One of the reasons is jury trials: such emails are discoverable and Google has first-hand experience with this in Oracle v. Google. Oracle brought an email sent by a non-lawyer technical Googler[1] and used it as evidence that Google knowingly infringed on Oracle's copyright. Googles lawyers had to go to great pains to deflect that line of attack (including asking the guy if he was a lawyer on the stand as Oracle's hostile witness).
Even if the email is wrong, it still looks bad to someone who does not understand the nuance of law, like members of the jury.
1. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/apache-e-mails-sh...
For example, If I were to see Jimmy stealing some GoogleBot servers then absolutely the company would want me to inform them about Jimmy's actions. Communication is largely done by email. So, there is no problem reporting illegal activity by email.
But, that's not what the corporation is fearful of, they are afraid of Jimmy's department which is infringing Big Corp.'s Patents. If I see this and email the company then the company has to respond with an inquiry to their lawyer and investigate, otherwise this could come out later in a court trial and cause financial harm. So the company doesn't want people to do what they believe is right. Oh sure, we can still report it verbally. But, that's absurd to have a policy that says email is fine for all communications except for anything that could potentially be detrimental to the company. What if I was harassed at work, I'm not supposed to say anything about that in email, it all has to be done face to face?
I hope this case wins, I hope that folks here understand that it's important to do what's right and not to do what their corporation tells them is right.
So I don't think you can reasonably say this is a case of companies not wanting illegality to be disclosed. It's wanting disclosure to take the proper form.
(Indeed, they have a vested interest in proper handling of illegality to ensure that higher-ups are aware of and can mitigate legal risks.)
If lawyers are just fishing to soundbites and that leads to companies hassling their employees that's a flawed system.
That's exactly my point. I'm asking whether or not an employer should write a contract that specifically states the employee should modify their behaviour to ensure things aren't discovered later - namely that the employer knew (or at least "was informed") that illegal things were going on. I don't think they should. If my employer wanted me to sign something that said "If you see things happening that you believe might be illegal, please keep quiet about it because you don't understand the law" I think I ought to say no.
The problem is engineers lack a good grasp of how the law works compared to lawyers - sometimes the action is not illegal, but it will still looks bad after discovery. Leading to unnecessary settlements not as a matter of law, but of optics. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
> "If you see things happening that you believe might be illegal, please keep quiet about it because you don't understand the law"
That's not what they are saying - they are saying don't use email to do it. I mean would you appreciate it if your startup's first employee sends an email stating "We are infringing on these 18 Microsoft patents" on the record?
So, are we discussing ethics or legality? If Google's official policy is one of "we like to skirt the law well into looking-bad territory, and that is fine" then they really need to abandon their "do no evil" motto.
No.
I'll make an analogy: Engineers hate it when sales make commitments on behalf of engineering. Can you not imagine how lawyers might dislike engineers making legal commitments?
When dealing with people outside of the org, lawyers want from engineers what engineers want from sales - be vague and don't create obligations you do not fully understand. It is still perfectly fine for a sales guy to privately point out a bug - just don't shout it to the customer.
I think it takes a lawyer to believe "pointing out when the company you work for is breaking the law" is the same as "making a legal commitment", as if laws only apply if you acknowledge them. I'm realise that is essentially how the world lawyers live in works, but I think it sucks and I wouldn't want to sign a contract that forces me to be a part of it.
Assuming you know the law when you never studied it is the problem. The idea is that you should be asking if something you think is questionable is legal or not. That's why companies have lawyers. It's about bringing it to the attention of the right people who can make the call and keep the company out of trouble, without saying something incorrect that you might have to testify about later.
Your inability to understand this goes to OPs point about engineers not understanding law. I'm guessing you're an engineer(or at least - not a lawyer)
Especially true when it comes to licenses.
If you know your company is "assaulting somebody" or something obviously illegal, I think you have a duty to let superiors know so that something can be done to fix it.
People are both employees and citizens and sometimes must choose between the company and thier own society at large.
1/ Your company could act legally and you think it is acting legally.
2/ Your company could act illegally and you think it is acting legally.
3/ Your company could act legally and you think it is acting illegally.
4/ Your company could act illegally and you think it is acting illegally.
Case 1 is fine and case 2 will spur no action from you, so we can discount those. Case four is protected under whistleblower laws, and you should get your own lawyer and only talk to them in no discoverable media anyway. Case three is where corporate policy applies and where you should probably not speculate in email because, well, you're wrong.
If you're on the fence between three and four, talk to a lawyer anyways and get off the fence. Find a firm legal footing and then pursue the issue.
Sure, that benefits Google. But some people care more about ethics and don't want Google to get away with potentially illegal actions.
This is standard employee training presumably not just at Google, but at basically every company I've ever worked for.
The rule goes basically: if you don't think what you write would look good on the front page of the NYT, then don't put it in an e-mail.
Doesn't seem like a risk a competent retained counsel would want to take, in any case.
[1] http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/acpfihc.cfm
The only way to really get screwed over by these tests would be to instate a "no emailing the lawyers about corporate wrongdoing" policy (causing your employees to fail all three tests in the link).
Of course, the lawsuit alleges that Google did exactly that. I wonder if the courts will (imho correctly) strip a large percentage of their internal legal communications of attorney/client privilege.
Time to grab the popcorn.
NYT: To the dismay of their employees, Google insist on using slowALGO, possibly costing them X sum.
You cherrypicked one point out of the complaint, hence you cannot say anything about the validity of the entire complaint. Do the other points, summarized by randomdrake [1], also seem silly to you? And when considered as a whole (not as individual points), does it still seem silly?
The inherent problem with Googlers defending Google, beyond the obvious conflict of interest of expressing views about the company that writes your paycheck, is that Googlers expect us to trust them that the internal info they can't share isn't suspect.
If you can't share what's actually going on internally, you shouldn't be defending it. Let the case happen, with any luck these internal presentations, policies, and memos will end up in the public record, and we'll all be able to see what's really going on.
But no, I don't really expect any Google employee to engage with me on a matter that will almost certainly cost them their job to do so. As the article alleges, I strongly suspect publishing Google's internal training about confidentiality would eventually lead to someone's termination, even if it was described as being for another reason.
“Don’t send an e-mail that says ‘I think we broke the law’ or ‘I think we violated this contract.’”
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.
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.