Perl's Chip Salzenberg Sued, Home Raided 698
Chip continues: "The key evidence in the search warrant was so ridiculous as to be surreal: CVS logs indicating that I downloaded more than I uploaded, and that I sometimes accessed the company network from home. Apparently, for company management, the police, and a judge, working at home through a gateway the company set up for that very purpose, and refraining from editing every source file for every code change, is a sign of nefarious behavior.
My behavior in accessing the company network was entirely within my job description and in no way involved misappropriation of anything. For the more than two years that I worked at HMS, I used ssh and CVS to access company files with my laptop both from work and home, with management knowledge and approval.
What would lead management to such a sudden action? Days beforehand, I had made an internal report of unethical and apparently illegal behavior by the company: Use of open proxies for web harvesting to avoid blockage by web site operators. HMS apparently decided that working with me to address their use of open proxies was not an option.
Health Market Science is a large corporation with, compared to me, effectively infinite resources. My legal bills have topped $40K already over just two months. If HMS succeeds in tarring me with their false accusations, what's to stop your employer or client from doing the same to you, should your relationship sour?
Friends have set up GeeksUnite.net, an informational web site and Legal Defense Fund. The site includes the search warrant, my letter about open proxy abuse, and court documents.
Please contribute to my Defense Fund to fight this attack on the normal and legal work practices of millions of tech workers. Every little bit counts! If every person who visits the site contributes only ten dollars, that will make a huge difference. Only through community effort can we protect ourselves."
Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lesson to be learned here (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, what the hell did he expect - if they can use open proxies like this, that they would play nice with him?
The moral of this story (Score:5, Insightful)
false police report (Score:5, Insightful)
Two lessons (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Working for obvious scumbags is going to burn you in the end.
(Assuming his version of the story is accurate -- I realize there's another side. I also realize that both of my suggestions are frequently easier said than done.)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it were me? Well, there would be a wide number of possible responses I could expect from the employer, but producing false information to police and courts to produce illegitimate legal action and have my private property unreasonably seized-- property which I may or may not ever see again once it disappears into the "evidence" system-- is not one of them.
Anyway if he had resigned how would it have helped him one iota? He'd still be facing a frivolous and expensive lawsuit and have all his stuff jacked.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless, no one deserves this treatment for stating their beliefs the company is doing something wrong.
Re:false police report (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is your tax dollars at work!
--
Fairfax Underground: Fairfax County and Northern Virginia message board [fairfaxunderground.com]
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Quit
2) Write your accusatory letter
order is important here.
Doubly true if you have to sign something styating you are retaining no confidential information when you leave.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is still hope for the legal system. Title VII, the FLSA, and I believe all state laws have anti-retaliation language that protects you. Go to your local attorney general's office and see what you can do.
However, as others have said, if you do all of the above and management still does nothing -- get out! The best that can happen is you get a small blurb in the WSJ and worst case is that you'll be forever branded a snitch.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:1, Insightful)
Accumulate evidence, assist law enforcement with an undercover investigation, and blow the whole place apart.
No probable cause... (Score:5, Insightful)
If he didn't keep any of the company's information, they likely have no case.
Crossing your fingers for summary judgment, a directed verdict
Pretty scary though that the judge would authorize grabbing all your equipment with no genuine evidence of theft/misappropriation of trade secrets. There ought to be a high bar set for the kind of disruption that causes. There's no reason discovery couldn't have been allowed to proceed in a less violent manner unless he wasn't cooperating.
Re:He's not required to resign... (Score:3, Insightful)
TImeline of events (Score:4, Insightful)
Timeline of Events
[slashdot.org] Please Contribute. Thank you for spending time on our site. It will be updated frequently. Please come back.
None of the views expressed in the website constitute the views of the Armstrong & Carosella PC law firm, or any
principals or employees, or agents or experts who have been retained in any capacity in connection with the case.
Information on this site is for educational purposes.
Case Caption: Health Market Science, Inc. v Charles H. Salzenberg, Jr..
Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Case Number: 05-11918
Timeline of Events in Case
June 21, 2005
Intervener's Too Late? - DA Gives Away Computers Early. Company Already Imaging.
June 20, 2005
Emergency Stays Filed by All Parties - In an Attempt to Keep Property from falling into the Wrong Hands
June 17, 2005
Judge Awards Personal Property to Company - Admits to NOT Reading Salzenberg's Opposition.
June 16, 2005
Company Runs Interference - Files Motion to Intercept Released Computers Contrary to the May 2, Order and the "Return of Property" laws.
June 6, 2005
DA Drops Criminal Investigation - Annouces Return of the Seized Property to Salzenberg.
May 2, 2005
Company Agrees Not to Enforce Exparte Orders - Property to be Returned to Salzenberg unless another motion is filed.
April 26, 2005
Company files Exparte - Receives orders to intercept equipment from police to start imaging.
April 25, 2005
Salzenberg receives back dated letter from company "accepting his resignation"
April 21, 2005
Salenberg's Property Seized within hours of police report made by CEO.
April 20, 2005
Salzenberg and CEO exchange emails and faxes in an attempt to negotiate a face to face conversation. CEO finally gives the OK to Salzenberg bringing an attorney with him.
April 19, 2005
Salzenberg sends compliance letter to CEO. Salzenberg also sends follow up message to COO that he has "not resigned". CEO immediately locks Salzenberg out of company email and network.
April 18, 2005
Another employee leaves company after voicing compliance issues.
Re:The moral of this story (Score:3, Insightful)
You assume, of course, that he wants to remain employed.
There is, however, a difference between being fired, and having your employer lie to the police in order to have you arrested and your computer equipment seized.
SLAPP (Score:4, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP [wikipedia.org]
Heres the little secret, Judges do not like to read long legal briefs, if someone makes a case and references some case law, they might just get the warrent, action or restraining order.
Its a messed up country where the legal system is in a horrible state by lazy judges/commissioners that have to actually think the about the case. Whats worse, some are voted into office...
Re:The company's website and contact info (Score:5, Insightful)
I would advise any slashdot readers considering trolling this e-mail address to think carefully about the implications their messages might have on this guy, and refrain from contacting HMS unless they have something worthwhile and appropriate to contribute.
Missing Something! (Score:5, Insightful)
Chip complained internally. That's allowed. That's ethical. He was giving his employers a chance to sort out a problem. The open proxy scam might have been in contravention of company policy.
Unlikely with hindsight, I'll grant.
OK, I'm missing your point, I know. I don't even disagree with your advice. All I'm saying is let's watch the terminology. A lot of people will thing "Whistleblower, pah! He had it coming!" when nothing is further from the truth. He got into this mess because he gave his employers the benefit of the doubt.
Re:The moral of this story (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Too late now, I'm afraid, and it will ge a *LOT* worse before getting any better.
What kind of mess have we left for our kids?
Sounds pretty clear to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, on nothing more than the company's say-so, they got a search and seizure warrant from a judge who was obviously unfit for service by the very fact of his signing it. Actual investigation and evidence is required usually for this kind of thing and it seems to be a case of "he-said, got the warrant, screw what the other guy said" sort of thing. Having been the victim of this myself, I am not surprised. Saddened that it continues, but not surprised. People who love increasing the powers of the state for their political aims can just as quickly be the nail getting pounded down by that same state.
What is so shocking is that they think they will get away with it. All that are needed are logs from servers harvested by this scumbag outfit despite their attempts at a polite no through robots.txt, etc., and it will become a landslide against them with the first lawsuit for the intrusion.
If I had any money, I'd send some.
Re:Maybe they really meant it (Score:1, Insightful)
Law enforcement and the judiciary seem to have taken the approach that anyone who is knowledgeable about computers is suspect. I think that's largely due to ignorance: the majority of people (judges, cops, FBI guys, whoever) don't know squat about computing technology, and consequently lack the ability to make intelligent judgements about issues that involve it. That really needs to change, or more technojocks are going to end up on the wrong end of the stick.
Re:The company's website and contact info (Score:4, Insightful)
I sent a short email (50 words or so) using the contact page that basically said "The guy was trying to help. Leave him alone." My point was to let them know people support Chip, not to aggravate them.
Re:Start reporting them (Score:2, Insightful)
I did not suggest harassment, whech the judge would have problems with. I suggested reporting actual violations of the labor laws. Judges are generally in favor of reporting illegal activity.
Re:false police report (Score:1, Insightful)
A DA would be a more appropriate place, but not right either. Finding people that have been abused by the company, and having them file action would be even better.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2, Insightful)
And, pray tell, where is the blackmail? I have read this letter [geeksunite.net] and it just states what HMS was doing and its being illegal. Asking the company to stop doing it, refusing to cooperate on it, and warning on telling the authorities amounts to blackmail now? I guess there's this hidden paragraph where he asks for money or some other compensation. When you find it, please tell me. Until then, your blackmail charge falls flat.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I can't send money (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't doubt the depiction of verifiable events (law suit, search warrant, letter sent) and they lead me to lean towards thinking he did nothing wrong. But I don't know. And I'm not dishing up my cash until I do.
The fact that he is well known just doesn't have much to do with it. I've been shocked by what people I know personally have done. I've never met this guy before in my life. That he is a skilled programmer tells me nothing about what is really going on.
Re:Own grave dug (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything I wrote there is how it works in ethical companies, meaning companies whose executives have laid out specific plans for remaining on the right side of the law. I don't care if you think that "most companies aren't like that". What that would mean is that "most companies deserve liquidation". If you can't at least have a plan for handling your own breaches of the law, and avoiding them in the future, then the company is not run in an ethical manner. Go ask someone with an MBA what kind of ethics class they had to take to get it. A company that doesn't have a plan for reporting issues about itself is derelict in its duties. All claims of impropriety leveled at such companies, including Chip's, have extra weight once they reach court.
Yeah, it'll be a while before they reach court.
If his complaints are true, then I sure as hell don't want to have anything to do with those companies. See? That's the reason that (ethical) companies need internal reporting mechanisms. If the CEO of an ethical company got wind of this behavior through internal channels, then they could correct it before I ever heard of it, and they wouldn't lose me as a customer, distributor, or business partner. That's what internal channels are for: protecting the company from itself.
Anyway, it's obvious from this that Chip's company doesn't have good internal reporting mechanisms. And that necessarily gives that company a strike against them to begin with. Or it should. We'll have to wait and see if it really does.
Re:Missing Something! (Score:5, Insightful)
Chip's mistake, from what I can tell, is not consulting with a lawyer before he did anything. The letter he wrote, while a great "f* you" letter to his employer, made a couple of mistakes that almost lawyer would've told him to leave out. Including the threat of legal action.
Once someone threatens you with even possible legal action, most companies go into offense mode. It's not really a choice they have, they have to protect themselves and what they see as their intellectual property. (I say it's not a choice because it's what their counsel tells them. They can also choose to ignore their counsel, but then few companies do that since it defeats the purpose of engaging such counsel in the first place, at least in their minds.)
I feel badly for this guy and will likely contribute to this fund. But I can't help but think there was a better way of handling this situation before it got down to an employee threatening their employer with legal action if they don't stop a behavior they, personally, find objectionable.
If you don't like something your company is doing, let them know you don't like it. If they say, "Tough sh*t," then you have two choices -- leave on your own, or stay and suck it up. Staying and making threats against your employer isn't likely to be tolerated by anyone, anywhere.
Re:The moral of this story (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen. I learned the hard way through several companies (some I started, some I helped turn around, and some I was wise to leave) that unless you're old money, your best option is to walk away. Notify the authorities anonymously and under extreme caution if you must, but make sure it's darn near impossible to pin it on you that you were the whistleblower, and even then, expect them to still come after you (who do you think the authorities work for, the people? LOL!). Old money and its network will blacklist you further than you'd ever imagine possible. Old money continues to keep making money by having idealistic middle class hard working entrepreneurs achieve great successes, only to discover old money eats first. After they are full, they may decide to leave you with some scraps.
The most important lesson I learned is that in any company, figure out quickly who is just like you (assuming you're a member of the unpriviledged middle class) and who's old money nobility. They're special people - the equivelent of "made men" - and middle class folks are not permitted to touch them. I learned at one company that even a psychotic, cocaine abusing, chair-sniffing and female harassing sexual predator, old money company owner who kept on blowing through family millions had more clout than a the technology manager who rebuilt the dying company product.
If you have to get into battle, get an old money law firm and get some old money patrons on your side. Let them protect you and understand you'll have to pay back the favor if you haven't already earned it. Just because the United States is technically a representative republic doesn't mean Machievelli's world doesn't rule here. I've had too many attorneys explain otherwise (if you've ever had a hearing moved to a different judge that your attorney used to clerk for, you know what I mean). As long as you understand that several thousand years of civilization has been about those in power making sure that the rest of us keep them in power and luxury, and you don't mess with that rule, you'll do fine.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more plausable that the company feared the files that would prove that they were breaking the law were copied on his home computers and made something up with their lawyers to get his computers for "imaging". He might or might not have been planning on going public, but their reaction is totally over the top. We'll see if any of the computers come back formatted.
Re:Sympathy for the devil / company (Score:4, Insightful)
Where did his letter say that? I just read the entire thing and do not recall any threat to disclose source code. He simply said that he looked at the source code, which as a Senior Programmer, he was authorized and verified that some of the claims he made in his internal letter were valid (ie; code doesn't use robots.txt, code culls current list of open relays from online databases, etc).
He said he could not work on an project he felt was violating the law.
As far as the company perspective, I have not seen it so I cannot comment. Personally, his internal memo was much too details for most executives to understand. He should have layed out his concerns at a high level. Actually, he should have first contacted the press and law enforcement.
Re:Own grave dug (Score:2, Insightful)
That they are only out to screw him over seems pretty obvious, but his apparent lack of wordly understanding of these matters has given them every possible opportunity to do so. To anyone in a similar situation, my advice (as a manager, for whatever that may be worth), is to:
1) Prepare yourself financially to be unemployed;
2) Prepare your documentation of all allegations;
3) Make a backup set and put it in some secret offsite location that no one could reasonably either know about or get a search warrant for;
4a) Get a lawyer;
4b) Submit your letter of resignation, and don't say why. If pressed for an answer, just say you want to take some time off, then pursue other opportunities;
5) Finally, when you are no longer employed at that company, go to the police with your evidence.
The order of 4b and 5 could be reversed on advice of counsel, and if you want to move 4a up to, say, 1a, well, it's never too early to have a lawyer in a situation like that.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
honestly, people- if your company's financial success is built on illegal behavior, and the guy who owns the majority of the company set it up to be that way, why would you think he's going to change anything just because you were bright enough to notice? The best you could hope for is that, when you try to blackmail him into splitting the profit with you, it's not just cheaper to have you killed.
Picture this: Vince Coll walks into Dutch Shultz's office.
I can understand why Chip had the moral problems that he did, but he sure picked a naive way to try and resolve them. There IS a federal whistleblower statute, so if he went to the Feds with his first letter he would have been legally protected from retaliatory action from his employer... but keeping your job after you've turned them in doesn't do you any good if the company's only revenue stream depends on illegal activities.
Re:No probable cause... (Score:3, Insightful)
If he was still working for the company at the time of the seizure, than chances are he had a full source tree on his home computer so that he could do test builds at home. All of which is perfectly normal and necessary to do his job. To the non-technical, the argument "why did he need copies of files he was not charged with maintaining?" may sound valid. However, anybody who has ever maintained software can tell you that you usually need almost all the header files and always need all the objects to link against in order to do a test build just to see if you made any mistakes in the single file you changed. Again, finding all the companies source on his home computer proves nothing; what they would have to do is find proof that he was transmitting that source to somebody else. The REALLY stupid thing is that it is not at all necessary to download source to your home computer to appropriate secrets; anybody could walk into the company with a few 1GByte USB flash memory keys and walk out with all the source, and there would be no record of it having been transferred. Hmm... did the search warrant explicitly include flash memory devices as well? I am not a lawyer, but I beleive they can't seize anything not specifically mentioned in the warrant.
Re:Missing Something! (Score:3, Insightful)
What the fuck is up with nerds on slashdot thinking that companies acting like this should be acceptable, reasonable, or predictable? Yeah, it's all those things as long as you let it. I mean shit, if my company pissed me off and filed false charges against every level of management, would that be acceptable or predictable? Why is it okay for companies to act like this and people just accept that it's normal and acceptable?
This company and the managers behind this action should be skinned alive and hung out to dry. I just contributed 50 bucks and will contribute more after next payday.
And if he loses this, then I know what I will do in the future while working for a company engaged in questionable activity. Legal action first, ask questions later. And trump the lawsuits up too, like the CEO made unwanted gay advances towards me, promises of promotion if I'd only let him have his way with me, etc... Fsck this. Corporate America wants a war, let's bring it to them.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spammer gets a moral wake up call (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but I don't think morals should change simply because you don't like someone.
Certainly, if there is probably cause that he commited a crime, he should be investigated, and then prosecuted if the investigation bears out the initial suspicions, but that isn't what happened here. His home was searched and his property siezed, and *not* returned, based on him doing his damn job. It would be like your boss having you arrested for tresspassing, using your timecard that is punched for that day as evidence you tresspassed.
Re:One small recommendation to other readers.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ghouls (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Salzenberg is not a Spammer! You tell lies. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oops... (Score:4, Insightful)
They were running through open proxies in order to avoid blocks set up to block their IP. They also were scanning for such proxies.
So, no they weren't planting trojans all over the place, they were just borrowing everyone else's machines (a jerky thing to do) to get past blocks set up to stop them from being jerks.
Then, when someone called them on it, they resorted to mafioso tactics to make life hard for that guy. To show him who's boss.
Re:The company's website and contact info (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't think you might end up in the same place, then you aren't exhibiting much foresight.
Re:I can't send money (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Insightful)
There isn't a single ethical computer science professional in the world (professors, lauded scientists, hell, even LW or LT) that wouldn't hesitate to come to his defense as an expert witness, I imagine.
Re:Two lessons (Score:3, Insightful)
Minor difficulty: This would exclude 90% of corporations -- worldwide -- as it appears that being a "scumbag" is a pre-requisite to "corporate success". One has to only take look at the current CEO/CFO lineups, their views on society, their history of "ethics" and their inexplicable inter-dependencies with each other to see that quite clearly. These are the proponents of "globalization" where wealth is to be shuffled around the planet and no attention is to be paid to societal consequences of it. These are the promoters of taxation of individual consumption (via sales taxes) and no taxation of their own vast fortunes to "promote economic growth". These are the people who profit from wars and (in the case of Chip's nemesis) from illness and misery. Or slave labor. List an evil and chances are you can name a large corporation involved.
On a side, off-topic note, the problem is systematic to any large corporation. Larger the size, more attractive the operation becomes to conmen. Well healed conmen with dynastical family connections or self-made conmen who grease the right palms, it doesn't really matter. Sooner or later any company of value is run by them. Honest people do not stand a "snowball's in Hell" chance because the corporate game is rigged hopelesly against them, mostly due to the fact that the whole "free market" charade is run by the said hustlers, but also due to the fact that these thieves use the most powerful weapon known to blind and stupify their prey: greed. Thus they constantly talk about "growth" and "share value" to separate shareholders from their senses and grant themselves all the powers they need. A honest person, when put beside a pack of these howling wolves, appears timid and meek. Which is seen by the shareholders, themselves whipped to a frenzy, lusting for mega-profits to dismiss a down-to-earth, objective and realistic candidate out-of-hand and replace him/her with a snake who will promise them "profits beyond your wildest dreams". And the rest is history.
Re:Time line of events (Score:1, Insightful)
What about the next day? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Missing Something! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yah, everybody's mistake is not consulting with a lawyer before tying their shoes or opening their mouths. I think that everyone should have a lawyer with them at all times to make sure that they don't do or say anything actionable.
I say it's not a choice because it's what their counsel tells them.
Maybe the problem is that lawyers tend to see every problem as requiring legal action and more billable hours.
Re:Spammer gets a moral wake up call (Score:4, Insightful)
Salzenberg was working for a company that started using some seriously shady practices. He did the legally appropriate thing, and brought it to the attention of upper management/officers. They went ballistic and pulled the plug on him insteas of the illegal activity. (what says that they already knew of the illegal activities?).
They then called the cops on hime and got them to sieze his compuers on the flimsiest of evidence.
Re:I can't send money (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of a legal defense is not to exonerate the guilty. It is to ensure a fair trial. Whether you believe he is guilty or innocent, or whether you don't know, makes no difference. He has the right to a fair trial. At present in the United States, that means having a lot of money to pay a competent lawyer.
TTFN
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, that is a threat. By definition.
English. Learn it, love it.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:4, Insightful)
For, who the good fortune to be able to vote AGAINST someone who would issue a warrant for the seizure of computer equipment based on the affadavit of someone who couldn't even use a word processor to edit the request (see for yourself! It's obviously copied from a drug-related case, with the drug parts CROSSED OUT), without any actual basis of suspicion other than one man's un-sworn complaint against another, the issuing judge is the Honorable Jeremy Blackburn. Remember that when his term is up. Unfortunately, I think his district is in Chester County (where the property was seized), not in Montgomery County (where Salzenberg works, and where I live), so I don't think I get to vote for him.
Re:How Health Market Sciences screwed with me (Score:3, Insightful)
In small companies and large budgets are constantly being revised. Publicly traded companies are just as bad if not worse than small companies as they are managed to their quarterly earnings, not to a yearly budget. Within departments projects get approved, disapproved and juggled regularly. Some other department goes over budget and your department pays. The company has a "hiring freeze" or, worse, layoffs.
Get real. Yah, everyone does a yearly budget but it is not a cast in stone contract and it's subject to revision at any time. Head count is constantly tweaked. I've worked, and managed, in large (yes, publicly traded) and small companies and I've seen it again and again and again.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
When the police find something "suspicious", you don't just say "oh, I have this perfectly plausible excuse which sounds highly improbable to technical incompetents like you" and walk away. Trust me, I know. I had to jump through some pretty ridiculous hoops with a detective once just to prove that it was not, in fact, uncommon for a brand-spanking new hard drive to appear "wiped".
The justice system is a misnomer. It's not a "justice" system, it's a "legal" system. Justice would imply that all parties are acting in an informed, responsible, and full-capacity manner, which is probably the sickest joke one could make about our incompetent, bungling court system.
Chip Salzenberg is fucked. You would be fucked if you tried to right off your little hidden system with that excuse, and you'd probably get charged for trying to interfere with the investigation and giving false information to the police if you used it.
Re:Missing Something! (Score:3, Insightful)
Ethical people tend to believe that others are ethical until and unless (and sometimes even after) they are faced with incontrovertible proof to the contrary. If you tell an ethical person that he's doing something wrong, his response will be "oops, lemme fix that." So, assuming Chip is an ethical person (and the fact that he tried to resolve the matter internally is evidence of that) it's logical to assume that he expected them to say "oops, we'll get right on fixing that" and, in fact, fix the oversights -- not retaliate against him for bringing up the intentional violations of either legal or ethical standards.
Re:Own grave dug (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How Health Market Sciences screwed with me (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Lesson to be learned here (Score:4, Insightful)
I absolutely agree. Speak softly and carry a big stick.
This was a loud letter full of scarrey words for a CEO like "illegal" and "under explicit management direction" and it ends with "notifying the appropriate authorities". Hell, if I was a CEO and I got this letter, I'd freak out too.
DON'T EVER send a letter like this without already having talked to a lawyer and given the lawyer everything you'd need. The unfortunate fact is that police will raid the house of an employee in a heartbeat, take all your computers with evidence on them and hand them over to the criminal employer who can then accidentally delete all the evidence. There's no way in hell they'd be able to get to anything you've given your lawyer though.
Honestly.. I'd want to have already talked to the appropriate authorities before sending a letter as explosive as the one he sent.
Re:Serious Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Missing Something! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How Health Market Sciences screwed with me (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting story though because I've had a similar experience looking for work. I drove 3.5 hrs to interview for a job. When I got there I interviewed with a couple people but they apologized because they forgot the guy I would work for was out for the day. They said he could do a phone interview Wed. Meanwhile I interviewed with another company. I called the first company Wed and they said he would call me Friday. I said OK. The second company made me an offer that was detailed and in the form of an offer letter which I can't say I've seen before. I was impressed. Yet, I wanted to give the other company a chance to play so I told them I would get back to them Monday. Friday came and Monday I accepted the second job. The first company called a couple days later to offer me a job and I told them I already accepted one.
I guess the point is, until they offer me a job there's no way for them to screw with me because I'm not waitin around for them to get organized.
Just like selling a house. You don't take your house off the market because someone promises to make an offer. You only take it off once you've accepted their offer.
Re:Posting anonymously here because I've lived it (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The threats in Chris's letter contributed (Score:1, Insightful)
BINGO... and of course, the typical slashdotter (and Chris) will begin by saying IANAL, and
then proceeding to act like one. Well... guess what... if you're not a lawyer, shut the **ck up
when it comes to dispensing legal advice (or an opinion smelling of legalese). Above all, do not
threaten others (especially others who have more wealth than you) with your armchair legal opinion.
I'm surprised that Chris is surprised about what happened, and about suddenly finding himself in a
position where it's costing him $20,000/month in startup legal fees. That's an expensive lesson.
When They Kick In Your Front Door (Score:2, Insightful)
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head,
Or on the trigger of your gun?
--The Clash
I used to think of these scenarios in terms of 'in Soviet Russia'... but nowadays, my mental picture of someone getting their front door kicked in is situated usually right in the ol' US of A.
And nevermind terrorism, but in the name of fscking trade secrets and Copyright issues?
Seriously, what are people smoking (or not smoking) there, that you can put up with this?
In the past few years, I've heard so many things that make me afraid for the security of my person in the U.S. - even though my biggest crimes are only copying DVDs I rented so I can watch them later, and downloading software I don't own to test out from bittorrent - that I won't even make connecting flights through the U.S. anymore.
Yes this guy wrote a really stupid letter to his employers. But this justifies a total jackboot search and seizure of all his personal stuff, private letters, diaries, and the like? I would feel so violated.
Mod me troll if you like, but, assuming he is innocent of these fairly obviously fabricated accusations, what happened to him is a crime bordering on assault or rape.
And if this happened to me, and the perpetrators weren't thrown in jail, I'd be out shopping for ammunition^H^H^H^H^H writing my congressman.
I sure think it's time that people started making a REALLY BIG NOISE that accusation of intellectual property infringment brought by a wealthy corporation does not override basic human rights to personal security of the average citizen...
Re:Lesson to be learned here (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The moral of this story (Score:1, Insightful)
This somehow surprises you? What bizzaro world companies have you been working for?
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Take out these sentences, it sounds like you're threatening them."
"Resign first, make absolutely sure you have none of their information on your machines, then send this."
"Don't warn them, just contact the DA."
"Don't be a hero, just resign and keep your mouth shut."
"Make a statory declaration of the facts first, and give me a copy of the documents."
Re:Missing Something! (Score:4, Insightful)
HMS fabricated evidence in order to have the police raid Chip's house and sieze his computer equipment.
Chip threatened his own employers with legal action. What do you expect them to do?
Have your expectations regading business ethics fallen so low that you expect all companies to break the law as a matter of routine? Or are you suggesting that this is acceptable behaviour for an employer? Your message reads as though you approve, which may not be what you intended to convey.
HMS was already knowingly engaged in illegal activities. So probably Chip should have expected their response to be similarly illegal. With hindsight, that seems glaringly obvious.
But to simply dismiss that the company's actions with "what do you expect?" is foolish and dangerous. If we grant acceptance to such activities what can we expect the next time some CEO decides to push the envelope?
It's amazing.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The company gets away with this behaviour because it's damn more powerfull than it's (ex)-employees. However, a company is nothing without its employees. Any sort of collective defence against this sort of behaviour is going to hurt the company like hell. I mean, ever heard of actually sticking up for eachother?
If you're too afraid of unions etc, just call it something else. Bottom line is that it's in the other workers self-interest to insure nothing like this happens ever again.
Individualism is all fine and all, but it kinda breaks down when a much larger individual comes along wanting to use you as a doormat.
Re:Missing Something! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, lawyers get involved in things too easily these days.
Yes, the legal profession is sucking the money, time and vitality from american (world?) culture, and fattening up on their ill-gotten gains.
Yes, lawyers themselves often come off as objectionable, closed-minded, grabby little bastards (with apologies to the GP).
However... this is someone who uncovers prolonged, well-known and deliberate, immoral and illegal behaviour by the company he works for.
The software in question (IIRC) was written by the very people he's writing the memo to.
They clearly understand and appreciate they're doing something shady (if not outright illegal), and he basically calls them on it, to their faces.
If this memo was written as a resignation letter, fair play (although the implications are a little threatening - I know you're doing illegal stuff, here's how much trouble you'd get into if anyone found out, BTW I'm quite clearly pissed off with you and I'm resigning...).
If it wasn't offered as a resignation letter, it's extremely stupidly-written. Sure, the company has gone way overboard and are clearly a bunch of shameless criminal cunts, but read the letter again - did he ever, under any circumstances actually expect them to thank him for the memo and pat him on the head?
No - he's clearly telling them he knows what they're doing, he's clearly stating how much trouble they'd be in, and stating his position as diametrically opposed to them.
Sure, it could harm his professional credibility if/when it came out, so he should have resigned quietly, or gone straight to the authorities. Given the company's position on the matter he's clearly never going to persuade them to stop what they're doing, so his job was pretty much gone from the moment he decided he couldn't tolerate their behaviour.
Sending this not-resignation letter, requesting (presumably) he be assigned to another project, then explicitely threatening them with legal action?
I have all the sympathy in the world, but well, he's basically asking for trouble.
Just to clear up: I have every sympathy for Chip, and I sincerely hope these criminal fuckwads get everything coming to them, but yes, consulting with a lawyer would have been a no-brainer, and yes, he fucked up.
Knee feel any better yet?
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have to put yourself up for election, you will be deciding cases with a view to what potential voters -- really, just people mobilised by issue organisations, given how uninterested the average member of public is about voting --might think. This is either playing to mob mentality, or playing to vested interest groups. Either way is a recipe for bad judging.
The whole point of judicial independence is that judges will only feel free to take courageous decisions, and to avoid knuckling under to the government in power at the time, in particular, if their jobs are secure. That is, they can't be fired, and they can't have their pay reduced so much that they have to quit. Having to be re-elected to office is very much a serious job insecurity.
I would hate to have any of my legal rights determined by a judge with an eye on the opinion polls, the lobbysists and the millions of dollars in the bank accounts of sleazy, smoke-filled backroom operators itching to replace them if they decide cases in a way of which they disapprove.
I know plenty of judges in a number of countries, and have been employed by one at a court. Invariably they are horrified by the system of election of judges. Basically: they cannot see how many elected judges would feel comfortable taking an unpopular decision. Unpopular decisions being ones that (i) are against the prevailing mob mentality at the time and (ii) invariably turn out to be correct when viewed after the event, when passion and emotion has cooled, and what is left is the objective facts.
We've seen what playing to voters does to politicians. Why inflict it upon the judges too -- who are usually the ones who have to keep the politicians in check?
Outsourcing is usually corporate corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
Additional comment:
Note that outsourcing is the same kind of corruption as is thoroughly discussed in the book about corporate corruption mentioned above. Programmers in India can produce good work, that's not the issue.
The issue is that the corrupt corporate manager wants to put a distance between himself and managing programming. Managing programming is time-consuming and requires serious concern and considerable technical knowledge and teamwork. If the programming department remains inside the company, the corrupt manager will be responsible. If the programming is outsourced, a level of deniability is introduced.
That extra level of bureaucracy and distance has four results:
Re:When They Kick In Your Front Door (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The corruption is extremely widespread. (Score:3, Insightful)
Many Americans don't want to know that their government has become corrupt, so you can expect hostile comments if you try to talk about corruption.
Many Michael Moore fans don't want to know that he's a lying bastard. So I'll expect hostile comments when I post this [msn.com].
See, ad hominem attacks are not too helpful are they?
"Hey I'll just post my web page with my world view. If you agree then you're obviously a good person. If you disagree then it's because you don't want to know the truth, or have been paid off by big business, either way I don't need to listen to you"
Re:Missing Something! (Score:3, Insightful)
Lawyers are expensive. Doing the right thing often is. What Chip is now having to defend against is much more expensive.