“We got geeks”: Inside Google's ugly war against the homeless in LA | Hacker News Reader

“We got geeks”: Inside Google's ugly war against the homeless in LA

pando.com

38 pointsavolcano14 comments

This could all be true, and it's ugly if it is, but GOOG is so big that I wouldn't be surprised if their left hand doesn't know what their right hand is doing. In SF, they have donated millions to homeless relief efforts [1], and in San Jose they've donated hundreds of Nexus 5s with service to homeless folks [2].

1: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/11/google-homelessnes... 2: http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/mobile4all-scheme-nexus-...

If a spokesperson is asked to comment, but he simply refuses to say anything on the matter on the record its pretty much guaranteed that there is some knowledge about the matter higher up, since this is the easiest way to not have to admit or deny anything for people who handle PR.

A lot of accusations in this article, which presents a very one-sided take on the issue. The author knew what they wanted to say and found information and anecdotes to support it.

Not saying that's wrong, but I think Google should have been engaged more deeply for this piece and had their side of the story represented (I'd be interested to hear what they have to say about some of these allegations). Talking to security guards (likely contractors) and expecting them to say or do anything other than their job is unreasonable. And basically accosting Google reps with all of this "evidence" and expecting them to sit down to a conversation that already had a guaranteed outcome is equally so. As it is, I'm not convinced Google is doing anything illegal here.

If the court ruling he quoted in the article is right, they are.

"I think Google should have been engaged more deeply for this piece and had their side of the story represented"

Google was asked to comment, but refused. The article states:

"A Google spokesperson declined my offer to sit down and watch the footage, and refused to comment on the record regarding allegations that company security guards had been intimidating the homeless."

Because anything they could have said would have been twisted to fit the author's narrative.

The only thing worse than having "no comment" is having your actual comments used to hang you.

Not simply accusations, but also evidence. First hand accounts from victims.

As for the security guards, it's not part of their job to break the law. Harassing people on public sidewalks is illegal.

This is sickening. Google's private security has no right to tell anyone what to do on a public sidewalk.

They can tell people not to impede access to driveways and doors but they can't physically remove them if they're on the public sidewalk.

I generally agree but they should have the right to tell someone not to do something (with threat of calling the cops) but no right to enforce it. For example, it would not be unreasonable to expect the security to ask someone to not urinate or defecate on the sidewalk in front of the entrance.

Against some of the homeless. On one block near their new installation. Article tries (and fails) to make it seem like Google is systematically pitted against every homeless person in LA.

From the sound of it, Google is overstepping their bounds, literally. They have no control over the public sidewalks or anything else off their property, but they're exerting it anyway.

I get that they're staying mum about the whole thing, for now, but they're going to need to address it sooner or later.

Agreed. Note the strong-arm tactics are actually being done by local contractors. What is it about LA that makes everyone want to be a thug?

These are socially-acceptable hate crimes, however, in California, a hate crime is an upgradable felony.

Given that the police in LA are complicit in similar egregious, systematic abuse of homeless people on a daily basis, involving the feds is a wise option, given that Lynch is now in charge of DoJ.

So -- this is what's left of NSFWCorp?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com