[tyingq]

There is some better basis for anti-whistleblowing in the lawsuit. [1] I'm not sure why they chose this particular email. This snippet from the suit better illustrates it:

Indeed, a second training program entitled “You Said What?” specifically states that Googlers must “avoid communications that conclude, or appear to conclude, that Google or Googlers are acting ‘illegally’ or ‘negligently,’ have ‘violated the law,’ should or would be ‘liable’ for anything, or otherwise convey legal meaning.”

[1] http://www.bakerlp.com/Google-Blackout-Case/2016-12-19-PAGA-...

Edit: I'm not convinced the above is particularly huge evidence of anti whistleblowing. It is at least in that ballpark though, versus the email in the story, which just isn't at all.

[tdb7893]

I've heard doctors given this same above as just good practice for not getting sued. That sort of stuff will be used against you in court and Scrubs (the TV show) even satirizes this

[paulgb]

I remember that training. Basically Google is worried, rightfully, that anything an engineer speculates about the law, even internally, could wind up in a lawsuit. I think this happened in Oracle v Google.

The course was about leaving the law to the lawyers, not about suppressing whistleblowing.