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."
Censorship (Score:1, Interesting)
Why are they so secretive? (Score:4, Interesting)
Legality and No sense of humour (Score:2, Interesting)
I have to question the legality of that kind of action as infringing upon the freedom of speech, of punishing someone for their opinions.
Perhaps it is naive to think that the non-discrimination due to race, creed, etc would also apply to thought.
Because in essence firing someone for what are their opinions and thoughts is a form of thought police.
While that doesn't relate in this instance, as this is far more foolish.
It's a laugh. MS buying Apples. So what? It's funny. I'm sure they have Linus boxes running somewhere also. What of it?
You'd think a company that wealthy would be able to afford a sense of humour.
Coke/Pepsi same problem (Score:2, Interesting)
In the Coke/Pepsi deal the worker had to sign something saying he wouldn't publicly endorse another product (by drinking it) while working. I imagine MS might have a similar deal.
Re:Non-issue (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm no microsoft lover but I can't fault them on this one.
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
Free speech no human rights yes (Score:1, Interesting)
Atricle 8 [hri.org]
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyway, in the movie, Gates lies to Jobs, telling Jobs they want to develop software for the Lisa(?) (the mac's predecessor), but really they were just trying to get an early look at the thing to develop a competing product, ie. Windows.
Car companies, etc., always buy thier competitors' products - that's normal business practice. I wonder why MS took this guy's blog so... personally. Weird.
Google cache (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Of course they want Macs. (Score:5, Interesting)
He just got fired? (Score:1, Interesting)
But seriously: he was wrong, MS is right in this case. He himself says he was trying not to compromise any rules, he should have thought harder....
If MS wants to be secretive about their location and has her reasons for that, they are fully in title to.
Re:Of course they want Macs. (Score:0, Interesting)
Exactly. And that's what MS should have said: we're the largest Mac development shop in the world, outside of Apple, and we need Macs to develop with.
But that's not what Microsoft said.
They told the guy point-blank 'we don't like what you posted, so you're fired'. That is an incredibly asinine move on their part - the only kind they know, these days - and I hope the PR burns them bad.
It was probably really the responsibility of an asshat manager, but MS is to blame. Give me a break! I worked as a temp at MS before and I talked shit about PCs all the time, brought my PowerBook to work, etc... didn't have any problems.
Security? (Score:3, Interesting)
I tried posting it:
2002-03-16 21:43:39 Al Qa'eda Targets Microsoft (articles,microsoft) (rejected)
but it was before I kept a copy of submissions in my journal, so I don't have the content anymore.
Re:Legality and No sense of humour (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Paranoia? (Score:1, Interesting)
so asshole bosses like you seem to want to be, can't fire anyone.
Btw, I'll have those reports on your desk in 20 minutes.
Doesn't anyone want to know... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Shocker! Breaking an NDA will get you fired! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Where were those G5 going?!? (Score:1, Interesting)
This is such a non-story and non-event that I can hardly believe anyone (especially Microsoft) cares about this non-entities weblog or his non-job.
In other news, Apple buys 25 copies of Windows XP Professional!
It was a security breach...Microsoft was RIGHT... (Score:2, Interesting)
research into my comptitors products and some jackass contractor takes photos of my research and puts it on the web without permission of course Im going to fire his ass. If this were any other company this would not be news. This is not a free speech issue, this is not ominous for the future, its a dumbass breaching his confidentiality agreement...oh well.
Free Speech and the private sector (Score:2, Interesting)
I do, however, want to address something in the framing text that christor wrote: "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."
While I acknowledge that (in the USA) First Amendment rights are limited to government action, I don't agree that non-governmental organizations cannot repress free speech and their actions cannot raise free speech issues.
It is pretty clear that private sector organizations can provide negative repercussions that will discourage individuals from saying or writing things that will provoke them. This can range from dismissal to lawsuits to, in some cases, industry-wide blacklisting that may prevent someone from continuing to work in his or her chosen profession.
If we as a society consider that "free speech" (the ability of an individual to express ideas, no matter how controversial, unpopular or challenging) is a value worth preserving, then we should take seriously threats to that ability, no matter where they originate.
If I want to say something but don't, because of the chilling effect of foreseen consequences, then my "free speech" has been compromised, whether or not those consequences come from the state or private individuals/corporations.
We may find that other values that we hold come into conflict with the "free speech" value. The value that an individual should be able to control his or her own property may come into conflict (leading to the expression that "Freedom of the Press belongs to them as owns a press" which I remember from my days of active involvement in Usenet, where it was often quoted by sysadmins). Conflict with other values lets us put other restrictions and negative repercussions on those who freely express whatever they want to (slander and libel laws from the state; the ability to shun someone who says unpopular things at the individual level).
We may decide that these other values/ considerations outweigh the value of free speech in a particular case and allow the government or private individual/corporation to act to restrict the person's ability to speak freely. But if we don't allow the issue to be raised at all as a free speech issue, then we've lost already.
No Sympathy (Score:2, Interesting)
The rationale is, if he takes a picture of the loading dock and puts it on the web without permission, What else has he taken pictures of and posted on the web?!?
This guy presented a dire security risk. If it were me, I would not even have let him collect his personal belongings, nor taken his camera with him (if he had it on him). He would have immediately been either arrested or at the very least escorted by security to the property line.
I think employers can bar you from retrieving personal belongings until a later time after legal agreements are in place regarding your visit... not sure about it thought - ALCTC?
Corporate Borgs (Score:1, Interesting)
Microsoft's real problem is that they treat most Temps like dirt. When I worked there as a Temp, I had connections that meant I was treated quite well. But I've seen them crammed, elbow to elbow, in a tiny, poorly ventulated windowless office--college grads being paid barely above minimum wage month after month with no benefits, not even the employer half of Social Security. That behavior was the subject of IRS action in the late 1980s, followed by a class action lawsuit. When you think Microsoft in its growth phase (maybe still), think sweat shop. It's not simply that being ethical never enters the minds of their corporate elite, it's that even what's clearly illegal will be pursued until they're forced to stop by legal action like that of the IRS or more recent lawsuits.
Besides, I seriously question whether Microsoft's non-disclosure claims could stand up in court. Somewhere in my clutter is a photo of me taken by a Microsoft employee inside Microsoft when I did some work for them as a Temp in the late 1980s in an area far more sensitive than any loading dock. Neither that employee nor I had any idea that a simple photo showing nothing of importance was a corporate crime. We were careful about what really mattered, but not petty nonsense.
Also, if this develops into a lawsuit, I suspect Microsoft would be in the embarassing position of trying cover up all the employee photos that have been taken on the job and getting nasty enough to stop that sort of thing in the future. In turn, that sort of behavior is likely turn away the most talented potential employees and talent isn't something Microsoft can afford to miss. The worst sort of employees tend to be the rigid and inflexible sort who obey rules without thinking--the corporate borgs.
And this whole fuss is quite silly from a security perspective. The Microsoft campus is quite open. An outsider posing as a tourist could drive through, stopping, observing and photographing far more important details than this simple Temp revealed. If he were willing to play dumb, he could even wander around on foot, holding what seemed to be an email message and claiming to be meeting a friend on campus for lunch. Give the manufactured friend a project, and he could quickly connect every project with a building. Make your spy a pretty young lady, and all Microsoft's lonely bachelors would talk their heads off.
Nope, they don't confiscate stuff at the airport (Score:3, Interesting)
The power to confiscate your stuff is much harder to establish than the power to deny you access. At airport security, you have the option of keeping your nailclippers and leaving the TSA line. Usually you'll "voluntarily surrender" your nailclippers instead of missing your flight.
Just after 9/11, a friend of mine left the line and convinced his airline ticket counter to hold onto his knife until he returned home a week later. But he had enough time to do this and go back through the security line.
They could confiscate things that are illegal to posess, like drugs explosives or concealed firearms. They can confiscate stuff, I think, AFTER you pass through security, if they determined you were trying to get it past.
Since this is
Re:so what ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft allegedly fired him because he created a security risk. But if that were the real reason, then they should have happily accepted his offer to remove the posting. By firing him, they've ensured that the posting stays public and that it gets more publicity. That doesn't seem to correct the security problem.
I'm not sure what MS's real reason was. The security concern seems exaggerated, and the publicity problem is minor. My guess is MS has some other beef with this guy and they saw this as an opportunity to get rid of him. Then again, if he was a temp, it shouldn't have been that hard to unload him.
So it does make me wonder what the real reason is.
Re:so what ? (Score:3, Interesting)
I know you meant individual stores, but its been my experience that retail corporate offices have security policies that would put some engineering outfits to shame. Corporate espionage runs completely rampant in that sector and things like Memorial Day sale prices are kept like were the plans to nuclear weapons. Its absolutely stunning.
earlier in his journal..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Take your own advice chief, sorry.
Re:so what ? (Score:1, Interesting)
This is a bullshit argument. If they were really concerned for security, they would have asked him to take the pictures down before firing him. In fact, he offered to do as much - but they didn't even want to talk about it.
I'm guessing that some humorless tin-pot middle-management dictator with anger issues made the decision to fire him on the spot because he thinks all employees are disposable.
Which, really, rings true with what I've heard from friends who have worked at MS in development. It typically goes like this: Get a good offer, arrive, settle in for a bit. Then if you have an ounce of creativity in your brain you'll realise it's living hell among people who are already dead but haven't seemed to notice yet. And you'll get the hell out.
And now the pictures are linked to on Slashdot.. and Microsoft's exceptionally nasty human resource management is once again in the spotlight.
Re:Paranoia? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is taking photos of commidity hardware widely used throughout industry. These weren't installed computers and he didn't even known which department they were destined for. These are G5s sitting in boxes. If you're interested in seeing such top secret stuff, head over to your local Apple Store and check out the shelves. It's publically known that Microsoft develops software for the Macintosh platform, logic dictacts that Microsoft sometimes orders Macintoshes to do that development on. The photo revealed zero useful information, it was just an interesting slice of life.
Then you're an asshole whose employees won't respect you. Creating a draconian work environment just pisses off employees. Pissed off employees are more likely to engage in serious violations of the NDA (say, leaving with a copy of your prodcuct's source code). Employees who know that the rules are tempered with reason are more likely to be loyal to the company and do the right thing when it matters.
Re:if you WORKED at McDonalds... (Score:2, Interesting)
- Get it in writing
- Get it in writing
- Get it in writing
It's not in the contract, it's open to negotiation, which both he and his supervisor were willing to do, but a higher-up nixed. He had offered to take the pictures down, and has super had already suggested the same, which would have been a level-headed response to someone taking offense at pictures that were decidedly non-offensive.What is it with everybody bringing up McDonalds? Oh, right, there was an item in the newspaper earlier this week about how 1 in 5 Americans eats french fries EVERY DAY by the age of 2!!!! (article relating early eating habits to adult obesity). And, no, if they are serving the general public, they can't just ask you to leave for no reason, or for an unlawful one ("Sorry, we don't serve your kind here."). If they insist, you can sue.
Corporate Drone Mentality (Score:3, Interesting)
If the concern was really about looking bad for using Macs, they would have insisted he remove the post. I take it at face value that they saw this as a security breach. However, their approach to solving the problem shows how inflexible and rigid they have become, a bad sign for an organization competing in a highly dynamic industry.
On the self-interest level, they just generated for themselves more bad publicity, something Microsoft can ill afford. Microsoft management should be trained to take public opinion into consideration in every act they do, and to think carefully about the PR implications of their public actions.
On a more fundamental level, a corporation has no real existence. It is a group of people working towards some goal. Proper motivation of employees is a key to success.
If fear is the greatest motivating tool that corporate management chooses to make use of, that corporation is doomed to oblivion. Firing someone should be a last resort action taken only after other options have been exhausted. If management is seen as cruel and capricious, then the best employees who have a choice of where to work, will go find a more congenial working environment.
The proper way to have handled this was to ask the employee to immediately remove the offending post from his blog, and point out to him the corporate policies he violated and let him go with a warning. That way they would have avoided bad PR, limited the security breach and would have been viewed as an understanding employer. Microsoft lost on every level by taking this foolish action, whatever the initial motivation might have been.