Google Accused of Silencing Whistle-Blowers
A Google employee is suing the company, claiming it imposed unlawful confidentiality agreements. The plaintiff says staff are banned from speaking out even about illegal activities.
The lawsuit has been filed anonymously and is thus in the name of John Doe. It alleges violations of the Private Attorney Generals Act, which is a technical measure that lets private citizens bring claims against a company for breaching labor laws.
"Doe" claims that although he remains at the company, Google falsely told other Google workers that he had been fired for leaking information to the press.
Gagging Order Extends To Fiction
According to the lawsuit, the confidentiality agreements go beyond protecting Google's commercial interests such as details of how its technology works or ongoing projects. "Doe" says that in effect, staff are not allowed to discuss anything about Google with anyone outside the company, with the rules even going so far that they are specifically banned from writing novels set in a Silicon Valley company. (Source: scribd.com)
Arguably far worse, the lawsuit accused Google of banning staff from discussing illegal activity committed inside Google, with them not even allowed to talk about it with other employees or with company lawyers, particularly in writing. The implication is that Google fears such writing could then be used by prosecutors or opposition lawyers in bringing a case against it.
If the lawsuit proves successful, 75 percent of any penalty would go to the state of California and the remaining money shared out among all Google employees.
Google: Claims Are Baseless
In a media statement Google said that "We will defend this suit vigorously because it's baseless. We're very committed to an open internal culture, which means we frequently share with employees details of product launches and confidential business information. Transparency is a huge part of our culture."
The statement went on to read: "Our employee confidentiality requirements are designed to protect proprietary business information, while not preventing employees from disclosing information about terms and conditions of employment, or workplace concerns." (Source: mashable.com)
What's Your Opinion?
Do the claims sound plausible? If so, which aspects do you think are reasonable behavior from Google and which go too far? Does the public have a right to know about alleged illegal activity or safety violations?
My name is Dennis Faas and I am a senior systems administrator and IT technical analyst specializing in cyber crimes (sextortion / blackmail / tech support scams) with over 30 years experience; I also run this website! If you need technical assistance , I can help. Click here to email me now; optionally, you can review my resume here. You can also read how I can fix your computer over the Internet (also includes user reviews).
We are BBB Accredited
We are BBB accredited (A+ rating), celebrating 21 years of excellence! Click to view our rating on the BBB.
Comments
John Doe
Quote: "The lawsuit has been filed anonymously and is thus in the name of John Doe ... Doe claims that although he remains at the company, Google falsely told other Google workers that he had been fired for leaking information to the press."
Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like Google already knows who John Doe is. In that case, I wonder if John Doe will be demoted or possibly lose his job after the court proceedings? I surely wouldn't want to sue a company I worked for and expect to still be employed there. Talk about stress!
As for the claims - it sounds like it would be difficult to prove. The confidentiality agreements should be shown in court and examples made where they have demonstrated to have gone too far.
Odd behavior
I doubt anyone can truly form any opinion absent the exact text of the alleged agreement. If true, leaking that would have been game, set and match. In general, if folks simply refuse to sign anything that they cannot have a copy of, this nonsense will end forthwith. Better yet, laws requiring immediate access to any and all workplace documents signed or otherwise part of an employee's file would address this.