Slashdot Mirror
Google's Evil NDA
An anonymous reader writes "Google's motto is "Don't Be Evil" — but they sure have an evil non-disclosure agreement! In order to be considered for employment there, you must sign an agreement that forbids you to 'mention or imply the name of Google' in public ever again. Further, you can't tell anyone you interviewed there, or what they offered you, and you possibly sign away your rights to reverse-engineer any of Google's code, ever. And this NDA never expires. Luckily, someone has posted excerpts from the NDA before he signed it and had to say silent forever." At the bottom of the posting are links to a few other comments on the Web about Google's NDA, including a ValleyWag post that reproduces it in its entirety.
you should look at what people on Wall Street agree to. It's really not so unusual. And you are always free not to work there - they don't owe you anything.
And some people claim Google is the savior of open source...sheesh.
I don't see any problem with this kind of an agreement. The government has similar agreements, but theirs are far more strict. How does this hurt the potential employee anyway? When a company is trying to protect its interest in a highly competitive field, how much is too much?
Seems like the lawyers have taken over there. Management asked lawyers the question: "Make a risk analysis and possible solution."
Lawyers draft up some crazy-ass contract which is perfectly logical but doesn't take common sense into account. All risks mitigated, and at the same time, looks ridiculous.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Eh, I work for a rather large mobile phone company, and my contract with them isn't even half as stupid, and still manages to protect against industrial espionage. I'm even allowed to mention that the company is called Ericsson.
How rude. Specifically talking in a way to exclude someone from a conversation.
OTOH, you could ahve said 'Yes'. I mean, it's their rule not yours!
Like the mason ring. You are not allowed to wear one if you are not a mason, but if you aren't a mason their rule doesn't apply to you, so you can wear one.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
this story is only shocking and interesting to those who still believe google is somehow saintly amongst large companies. that's impossible. a large company is a large company is a large company. they're all the same amount of corporate evil (however small or large you imagine that necessary/ unnecessary evil to be, salt to your particular political inclinations)
there is a certain prejudicial aura around google in the slashdot crowd. circa 2002, google was every geek's wet dream, powerhouse little startup bringing the big bad guys to their knees at their own game. however, since that time, google has morphed into just another 500 pound corporate gorilla, no better and no worse than microsoft, or walmart, or any other corporate bogeyman of your choice
slashdot: google = microsoft. get it into your head. doubleclick and privacy, china censorship, this nda. take your pick. fall out of love. the fairy tale story is over
in all of your prejudicial and stereotypical ways of thinking about microsoft, apply it to google, and then maybe ytou have a better understandning of that company (and of microsoft, while google is not as saintly as the presumed slashdot prejudice imagines, microsoft is not as rabidly evil as the presumed slashdot prejudice imagines)
please update your circa 2002 prejudicial impressions of google to 2007. k thx
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...do not try to interpret an NDA without one. This article is perfect proof as he misreads items and takes several others out of context. The lack of a "built-in" expiration is nothing new either, since Google is attempting to protect their current technologies and see no reason why they would be replaced in 5, 10 or 20 years. The built-in expiration is the public availability of the information.
Really, this blog post is almost FUD, or maybe it is just downright stupidity. Like I said, if you are not a lawyer...then ask one to read your NDA, because legalese != English.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I've modified the NDA at two places I've worked, and modified the non-compete and copyright assignment forms at *every* job I've worked at. I've even discussed the changes with the hiring manager. Yet I still worked for those companies.
Don't be afraid to stand up for yourself. It will probably even earn you some respect.
No, in my experience people who don't stand up for themselves or are easily bullied usually make it high up into the company or are jammed into positions. And given how everybody treats people like that at various corporations, it's definitely not for the best. The Peter Principle requires only a person to be loyal to make it far.
Hardly anybody tries that, and most people dont' even read what they sign. I do it on credit card applications (have two modified credit cards where the company can't change the interest rate), job applications (back when I wanted one, now I'm a consultant), any time someone wants me to sign anything. I read it all, modify what is needed, and it just really pisses people off when you read everything you sign. It's amazing the length of audacity that people that work for large companies will go to. My insurance agent once wanted me to sign that I read a particular item, so I forced him to produce it (took the asshole an hour and a half to find one), and I read it... slowly.
Slashdot here is a duality of bullshit. On one hand there are a lot of people here that like to bad mouth corporations, but they'd sign that NDA without reading it because it's 'google'. Well, fuck Google, it's a large corporation now, and it'll bend you over and fuck you in the ass if it thought that would get it ahead (speaking as an entity). One of the other dualities are the pagans that like to bad mouth christianity even though paganism is just as stupid.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
Looks like a few people disregard not being allowed to mention working for Google. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22i+work+for+googl e%22
Whoa, complete red herring there. The China policy decision by Google is unrelated to this; those policy decisions are not made by the rank-and-file.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
"What, people can't prioritize differently than you?"
Of course they can, even if those prioritizations are wrong, and detrimental to themselves and others.
"The ability to make public statements just doesn't matter to most people who are just interested in working on awesome (to them, anyway) projects and being rewarded for their hard work."
This is a trait of the weak.
"Whoa, complete red herring there. The China policy decision by Google is unrelated to this; those policy decisions are not made by the rank-and-file."
No, no red herring there. Everyone that stayed with google after that, and those that wish to join google after that, implicitly agree with what google did. Evil companies are staffed by evil people.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Reread what you posted, but remove the parenthetical for clarity:
4. Participant agrees not to do the following, except with the advanced review and written approval of Google: (a) issue or release any articles, advertising, publicity, or other matter relating to this Agreement (including the fact that a meeting or discussion has taken place between the parties) or mentioning or implying the name of Google."
VS:
4. Participant agrees not to do the following, except with the advanced review and written approval of Google: (a) issue or release any articles, advertising, publicity, or other matter relating to this Agreement or mentioning or implying the name of Google."
Doesn't sound quite so innocuous now, does it?
What the article doesn't mention, however, is that this NDA falls out of effect the moment you no longer possess "Confidential Information" from Google (for example, by the information being published legally). So, as long as you make your best effort not to learn anything confidential during your interview, the NDA expires immediately.
You may be right and you may be wrong. It is actually immaterial. The very fact that you signed it means that it will go to court. Having an issue like this go to court (especially over an NDA) can make you completely unemployable for the duration of the court case. Court cases can be drawn out over years. A non-enforceable NDA that you signed can make your life hell.
This is not fun. Don't do it. If you don't like a contract, don't sign it!!!! Or modify it (as someone discussed above) and then sign it. After having been sued by a previous employer, I am now *extremely* careful about what I sign. I got lucky in that my next employer actually agreed to pick up the cost of my lawsuit. It was over a non-compete "agreement" that I didn't agree to or sign -- even that got drawn out for a year. I think that if I had signed the document I would have been completely SOL.
Let me repeat: Don't sign anything you don't agree to!!!!!!!!!!
I've had some time in the auditing sector. If you think Google's NDA is bad, don't ever go there. What I had to sign can be easily summed up with "You're not gonna talk about what you did here, when you did it, who you worked with or even that you did it, or we'll make sure you won't work again, ever".
... stuff" letter.
Now, when I movee away I got 5 years of thin air in my CV. Can't write anything sensible in there. Tops would be "5 years at $auditing". No job description, no work place, no reference, nada. The only thing I got was a quite bland, nondescript "Yeah, that guy worked for us for those 5 years and he did
You can't even violate that NDA and tell your future employee what you did. If you do, it shows him that you don't give a shit about NDAs and there goes your job opportunity, since, well, if you didn't even honor the NDA of a company that does actually have the muscle to make sure you won't work EVER again if they found out, how much do you care about the NDA of some smaller company?
NDAs mean that you can't use your quite interesting experience in your CVs. Some of the things I did back then would have made my CV shine brilliantly for the job I got now. Luckily, I got it regardless, without having to break the NDAs I signed then.
But I guess I could've asked for a few hundreds more, if I could've told him just what I know. I do have valuable knowledge for my employer that he would maybe honor with more money. I just can't talk about it.
So, bottom line, I am lucky regardless. Many ain't, because they can't use their experience in their CV, due to NDAs. They can't say that they know, say, the flaws of online banking software when they start at a security company that was recently hired by some bank.
Just as an example, of course...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No. It's a trait of those who choose to apply their strength to a different application.
Nothing is as black-and-white as you make it out to be. You've a very simplistic view that must make it hard for you to do anything in life, since everything you do has a negative impact somewhere and is therefore evil, if by inaction you could have prevented the negative impact. Did a friend of yours ever do anything wrong? Did you maintain a friendship with that person, even though by doing so you implicitly agreed with their action? How about a child? If an adult does something wrong, are their parents evil because they did not disown their child?
Categorizing everything into binary black-and-white good and evil is an admission of weakness -- it's admitting that you don't have the ability to weigh relative merits and demerits against eachother.
Not working for an ambiguous company simply because they are ambiguous is also a sign of weakness -- a sign of strength would be to change the company from within.
There will be no shortage of people willing to work for Google. What you are advocating is to ignore evil, rather than working to change it. This is real weakness.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Then just modify that part first.
Having been through this one before a few times, it's not just in the company's best interest to keep people in the dark, it's in the employees' best interest as well. No good can ever come from discussing your compensation with your coworkers. It will always turn into chaos because everyone feels important enough to be compensated more, but not every employee is equally important. When any group of employees starts getting pissed about money, it impacts everyone.
It's much better to read up on what your position pays on average for your area, evaluate your own performance, and then try to negotiate more money on your own. And think about it, if you're management, and all your employees suddenly know what everyone else makes, do you rectify the situation in the future by paying everyone more? No, probably something closer to the opposite of that. Maybe you can rectify things by talking to everyone like adults until everybody is on the same page and walks away with a newfound respect for the way life works....yeah.
Blabbing on about your compensation is a typical just-out-of-college-now-show-me-the-money mistake. It's amateur. Not only should a person never disclose what they make to their coworkers, but they should never disclose this information to anyone. This is one of the few parts of life that is actually very gamey. Keep your finances, religion, and (strong) politics closely guarded with only your most trusted family. It's personal encapsulation. Only expose what you need to expose and you'll have less people mucking in your business.
If you want to be one of the people who get the larger yearly increases, and the bigger bonuses, then make yourself appear invaluable...which often means that you'll have to do more, and do more things that "wow" people. You can verify that you're being treated well by *paying attention.*
Oh man, I don't usually respond to ACs, but the level of rabid, frothing defense of the status quo here is just too funny not to comment on.
I have every right to get together with other workers and your customers and decide amongst ourselves to fuck you and your business over through entirely legal, market driven means if you don't treat us the way we want to be treated, and there's nothing you can do about it, chump. It's called the free market, get used to it. The days of kings, nobles, and slave-owners telling us what to do are several centuries gone now.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
As I see it, the crucial clause here is "except with the advanced review and written approval of Google". This makes the difference between "cannot mention them ever" and "must run it by Google first".
To the extent that TFA says "cannot mention them ever", TFA is wrong.
If you think that Google will be evil and refuse to approve reasonable mentions, then you need to make a separate case for that.