To me, it stinks like a convenient excuse to remove someone who was difficult to work with. Only last week she slandered her bosses on Twitter, which is a public forum.
https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1334382463498391557
Neither of us are on her team at Google. (I'm certainly not and I doubt you are.) We have no idea how easy it is to work with her.
Certainly if I were working with an AI ethics researcher I would expect them to ask difficult and uncomfortable questions. I think that's part of the job description.
That said, Garrett makes clear his ideological sympathies on Twitter. Undoubtably comments like this one don't endear him to his management chain:
When @computerfemme was fired, the VP of security at Google Cloud sent out an email to the security organisation containing one absolutely false statement and one misleading statement, both of which portrayed her acts in a more negative light.
Pretty serious stuff. He doesn't elaborate on what those claims were. The woman in question was fired from the security team for violating IT security policies: in her words, "All I did was make a popup to share the labor notice Google has to share with its workers", something that Google seems to have recurrent problems with staff doing. In other words she was rewriting the contents of web pages to meet her own political objectives.
If I were the VP of Security at Google I would have serious concerns at that point about insider threats from sympathisers on the security team. You can't be publicly slamming your own VP as dishonest for firing someone who subverted IT policies if you actually work in security.
This paragraph that you just wrote is one of those claims that are wrong and/or misleading
The Google security team is frankly deeply worrying at this point, and I say that as someone who used to work there on security related topics (but consumer account security, not internal). A small number of them have privileged access to mandatory Chrome extensions that are used for various security objectives, yet they seem to have no qualms about abusing them to advance their own political agendas. Moreover they don't recognise that this is a problem.
Controlling Chrome extensions that can inject JS into arbitrary websites equals root at google.com because everything they do is admin'd via web UIs.
What if you're a law firm who advises companies faced with union action? Is it safe for you to use GSuite or whatever it's called today? My guess is no, because the people who ultimately control Google's IT infrastructure are (a) willing to break the most basic of IT security rules and then boast about it publicly, and (b) many of them are politically extreme by the standards of most of the world.
Most astoundingly of all, I don't believe this is the first time Google has fired people for injecting JS into websites using internal security mechanisms to advance political agendas. In any normal company there'd be a mile of controls, processes and guard dogs surrounding any mechanism that could do this by now as it's been abused before. Apparently Google Security do not have their act together on this.
Does not mean rewriting the content of webpages, or having "root at google.com". It's better if you'd stop such speculation.
The reality is much more pedestrian than what you describe: the person that was retaliated against only wrote simple, inert, strings of plain text.
That text was not injected anywhere, and there was no arbitrary code involved.
In fact, everything was safe, and went through the usual security controls.
The only "danger" in having that, is that people can read it.
Ultimately, it's laughable how you think that informing other coworkers about the NLRB is some kind of politically extreme agenda. It's clear that you have an axe to grind
Please do explain how someone makes a message appear in your browser when you visit a particular website, without having access to a highly privileged browser extension? That can at minimum monitor the URLs you're visiting?
I honestly really hope you aren't on the Google security team, because you seem to be missing the issue here. Someone who had a high level of access was fired for violating basic trust, apparently with the collaboration of her coworkers. What other things could this person have done to advance her political goals by subverting her access for things it wasn't meant for? Outsiders can't know. All they can see is that the company doesn't have a grip on its own workforce. That is not confidence inspiring.
Yes, that's crazy... And that's exactly why people have been angry at the retaliation
> Please do explain...
To get more details, the appropriate thing to do is to draft a post that explains how these things are accomplished at Google and get it approved for publication by the legal review team. I've never done it and, while I don't exclude that I might do it, it probably won't happen soon.
And yet, somehow, he’s not enough of an “insider threat” to be dismissed.
Hiring has apparently failed to meet goals with zero consequences suggesting a lack of concern with minorities.
I don't think someone misinterpreting disregard for ethical ai research as disregard for minorities is slanderous, heck it might be charitable as the later is known.