Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Fires Mac Fan For Blog Photo
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Oct 29, 2003 09:28 AM
from the camera-un-obscura dept.
from the camera-un-obscura dept.
christor writes "Microsoft has fired a full-time temp employee after it discovered that the employee posted in his blog a photo and story concerning Microsoft's purchase of what looks to be around 18 G5s.
Check out the blog entry, Even Microsoft wants G5s, and the one that follows it. Microsoft fired the blogger, despite an offer to take the posting down. Note that this is not a free speech issue, even though the blog was hosted on a non-company server, because Microsoft is not, yet, the government. But it does present several other interesting issues, including that of the trade-off between the bad publicity that comes from the firing and whatever bad results follow when employees feel free to post such things."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think there is that much OS discrimination within the company, with the exception that each developer needs to have a windows machine for obvious reasons. I think MS fired him because he was blatently trying to embarrass the company.
MS is making a big push towards platform independent applications via managed code. I heard from one employee that the vast majority of products will need to be re-written for the
Parent
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not really the issue (or it's very unlikely that it's the case).
There are probably two factors that played a role. First, while the particular picture is not a big deal, maintaining a policy of not sending out pictures *is* a big deal. If people get in the habit of snapping pictures, sooner or later, important data will leak. Where I work, you just can't have cameras, and just can't take pictures. It's not unusual. Most companies won't just let you walk in and start taking pictures wherever you want. I've known people over the course of my life that *have* been involved in corporate espionage, and a small camera is a seriously useful tool for someone who can't afford to be standing in front of something for a couple of minutes scribbling things down on a clipboard. It's not an unreasonable policy demand at all, though I think it should probably be made more clear to temps. I applaud the guy for not flying off the handle over this.
Second of all, this information *could* be damaging. It's a pretty safe bet that Microsoft conducts competitive research (though the building name tends to make me think that this is not the case). If competitors know what Microsoft is examining, it could put them on guard as to what Microsoft is trying to use from them. Furthermore, it lets them arm the lawyers, so that the moment Microsoft steps near infringing on a patent or whatnot, they can smack them. In this particular case, there's not a lot of suspicious information, but if, say, Microsoft was picking up a handful of iPods, something that doesn't generally have a direct business application (and it seems unlikely that the guy here would stop at snapping a picture with a caption of "Even Microsoft Wants iPods"), things might be a bit worse. Even if it's not competitive research, the contents of a company's loading docks can be quite valuable information. If Boeing has crates and crates marked "titanium sheets" sitting around, you can damn well bet that other airplane-producing defense contractors will be very interested. If Sony's Aibo division has a bunch of bales of fake fur on their loading docks, competitors have a good guess as to where the product is going, and time to produce marketing campaigns and make deals appropriately.
So...I have to say that I can see how frusterating it is for the temp guy, but it's not as if Microsoft Security is firing him for liking Macs and working at Microsoft. Hell, of the people I know that have worked at Microsoft, two of them really like Linux, and one kept a Tux doll in his cubicle. MS doesn't really care about something like that -- they care about potential leaks, or precedent being set that could lead to future leaks.
Parent
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll back you up on that statement. I was supporting Microsoft products (Windows 2000 Professional. Then NT Server, Services for Unix, Services for Macintosh, and Proxy 2.0.) through an outsourcer and had plenty of contact and meetings with regular employees as well as temps (a- accounts). There are several employees that are fans of other OSes. Heck, I personally had a big 20th Anniversary Macintosh poster in my cubicle. Microsoft understands diversity and embraces it in the company.
On the other hand, if you come to work taking pictures of internal affairs and publish them on the web with blatant intentions of making your employer look bad, how the fuck do you expect them to react!?!
-Lucas
Parent
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they think Even Microsoft wants G5s is making them look bad, they better not read the stories about how they fired that guy.
Parent
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:5, Funny)
That probably explains the lack of braincells in the US government.
Parent
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. It wasn't long ago that there was an article on Slashdot about how some big Japanese company with a research wing was banning the use of camera cell phones.
Even companies that allow people to carry them may have policies against use of the camera on company grounds. This is difficult to enforce, yes...but as it happened, if someone posted pictures to a weblog and an exec got ahold of them, they'd know that they were taking pictures.
No, it wasn't even a question of security, because the first question they asked him is if it (the page in question) was hosted on a Microsoft-owned server (wtf - they couldn't even do a traceroute? oops, forgot - this is Microsoft, not the most tech-savvy company out there by a long shot).
This is unreasonable on your part. Microsoft is not limited to paying for machines in the MICROSOFT.NET and MICROSOFT.COM domains. A number of companies use cohosting/colocation services. Microsoft, if working on a project, especially with outsiders, could easily be using a system not in their regular domain. Sure, it probably wasn't going to be true, but it likely provides the company with legal ammunition (there may be a policy against non-work-related personal use of Microsoft-owned systems), and they then have witnessed claims from him.
If it had been, they would have sacked him for misuse of company property. Since they couldn't they went to their fall-back position, which is that it was a breech of security to let the general public know where the building was located - never mind that the location is already public knowledge - city hall has it, the public utilities have it, the phone company has a detailed layout of the whole site, delivery companies have it, former employees have it (unless they're being mind-wiped on termination), yada yada yada. It's not a secret, so their excuse was typical microsoft bullshit.
They almost certainly aren't trying to prevent people from knowing the "location of the building". You didn't read my post -- I was arguing that they were worried about precedent-setting and possibly the contents of the loading dock itself.
As far as preventing leaks, this is a company with a history of leaking like a sieve halloween is here - we want more halloween documents, just like their products.
Ridiculous. Microsoft took reasonable precautions -- this is legally significant if a leaking employee gets isolated and a trade secret case can be made -- to keep those memos secret. They were probably not sent to outside addresses, etc. There is no way a company the size of MS can stop internal memos from leaking completely, and leaks in the past *certainly* do not mean that the company should throw up their hands and give up on plugging current leaks.
Parent
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Criminal trespass is the unlawful access by a person to anothers' property. Your example (McDonalds) is not only lame - it's not true. I can walk into a McDonalds (not that I would - I've been boycotting them since they started making pizzas) with a group of friends, order a meal, and start snapping pictures of our little party.
If they were to even try to physically confiscate the camera, I would be well within my rights to call the police and sue for assault. So, where was the trespass? Hell, I can even take pictures of what is plainly in view and they can't say anything, as long as I'm there as a customer.
They would have to have the "no cameras" ban posted prominently AS YOU ENTER THE STORE. Anything else just won't cut it in court. For example, you see the "No dogs allowed" sign (which I fortunately am allowed to ignore - lucky me, life isn't a total suck :-) AT THE DOOR, not at the back of the building.
This is the same rationale that the MPAA wanted to ban text messaging because people were texting each other during the movie to say "the hulk sux".
They're going to have to get used to the idea that, in a wired world, what goes on in public is available for public consumption and recording for posterity.
It's the same as using your phone while in WalMart to call your buddy at CostCo to find out which of the two has the better price this week. Not only not illegal, but attempting to stop you would be a federal crime, as it is interference with a lawful telecommunication.
Remember, just because most people don't know their rights doesn't mean that those rights cease to exist for everyone.
Parent
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:4, Funny)
Damn. So when you see all those snaps of happy smiling kids being entertained by Ronald McDonald at their birthday party, five minutes later, security arrived and escorted them off the premises?
If that's true, the McDonald's executives should have hot cups of coffee poured all over their genital areas as punishment.
Parent
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, cell phones with built-in digital cameras have been banned in several major research & development labs even as of this moment today. This includes facilities at Samsung Electronics, and at least one of the major domestic car manufacturers (GM or Ford -- trying to find the story for it now).
Parent
You're right AND wrong...discipline was justified (Score:5, Insightful)
You're DEAD WRONG on another front--you infer that the blogger was wrongfully terminated because of "Microsoft bullshit". I'm a Linux evangelist myself, but in this case I think Microsoft did the typical and understandable thing in dismissing him. After all, do you think Red Hat would be happy if an employee released a picture of himself or a co-worker happily clicking around Windows XP at work, wrote an article entitled "We like BillG's stuff" and posted it on the internet? Doesn't matter WHO the employer is, I think he would've at LEAST had some interesting words with his boss.
This guy was quite likely breaching conflict of interest policies by embarassing his employer. He posted a picture of a load of Macs coming off a truck in a loading dock and identified it as being on the Microsoft campus. Not a violation in and of itself. Then he proceeded to identify himself as an EMPLOYEE of Microsoft and the author of the picture! I'd say if he wrote a blog entry flattering to Microsoft (along the lines of "look--MS wants to be multi-platform and play nice with others"), maybe he would've kept his job.
No..he was foolish enough to write a blog entry RIDICULING HIS EMPLOYER. ANY compnay would do the same thing if ridiculed by an employee in a very public forum.
Coca-Cola would (and has) fired employees for releasing pictures of pallets of Pepsi sitting in a warehouse surrounded by Coke and making the suggestion that "Coke was trying to learn a thing or two from Pepsi" (Both Coke and Pepsi bottlers have policies regarding how competitors products are to be handled on their premesis--you could be fired for drinking a Coke product in a Pepsi lunch room, particularly if you are caught with it by media representatives or a plant tour group).
GM would not tolerate the publication of a person identified as a GM employee enjoying a cruise in his Ford Mustang--if that employee was a willing participant in the activity.
Even a local mom-and-pop pizza joint would take issue with an employee eating Domino's in view of customers-or even just talking about how he or other employees prefer the competiton.
Was termination justified? I'm not quite sure. Some form of discipline, however, is completely understandable.
Parent
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Of course they want Macs. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course they want Macs. (Score:5, Insightful)
For as valid as your point is, its kinda of unrelated to the topic of a company terminating an employee for iReason. The posting is suggesting that the employee was fired for.... what? Saying Microsoft was buying Macs? I don't think so. I would imagine it had more to do with taking images from the Redmond campus (unapproved images from his digital camera), off campus and making them available online. There are many business campus' that have very specific rules (that you agree to as part of employment) about what can and can't happen on campus. Understanding the images were captured in a loading dock, but they could have been pictures of code (screen captures or documents) or other MS IP. Since the guy was a temp, he prolly wasn't afforded a detailed explanation, just a seizure of non-personal items an personal escort the edge of the property.
Parent
Re:Of course they want Macs. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Of course they want Macs. (Score:4, Insightful)
The picture itself might have been permissible, but because I also mentioned that I worked at the MSCopy print shop, and which building it was in, it pushed me over the line.
But I do agree with you. This guy would have had to sign an NDA (and possibly other security docs) and outlined in it would be any such rules. He clearly leaked information the company considered private, and he should be sacked.
If a company can't trust an employee, they should not have to keep that employee around. I, too, had to sign an NDA where I work, and I actually read it, so I know what I can and cannot do. The guy said he thought he had taken appropriate precautions based on what others experienced (I'm guessing in different companies), but clearly didn't check to see what was appropriate for MICROSOFT. And that is, after all, what matters when you work for Microsoft.
In conclusion: If you violate your contract/NDA/whatever other official document you signed, you get canned. It's a simple cause and effect (the very purpose of these documents), hardly newsworthy at all as I'm sure it happens every day. Just because this guy found a new way to violate his contract (and it isn't that new either), doesn't set him apart from the rest.
Parent
Re:Of course they want Macs. (Score:5, Insightful)
I call bullshit. The photo was taken outdoors, and I doubt the mere acquisition of G-5s could be considered private information. Unless they are stolen, somebody has to know they were purchased.
I think it's a case of Microsoft being pissed off because of perceived embarassment. That the firing is more embarassing to them than the photo was is yet another example of how damaging the mass neurosis is that separates them from truly long-term successful organizations.
Parent
Re:Of course they want Macs. (Score:4, Informative)
Quite simply, you *don't* have to. When you interview for a job, you are typically given a bit of paperwork to sign. In this package, you usually get NDAs and the like that tell you what you can and cannot do with respect to information that you will have and/or be privy to at the job as well as things you can and cannot do with the expected results if you break the agreement. It is YOUR DUTY to READ and UNDERSTAND the documents BEFORE YOU SIGN them. If you find something you do not understand, you should ask them to clarify it and/or consult your own lawyer BEFORE YOU SIGN. If you have specific "what ifs" to test the terms, do this BEFORE YOU SIGN. If you find certain terms are not agreeable, you can then negotiate for more agreeable terms BEFORE YOU SIGN. AFTER YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND what you are AGREEING to IF you sign the document, YOU make the CHOICE of whether to sign the document or not, thereby agreeing to the terms. If you found that you cannot agree to the terms and/or haven't arrived at a reasonable set of terms through negotiation, you have the option of NOT SIGNING and going about your own business elsewhere.
Otherwise, you file this sort of situation under YO FAULT. He agreed to something then broke his agreement, the penalty for which is termination of employment. Case closed.
Parent
Re:Of course they want Macs. (Score:5, Insightful)
um, did you RTFA? microsoft said that they didn't like what he posted because it was considered a breach of security.
taking pictures of the loading dock and then describing where on the campus it was was considered to be too much information given to the public.
look, i don't support MS in the least (and in some regard, i downright hate them), but this isn't a free speech issue, it's a breach of security issue.
i am sure that somewhere in his employment contract (either with MS or his temp agency), it mentions that information regarding operating procedures are to be kept confidential.
he violated that, MS called him on it. it's as simple as that.
hopefully, he'll be able to find another job soon.
Parent
Uh Oh (Score:5, Funny)
First he gets fired and now Slashdot posts 3 links to his server? Poor guy!
Offer to take the posting down (Score:5, Funny)
And if he doesn't want to take it down, damn it we'll take it down FOR him.
Non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I can tell, the facts disclosed are:
1. MS copy shop operations are in the same building as shipping and receiving.
2. There are trees, asphalt, and trucks somewhere on the MS campus. Sometimes there is sunshine.
3. MS bought a few Apple G5 machines.
As several people have pointed out, item #3 is no surprise, given that MS develops software for Apple computers.
What's the big deal?
Wouldn't a more enlightened company have requested that the employee go ahead with his offer to remove the text, or simply have asked that he note the preceding in a rebuttal? They can't call the information back, and does it really help MS to cultivate so much fear among employees about discussing even such innocuous details? If so, why?
Parent
Re:Non-issue (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Non-issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Where is the line drawn? The loading dock? A developes cube?
From what I understand, the campus is pretty much a gated community. If the pic was taken from a public street, then yeah you have a point. But when on they're property, you gotta play by their rules.
Parent
Why are they so secretive? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why are they so secretive? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why are they so secretive? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why are they so secretive? (Score:4, Insightful)
B. He's demonstrated a propensity to take photos of things "behind the scenes" at Microsoft and publish them on the internet.
I don't expect they cared too much about this incident, but it identifies him as someone willing to snipe at his own place of employment on the internet. Being a temp, no reason to negotiate, just fire and forget. Why bother getting promises of good behavior from him that he'll likely reneg on next week when you can push the recycle button.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable decision to me, and this guy had it coming.
Parent
In case of /.ing (Score:5, Informative)
October 23, 2003 @ 10:34 PM | Macintosh
It looks like somebody over in Microsoft land is getting some new toys...
I took this shot on the way into work on the loading dock (MSCopy, the print shop I work in, is in the same building as MS's shipping and receiving). Three palettes of Dual 2.0Ghz G5's on their way in to somewhere deep in the bowels of Redmond. Hopefully they're all in good condition when they arrive -- the boxes are slick enough that a few of them took a bit of a tumble (you can see them back in the truck)!
October 27, 2003 03:08 PM
And that simply, as of about 2pm today, I once again joined the ranks of the unemployed. more
The day started like any other day -- get up, dink around for a bit, bus into work, and start working through the stack of jobs. Just shy of an hour after I got in, my manager came in and asked me to step into his office when I had a chance. Sure, no biggie, and I headed over as soon as I finished the job I was setting up.
"Okay, here's the first question. Is this page," and here he turned his monitor towards me, letting me see my "Even Microsoft wants G5s" post from last Thursday, "hosted on any Microsoft computer? Or is it on your own?"
"It's on mine. Well, it's on a hosted site that I pay for, but no, it's not on anything of Microsoft's."
"Good. That means that as it's your site on your own server, you have the right to say anything you want. Unfortunately, Microsoft has the right to decide that because of what you said, you're no longer welcome on the Microsoft campus."
And that simply, as of about 2pm today, I once again joined the ranks of the unemployed.
It seems that my post is seen by Microsoft Security as being a security violation. The picture itself might have been permissible, but because I also mentioned that I worked at the MSCopy print shop, and which building it was in, it pushed me over the line. Merely removing the post was also not an option -- I offered, and my manager said that he had asked the same thing -- but the only option afforded me was to collect any personal belongings I had at my workstation and be escorted out the door. They were at least kind enough to let me be escorted out by one of my co-workers, rather than sending security over to usher me out, but the end result is the same.
More frustrating for me is that, having read stories here and there on the 'net about people who had for one reason or another lost their jobs due to something on their weblogs, I thought that I had done what I could to avoid that possibility. To my mind, it's an innocuous post. The presence of Macs on the Microsoft campus isn't a secret (for everything from graphic design work to the Mac Business Unit), and when I took the picture, I made sure to stand with my back to the building so that nothing other than the computers and the truck would be shown -- no building features, no security measures, and no Microsoft personnel. However, it obviously wasn't enough.
So, I'm unemployed. I am somewhat lucky in that I'm not technically unemployed -- I am still on the roster for my temp agency, who has been very good to me so far (and hopefully will continue to be), but as their ability to place me anywhere does depend on the current job market, it's not a foolproof guarantee of employment coming in quickly. I've put a call into them and let them know of the situation and that I'm available and willing for whatever can be found, so with any luck, they'll be able to find a placement for me. However, it appears that it's also time for me to start hitting the streets and shopping my resume around again.
Wish me luck.
Bad publicity (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the mainstream press doesn't even understand why Microsoft is considered distasteful by many people. I doubt that many news outlets will even consider this news.
The Blog Nation may spread it around for a few nanoseconds, but most of them are already open-minded enough to realize that there are viable alternatives to Microsoft products.
Overreaction? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, there is probably more to this story than we are reading -- mainly because the site is /.-ed.
For those who can't get to the article (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy needs help with his rent, too (Score:4, Informative)
Two Words (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you have enough money not to care, or are in a union powerful enough to stick by/up for you, that is the terms of employment in 21st Century America.
Welcome to your well-regulated life. The schools cover it with "Code of Conduct", and businesses continue it with "Policies and Procedures for Employees".
When you retire, you'll probably be covered under "Retirement Home Procedures for Residents".
Microsoft and the "community" (Score:5, Informative)
Some of their efforts have been laughable in the way that they have tried to make corporate efforts look as if they are really community based. I've tried to find evidence of a genuine MS community but there isn't much about. The only equivalent to Slashdot for MS lovers in ActiveWin [activewin.com], which has about a dozen people that post to it, mainly when a story about Linux or critical of MS comes up.
There is a lot of activity on GotDotNet [gotdotnet.com], but mostly it is technical queries.
Are there other, genuine examples of MS community sites? Or alternatively, attempts that are obviously MS driven? I'm just interested to compare the strength of the OSS community with the MS community (yes I know they are not logically exclusive, but in reality it seems to be pretty much the case).
What really worries me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Heck, being a "temp" probably made firing him that much easier.
Should he have been fired for breaking confidentiality? I don't know, because I can't even see his side of the story (as his site is
not unusual (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno about this (Score:4, Insightful)
After all, MS develops office for Macs, amoung other software packages they port for Apple computers. This would infer that they at least test these ports once or twice, and they would obviously need macs for this.
The idea that he blew the whistle on something is bogus, at least IMHO.
Security violation? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I can see how the disclosure of this confidential information will cause the destruction of the company. As we speak, hordes of Linux-loving commandos are probably filing into semi trailers purporting to be carrying cases of Jolt Cola or some such, in a classic "trojan horse" maneuver.
~Philly
Should've put a password on his blog.. (Score:5, Informative)
It didn't take me long to realize that the company (or a contractor) had some spiders out there looking for websites with key words (company name, nuclear, etc) and probably found my blog. So, the easiest way to defeat them and still have my blog was to put up a simple login/password to my site. Only my friends/family view it anyways, and I just create one login account for everybody.
Since then, I've had 2 other friends (A teacher and a programmer) go through almost the same thing, and they've all put passwords on their sites. I would recommend ALL bloggers to do that if they decide to post anything about work, co-workers, etc if they value their jobs. If this guy did that, I bet he would still have his job.
Yes it is a free speech issue (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many other cases where editing or suppressing employee speech is perfectly acceptable. For example, newspapers aren't obligated to print whatever their reporters feel like writing. But employers shouldn't be able to take punitive action against people for making non-libelous statements on personal websites.
Here's a great idea for a startup: create software that mines postings in online forums like Slashdot, associating online personas with actual people and looking for evidence of insubordination or unacceptable opinions. No subpoenas necessary, no court orders, just screen scrapers, AI and a database. If you worked for a large company that could afford such a service would you feel free to speak your mind online?
Re:Oh really? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Paranoia? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I side with Microsoft on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you completely, on a technical level.
There's probably no doubt the guy broke 'the rules' as its very, very easy to do. Almost everyone breaks one of the standard workplace 'rules' per day. Same with the law - I am a total criminal, I jaywalk multiple times a day, and I've run red lights before.
The difference is in the interpretation. Like the law, the spirit is supposed to be observed, not just the letter.
What I am saying is this: he broke the rules and he shouldn't have been fired. Yes it was a picture of a part of the MS campus, a loading dock. Yes, technically it was a security breach. Yes, it was against the rules. No, he should not have been fired. Why?
Because anyone can see he has not actually caused any damage to Microsoft. Nothing has happened. No one seriously thinks he has imperiled their development efforts, physical security, or anything else. Every one of these managers knows that the kid just screwed up, but they're going by the book and not with their brains.
If we don't cut each other some slack, and use some bloody judgment, we may as all submit to the Giant Corporate Shell Script that tells us when to take lunch, when to take a shit, when to make small talk with workers. Rules are there to be interpreted with wisdom and intelligence. That's the way I see it.
Parent
Re:so what ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's look at this from an ethics standpoint. If the guy had posted a picture of himself dressed as Mary Poppins frolicking in his yard, then it's not an issue for his work. If he published pictures of his personally owned Windows PC blue-screening and bitched about it in his blog, that's not cause for Microsoft to take action against him, either.
It's when you cross that line between home and work that it gets ugly. The guy took digital photos of his employer's non-public building areas while there as an employee. He identified himself as a Microsoft employee, in what department he worked, and in what building. He used poor judgement and he knows it. Microsoft didn't commit some horrible atrocity against the Mac community by firing the guy. They did not quelch his free speech rights. They fired some loose cannon who was wandering around the campus taking digital photos and posting them on his own web page. The whole story is just sensationalistic: Microsoft Fires Mac Fan For Blog Photo. It had nothing to do with his being a "Mac Fan." What's next?
Come on folks.
Parent
Re:so what ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Was he hired to take digital photos of company property? It's not his office building. It's theirs. If they don't want photos of it floating around the net, that's their call.
Think about the questions that go through the minds of the security people: Today it was the loading dock but what will it be tomorrow? The new X-Box, our development lab? Photos of company-proprietary memos? Why is the guy wandering around the campus taking pictures with a digital camera?
You also don't seem to understand how industrial espionage works. They might be just Macs to you. Someone else might have other information that they are able to put together with that in order to ascertain something that Microsoft wishes to keep secret.
And in all the places I've worked, no one has ever cared what snaps anyone took or what they did with them.
Where have you worked? JC Penney and Walmart? Most engineering firms are very guarded and don't want pictures of their facilities distributed over the Internet.
Parent
Re:so what ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, you can say that they have a right to protect whatever, but the photographs have no discerning characteristics. He even took care to make sure of that. More importantly, the photo is of just macs... which we all know they get because they have a Mac unit.
So... your theories are great but ultimately not relevant. If they truly cared about future incidents they could've asked him to take the photo down, reprimanded him, and then sent email to the company asking that people don't do that.
But, instead they just fired the guy. Your theories don't mesh with the other facts.
Parent
Re:so what ? (Score:4, Insightful)
The guy was wandering the campus with a digital camera taking pictures of non-public areas. Wouldn't that make you a bit suspicious if you were in corporate security? Wouldn't you wonder how many other pictures he had taken and who he had given them to? Why should Microsoft take a chance on some temp when there are hundreds of others lined up at their doors begging for jobs?
So it does make me wonder what the real reason is.
Right... It's Microsoft, so there must be some nefararious, hidden, evil plan at work. I forgot. Sorry.
Parent