Google gives up YOUR private data to US govt – but won't hand over its OWN staff personal info

The US Department of Labor is suing Google for details of its staff's wages – though the Chocolate Factory claims it's bending over backwards to comply with the bureaucrats' demands. This is the same advertising giant that loves keeping tabs on hundreds of millions of netizens, and coughs up people's private information to …

[Jim Mitchell]

I wonder what Google puts on the W-2 forms it files with the IRS? No employee name, no address?

[Anonymous Coward]

Egg-zactly! Which is why it's odd for the IRS/Gub to request data they already have. Unless their own internal systems are breaking down to the point of not being able to look up income and address data from floppy disk. :P

Whatever data they do get, they end up mismanaging anyway, so let's just stop feeding it.

[The Man Who Fell To Earth]

@AC Egg-zactly!

You've obviously never been in management in a company that has US government contracts. What the government is asking for to check for EO11246 compliance is salary data coupled with EOP (equal opportunity) data the company is required to have because they employ more than 50 people. In other words, the government wants data to check on whether Google's salary statistics indicate that people of certain classes (based on race, religion, gender, national origin, etc.) are being paid less for the same jobs, or if the statistics indicate that job discrimination is taking place based on these factors.

Anyone who accepts a contract from the US Government signs, as part of the contract, that they will follow this as well as all of the other provisions of the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations). As the US government said, if you take their money, you do it under their rules.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: @AC Egg-zactly!

"the government wants data to check on whether Google's salary statistics indicate that people of certain classes (based on race, religion, gender, national origin, etc.) are being paid less for the same jobs, or if the statistics indicate that job discrimination is taking place based on these factors."

This would appear to be stuff that an employer, in a sane world, has no business holding about its employees. It's a real arse-backwards government attempt to ban discrimination that forces companies to keep the information they'd need to discriminate.

[sabroni]

Re: forces companies to keep the information they'd need to discriminate.

IKR! How can you discriminate against people properly without the right documentation?

[Cris E]

Re: @AC Egg-zactly!

It's a reaction to a time, a very real and prolonged time, when many arse-backwards companies discriminated like mad against all sorts of people. It's a bunch of extra bookkeeping for everyone just to keep a minority of dirtbags from behaving badly. The minute anyone can provide an alternative way of ensuring that broad-based discrimination doesn't happen I'm sure everyone would drop this immediately. But as that seems unlikely, this is the next best lever.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: @AC Egg-zactly!

"It's a reaction to a time, a very real and prolonged time, when many arse-backwards companies discriminated like mad against all sorts of people."

Nevertheless I would consider it extremely offensive for an employer to ask me for this sort of information. Partly it's a matter of principle but there's an added factor. I spent 19 years in N Ireland in the '60s to '80s. People could and did get murdered for being the wrong religion in the wrong place and the wrong time. I know. I took part in the investigation of a number of these, right down to my last case in '86. In such an environment anyone asking about religion would be regarded with deepest suspicion.

It's different attitudes about such things that make Europeans distrust the US with personal data. Whilst I have some sympathy with the sauce for the gander sentiments of many comments I regard the keeping and demanding of such information as being totally out of order whether it's Google or anyone else.

[Orv]

Re: @AC Egg-zactly!

"Nevertheless I would consider it extremely offensive for an employer to ask me for this sort of information. Partly it's a matter of principle but there's an added factor."

It's actually voluntary for employees to provide it. It's just required for employ*ers* to report what they have. (And only employers that have Federal contracts -- if they don't want to comply they don't have to do business with the Federal government. There are many other customers.)

I've actually never seen religion asked about on one of those forms. Usually it's just race, gender, and military service status -- historically those are the categories that have seen the most discriminatory behavior. It's also down to what *you* think your race is. There are no enforced guidelines. If you wanted to check "Other" and write in "Hobbit" you could.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: @AC Egg-zactly!

"It's actually voluntary for employees to provide it."

Presumably the employer (a) asks the employees to volunteer it and (b) makes provision to record it.

This must pose a problem in relation to people employed by US companies in Europe. In the UK, for instance, the information would fall foul of the data protection principles (see https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/data-protection-principles/ ), especially 3 and hence of the DPA and the equivalent legislation in other EU countries.

I can see how they'd probably twist the principle's wording to try to get away with it assuming the exemptions in Schedules 2 & 3 extend to obligations in the US. As stricter EU regulations come into force and Max Schrems or others get more judgements at the ECJ that might get more difficult.

But I repeat a comment I made earlier: it's different attitudes about such things that make Europeans distrust the US with personal data.

And I trust that the man who fell to earth, amongst others, has never been in charge of anything where European data protection law applies.

[The Man Who Fell To Earth]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

Pretty clear you've never been in charge of anything.

Now get back to work, there's a spill in aisle 9 you need to mop up right away.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

"Pretty clear you've never been in charge of anything."

OK, how do you measure race?* Colour? It's pretty clear you've never had to think critically.

*There was an instance discovered some time ago of a family in the East Midlands, apparently English as fas back as one could go, with an African yDNA haplotype. A suggested explanation was that there must have been a male line descent from a Roman soldier of African origin, Lincoln being fairly close by (you didn't have to come from Rome or even Italy to be a Roman citizen). So what race were they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

The government wants the data needed to discriminate because they ARE discriminating - against white men.

This is to redress past discrimination in favor of white men, who are long dead, and at some point it needs to end.

[Orv]

Re: @AC Egg-zactly!

"It's a real arse-backwards government attempt to ban discrimination that forces companies to keep the information they'd need to discriminate."

Generally companies haven't needed to explicitly track data like that to discriminate, and usually didn't. They just paid certain people less because they "weren't the management type" or "didn't seem like one of the team." (Read: Couldn't go to the same whites-only country clubs, didn't fit a mental image of an engineer/executive/whatever.) In order to get away with this companies have long relied on the plausible deniability of not having it on paper. Having to actually report it puts them on notice.

We can argue about whether programs like this are effective, but arguing they're what's enabling discrimination against minorities isn't really supported by history.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cross Referencing the Data.

The IRS are cross-referencing the data. In the UK, if you apply for Mortgage, the Mortgage provider will ask you questions regarding what credit you currently have (credit cards etc) and the outstanding balances. (Don't understate, lie at this point)

They already have this detailed info from your credit file, but they are cross-referencing to make sure the data you are providing as part of your Application submission matches with actual data on file. i.e. looking for fraud, within the application.

Google are obviously worried their Data might not exactly match what Google Execs have filed themselves.

They do similar with restuarants, by obtaining anonymised credit card Visa//Mastercard data. They check credit card data against what a restuarant has filed as their turnover, to make sure the two are in the same ballpark.

[Mark 85]

No age, race, religion, disability, etc. on a W-2. True, they could somehow get the IRS to fill in some of the details but not all. Given it's the government... they want a PowerPoint, basically so they don't have to do the digging themselves.

As others point out.. it's a government contract and Google knew what was expected going in. No BS excuses from them can change that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose if you knew what Google knew, you wouldn't want to give the info either.

Given Google knows as much as anyone can about these outside bodies/individuals requesting the data, you can see why they might be a bit relunctant. Google see the World through different lenses to the rest of us, knowing what they know.

[John Lilburne]

It was the IRS that ...

... finally did for Al Capone.

[Crazy Operations Guy]

Re: It was the IRS that ...

Funny how you could make it very, very clear that you are receiving income from illicit activities, even running a massive organized crime syndicate and the IRS will not care so long as you pay your share of taxes. But you short them a few bucks, and may your god have mercy on your soul...

The IRS is pretty much the only government agency that I actually respect and trust. They do their job of collecting the money owe and don't try to over-step their powers by handing citizens' data over to police agencies without a court order (well, other than the times they need the police to arrest tax evaders).

They are the only government agency that actually does it job, only its job, and does so a lot more efficiently than the other government organizations (Processing data from 350 million people in less than a month is pretty difficult...)

[Colin Millar]

Re: It was the IRS that ...

Can we get them to subcontract the UK please - HMRC is broken and getting brokener by the minute

[ma1010]

As the article pretty much says

My irony meter is pegging.

I mean, this is GOOGLE, the guys who spy on EVERYBODY and want to know EVERYTHING about EVERYONE and who are happy to cough up anything they do know to Big Brother. But they draw the line at giving up data about their own employees, who seem to be the only ones for whose privacy they have the slightest consideration. Did someone say "hypocrites"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: As the article pretty much says

Probably because 'employees' includes upper management and executives...

[Fan of Mr. Obvious]

Re: As the article pretty much says

Google does not have this level of info on their employees - they all know better and use Yahoo! Guessing a few hundred bitcoin should allow the fed to acquire the lot.

(no need to DV - relax, just a joke)

[Cris E]

Re: As the article pretty much says

If they are discriminating then there will be penalties. And even if the discrimination was merit-based at one point in time, they are large enough now that they have to start acting like adults. That means hiring and paying women, older people, gays, or whatever other groups aren't feeling the love. Even if it's just a coincidence that they just happen to find that all the best candidates look just like themselves, the government still gets to spend its money at companies that look more like itself.

[ecofeco]

Everyday seems more like the 19th century

I am amazed at how far backward the world has become and very afraid at the headlong rush on a rocket sled to go further.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be Evil

So much for mottoes and mission statements. Multinational conglomerates, like Google and others, are inherently evil, re competitive market capitalism, representative democracy, and national interests. Schmidt, when pressed, couldn't define what evil meant, but presumably, by his actions, it's an admonishment to employees that anything that interferes with Google's advance is inherently evil, with no reference to the world beyond.

[JWG]

Job opening: Needed, one copy editor. Send resume to "The Register".

Your sentence: "The OFCCP said that Google had had nine months to turn over all of the information it requested on wages paid between September 2014 and 2015." Redundant word.

Corrected sentence: "The OFCCP said that Google had nine months to turn over all of the information it requested on wages paid between September 2014 and 2015." Redundant word removed.

Alternate corrected sentence: "The OFCCP said that Google has had nine months to turn over all of the information it requested on wages paid between September 2014 and 2015." Slight tense change.

Where did you learn English?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Job opening: Needed, one copy editor. Send resume to "The Register".

You're incorrect. All three sentences you have provided above have slightly different meanings. I agree that it's somewhat awkward, but there is nothing wrong with the original and it's not strictly redundant (since it does slightly alter the meaning).

So where did you learn English and did you skip the lesson on "past perfect"?

[Vic]

Re: Job opening: Needed, one copy editor. Send resume to "The Register".

I agree that it's somewhat awkward, but there is nothing wrong with the original and it's not strictly redundant

It is neither awkward nor redundant; it's simply the pluperfect tense of the verb "to have". And that is entirely the correct tense to have chosen for the sentence.

Vic.

[Anonymous Coward]

What have you got to hide, Google?

Google apologists often try to excuse the company's intense data gathering by saying things like "What's the problem if you've got nothing to hide?".

So, what have you got to hide Google?