Google Exec's Internal Email On Data Leak Policy Rattles Employees (buzzfeednews.com) 124
With employees organizing sit-ins over retaliation and continuing to agitate for change, Google is locking down internal communications. From a report: Google's top legal executive Kent Walker sent an all-staff email on Thursday informing employees that accessing documents classified as "need to know" without permission could result in termination, sources inside the company tell BuzzFeed News. After BuzzFeed News contacted Google about the email, Walker sent an update on Tuesday in the company's daily newsletter, clarifying that employees were typically only terminated when intentional violations resulted in data leaks, risks to user privacy, or harm to co-workers.
The Thursday email, titled "An important reminder on data classifications," referenced changes to Google's data security policy that were updated in October. Although the policy has been in place since 2007, and updates are visible internally, employees weren't notified by email at the time. The timing of the email announcement rattled employees who've been involved with organizing within the company's ranks and who told BuzzFeed News they saw it as a blow to internal accountability mechanisms. These employees said the "need to know" language in the data security policy leaves which particular documents are considered "need to know" up to Google's interpretation; "need to know" documents aren't necessarily labeled as such, and the punishment for accessing such documents without permission can vary, but include termination.
The Thursday email, titled "An important reminder on data classifications," referenced changes to Google's data security policy that were updated in October. Although the policy has been in place since 2007, and updates are visible internally, employees weren't notified by email at the time. The timing of the email announcement rattled employees who've been involved with organizing within the company's ranks and who told BuzzFeed News they saw it as a blow to internal accountability mechanisms. These employees said the "need to know" language in the data security policy leaves which particular documents are considered "need to know" up to Google's interpretation; "need to know" documents aren't necessarily labeled as such, and the punishment for accessing such documents without permission can vary, but include termination.
normal (Score:5, Insightful)
bypassing access restrictions to information is termination offence in most corporations. also can get you imprisoned if you do that on systems belonging to military, police, etc.
Why is this news and why wouldn't google have such a rule since inception?
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, this is just more "faux news".
The Email Subject even says "reminder" in it. This is standard language pretty much anywhere, but OMG its GOOGLE!!!!
Re:normal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: whiny brats at Google (Score:1)
Funny thing is, I bet those Google employees talk about voting with their wallets, boycotting businesses they disagree with, etc. but the moment their employer does the same thing, the sky has fallen.
Re: (Score:1)
This is why employees are meant to unionize. They form unions, fully recognizing points 1. to 4. or considerations to that effect, and seek compensations or guarantees to account for the situation on an approach based on reality. Failing that the rule of law is a baseline.
Having contractors instead of employees may also be a perfectly reasonable option, with the corollary that disguised employees e.g. Uber type jobs may be a violation of the laws and thus a lawsuit may re-qualify abused "contractors" as emp
Re: (Score:2)
That you bothered to write all this self-backpatting is precisely why you'll likely never be anyone's employer.
Re: (Score:2)
"need to know" documents aren't necessarily labeled as such
Big problem here. Any sane court will just throw that case out and find for the terminated employee.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
If they don't like what their company is doing, then leave.
They're not union so it's not like they have any say in the direction of the company. They're not indentured servants and can leave at any time.
Re:normal (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is this news and why wouldn't google have such a rule since inception?
A policy against leaking need-to-know documents is fine, but what makes this interesting is the following from the summary:
"need to know" documents aren't necessarily labeled as such
In most jurisdictions, there's something akin to a "vagueness doctrine" that prevents people from being harmed by vaguely worded laws. After all, if we write rules that more or less say that what's against the rules is whatever an authority figure says is against the rules, why even bother with rules at all? They're utterly meaningless at that point.
In the case of Google, if they're saying that they can fire you for talking about need-to-know documents, but then they provide you with no indication of which documents meet that classification, what the rule actually amounts to is, "You can't talk about the details or existence of any document, not even to acknowledge that a product or service we've already publicly launched even exists, since we can claim that anything at all you've seen here that is written in a document somewhere is need-to-know and can then use it as a pretense to fire you." Of course, they might have a hard time arguing the validity of that rule in court, but how many people are actually willing to get into a protracted wrongful termination case against a megacorporation like Google in the first place?
Re: (Score:1)
Well, somebody at Google shurely must have read Kafka...
In the case of Google, if they're saying that they can fire you for talking about need-to-know documents, but then they provide you with no indication of which documents meet that classification, what the rule actually amounts to is, "You can't talk about the details or existence of any document, not even to acknowledge that a product or service we've already publicly launched even exists, since we can claim that anything at all you've seen here that is written in a document somewhere is need-to-know and can then use it as a pretense to fire you."
It's characteristic of this judicial system that a man is condemned not only when he's innocent but also in ignorance.
- Franz Kafka, The Trial
how many people are actually willing to get into a protracted wrongful termination case against a megacorporation like Google in the first place?
One must lie low, no matter how much it went against the grain, and try to understand that this great organization remained, so to speak, in a state of delicate balance, and that if someone took it upon himself to alter the dispositions of things around him, he ran the risk of losing his footing and f
Re: (Score:2)
They are at-will employees. You can fire them for any reason you want, pretty much. Perhaps some have employment contracts at the senior level, but the majority of the peons can be fired for wearing a Yankees cap or giving side-eye.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: normal (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't matter, leaking proprietary information can get you fired at most places, and the courts will not side with you.
Re: (Score:2)
If the information is public, it isn't proprietary, but that doesn't mean they can't label it as need-to-know and fire you for mentioning it anyway, which is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Because, apparently, some deluded Google employees think Google is their daddy, not their employer.
Re: (Score:2)
bypassing access restrictions to information is termination offence in most corporations. also can get you imprisoned if you do that on systems belonging to military, police, etc.
Why is this news and why wouldn't google have such a rule since inception?
Yeah - having worked in both the defense and medical fields, getting fired would be the least of my worries for improper access or leaks. Getting fired rather than jail time is a minor consequence in comparison. If you have knowledge of illegal activity, then that's different of course.
And if you have a strong moral objection to what you are seeing or have access to despite it being legal and simply feel compelled to disclose it, then my hat is off to you. But getting fired is the natural consequence of
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. Which company lets you distribute internal documents or communications? It makes no sense why this is even an issue, or why people are complaining. This is standard stuff.
How are the documents labeled? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then the policy applies. Unless it's going to cost them extra they're not going to change it and it's cheaper to just apply it to everything than having a legal team vet every document.
Re: (Score:1)
Stamping everything with confidential weakens (yes legally) that term. Because it means that in most cases the company is lying about a document being confidential.
This is the same argument against those email signatures with that legal bullshit below it. For example claiming copyright on an email (on most cases business communication can not be copyrighted) is very often a lie, then when you actually send an email with copyrightable content, you argument becomes very weak.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Internal company policy can't be enforced when everybody into the company (from the exec down) demonstrably acts against it. E.g. you can't be fired for using company email for personal purposes if half the traffic.
Well, in the UK anyway. Consult an employment lawyer for details.
Re: (Score:2)
My current employer sends out a regular newsletter/magazine that is usually stamped "Company Confidential". While that would be nothing special, they send it to my home address (WTF?!). If I go by the letter of the employee manual I would need to bring it to work before ever having it leave my side, and properly dispose of it in the secure shred bin.
My boss currently receives it at his OLD address where his mother-in-law now resides, so she periodically accidentally opens it up and is confused by it all.
Re: (Score:2)
So the phone book is "confidential".
What phone book? The company directory? That is confidential at every company I've worked for. A directory is a bonanza to someone trying to social engineer their way into other information, or even into systems. It's also really helpful for competitors to be able to map out the company hierarchy, to figure out key people to hire away, or to take note of who visits the competitor's customers.
Moreover, since it includes phone numbers, it could be argued that it's "confidential personal", which is sensi
Re: (Score:2)
"Start." Kek.
Why does google appear... (Score:2)
Do your job (Score:2)
For crying out loud (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we please STOP using BUZZFEED as a news source??
Re: (Score:1)
Also stop using The Verge. Please.
Buzzfeed != BuzzfeedNews (Score:2)
Buzzfeed isn't the same as BuzzfeedNews. They share a name because they shared an owner. I grant it's stupidly confusing, but BFN has a pretty good reputation.
Bigger issue (Score:2)
The bigger issue is why wasn't this rule in place decades ago? For a company that as much information on members of the public as Google does, it really bothers me that this wasn't the case years ago.
Getting promoted at google 101: (Score:2)
1. reach a page/email that has a "need to know" link.
2. Right click that link and copy the address.
3. log into TOR, get a free email account, and phish your boss with the link
4. wait for your boss to be fired
5. if someone else is promoted instead of you, go back to step 3.
Re: (Score:2)
1. reach a page/email that has a "need to know" link.
2. Right click that link and copy the address.
3. log into TOR, get a free email account, and phish your boss with the link
4. wait for your boss to be fired
5. if someone else is promoted instead of you, go back to step 3.
That wouldn't be a promotion because becoming a manager at Google is not a promotion. It's an additional load of responsibilities with no additional pay or title. (I know, because I am a manager at Google.)
Also, if you're the type of person who would pull the above trick, you would almost certainly not be a very successful Google manager, which you succeed at by helping your employees to grow their own skills and careers, and to get promoted. As a result, in addition to having more work and no extra pa
Google still has idealists, but they are dwindling (Score:2)
Imagine the passion you might have found, if you were a part of it, from an early to mid portion of Google's phases.
For reasons described and pontificated upon in open and well read venues, the dream was sold.
And the thing is, much creative and trendsetting work is done by people with real passion for the work, ones less motivated by a paycheck than what amounts to idealism.
They see the things
What's the value of a motto? (Score:1)
So much for "Do no harm".
Yeah? (Score:2)
The timing of the email announcement rattled employees who've been involved with organizing within the company's ranks and who told BuzzFeed News they saw it as a blow to internal accountability mechanisms.
As it was meant to be, dumbasses. That was very much a shot across the bow. Google employees seem to think their employer is some sort of participatory funfest. It's not. It's an American for-profit corporation, one of the most autocratic human organizations on the planet outside of North Korea and the Vatican. Shit, it's debatable which is more autocratic, the corporation or North Korea. In North Korea, the powers that be can kill you and your family. In the American corporation, they control your h
Re: (Score:2)
He's also saying "I'm happy to remain a serf".
Re: (Score:1)
No, what he's saying is young people today are stupid. They've been indoctrinated by leftists that knew they were wrong in the 1960s and 70s, moved into teaching and have been teaching BS ever since. Guys like Bill Ayers. A guy that should be in jail right now.
So these stupid young people want to do things. Often change things just to change things when they were working perfectly fine. Good example of that was the stupidity in California after 2008 when they did exactly that. Changed laws just to change th
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
This is just gold. And true.
I once worked for a well-known company outside of Washington, D.C. a number of years ago. I was assigned to work for this woman who was a "vociferous lebian". Everything was about her and the fact that she was a homosexual. She even had a bumper sticker on her car that read "Red State Lesbian". Everything agitated this woman. Everything. She once told us all in a meeting, and as a non-sequitor, that everyone must not only agree with, but affirm, the homosexual lifestyle and choic
Re: Don't Be Evil was retired a while ago (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not. Bigotry is the rejection of ideas that are not your own without fair consideration because they are not your own. It's holding your beliefs above others because they are yours. The people who frequently scream about "bigotry" are often screaming about "hate" or "disagreement". They themselves are typically the actual bigots. The word is rooted in a religious definition.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't that exactly what you're doing?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I'm not going to change anyone's mind; I just though that maybe someone should point out that when you feel the need to qualify a 300+ word anti-gay screed with "I'm not a bigot, I'm really not" you actually might be.
If all you took away from the original post was "anti-gay screed" that really says more about you than the poster. His post was a reasoned argument. Yours was essentially that you're either with us or against us and that you have no clue what a bigot is.
Re: Don't Be Evil was retired a while ago (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
And if you were more to the left, or somehow alternative, you might notice that many companies have similar people who lean conservative. They are just as much of a problem for people who generally lean left but really are just there to do their job.
Neither are acceptable.
Re: (Score:1)
Right wingers like those supporting bombing of abortion clinics, and killing doctors?
Or the kind of right wingers that support anything that embraces angry old men, and screws everyone else over?
Or the kind of right winger that supports destroying the environment in return for extreme profits?
Or the kind that supports bombing buildings, like Timothy McVeigh?
Re: Don't Be Evil was retired a while ago (Score:3, Insightful)
"Extremists represent all right wingers"
Re: (Score:2)
You are missing the point. You should have responded to OP. He's the one making blanket statements, and I'm doing the exact same thing you are doing, pointing out that blanket statements are wrong.
You really do need to pick up context.
"Don't intentionally harm co-workers" is evil? (Score:3)
The policy is that if someone intentionally accesses sensitive data you're not supposed to getting into, and then use that information to harm their co-workers or the company, they might not want to keep them around.
When, exactly, did "we don't people harming our employees" become evil?
I suppose you were wise to post AC, since publicly posting that you think intentionally causing harm to the company is a good thing would probably make you company (any company) take a hard look at whether they should keep yo