Microsoft Fires Mac Fan For Blog Photo 1087
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."
Of course they want Macs. (Score:4, Insightful)
port longhorn ot Apple hardware? (Score:2, Insightful)
Paranoia? (Score:3, Insightful)
Non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see an issue. Imagine yourself running a small firm - if one of your employees were to go and make a post that clearly makes fun of your company, how would you feel about it?
The move may be a bit harsh, but definitely not anything to raise privacy issues - as an employee, you are obligated to look out for the well-being of your company.
As far as the G5s go, why wouln't MS want them? They have a bunch of products that target Mac OS, I would imagine they want to test them on everything from the G3 iBooks to the G5 desktops.
Bad Publicity? (Score:2, Insightful)
Who needs employees like this anyways? (Score:1, Insightful)
Even if that information isn't corporate secrets, still shows that employee doesn't exactly have their employers best interests at heart.
Re:Non-issue (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Non-issue (Score:2, Insightful)
For those who can't get to the article (Score:5, Insightful)
I side with Microsoft on this one. (Score:2, Insightful)
Chances are he signed paperwork saying that he couldn't disclose company secrets. He took the pic at work and posted it on the web, there are often policies about this. He let the world know what MS was up to.
No matter how much I like MS they did exactly what they should have done.
I know I'm up to my neck in NDAs and ethics processes, something like that would be a direct violation of all of them. I even try not to talk about what I do to my wife. Coporations keep secrets for a reason.
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".
Re:Bad Publicity? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't exactly care for Redmond's largest company myself, but for a change this is a reasonable business practice.
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
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.
The G5s are for Virtual PC. (Score:2, Insightful)
Virtual PC for Mac doesn't run on the G5s right now because it takes advantage of an endian-switch mode that only exists on Motorola's G4s. Microsoft needs some G5s to test against, plain and simple.
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.
not unusual (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why are they so secretive? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
why did they do that? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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?
It's not about free speech, but corporate security (Score:2, Insightful)
It isn't that I don't feel sorry for the guy, but being a student of best security practices, I know that you don't go posting pictures without permission. The most basic reason is if there were something in that picture that could help out a thief, it would be a breach of physical security.
In this case, I think the breach regards corporate strategy. Obviously, the Mac's are a superior system in many ways. (The fact they don't crash every 24 hours is a good start). So I'm sure Microsoft wants to examine them thoroughly. But to advertise this fact to the world is a breach of corporate security. Microsoft could easily slap this guy with a corporate espionage charge, and based on the number of lawyers they have, I'm sure they would win.
There is a difference between freedom of speech and the duty of every employee to protect company workings.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:1, Insightful)
In the end, the blog post is simply speaking of "new toys" arriving that day. It is not telling something like "we finally have decent hardware" or "finally a good OS in Redmond".
The security: I did not see the picture, like many of us. The guy, in what he writes, seems to have carefully taken a picture that could not provide other people with any kind of security information. I'm waiting for the blog to become available.
We don't know if its company just wanted a reason to fire him, or if he realy posed a security issue.
But I'm wondering what would have happened if the blog was something like "I love this company; It's a great place to work, this is a picture of the place where I work"...
I'm not sure he would have been fired...
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.
Re:Of course they want Macs. (Score:3, Insightful)
Won't let you talk casually about what you do at work ("I develop a word processing application")...
Won't let you talk casually about what see at work ("My boss got fired")...
Won't let you talk casually about your working environment ("I use a fast PC with two monitors")...
??
I have to ask, if you work for a private company, why would you let your company control that level of detail? I'm all for not blabbing about all the details of your work, but where do you draw the line? Does it make you untrustworthy to talk about minor things at work (and, yes, getting a truckload of computers at work IS a minor thing)?
TW
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
MSFT does Mac software, so DUH? (Score:2, Insightful)
MSFT does Mac software, so DUH?
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
Re:Should've put a password on his blog.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a brainstorm: How about you just don't say anything about work in your blog?
Re:Security violation? (Score:1, Insightful)
Agreements are almost always subject to interpretation. Since firing a temp doesn't require going through a court of law, they could interpret it any way they wanted to.
Had he been a normal employee, firing would possibly have needed a justifiable cause, although AFAIK in the US this depends on state laws.
There are a lot of things in employment contracts that are unenforcable or can only be enforced within a narrow interpretation (non-competes, in particular).
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.
What if something like this happend at Apple. (Score:2, Insightful)
What if a temp employeee took a snapshot of a bunch of Dell computers being unloaded at the loading dock? Would he be fired?
Yes.
I am not a big fan of Microsoft, but they acted in their best interest. I have worked inside of several of the largest computer / technology companies, and there has never been a question about the no-camera policy. Every NDA I signed has specified that I can't bring a camera on campus without permission. (This has caused some problems for the folks with cameras imbedded in their mobile phones.)
Re:Paranoia? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now however, half the geek world and anyone else who cares to take a look sometime in the future can look all they like. It has now become wide public knowledge. NDA or not the knowledge (no matter how useless) is now widely public. How NOT to manage the situtation....
This is all a lesson in working for a large corperation and really has little to do with microsoft or the computer industry. But its should be in Microsofts interest to keep this to a minimum, publicly speaking.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone here seems to be commenting about the fact that it's obvious Microsoft would have G5s. They do, after all, develop Mac software. So then, why is it "painting the company in a bad light" to point out the obvious fact that they happen to have some G5s on campus?
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.
Re:What really worries me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like I said, nothing worrisome, companies do this all the time. It's purely a financial move. In fact some companies these days are made up almost entirely of contractors, hired for a particular project, paid and sent on to get another job.
The main thing contractors at Microsoft have to suffer through is a 100-day "break in service" every 365 days, precisely because there's already been a lawsuit over the practice. Google for "Microsoft" and "Vizcaino", or go here [bs-s.com] for the Vizcaino lawyers' side of the story.
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.
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:so what ? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? It's not a bank, a nuclear research facility, the changing rooms of Moulin Rouge; it's an office building. And if you look at the actual photo, it wasn't even that, but the interior of a truck making a delivery.
MS, through hiring staff as "permanent temps" can fire them for no cause, so there is no legal recourse But what harm could conceivably be done to MS I can't imagine. It's hardly a secret that MS uses Macs, since they have a Mac Business Unit to port Office.
And in all the places I've worked, no one has ever cared what snaps anyone took or what they did with them. I sense somehow that the "terrorism" angle is the subtext. It's become an excellent pretext for stomping on people's rights.
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.
Re:so what ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure. The company had every right to do what it did, nobody would dispute that.
The more interesting question is, was firing him a reasonable response, when he would have been perfectly happy to take down the site and no further damage would have been done?
As I say, Microsoft have every right to behave like the Stazi in the way that they manage their workplace, but in that case, I'm pretty damn sure that I wouldn't want to work there.
Others might be only too happy to be employed by vindictive, power-crazed arseholes, and I wish nothing but good luck to them in what is sure to be an eventful if somewhat frustrating and humiliating career.
Oh no, Macs! (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so what ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Comparing it to him carrying an uzi around is outrageous.
A more likely story is that this guy pissed some people off, and this gave them an excuse to can him?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
^^^^^^^^MOD PARENT UP^^^^^^^^ (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Non-issue (Score:3, Insightful)
1. where the loading dock is,
2. What high value items are recieved on the loading dock.
3. physical security isn't enough to keep unauthorized photos from being taken.
4. MS extends the security thru obscurity paradigm to the real world as well as the cyber-world.
Re:so what ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:so what ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bias against Microsoft of course plays a big part in people's judgement as to whether the action was right or wrong in a moral sense as well since a large part of the masses is either anti-MS or hears so much anti-M$ propaganda, that they believe it must be so.
The bottom line is, read all the papers you sign, and know the policies of your company before taking actions that you are unsure of. This story should never have gotten press from Slashdot in my humble opinion, and stories like this cannot create an unbiased atmosphere for discussion, when the very essence of this story leans toward anti-MS propaganda.
Re:Of course they want Macs. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have access to a Top Secret research lab. Just for fun, I could disclose exactly how many Dell workstations they've purchased in the past two months(98, bringing the total to 214). I really wouldn't expect they'd care.
I don't think so, either, but they are the judges of that, ultimately. However, you did not disclose the name and location of the building in which these computers were housed, the department that works in that building, and the exact computers, with pictures. That is what this guy did, and why they fired him. All in all, I would say this counts as proprietary information.
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
sounds like windows (Score:1, Insightful)
(i.e. issue a patch to address the vulnerablilty but don't fix the real problem) At least they are consistant.
u sure? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody seems to have noticed that MS spied on him (Score:1, Insightful)
I can attest to one thing, though: Microsoft is filled from the ground up with assholes, from the security guards right on up the ladder to Gates himself. As corporations are (legally) entities that cannot die I wouldn't mind seeing someone take a few pot-shots at this immortal just to see what happens.