Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Geer Comments On Firing From @Stake

Posted by timothy on from the can-you-smell-the-ionized-air dept.

dwbryson writes "Last week Dan Geer, co-author of the CCIA Microsoft security report, was fired from @stake for expressing 'values and opinions [of the report] not in line with @stake's views.' Now Geer has been talking to eWeek and comments on his dismissal."

8 of 433 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed! by tomstdenis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While it's true MS is a tad "forceful" diversification isn't the real solution to the problem.

    Having sys-admins who do their jobs instead of whining about patching will fix *many* windows related problems.

    I think it's a matter of using the right tools for the job. Secretaries shouldn't have to learn userland *nix just to type up a TPS cover sheet for their weekly memos.

    Likewise some network admin shouldn't be forced to use WinXP just because the latest .NET makes every XML transaction cost less [or whatever]....

    That being said you can run GNU/Linux and get rooted just as easily as you could with Windows if you don't patch your system.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  2. Re:free speech has a cost by gascolator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's get it right. This is not a 'free speech' issue. It is an corporate and scientific honesty issue. In fact, it was the employer excercising their rights to fire an employee for making statements they didn't like, and it affirms, rather than denies the Bill of Rights. You may not like that, but that's the way it is. The First Amendment restricts government, not employers. Therefore, Gere's employers were within their Constitutional rights to let him go for not toeing the company line. In doing so, they discredit themselves and the rest of us can exercise OUR rights to take anything they say with a grain of salt, realizing as we do that they're in a certain corporation's pocket. You can wave the Constitution in the face of private industry all you like...but it doesn't apply, and it just gets tiresome.

  3. Unfortunately... by HBI · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This one is going to pass just like every other Microsoft injustice.

    I'm ashamed of our academics, as cited in the article. He apparently went to get 9 to sign onto that paper and all declined because of funding issues.

    What's the point of tenured academics if they are going to be afraid of losing corporate grants and therefore are squelched?

    Yet another reason I hate academia, besides that one class...

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Unfortunately... by rknop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm ashamed of our academics, as cited in the article. He apparently went to get 9 to sign onto that paper and all declined because of funding issues.

      What's the point of tenured academics if they are going to be afraid of losing corporate grants and therefore are squelched?

      The problem isn't the academics. The problem is the funding.

      If you're an academic, there's tremendous pressure to get external funding. That's usually a tenure critereon nowadays; unless you demonstrate an ability to get external funding, you won't get tenure. Even after you get tenure, there's huge incentve to get external funding. For instance, the amount of time and freedom you have to do your research (versus other duties) is often directly linked to the amount of external funding you can secure.

      People are surprised sometimes when I tell them that I need to figure out how to get grants to support my research. "Doesn't the University support your research?" Only in that they provide me a 9-month salary, an office, and administrative support-- which, I grant you, is real support. But it's not sufficient; it doesn't pay any grad students or post-docs, it doesn't pay any publication fees, it doesn't pay for any travel, it doesn't pay for any equipment.

      If you're in a field where corporate support is expected, then you're caught in a bit of a catch-22. You're supposed to have academic freedom, and indeed once you have tenure the University can't fire you. But if you want to be able to keep doing your research, you need to get funding, and as such you are in a position where you can't say something that will offend whatever corporate source of funding you depend on.

      If you want to fix the problem, fix the way that academic researchers are funded. Don't just do away with them altogether, or you'll find that there are even fewer people who can speak with some sort of credentials who aren't completely beholden to some specific private interest. In other sciences, government funding does alleviate some of the trouble, although I'm not so naive as to believe that one's ability to get government funding through the NSF and such wouldn't be harmed by speaking out against certain influential private interests.

      It's similar to politicians and large special interest groups. No politician who wants to get elected can support an even wise and rational policy (e.g., let's say eliminating drug patents and reforming the way drug research is funded in the interest of lowering overall healt care costs for individuals) if you risk ticking off huge campaign donors, for you will get buried.

      -Rob

  4. @stake at fault and should be blamed by adamsmith_uk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Irrespective of whether Microsoft had anything to do with the firing, a company such as @stake should stand by its employee and its own credibility...

    Why should companies trust future research from @stake? Should existing employees be watching their backs? Bad smell all around!

  5. Re:free speech has a cost by beamin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are exactly right on this. The only damage done here is to the credibility of @stake and to Microsoft, and that is self-inflicted.

    Was it right for @stake to fire Geer? I don't think so. However, it's not illegal (as far as I know; IANAL).

  6. Re:free speech has a cost by jeffasselin · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In fact, it was the employer excercising their rights to fire an employee for making statements they didn't like, and it affirms, rather than denies the Bill of Rights.

    But should corporations have constitutional rights? Like individuals?

    Considering that the avowed objective of any corporation is to make money, and no other purpose, they are by definition non-ethical. The individuals that comprise them may well be ethical, but the resulting "virtual entity" isn't. A human being has a conscience, may care about the consequences of his actions; moral, ethical, religious, or justicial. A corporation has no conscience, no morals, and should not be considered equal or superior to a human being, and be given equal rights.

    --
    If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
  7. Live and Learn by spacerog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Whether Microsoft had a hand in his demise "will be forever impossible to ascertain," Geer said. "One might say communication wasn't necessary. There's a school of thought that says that a phone call wasn't needed. The more powerful you are, the less likely you are to have to pick up the phone. At most, you could call it plausible deniability."

    I am surprised that Dan has decided to publicly say anything. This would seem to indicate his relutcance to pursue the matter in court. Or maybe he just hasn't spoken to a lawyer yet. Or is this opening slavo?

    Before the obvious referances are made let me just say (again) that what @stake has become is in no way related to what L0pht was. I think there is only one of us left (Weld), everyone else has seen the writing on the wall and moved on. I just hope Dan is able to put this behind him soon and move on as well.

    - SR
    spacerog AT spacerogue DOT net