Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Fires Mac Fan For Blog Photo
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."
Bill Gates is God, I just don't believe in him.
I bet they were going to Windows Longhorn R&D-department. :)
It is difficult to develop Mac applications without Mac boxes.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
I sure hope he's got unmetered bandwidth on that site.
First he gets fired and now Slashdot posts 3 links to his server? Poor guy!
Microsoft fired the blogger, despite an offer to take the posting down
And if he doesn't want to take it down, damn it we'll take it down FOR him.
Never confuse volume with power.
or just do what they always do, have reference machines so they can keep any eye on the competition.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
So, what was the deal? Was Microsoft genuinely spooked at his revealing what building he was in, or were they upset that it was revealed they purchase Macs? They do have a Macintosh business unit, so I would guess the former, but it does appear a little extreme.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I'm pretty sure that if I posted confidential information about my company, they would fire me too. All I have to say to this person is, duh.
The person was fired mainly for taking a photo of the Microsoft Campus and posting it online plus telling people where he worked (short answer anyhow). Why is Microsoft so secretive about what is in the different buildings? I seem to remember a few other stories of people not being able to find anything on their land because nobody would tell them where anything was... it just seems weird. But I'm sure there is some sort of explanation for it. Anybody?
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.
Ñ'
Even Microsoft wants G5s
October 23, 2003 @ 10:34 PM | Macintosh
It looks like somebody over in Microsoft land is getting some new toys...
I took this shot on the way into work on the loading dock (MSCopy, the print shop I work in, is in the same building as MS's shipping and receiving). Three palettes of Dual 2.0Ghz G5's on their way in to somewhere deep in the bowels of Redmond. Hopefully they're all in good condition when they arrive -- the boxes are slick enough that a few of them took a bit of a tumble (you can see them back in the truck)!
October 27, 2003 03:08 PM
And that simply, as of about 2pm today, I once again joined the ranks of the unemployed. more
The day started like any other day -- get up, dink around for a bit, bus into work, and start working through the stack of jobs. Just shy of an hour after I got in, my manager came in and asked me to step into his office when I had a chance. Sure, no biggie, and I headed over as soon as I finished the job I was setting up.
"Okay, here's the first question. Is this page," and here he turned his monitor towards me, letting me see my "Even Microsoft wants G5s" post from last Thursday, "hosted on any Microsoft computer? Or is it on your own?"
"It's on mine. Well, it's on a hosted site that I pay for, but no, it's not on anything of Microsoft's."
"Good. That means that as it's your site on your own server, you have the right to say anything you want. Unfortunately, Microsoft has the right to decide that because of what you said, you're no longer welcome on the Microsoft campus."
And that simply, as of about 2pm today, I once again joined the ranks of the unemployed.
It seems that my post is seen by Microsoft Security as being a security violation. 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. Merely removing the post was also not an option -- I offered, and my manager said that he had asked the same thing -- but the only option afforded me was to collect any personal belongings I had at my workstation and be escorted out the door. They were at least kind enough to let me be escorted out by one of my co-workers, rather than sending security over to usher me out, but the end result is the same.
More frustrating for me is that, having read stories here and there on the 'net about people who had for one reason or another lost their jobs due to something on their weblogs, I thought that I had done what I could to avoid that possibility. To my mind, it's an innocuous post. The presence of Macs on the Microsoft campus isn't a secret (for everything from graphic design work to the Mac Business Unit), and when I took the picture, I made sure to stand with my back to the building so that nothing other than the computers and the truck would be shown -- no building features, no security measures, and no Microsoft personnel. However, it obviously wasn't enough.
So, I'm unemployed. I am somewhat lucky in that I'm not technically unemployed -- I am still on the roster for my temp agency, who has been very good to me so far (and hopefully will continue to be), but as their ability to place me anywhere does depend on the current job market, it's not a foolproof guarantee of employment coming in quickly. I've put a call into them and let them know of the situation and that I'm available and willing for whatever can be found, so with any luck, they'll be able to find a placement for me. However, it appears that it's also time for me to start hitting the streets and shopping my resume around again.
Wish me luck.
Please. 99% of the public won't even hear about the story. And of the 1% that does, 99% of them won't give a rat's ass who Microsoft fired.
-- bearclaw
I know that there have been other cases of people being `persecuted' = fired from their positions due to things they said on the blogs.
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.
I recall reading a story awhile ago about a Coke employee who was fired for drinking Pepsi while working. This is along similar lines for justification of firing someone; however, in this case it is a little more iffy if they could actually fire him for this depending on what sort of contracts he signed when agreeing to employment with Microsoft.
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.
What?
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
However, there is probably more to this story than we are reading -- mainly because the site is /.-ed.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
For those who can't get to the article, he wasn't fired for posting the pic about mac's at Microsoft. As he pointed out Microsoft is widely known to have used Mac's in different operations (like their Mac software unit) for years. He was fired for a fairly innocous describing of part of the physical layout of their campus. While I'm not exactly fond of beast of Redmond, they do have some pretty valid security concerns. After all, if you made something that routinely pissed off millions of people every year you'd probably be a little paranoid about your security too.
I don't like MS. Yeah, some might say I was an OSS zealot. When I gave up MS at home I went as far as to give away my MS Wheel mouse and replaced it with a Logictech.
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.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Apparently, his financial situation is a tad bit dire, so if you really wanna stick it to the man, you might consider paypaling him a buck. Even better, give the dude a job...
My other computer is your Windows box
"For Cause".
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".
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
That's right. Depending on what you do to me, I can have you prosecuted for any criminal acts (kidnapping, etc.) you commit, or I can bring a civil case against you (emotional pain, etc.). It's *NOT* a First Amendment issue.
49 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6F 6F 20 6D 75 63 68 20 66 72 65 65 20 74 69 6D 65 2E
I think Microsoft realised a couple of years ago that the really powerful thing about OSS was actually the community. And they want to try to make such a community themselves. That's one of the reasons I think there seem to be so many MS staff who have blogs - they want to be seen encoraging an MS community. And why they have taken to "accidentally" releasing alpha/beta stuff into the wild recently.
Some of their efforts have been laughable in the way that they have tried to make corporate efforts look as if they are really community based. I've tried to find evidence of a genuine MS community but there isn't much about. The only equivalent to Slashdot for MS lovers in ActiveWin, which has about a dozen people that post to it, mainly when a story about Linux or critical of MS comes up.
There is a lot of activity on GotDotNet, but mostly it is technical queries.
Are there other, genuine examples of MS community sites? Or alternatively, attempts that are obviously MS driven? I'm just interested to compare the strength of the OSS community with the MS community (yes I know they are not logically exclusive, but in reality it seems to be pretty much the case).
... and what should worry you too is his job description, full-time temp employee. Sounds like Microsoft was getting all the benefits of a full-time employee without having to worry about any of the associated costs. And if companies like Microsoft, with its $60 billion cash reserve can pull this kind of crap, what does that say about today's job market, labour laws and how skewed they are in favour of big business?
/.ed). But should he have been a "full-time temp employee"? No fucking way.
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
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
General Motors is a lot worse in that reguard.. you bring any kind of camera into a GM workplace, you are fired on the spot.
Makes it hard when I went to upgrade my cell phone.. had to find one without a camera feature.
But not for emulating the G5 on x86 with Virtual PC.
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.
Many corporate companies I have worked for explicitly forbid bring a camera of any sort onto the campus. If a person is unhappy with such a restriction they should work somewhere else.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Mirror of the Image:
http://www.jeffwilhelm.com/files/msg5.jpg
I'm going to get modded down for advocating the MS position, but, despite reading the blog entry where he says he was fired for revealing MS's deep dark secret, I tend to believe there is something else going on here.
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.
The site's hammered. Cache of the first entry. This is the really interesting one, though.
Sometimes you wake up. Sometimes the fall kills you. And sometimes, when you fall, you fly.
By firing this guy, they brought more attention to his blog and therefore the pictures and comments that are still there either way. Seems kind of dumb of them to fire him.
Microsoft Security doesn't want anyone to know that somewhere on their sprawling campus, they have a loading dock for the purposes of shipping and receiving goods from the outside world?
Yes, I can see how the disclosure of this confidential information will cause the destruction of the company. As we speak, hordes of Linux-loving commandos are probably filing into semi trailers purporting to be carrying cases of Jolt Cola or some such, in a classic "trojan horse" maneuver.
~Philly
It didn't take me long to realize that the company (or a contractor) had some spiders out there looking for websites with key words (company name, nuclear, etc) and probably found my blog. So, the easiest way to defeat them and still have my blog was to put up a simple login/password to my site. Only my friends/family view it anyways, and I just create one login account for everybody.
Since then, I've had 2 other friends (A teacher and a programmer) go through almost the same thing, and they've all put passwords on their sites. I would recommend ALL bloggers to do that if they decide to post anything about work, co-workers, etc if they value their jobs. If this guy did that, I bet he would still have his job.
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.
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I think it was a Pepsi employee drinking Coke, actually.
Anyway, this is not the same problem. First because he wasn't using a Mac, or endorsing Macs. Second because Microsoft does not manufacture computers (and, even if they did, it would make perfect sense for them to test the competition's systems). In fact, Microsoft makes software for Mac OS, so they need Macs to develop and test it (and you don't need a picture to know they have them, you just need common sense).
What this guy did was post a picture taken without permission in a private property, quite possibly in an area where it was expressly prohibited to take pictures (and where he may not even have been authorised to be).
Doesn't anyone want to know how Microsoft discovered the picture and the story? Do they routinely check up on any website's from their employee's to make sure that no information has been leaked? I would guess they do (don't want that windows source code to be released) but I think that'd probably bother me if I were an employee. What if I wanted to post how much I hated my boss? Or how I'd like to bang that hot new girl in marketing? Those are things you might want to share with the internet that you don't want your co-workers finding out.
Someone read his review of Kill Bill and got the wrong idea :)
MSFT does Mac software, so DUH?
The act of purchasing several pallets of G5's may not be a trade secret for MS but I'm sure their NDA covers many facets of their business information including purchasing and shipping & receiving. Fool breaks agreement, fool gets fired.
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.)
to fire this guy. If Im a company that is doing
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.
I'm not at this point going to go into why Microsoft is buying Macs or whether or not the guy was right to post what he did. In other words, I'm not going to go into the specifics of the article.
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.
Respectfully, David Tallan
NDA's cover PROPRIETARY, as in only known to the company and it's partners that have entered into an NDA, info.
Microsoft buying G5's isn't proprietary and the reseller could legitimately disclose this info- they can expect MS to NOT continue doing business with them if MS didn't want that info disclosed, but it's not something that could be considered proprietary all the same.
The fact that this individual worked at a specific location on the MS campus isn't proprietary info either. Otherwise you'd have people violating the NDAs all the time.
The two tidbits combined isn't proprietary info either.
If it's not proprietary info, it's not coverable by an NDA.
He wasn't ejected from the MS campus over a breach of an NDA (By the way, do you have any idea how silly you look making it sound like this is a worse thing that a leakage of IP to the world?)- it was someone at MS taking Umbrage at the blog entry and using "security" reasons as an excuse to get him booted from the campus.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
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?
Nope, they don't confiscate stuff at the airport (generally)
/., I'll bother to point out that someone here definitely got stuff confiscate at the airport by a guard who didn't understand this or, at least, didn't bother to illuminate your options. But that doesn't mean you couldn't have legally refused. I'm also not claiming that having a camera in a defense establishment wouldn't get confiscated.
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
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
You're right--the blogger wasn't fired because of security reasons--the picture didn't reveal any secrets in their strategy. Hell, it's fairly common knowledge that BillG carted in Lisa's and Mac's from the start. MS makes a mac version of office among other products--how the hell are they supposed to do that without having access to Apple hardware?
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.
You know, last time I checked, Microsoft developed a lot of software for Macs. In fact I'm prety sure I read an interview a few years ago with the President of Microsoft Canadam where he saidthat, on average, Microsoft makes more money per Mac sold than per PC sold. This is because of all of the extra competitors in the PC Office etc. market. Plus there's that whole Microsoft owning a big share of Apple thing.
I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
Yep, as long as those things are illegal. Back in the day, the legal right for a civilian to carry a concealed weapon in Texas was limited to "travelers." There wasn't a good, legal definition of traveler but there were a few court cases on point. In general, it was considered foolhardy to rely on your travel status to justify carrying. But there are the exceptions. For years, whenever anyone was caught with a concealed weapon at Intercontinental Airport in Houston, the person would be denied access to the gate area but the local prosecutor would decline to prosecute. Obviously, if you were about to get on a plane you were a traveler and, thus, your concealed carry was legal under state law. And since the screeners caught you before you got into the secured area of the airport, you hadn't run afoul of any federal law. The only real consequence was that getting all this sorted out was guaranteed to make you miss your flight.
lmao @ american worker rights
Its funny, read back in his journal a few days before the photo and the results thereafter, he mentions the dangers of blogging, and what your boss might not like.
Take your own advice chief, sorry.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
I don't think it matters that an employer isn't the government. If people can be materially punished by employers for expressing personal views in public, or in this case, making a trivial statement of fact, then people don't have the freedom to speak their minds.
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?
What bothers me most about this story is some of the reactions here, which reflect the worst sort of corporate thinking: "Someone makes a mistake - can him." Even if one concedes that Microsoft is within its legal rights, it was a senseless act on their part to fire him. Being right is no excuse for being stupid.
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.
it sure smells like free speech and since there weren't any technical specs nor anything revealing except the fact that there's a bunch of g5's, it's difficult for me to say that it's a security violation. More like retaliation for spilling the beans on m$'s stragedy (which everyone in the world already knows).
Lots of people are justifying the sacking of this poor guy, as if it made sense to think of a picture as a security threat. If you are threaten by pictures, How are you going to stop the small phones with cameras on them? Your enemies can take as many pictures as they want! (unless you are a military base).