Yes, of course.
Apparently this "security tool" exists to notify Googlers of policy, and the notification just linked to a Google policy notice with a warning not to violate it. This is apparently the actual notification that was displayed:
https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg
> Do not violate go/nlrbnotice. Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities.
> Does that seem appropriate to you?
Yes. It's a tool for showing notifications related to the page being visited. Not to mention the whole thing is appropriate on moral grounds, regardless of any technicality.
Just to be clear: her "opinion" is "don't take actions that would cause the company to break federal labor law."
If that's was an actual requirement, can you make or point to a statement in an official Google capacity that states the notices displayed by the tool she maintained had to be written or pre-cleared by Google's legal team? If you can, was the requirement for legal team involvement established practice and not some post-hoc rationalization for her firing?
"Common sense" often isn't as common or as sensible as some people think.
You often make seemingly-authoritative statements like "it wasn't her role." Avoiding post-hoc rationalizations based on the fact that she was fired, can you explain to me how that was communicated to her?
> Do you really need someone to tell you that if you work on security it’s not your told to disseminate information about hiring?
Maybe if you're fully indoctrinated into a particular corporate culture that very hierarchical, siloed, and highly biased towards management and shareholders.
However, Google, at least for now, has a very unusual corporate culture.