The article doesn't mention all of the alleged offenses regarding the lawsuit. There's definitely more than just a "spying program" here:<p>* Restrict the Googlers’ right to speak, right to work, and right to whistle-blow.<p>* Prohibit Googlers from speaking plainly – even internally – about illegal conduct or dangerous product defects, because such statements might one day be subject to discovery in litigation or sought by the government.<p>* Prohibit Googlers from telling a potential employer how much money they make, or what work they performed, when searching for a different job.<p>* Prohibit Googlers from using or disclosing all of the skills knowledge, acquaintances, and overall experience at Google when working for a new employer.<p>* Prohibit Googlers from speaking to the government, attorneys, or the press about wrongdoing at Google.<p>* The policies even prohibit Googlers from speaking to their spouse or friends about whether they think their boss could do a better job.<p>There were alleged training practices, policies, and documents outlining these offenses and they are written up pretty plainly in the suit itself[1]. Makes for better, more detailed reading, than this Engadget piece.<p>[1] - <a href="http://www.bakerlp.com/Google-Blackout-Case/2016-12-19-PAGA-Complaint-Against-Google.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.bakerlp.com/Google-Blackout-Case/2016-12-19-PAGA-...</a>
This complaint seems pretty silly. Just taking a single point, paragraph 45:<p>“Don’t send an e-mail that says ‘I think we broke the law’ or ‘I think we violated this contract.’”<p>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.<p>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.
> Apparently, the tech giant has a “Stop Leaks” program in place that is managed through an internal website. Employees have the option of reporting a colleague to superiors, which then look into the matter and fire the whistleblower if the report is true.<p>Not all leaks are made in the sprit of "whistleblowing". This article seems pretty misleading… many of these measures are designed to protect the company's intellectual property and secrecy, though I see how they can be abused. I would hardly call it a 'spying program' though.
> If successful, the state would collect 75 percent of the penalty, while the rest would be paid out over to the company's 65,000 employees. Since there are 12 alleged violations in the suit, the maximum fine could amount to $3.8 billion, with each employee getting about $14,600.<p>14k per employee. That's quite a payout.
> If successful, the state would collect 75 percent of the penalty, while the rest would be paid out over to the company's 65,000 employees<p>What is the logic for the state somehow being entitled to such a huge cut? Presumably, if anyone was wronged here, it was the employees.
Google has an incredibly secretive culture. Secrecy was drilled into us time and again. When collaborating with external vendors, it was quite painful to strike compromise between corporate secrecy and sharing enough information to be productive.<p>After leaving Google, I'm always amazed at what I'm allowed to talk about with vendors. I'll start talking in my Google-conditioned non-committal cagey way, and a colleague will remind me that I'm not at Google anymore, and I can just say what I mean.
> "Google's motto is 'don't be evil.' Google's illegal confidentiality agreements and policies fail this test," the lawsuit said.<p>It occurs to me only now that a company that wasn't evil wouldn't need to make such a show of stating it like this.
Quite schizophrenic of the company to open up every information/book/news they can crawl and on the other hand close down the little interior world as much as possible. Not that this would be news or unexpected though.
"According to the lawsuit, Google’s policies don’t allow employees to discuss work-related topics including salaries, to post their personal opinions about the company online, and must not leak any product or other Google related information to the public. If Googlers break the company’s rules, they just might end up getting fired."<p>I have read several blog posts of Googlers about their work experience on their own blogs. If leaking unannounced works to the public, that's definitely a standard how work should be treated.<p>So I'd want to hear more about exactly what's going on. A "spy program" is a catchy phrase to grab reader attention. I think anyone should report if they spot anything against the interest of company such as insider trading, violate NDA etc, especially given Google is publicly traded.
I've seen several Google employees comment on this site even on matters related to Google. How do they bring up the courage to do this? Seems pretty risky as per this "Confidentiality Agreement".
>In addition, John Doe is also stating that Brian Katz, the director of global investigations, intelligence, and protective services over at Google, has falsely accused him of leaking information to the media.<p>Doesn't seem like a false accusation to me...
Right, so I don't remember having any such language (don't disclose your salary or your work) in my departure paperwork. I was a SA in a SRE team. Does this apply to people in X?<p>That said, Google has a VERY restrictive IP a policy that effectively prohibits employees from running side businesses at ANY time during their employment on ANY medium, Google-owned or not. Anything you make is Google's.
> Further, Google apparently warns employees to not write about potentially illegal activities within the company, even to Google's own attorneys.<p>'Don't be evil' indeed.
This comes to mind..
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xH7eGFuSYI" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xH7eGFuSYI</a>