zlacker

[return to "Google Protest Leader Leaves"]
1. charli+Cf[view] [source] 2019-07-16 14:40:08
>>tech-h+(OP)
I don't really understand why it's surprising to anyone that they would face "internal retaliation" after exposing their employer as evil and boycott worthy to the entire world. By publicizing it to the degree that they did and attaching their name to it, they were putting their interests over the company. If my company started doing business practices that I didn't approve of, I would try my hardest to change the direction from the inside out or I would leave and then criticize. I don't understand the desire to stay with a company and accept paychecks while simultaneously publicly denouncing and leading protests against them.
◧◩
2. KirinD+zh[view] [source] 2019-07-16 14:51:11
>>charli+Cf
It's literally illegal. There are laws against retaliation against whistleblowers. That is why it is surprising.

> I don't understand the desire to stay with a company and accept paychecks while simultaneously publicly denouncing and leading protests against them.

Because you don't want to see the thing you worked so hard to build misused to build killer robots and "war minds"? Seems reasonable to me. Google's got a different mission and sometimes the leadership forgets it, and needs to be reminded.

◧◩◪
3. Merril+3j[view] [source] 2019-07-16 15:00:46
>>KirinD+zh
What did she do that is protected under the various whistleblower protection laws? https://www.whistleblowers.gov/sites/wb/files/2019-06/whistl...

I don't think that objecting to your company's AI work for DoD or plans to comply with Chinese internet search regulations fall under any of them.

What did the "Open Research Group" at Google actually build?

◧◩◪◨
4. seriou+ao[view] [source] 2019-07-16 15:31:48
>>Merril+3j
So many arm chair lawyers on HN. The parent is wrong. It's illegal because it violates the NLRA, not whistleblower protections.

"Protected concerted activity".

If you want a good primer, "Labor Law for the Rank and Filer" is a good one.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. sverig+Rs[view] [source] 2019-07-16 16:03:16
>>seriou+ao
I'm not clear on what Whittaker's role was with regard to the Chinese project, but the final straw appears to have been her protest regarding the composition of the AI ethics panel.

How is an outside ethics panel going to affect their working conditions? The people on the panel don't have any say on employees' pay, promotions, disciplinary actions, assignments, or anything else that might affect their working conditions.

The idea was to have some people from outside the company look at the tech and its potential hazards and provide some input on the ethics of developing and deploying it. People inside the company said, No, we don't want that particular viewpoint to have a seat at the table on this outside committee. The ethics panel had nothing at all to do with their working conditions.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. pessim+Uu[view] [source] 2019-07-16 16:18:50
>>sverig+Rs
Are you trying to make a fine distinction between "working conditions" and "work"? You just said that this panel that she was protesting the composition of would look at what the company was doing and plans for what the company wished to do, and have input into the ethics of developing and deploying them (and I'm assuming changing them or ending them, otherwise this panel's only job was to kiss paper.)

The employees of google would then be expected to produce and maintain these projects. That's their work. At the least, they're expected to share a roof with these projects, and profits from the work they do could be spent on these other projects, or vice-versa.

[go to top]