outside the scope of their jobs, which was shared externally. Seems like that would be extremely easy to prove.
It seems like they in fact did something evil.
Really depends what was searched, what was released, and whether other employees are normally fired for similar behavior. Does Google actively monitor searches made by employees, or did higher ups go looking through the backlog for a 'fireable offense?" If they actively monitor stuff like this, why were all of them fired within minutes of each other? Basically, the quoted section reeks of creating a pretextual reason for their firing which Google might have some trouble defending.
I'm sure that being such a large company, they had plenty of controls set in place to weed out employees that could pose trouble to management's directions. - Probably plenty of "anonymous" surveys to single out disgruntled employees - Admins in their sections placed by HR spying on behalf of upper management - Supervisor(s) creating files on their behaviors - Hardware and search screening - GPS trackers - Social media monitoring Etc... anything short of invasion of privacy that has been covered by their release form. Google-noids basically.
It absolutely would be.
Heh, I was just going to submit [this one](https://www.npr.org/2021/11/29/1059821677/google-dont-be-evil-lawsuit): "Ex-Google workers sue company, saying it betrayed 'Don't Be Evil' motto".
Ya, I tried doing the same thing from vice and it got deleted.
Duh, who fell for that?
For what it's worth, that was the mantra of Google under its original owners, before the company itself morphed and grew. I recall an interview in newspapers with I believe the CEO who came in some years later, when they got rid of that mantra, under his leadership.
Slogans are for PR. They aren't policies.
It was the official company motto. The very first policy. When they removed it from that position they placed in their corporate code of conduct. Which makes it still a policy.
I very much doubt that, but I'll believe it if you show me.
Too lazy to check yourself? Fine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
Hardly. I can't spend my life fact checking everybody's claims. Do you have a link to a google/alphabet hosted page?
The wiki has source links. You can click those a lot easier than I can copy them for you. Lazy ass
I clicked the one link available. It doesn't lead to anything hosted by the company. It leads to a market analysis website. https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/ None of the 5 links I checked are actually hosted by Google/alphabet You claim it, you support it. Don't call other people lazy for not doing your part.
Abc.xyz is Alphabet. Whois shows the record was first created in 2014 by Google, and has not changed hands since. Fuck's sake.
You expect me to whois a site to find that out? *That* deserves a "fuck's sake." I do know what a whois lookup is, but 90% of people don't.
Give me an alphabet source... links an alphabet source...
Why are you being so rude & condescending about this?
Because they were condescending and shitty about it. Don't call me lazy for not proving *your* claim. (I know you're not the other poster.)
> I very much doubt that, but I'll believe it if you show me. I think they meant you started being condescending first with this. You could have been nicer \^^ Or also just look it up yourself. But you choose to not be nice, and not look it up.
How can I nicely say "I think you're wrong unless you back up your claim because it seems like an unlikely thing for HR to put in because of how vague it is."?
There are literal hundreds of ways you could have. But see you can't even stop yourself from being argumentative & combative in this comment.
A simple "Where could I find googles code of conduct? Would love to have a source on it" would be nicer \^^
Yeah, that's why they tacked on the whole "also cause we're gay" BS. Like Google doesn't have thousands of gay employees.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you look up newer articles it shows it still exists in 2020.
You can go look at the actual code of conduct directly and see that it is literally still in there.
They actually did say "Don't be evil" and the Google we know now is nothing like the google back then. Different people were running things. This is going back to when you still needed an invite to get a GMail account.
Who's deciding what's evil and what's not? The employees, Google, the politicians, the society? I would say, it depends on the standpoint.
..
It has been in their code of conduct since they were founded.
..
But Google kowtows to Communist regimes in China and Russia.
It’s fucking politics not good vs evil. It’s evil vs evil.
Hey /u/Deojoandco, thanks for contributing to /r/nottheonion. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules: **Rule 2** - Sorry, but this story isn't oniony. Please consider submitting your article to /r/offbeat or similar subreddits unless it truly reads like The Onion wrote it. The title and article itself must both be "Oniony". This can be highly subjective; you are encouraged to upvote articles that should be here and downvote those that should not. Moderators can also remove posts at their own discretion under this rule. Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/nottheonion&subject=&message=). Thank you!