Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

How P2P Can Taint a Career 385

Posted by timothy from the how-far-sighted-of-them dept.
duncan writes "After appearing on the BBC news review program Newsnight to discuss the recent Grokster case, Alex Hanff returned to work the next day and was promptly sacked because 'his presence within the company could count against it when bidding for big government contracts.' Read more at The Guardian"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How P2P Can Taint a Career More

How P2P Can Taint a Career

Comments Filter:

  • How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:5, Funny)

    by nokilli ( 759129 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @01:51AM (#12983181)
    Build a website that catalogues all the evil shit corporations do to employees, so that consumers get to know about the evil shit and take their business elsewhere.

    Call it something like, whodotheyfuckoverwiththemoneyyougivethem.com [whodotheyf...vethem.com], only shorter, while making sure the word stealth [slashdot.org] appears nowhere within.)

    It it catches on, then corporations would be afraid of how their treatment towards employees could count against the way consumers look at them.

    Fight fire with fire.

    • Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by iibagod ( 887140 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @02:01AM (#12983209)
      How many people hate one of the places they used to work for? Can you imagine how many unfounded accusations would be lobbed at past employers. You'd have to have anonymity when posting such things, for fear that your employer could get your information. This supposed site would have so many unfounded and just plain WRONG accusations you wouldn't know what was true and what wasn't anymore, making it useless.

      And, even providing that a majority of the accusations are true, how much would it really hurt the employers? "Oh no, sir, I read that the company we use for all our advertising makes up statistics for their clients in order to make them look better. In fact, this ad firm actually hires people to do fake 'testimonials' to bolster the percieved quality of their clients' products. For shame! We shouldn't do business with these liars!"

      No company will stop doing something that makes them money unless it starts costing them money. A subset of people on the internet casting about rumor about supposed unseemly behavior won't cost them a dime.
    • And to a lesser (and former) extent, fatbabies.com. Not that anybody stops purchasing from them, but they might stop sending resumes. I don't think a site can attract consumers interested in the fair treatment of the people involved in making it; we just don't care. What would probably work better is consumer complaints, along the lines of resellerratings.
    • This is actually, a very good idea.

      Only a few people would really be able to participate in this though. You have to be able to leave your job, never come back to it, and be guaranteed that future employers won't hold this against you.

    • Informed choices (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Aceticon ( 140883 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @04:18AM (#12983558)
      How about if i'm just buying a new TV and want to weight in my choice the environmental track record of the manufacturer?

      Or am buying clothing and want to know if the manufacturer uses child labour?

      Or am buying financial services and want to know how does that company treat it's employees?

      When sitting on the store one rarelly has internet access or the time to trail through the information even if said access is available.

      It's self-deception to expect most people to take notebooks with mobile internet access to the electronics shop in order to make an informed decision on which TV to buy.

      My sugestion is as follows:
      - Setup an "informed choices" service. This should serve as an intermediary between consumers and third party entities (consumer groups, NGOs, government, business groups, whatever) willing to provide information about products and companies
      - The service is customiseable per-person. You can log in via de internet and choose what factors do you care about and how much do u trust the information coming from each of the third party entities
      - The service should support a simple and easy way of letting consumers get the right info when they're out shopping. For example using a mobile phone with a bar code reader (or maybe using the phone camera for that) or an RFID reader and a mobile connection to said service allowing to simply: press a button; point mobile at product; get the info u care about; choose.

      The point here is two-fold:
      - Give enough information to the consumers to let them do informed decisions but not so much that they need to spend lots of time just getting informed. (otherwise ppl will simply not do/use it). Hence the whole user configured filtering and trust weighting.
      - Give consumers access to the information when and where they need it. Consumers should not have to prepare themselfs before going out shopping by browsing some site(s) in the Net, figure out beforehand the list of brands of the things they want to buy and having to memorize the (environmental, work conditions, polution history, whatever) information for each brand just to make informed decisions. Simply put - if they have to jump through all those hoops people will just not do it.
      Hence the sugestion of mobile access and bar code/rfid tag reading - fast, simple, no preparation required - you just scan the product and out comes an evaluation of the brand/maker according to your chosen criteria (for example, respect for the environment)

  • please understand (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @01:58AM (#12983200)
    now before you go writing me off as a troll please hear me out. i have pleaded. god knows i have tried. its seeming really hopeless..i don't know if i can take it anymore and i am hyperventilating. the dupes on slashdot are way out of hand. something needs to be done (via slashcode, moderation, SOMETHING FFS) to stop the dupes. this is really affecting me. please stop duping.

  • He didn't get fired for sharing files... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tezkah ( 771144 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @01:59AM (#12983204)
    He didn't get fired for sharing anything. He got fired because he earlier run what seems to have been a BitTorrent tracker in his spare time, was sued over it (in a civil case, not a criminal case), and didn't tell his employer when they interviewed him, so they only found out when he talked about it on a TV show.

    He argues that he didn't have to mention it since it doesn't have anything to do with his employer, and I think depending on how the interview went exactly, he's probably right. If they actually asked him about whether there were any civil cases pending against him and he lied and said no, then it's understandable that he got fired (it's not like it's a personal question, after all); but if they didn't, then I really think it's their own fault, and he's right in any case when he says that the whole thing simply doesn't affect his employer in any way.

    In any case, it's important to note that he did not himself share any files. He got fired for going into dupe slashdot comments [slashdot.org] and stealing the +5 moderations.
    • That question sounds a lot like the "do you plan to overthrow the government" one at customs :-)
      At the job interview:
      "have you ever done anything that you think will not make us not employ you"
      "No" (what, do you think I'm stupid? I'm gonna actually admit to anything here?)
      later......
      You did XYZ which you didn't disclose at the interview and which we claim would have stopped us from hiring you.
      You're fired, not for doing XYZ but for lying at the interview.

  • Anything you do can taint your career... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gopal.V ( 532678 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @02:00AM (#12983208) Homepage Journal
    Let me repeat - Anything can taint your career .

    Whether you stand up to a bully and end up in a fist fight ... whether you challenge your employer's unethical practices ... whether you oppose your government's war mongering ... whatever you do to challenge the authority OF anyone higher up in the food chain- doesn't matter if it was legal , ethical or moral on your part.

    You can get fired for anything that anybody can use to attack you and your companies' reputation. It's sad, but true - but at least I hope this guy will get a better job at a more appreciative employer.

    • Later on. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by headkase ( 533448 )
      I hope he wins a nice settlement once it go's through arbitration and he wins an unfair dismissal case. (If he does that is).

  • Interesting Legal Question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tezkah ( 771144 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @02:01AM (#12983214)
    To what extent can an opinion about intellectual property (or any other law) form grounds for dismissal?
    IMHO it is the right, indeed the obligation of anyone living in a democracy to question the laws that govern them. Intellectual property laws are increasingly valid targets for such scepticism.

    There would be an uproar in most countries if someone was fired for expressing their opinion on abortion, or religion, why should someone's opinion on dupe [slashdot.org] law be any different?

  • Misleading summary (Score:4, Informative)

    by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @02:06AM (#12983221)
    This really has nothing to do with P2P other than that was the subject on which the guy was speaking. What got him let go was his announcement (on national TV) that he is against copyright and intellectual property. From the Gruaniad article:

    Mr Hanff has declared that he is opposed to copyright and intellectual property laws. Since much of our business is based around the protection of our copyright and intellectual property, we consider our dismissal of Mr Hanff entirely justified and appropriate.

    I work for a telecoms company. If I went on national TV and decried telephony, saying that everyone should communicate face to face or by writing letters, I'd expect my company to start to wonder if I was entirely suitable as an employee, too.

    • Re:Misleading summary (Score:5, Interesting)

      by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @02:53AM (#12983336)
      I work for a telecoms company. If I went on national TV and decried telephony, saying that everyone should communicate face to face or by writing letters, I'd expect my company to start to wonder if I was entirely suitable as an employee, too.

      What do you do for that telecom company? If you're Public Relations, I would agree. But what if you're a system administrator? Does a belief in alternative communications systems really affect your ability to maintain the systems under your charge?

      Likewise, did Mr. Hanff's belief in reformation (or even removal) of Copyright and associated "intellectual property" laws really affect his duties within the company? Or is this simply a personal call by someone within Management with an axe to grind against the opinions expressed by Mr. Hanff?

      Also, keep in mind that Mr. Hanff seems to believe it was about possible pending litigation. From the article:

      Newsnight interviewed him because in March he was served with legal papers by the Motion Picture Association of America for running a website called DVD-Core that pointed users to files of movies, some illegally copied, distributed using BitTorrent file-sharing software. It was this his employer objected to, saying he should have disclosed it when interviewed.

      And this may be a legitimate concern. If Mr. Hanff is required to get a security clearance to work on Government contracts, legal entanglements may become an issue. But even then, this particular case is questionable. And it certainly isn't in line with the other statements from higher company management.
      • Does a belief in alternative communications systems really affect your ability to maintain the systems under your charge?

        If I become sufficiently militant about it, yes, it might. Would you want to take that chance with your critical infrastructure?

        If Mr. Hanff is required to get a security clearance to work on Government contracts, legal entanglements may become an issue.

        I don't remember the exact details of the clearance process, but I would be amazed if any such things weren't looked at very hard i

    • Re:Misleading summary (Score:5, Insightful)

      by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @02:55AM (#12983340)
      So if you are a haliburton employee and you are against the war in iraq you should be fired? If you are a govt employee and you are against the war in iraq or you publicly state that you think George Bush is an idiot and a religious fundamendalist zealot you should be fired?

      You have just stated that it's OK for employees to fire people for holding an opinion contrary to the opinion of the "corporation". That is a ridiculus assertion. I hope to got this guy sues the hell of out them.

      • Re:Misleading summary (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @03:33AM (#12983462)
        You have just stated that it's OK for employees to fire people for holding an opinion contrary to the opinion of the "corporation". That is a ridiculus assertion.

        No, he stated that it's OK to fire people for publicly stating an opinion that is contrary to the business interests of the corporation.

        Is that ridiculous? It may be, or it may not be. It depends on the nature of the statement, the nature of the business, and the relationship between the two.
        • So if you are a haliburton employee and you are against the war in iraq you should be fired?

          If you throw in speaking about it in public (and I think the grandparent post implied that), then you've got a situation where a person is "publicly stating an opinion that is contrary to the business interests of the corporation". Is that acceptable to fire someone that voices such an opinion? I don't think so. I think the grandparent was right on target with their statement.

          However, if the person was working

          • Re:Misleading summary (Score:5, Insightful)

            by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:57AM (#12984116)
            Is that acceptable to fire someone that voices such an opinion? I don't think so.

            Think about a corporation having 20 employees struggling to get a new product out and getting more money. Now, one of its employees gives an interview and says "our product sucks; it can't even do (fill in whatever), and it won't be out in time either". I think it's justified firing that employee (whether it's legal is another question).

            If the company is Microsoft or IBM, then it's a different matter. A Microsoft employee should arguably be able to say "I think Word sucks" without getting fired if he says it in a clearly private capacity. But if he's the head of the Word development team giving an interview saying "Word sucks", that would be justification for firing him.

            I believe this argument was used as the justification for the private corporation that fired an employee during the U.S. presidential election primaries because the person attended a Bush rally wearing anti-Bush shirts.

            That behavior is unrelated to workplace conduct or company products, so I think that's a bad justification.

            If the employee wore a "Bush sucks" T-shirt to work, then the company can fire him, provided they also fire any employee wearing a "Kerry sucks" T-shirt. The justification would be "political messages disrupt workplace harmony". But the company has no business selecting one or the other political message (unless it's, say, a company with an explicitly partisan purpose).
            • Should I be fired for being married to a black woman because my employer beleives "misogyny is unnatural?" And if a black employee disagrees with the predominant corporate sentiment that "blacks are inferior," he should be fired too, right? And we can't have people wearing crosses, stars of david, head scarves, or yin/yang symbols to work either, because "religious messages disrupt workplace harmony..."

              You've got the draw the line somewhere on employees being allowed to express personal opinions. I say the

      • The guy has essentially said, on national TV, "the way in which my employer makes money is wrong and should be abolished." You think that doesn't make him unsuitable to be an employee?

        You have just stated that it's OK for employees to fire people for holding an opinion contrary to the opinion of the "corporation".

        No I didn't. I said that it's ok (at least in some circumstances) to fire people for making public statements that go against the company's business interests. If I bad mouthed my friends, I wo
      • Actually, George Bush fired people within the CIA for not supporting him, so apparently, yeah, you can. :)
    • He isn't against any and all copyright protection, that's the company's line.

      Though even if he was, in a democratic society, should government contracts not be awarded to companies who have an employee who has a desire to change the law? Isn't wanting to change the law, well, politics? And Government cracking down on dissenting political views with tax money, isn't that a bit shady?

      • And Government cracking down on dissenting political views with tax money, isn't that a bit shady?

        Where does it say that the government has anything to do with this? The company is claiming that it's afraid that ahving this guy working for them after what he's said might harm their chances of getting government work, that's all.
  • It sucks, but it is within the rights of the employer, especially a small one. Take a look at the other side of the fence. I sure did after a scary experience not too long ago. The small company, I founded with a friend, was in need of a junior sysadm. A relatively new partner to the company found what appeared to be a good fit. We made and offer. and he accepted, but, THANK GOD!!!, decided to take a later counter-offer from his current employer. A few months later, he marched into the Illinois Capital buil
    • The stigma it would have put upon my company would have been devastating.

      So, you're saying that just because an employee murdered someone you'd fire him? Just like that? Where's the loyalty these days?

      • This is actually one of the few solid reasons for firing someone in the UK. Almost all employment contracts I've seen state that the company may dismiss you if you're convicted of a crime (usually with an exemption for minor motoring offences, so they don't wind up firing 1/3 of the workforce for getting caught on speed camera).

        That's always struck me as slightly at odds with all the prisoner-resettlement programmes, and the simple fact that a criminal who's done their time and been released is much less

  • Sad fact. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bananatree3 ( 872975 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @02:12AM (#12983241)
    This is one of the very sad issues with today's corprate atmosphere. People have been laid off, fired, etc. just because they got bad press. The corprate string-pullers of the company echelon don't like the fact that an employee of theirs got some sort of bad attention from the newspapers, and so they lay them off as a "liability", even if they are in reality a model hard working, smart employee. This kind of "liability" crap is just sick.

  • Nasty situation. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by salparadyse ( 723684 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @02:37AM (#12983295)
    Are we really going to stand for a society where to express any kind of opinion that runs contrary to the norm (corporate line) results in rejection and sacking? The end result will be a society where people report each other for holding non-conformist opinions as a way of getting promotion.

    • Re:Nasty situation. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @03:11AM (#12983394)
      The end result will be a society where people report each other for holding non-conformist opinions as a way of getting promotion.

      Like that doesn't happen already? Does the term "corporate politics" mean anything?

      At one company I worked for, I kept detailed documentation of all decisions that affected my project and my boss thought I was trying to get him fired. It probably didn't help that I told him he deserved to be fired if he thought I was trying to get him fired even though I wasn't doing anything special to get him fired. Eventually, he got himself promoted out of the department. The next boss was determined to get me fired because he thought I would try to get him fired. It probably didn't help that I told him he deserved to be fired even though I wasn't doing anything special to get him fired. I ended up leaving because I got tired of that crap when I was only trying to do my job. Go figure.

  • Uh, Surprised...? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @02:42AM (#12983306)
    I'm not surprised. Companies these days want you to focus on the job to the point of excluding any kind of social life that might interfere with your commitment to work. If you put yourself in position where your views are publicly available, it will be used against you. It wouldn't surprised me if I get fired for my comments on /. one of these days.

  • Hard to Argue that They Owe Him Work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @02:48AM (#12983322) Homepage Journal
    I'm sure Britain doesn't have the concept of "at will" employment, or the concept that if the guy was self-employed, "freedom of contract" -- but it seems clear, they don't owe him a job.

    The guy got fired because he's on record making hostile statements about intellectual property. A company that lives and dies by I.P. has a good reason to not want the potential troublemaker.

    E.g. suppose I work for a AIDS activist organization, doing some programming. But I'm on record as saying, "AIDS is God's way of punishing sodomites." If that got around, I figure I'd be out of some work.

    Put yourself in the shoes of management. Try to imagine having to keep on working with someone who says, "I hate you and all that you stand for." If you were a manager, you'd probably feel really frustrated if you couldn't fire him.
    • while the UK does not have the concept of "at will" employment any employer is able to release an employee for any reason during the first 13 weeks of employment without a need to state a reason.

      Employment protection, as I understand it, only really kicks in after the end of the 13 week period when the employer is obligated to provide the employee with a contract, terms and employment protection.

      • Re:Hard to Argue that They Owe Him Work (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Ngwenya ( 147097 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @03:44AM (#12983492)

        while the UK does not have the concept of "at will" employment any employer is able to release an employee for any reason during the first 13 weeks of employment without a need to state a reason.

        Up to a point, this is correct. However, you cannot terminate a person's employment (even within the probationary period) for reasons contrary to discrimination laws. You couldn't, for instance, terminate the contract of a person of Asian extraction because "we don't hire Pakis here", nor could you fire a woman because the company has an all-male employment policy (such a policy would be almost certainly illegal, except for some very well defined exceptions).

        Now, here's the interesting bit - and I really don't know how this will turn out - Hanff has made no secret of his views (which is why the Beeb interviewed him!); and it's reasonable to suspect that his employer was aware (or could reasonably be expected to be aware) of said views, and hired him anyway. He's claiming that his termination violates the Human Rights Act (though that tends to bind governments acts against the people, rather than between private entities), and he will sue accordingly.

        We'll see how this turns out. Should be interesting. At stake is just how much control an employer can exercise over an employee speaking in his own time. It's not really about the "right to a job", it's to do with the extension of a contract beyond its terms. Employment contracts are infamous, being the only contract which one side can change the terms unilaterally (hence employment protection laws).

        --Ng

        • Re:Hard to Argue that They Owe Him Work (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @08:03AM (#12984150)
          Employment contracts are infamous, being the only contract which one side can change the terms unilaterally (hence employment protection laws).

          That's not true, at least not according to the legal advice I took when a new contract was being put together after my employer was bought out a few months back. There is no such thing as a contract that can automatically be changed by one party unilaterally, at least under UK law: one of the basic requirements of a legally binding contract is the understanding and consent of both parties.

          What is common in the UK is to have a clause in your employment contract that says the employer can change anything at any time. This is usually argued to be a CYA manoeuvre in case the government changes employment regs and the wording needs tweaking. I've never bought this argument myself -- nor ever seen such a change being required -- but I can at least understand the perspective.

          However, you have to realise that this is only possible because the contract already includes a term providing for it, to which both parties agreed, and its scope is rather limited even if it's written in an open-ended way. Even without the fact that the major employment details can't be changed unilaterally under UK employment laws anyway, changing anything in an unreasonable way using that clause could lead to a finding that the fundamental trust relationship has broken down between employer and employee. That in turn can result in a finding of constructive dismissal, which can be very costly in both financial and PR terms for the company.

          In summary, the idea that an employment contract can be changed at will by one party is rather misleading, at least in the UK.

          Obligatory disclaimer: IANAL, and if you're dealing with this sort of stuff relating to your own career, you do want to speak to one.

    • It's his opinion. If you believe that about AIDS but still do your work as good as anyone else, you shouldn't be fired. Companies shouldn't be able to fire you just for expressing your beliefs, which is what this amounts to.
    • E.g. suppose I work for a AIDS activist organization, doing some programming. But I'm on record as saying, "AIDS is God's way of punishing sodomites." If that got around, I figure I'd be out of some work.

      If you were reasonably discrete about your opinions (ie; not actively spreading discord) I don't think you should be fired.

      People should be judged by their actions; the rest is just crap.

      People from poor neighbourhoods are more likely to be secret junkies.
      Blacks are more likely to have a criminal ba

  • Too big for his boots (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DrSoCold ( 703785 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @03:04AM (#12983368)
    He is a fool and obviously thinks he can say what he wants and still rake in the cash from companies, you can't!. If you want the cash you gotta play the game.

    • Re:Too big for his boots (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sinner ( 3398 )
      If you want the cash you gotta play the game.
      And how is he supposed to eat without cash? Armed robbery? You may as well say "If you want to eat you gotta keep your mouth shut." Which may well be an accurate summation of the state of affairs, but it rather makes a mockery of freedom of speech, doesn't it?

  • The interview in question.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Stalyn ( 662 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @03:11AM (#12983391) Homepage Journal
    can be downloaded here [mininova.org] via bittorrent. I think the overall question is whether or not a person can be fired over a philosophical view.

    He never said that he is going to pirate software or will help those who do (he removed the torrent tracker from his site in December). However he was served with lawsuit via the MPAA in March. He is going to fight the lawsuit in court. He is fighting the lawsuit on jurisdiction grounds, that the MPAA has no right to sue him. Even though the server was temporarily hosted in California.

    Anyway I think his point is that the MPAA is using gestapo tactics in scaring people to settle and he is not going to settle. He'd rather fight this in court. Anyway he does have a case in light of the recent ruling since it only applies to those who promote the trading of illegal material. I think removing the tracker in December is the appropriate action.

  • In other news... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tune ( 17738 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @03:41AM (#12983480)
    In other news...
    ...Oh no wait, the other [slashdot.org] news is actually the same.

    Sigh.
  • Most comments (until now) focus on Guardian's article "File-share defender fired over TV show". However there is another issue here; Mr. Hanff was also funding a torrent site.

    Therefore, is not only a matter of opinion but also a matter of action. Considering that Mr. Hanff declared himself to own nothing more than "a few guitars [...] and an old inkjet printer", one can conclude that part of his salary was going to the maintenance of the torrent site.

    Take into account that his former employer is not deali

  • Notice a common theme here and elsewhere? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @04:01AM (#12983529)
    This guy got fired because the company he worked for disapproves of his beliefs.

    You can get (and people have been) fired for doing things on your own time that the company doesn't like.

    You can get (and people, like this guy, have been) fired for saying things on your own time that your company doesn't like.

    Notice a common theme here? The common theme is that if you work for a company, that company owns you. You are their slave. In exchange for an ever decreasing amount of money for your time, you have to do everything they tell you and demonstrate that you believe everything they want you to believe.

    And the government that keeps telling you that it's there to protect your personal liberty? It's nowhere to be found, because it's controlled by the very same people who control the corporations that you are increasingly a slave to.

    Welcome to the 21st century. Enjoy the ride to the bottom. Soon enough, you won't be allowed to enjoy anything else.

    • So don't accept being a slave. Your time is your own, and you should insist on your contract acknowledging that.

      At the risk of getting in trouble, since I'm posting this during my lunch hour at work, some of my colleagues and I did exactly this when our small company was bought out by a US megacorp. The original contract had clauses claiming all our IP outside of work, saying we had to get our manager's permission to take any other job, etc. We told them to stick it, pretty bluntly.

      One guy doing that, a

  • He's lucky he's in Europe.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @04:02AM (#12983531)
    At least the bloke has some legal redress to allow the courts to assess unfair dismissal claims. Here in AUstralia we have that right at the moment but our Federal gov't is about to try and take it away completely for anyone employed by a small business (defined as a business with 100 employees!!.
    Of course they're not allowed to SAY they're sacking you because of your religion, race, etc...but then again they don't have to give ANY reason...
    19th Century Free Market ideology is being re-adopted at the cost of our freedoms

  • Peer to Peer a 'dirty' phrase (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @07:07AM (#12983958)
    I can testify to that. I recently worked with a company to integrate with their Groove.net [groove.net] based solution, a peer to peer environment for document exchange and synchronization. However, when we prepared to present our work, I was told explicitly and repeatedly NEVER to use the phrase 'peer to peer'. Given that we were trying to use our resulting solution to sell the overall package, I found it quite disturbing that such steps were necessary.

  • we've seen this before (Score:3, Interesting)

    by iritant ( 156271 ) <lear.ofcourseimright@com> on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @08:05AM (#12984160) Homepage
    Dan Farmer was asked to leave (then) large computer manufacturer when he released Satan. Dan Geer was asked to leave a so-called security company when he and other security notables argued in favor of heterogeneity for purposes of resilience. In the end, it was the companies that looked like idiots and not the above individuals. Bonus for the person who can name the companies...

  • If you are sad about this story (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @08:36AM (#12984296) Homepage
    Well, there is one thing you can do for sure.

    Many of Slashdot readers are decision makers for their company and some run huge companies themselves.

    Boycott Tribal group when you purchase a solution in their genre.

    "firing" is a right given by current economical system and boycott is the right answer and perfectly legit,serious.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Close