If I was more eloquent I'd draw some analogy between Scott Beaumont's behavior and China...
Of course if it is 'disregard safety procedures both can kill you just the same'.
That is if any of his engineers had qualms about what they were doing they’d be checked at the door because again it’s all legal according to the law and they had to hit a deadline.
Especially because there’s nothing here that’s technically exceptional other than it runs counter to what we Americans considered ethical.
Glad the PR fallout tipped whatever cost-benefit analysis they did by severely damaging the Google brand. Crazy they didn’t consider it up front.
The fallout feels similar to them the release of the Boston Dynamics video. They don’t want to be associated with “job automating” robots.
They have a pattern there of being forced to bend since at least the "memo-gate" and although they don't like it the math is clear enough to them. If employees are making money net it is rational to replace them if the alternative could make more money. Willful employees are an annoyance with a relative liability to corporate but their productivity gives them cold rational sway that says "just add it to the employee expenses section if you know what is good for you".
It isn't ideal for everyone - indeed it works because they are outliers. If everyone can do flawless brain surgery it no longer demands a premium no matter how difficult it is. It is in some ways more powerful than traditional labor - they organize because they need the company. Companies can decide to leave and out source to cheaper locales in response. Powerful labor has few equivalent alternatives. I say powerful and not scarce because mere obscurity can be subsituited for - powerful less so. If they could have already they would have. The companies need the high end and they know it. Just look at Hollywood movie budgets to the stars - they can ask for such outrageous sums because the alternative is worse in the current climate.
Of course there is a caveat - if they ever become obsolete they will be dropped quickly due to their leveraging. Things can be very fickle especially with advances that can metaphorically turn weaving from an apprentice-journeyman-master trade to a factory job worked by illiterate women and children.
You will find this type of person throughout all companies, including tech. It’s really unfortunate but if these people get results, their horrible behavior is not only tolerated but rewarded.
> Under normal company protocol, analysis of people’s search queries is subject to tight constraints and should be reviewed by the company’s privacy staff, whose job is to safeguard user rights. But the privacy team only found out about the 265.com data access after The Intercept revealed it, and were “really pissed,” according to one Google source.
With enough selective "facts", I can make almost anything look bad.
Do you have specific issues with their reporting? Or do you just want to baselessly cast aspersions on what they are saying?
You could be just as likely to draw the analogy with the USA.
So, if he says "we will deliberately expose private conversations directly to government agents", that's a product decision.
You are inventing your conclusion from nothing.