Hacker News Reader

Comment by stuckagain | Hacker News Reader

This complaint seems pretty silly. Just taking a single point, paragraph 45:

“Don’t send an e-mail that says ‘I think we broke the law’ or ‘I think we violated this contract.’”

That seems like pretty reasonable training. You shouldn't put that on the record because you're not an attorney. You are just some Dork, or Senior Dork, or Staff Dork, or whatever grade of Dork you happen to be who is still not an attorney.

Maybe the attorneys also have to take training that advises them not to say "I think this dereference might be undefined behavior" in emails. Who knows.

View on HN

Why not though? What's wrong with it? In the case where the employee is wrong then nothing happens besides, maybe, some negative news stories if it's leaked. That's reasonably controllable. On the other hand though, if the employee is actually correct, then the employer is protected from any claim they were informed about the illegal activity if employees don't use language that says they think wrongdoing is going on. Should employees work under threat of breaking rules designed to protect their employer if the employer is breaking the law? I don't think so.

Not just the PR hit, it also looks terrible in court.

Engineers love to talk about legal issues as though they were lawyers. It turns out that with very few exceptions engineers are not lawyers. Now, saying things that aren't true in a discoverable medium is basically never a good idea; but drawing legal conclusions in one without having any real idea if you're right is the kind of bad idea that can cost your company a bunch of money. I'm sure the policy is aimed at cutting that kind of problem, rather than stopping legitimate whistleblowing etc (which is protected anyway).

Yes but everyday people are expected to know the law and obey it. You don't need to be a lawyer to know that assaulting somebody or driving dangerously is against the law.

If you know your company is "assaulting somebody" or something obviously illegal, I think you have a duty to let superiors know so that something can be done to fix it.

People are both employees and citizens and sometimes must choose between the company and thier own society at large.

Yes, you do have duty, but not in email. Full disclosure, I'm a Googler. And, thankfully every verbal complaint or concern I've made has been addressed and resolved.

> but not in an email

Sure, that benefits Google. But some people care more about ethics and don't want Google to get away with potentially illegal actions.

It benefits you as well, unless testifying in court about some careless thing you said in email is your idea of fun.

you can still get subpoenaed and get ripped to shreds by a $5k an hour lawyer

Also, it's worth noting that no Google employee could say any view except this one in this thread without getting fired. (Likely even if the alleged terms weren't so egregious.) While you may be one of 65,000 who feels listened to, we can't know how many have been silenced.

It's not about you. When there is a claim of, say, systematic rape at a place, it is both understandable and really offputting for random people to say "I work there and didn't get raped." If anything, it comes across as kind of tone-deaf and toyish.

Well making complainants (grievances) verbally is not best HR practice they want everything documented nornmally

There are not two possibilities here, but four:

1/ Your company could act legally and you think it is acting legally.

2/ Your company could act illegally and you think it is acting legally.

3/ Your company could act legally and you think it is acting illegally.

4/ Your company could act illegally and you think it is acting illegally.

Case 1 is fine and case 2 will spur no action from you, so we can discount those. Case four is protected under whistleblower laws, and you should get your own lawyer and only talk to them in no discoverable media anyway. Case three is where corporate policy applies and where you should probably not speculate in email because, well, you're wrong.

If you're on the fence between three and four, talk to a lawyer anyways and get off the fence. Find a firm legal footing and then pursue the issue.

As an engineer coming from a family of lawyers... engineers think they understand the law, but really they suck at it and when that shit does end up in court it looks really bad because it comes out in discovery.

that shit does end up in court it looks really bad because it comes out in discovery.

That's exactly my point. I'm asking whether or not an employer should write a contract that specifically states the employee should modify their behaviour to ensure things aren't discovered later - namely that the employer knew (or at least "was informed") that illegal things were going on. I don't think they should. If my employer wanted me to sign something that said "If you see things happening that you believe might be illegal, please keep quiet about it because you don't understand the law" I think I ought to say no.

> namely that the employer knew (or at least "was informed") that illegal things were going on

The problem is engineers lack a good grasp of how the law works compared to lawyers - sometimes the action is not illegal, but it will still looks bad after discovery. Leading to unnecessary settlements not as a matter of law, but of optics. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

> "If you see things happening that you believe might be illegal, please keep quiet about it because you don't understand the law"

That's not what they are saying - they are saying don't use email to do it. I mean would you appreciate it if your startup's first employee sends an email stating "We are infringing on these 18 Microsoft patents" on the record?

sometimes the action is not illegal, but it will still looks bad after discovery

So, are we discussing ethics or legality? If Google's official policy is one of "we like to skirt the law well into looking-bad territory, and that is fine" then they really need to abandon their "do no evil" motto.

It was abandoned long ago

How is it skirting the law? It seems more like "We (like everyone else) like to win court cases we may be in, and engineers providing unneeded or unfounded legal opinions over email makes it harder to win cases"

Your inability to understand this goes to OPs point about engineers not understanding law. I'm guessing you're an engineer(or at least - not a lawyer)

> So, are we discussing ethics or legality?

No.

I'll make an analogy: Engineers hate it when sales make commitments on behalf of engineering. Can you not imagine how lawyers might dislike engineers making legal commitments?

When dealing with people outside of the org, lawyers want from engineers what engineers want from sales - be vague and don't create obligations you do not fully understand. It is still perfectly fine for a sales guy to privately point out a bug - just don't shout it to the customer.

Can you not imagine how lawyers might dislike engineers making legal commitments

I think it takes a lawyer to believe "pointing out when the company you work for is breaking the law" is the same as "making a legal commitment", as if laws only apply if you acknowledge them. I'm realise that is essentially how the world lawyers live in works, but I think it sucks and I wouldn't want to sign a contract that forces me to be a part of it.

You are being obtuse. The point is that an engineer can't authoritatively conclude that the company is breaking the law, so they shouldn't write it down.

Most people in most areas don't know the law, so you can't point it out, you can only speculate.

Assuming you know the law when you never studied it is the problem. The idea is that you should be asking if something you think is questionable is legal or not. That's why companies have lawyers. It's about bringing it to the attention of the right people who can make the call and keep the company out of trouble, without saying something incorrect that you might have to testify about later.

And without it, the company can imply say "We deny that either Mr Doe or any other member of staff told us this was happening"

It's about the language used. You can absolutely cover yourself without directly implicating the company. Don't say "we're violating this and this patent", because even if you're technically not, it would look bad if that email were to come up in a patent lawsuit.

> engineers think they understand the law, but really they suck at it

Especially true when it comes to licenses.

> Why not though? What's wrong with it?

One of the reasons is jury trials: such emails are discoverable and Google has first-hand experience with this in Oracle v. Google. Oracle brought an email sent by a non-lawyer technical Googler[1] and used it as evidence that Google knowingly infringed on Oracle's copyright. Googles lawyers had to go to great pains to deflect that line of attack (including asking the guy if he was a lawyer on the stand as Oracle's hostile witness).

Even if the email is wrong, it still looks bad to someone who does not understand the nuance of law, like members of the jury.

1. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/apache-e-mails-sh...

Well, then maybe not the speech between employees is the problem but jury trials or the discovery therein.

If lawyers are just fishing to soundbites and that leads to companies hassling their employees that's a flawed system.

This is corporate policy to protect the corporation. It is power gone too far. People need to know that it's ok to speak up when something wrong occurs.

For example, If I were to see Jimmy stealing some GoogleBot servers then absolutely the company would want me to inform them about Jimmy's actions. Communication is largely done by email. So, there is no problem reporting illegal activity by email.

But, that's not what the corporation is fearful of, they are afraid of Jimmy's department which is infringing Big Corp.'s Patents. If I see this and email the company then the company has to respond with an inquiry to their lawyer and investigate, otherwise this could come out later in a court trial and cause financial harm. So the company doesn't want people to do what they believe is right. Oh sure, we can still report it verbally. But, that's absurd to have a policy that says email is fine for all communications except for anything that could potentially be detrimental to the company. What if I was harassed at work, I'm not supposed to say anything about that in email, it all has to be done face to face?

I hope this case wins, I hope that folks here understand that it's important to do what's right and not to do what their corporation tells them is right.

As I said above, most corporations advise employees to raise legal concerns to lawyers. This makes those concerns privileged and ensures the concerns go to people who can, you know, professionally evaluate them.

So I don't think you can reasonably say this is a case of companies not wanting illegality to be disclosed. It's wanting disclosure to take the proper form.

(Indeed, they have a vested interest in proper handling of illegality to ensure that higher-ups are aware of and can mitigate legal risks.)

There's nothing wrong with such emails if sent to company attorneys. Or as a whistleblower to right authorities. Not to public though.

No, the point of such policies is so that if the company is ever gets sued and is subpoenaed for e-mails, the opposing counsel don't get to get in front of a jury and point to Joe Schmoe at the company writing 'Yep, I think we broke the law!'

This is standard employee training presumably not just at Google, but at basically every company I've ever worked for.

The rule goes basically: if you don't think what you write would look good on the front page of the NYT, then don't put it in an e-mail.

Well if you send it to legal and mark it client attorney privileged they have an argument from suppressing it in discovery.

Which can be argued against since you're not actually the attorney's client at the time of writing the e-mail, only the corporation is [1]. 'Some courts employ the Control Group Test whereby protection is available only to the corporation's controlling executives and managers.'

Doesn't seem like a risk a competent retained counsel would want to take, in any case.

[1] http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/acpfihc.cfm

According to the link, the control group test is diminishing in use, and if the employee has significant influence over the subject of the question (as a whistleblower or member of the team in question would), then they are in the control group.

The only way to really get screwed over by these tests would be to instate a "no emailing the lawyers about corporate wrongdoing" policy (causing your employees to fail all three tests in the link).

Of course, the lawsuit alleges that Google did exactly that. I wonder if the courts will (imho correctly) strip a large percentage of their internal legal communications of attorney/client privilege.

Time to grab the popcorn.

So I can't send an email that explains why I think X algorithm is slow and should be changed? Seems silly.

NYT: To the dismay of their employees, Google insist on using slowALGO, possibly costing them X sum.

This sounds like somone brings up the email with "I think you are a moron" as an evidence in the psychiatric evaluation that the person is indeed a moron. If person thinks something they should be able to express that and have a chance to be corrected if they are wrong.

You must not have a great time on Twitter.

> This complaint seems pretty silly. Just taking a single point [...]

You cherrypicked one point out of the complaint, hence you cannot say anything about the validity of the entire complaint. Do the other points, summarized by randomdrake [1], also seem silly to you? And when considered as a whole (not as individual points), does it still seem silly?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13226767

Lol, you absolutely can not do that. That is sooo crazy. You actually have to encourage your employees to speak up when they see something is illegal. Of course everyone knows don't ever put that in email

Well, we are encouraged to speak up. We're also encouraged to use attorney-client privilege correctly (and trained to do so in the "You said WHAT?" training that the suit alludes to) -- email directly to the legal team, subject line clearly stating the desire to invoke attorney-client privilege, avoid CC'ing anyone else, etc.

Yes exactly. The "You said what?" training is mostly concerned with how to escalate to legal department when you see something wrong.

Open invitation to Google employees: I can't imagine that the "You said WHAT?" training is somehow a trade secret. Post it. (On YouTube... lol)

The inherent problem with Googlers defending Google, beyond the obvious conflict of interest of expressing views about the company that writes your paycheck, is that Googlers expect us to trust them that the internal info they can't share isn't suspect.

If you can't share what's actually going on internally, you shouldn't be defending it. Let the case happen, with any luck these internal presentations, policies, and memos will end up in the public record, and we'll all be able to see what's really going on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com