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."
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.
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.
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.
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
Well, I think it was justifiable firing. He likely signed a NDA and here he goes putting up pictures of their computers on the web. Even if nothing critical was revealed, they have to enforce their NDA or people will violate it left and right. This is far more serious than a leak of a Windows beta which is already widely distributed anyway. This is taking photos of systems used for internal company buisiness. If I were his employer, I would have fired him too.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
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
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.
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.
I agree with you completely, on a technical level.
There's probably no doubt the guy broke 'the rules' as its very, very easy to do. Almost everyone breaks one of the standard workplace 'rules' per day. Same with the law - I am a total criminal, I jaywalk multiple times a day, and I've run red lights before.
The difference is in the interpretation. Like the law, the spirit is supposed to be observed, not just the letter.
What I am saying is this: he broke the rules and he shouldn't have been fired. Yes it was a picture of a part of the MS campus, a loading dock. Yes, technically it was a security breach. Yes, it was against the rules. No, he should not have been fired. Why?
Because anyone can see he has not actually caused any damage to Microsoft. Nothing has happened. No one seriously thinks he has imperiled their development efforts, physical security, or anything else. Every one of these managers knows that the kid just screwed up, but they're going by the book and not with their brains.
If we don't cut each other some slack, and use some bloody judgment, we may as all submit to the Giant Corporate Shell Script that tells us when to take lunch, when to take a shit, when to make small talk with workers. Rules are there to be interpreted with wisdom and intelligence. That's the way I see it.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Now however, half the geek world and anyone else who cares to take a look sometime in the future can look all they like. It has now become wide public knowledge. NDA or not the knowledge (no matter how useless) is now widely public. How NOT to manage the situtation....
This is all a lesson in working for a large corperation and really has little to do with microsoft or the computer industry. But its should be in Microsofts interest to keep this to a minimum, publicly speaking.
Let's look at this from an ethics standpoint. If the guy had posted a picture of himself dressed as Mary Poppins frolicking in his yard, then it's not an issue for his work. If he published pictures of his personally owned Windows PC blue-screening and bitched about it in his blog, that's not cause for Microsoft to take action against him, either.
It's when you cross that line between home and work that it gets ugly. The guy took digital photos of his employer's non-public building areas while there as an employee. He identified himself as a Microsoft employee, in what department he worked, and in what building. He used poor judgement and he knows it. Microsoft didn't commit some horrible atrocity against the Mac community by firing the guy. They did not quelch his free speech rights. They fired some loose cannon who was wandering around the campus taking digital photos and posting them on his own web page. The whole story is just sensationalistic: Microsoft Fires Mac Fan For Blog Photo. It had nothing to do with his being a "Mac Fan." What's next?
Come on folks.
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.
So what? It's not a bank, a nuclear research facility, the changing rooms of Moulin Rouge; it's an office building.
Was he hired to take digital photos of company property? It's not his office building. It's theirs. If they don't want photos of it floating around the net, that's their call.
Think about the questions that go through the minds of the security people: Today it was the loading dock but what will it be tomorrow? The new X-Box, our development lab? Photos of company-proprietary memos? Why is the guy wandering around the campus taking pictures with a digital camera?
You also don't seem to understand how industrial espionage works. They might be just Macs to you. Someone else might have other information that they are able to put together with that in order to ascertain something that Microsoft wishes to keep secret.
And in all the places I've worked, no one has ever cared what snaps anyone took or what they did with them.
Where have you worked? JC Penney and Walmart? Most engineering firms are very guarded and don't want pictures of their facilities distributed over the Internet.
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.
The guy was wandering the campus with a digital camera taking pictures of non-public areas. Wouldn't that make you a bit suspicious if you were in corporate security? Wouldn't you wonder how many other pictures he had taken and who he had given them to? Why should Microsoft take a chance on some temp when there are hundreds of others lined up at their doors begging for jobs?
So it does make me wonder what the real reason is.
Right... It's Microsoft, so there must be some nefararious, hidden, evil plan at work. I forgot. Sorry.
lmao @ american worker rights
Look, you can say that they have a right to protect whatever, but the photographs have no discerning characteristics. He even took care to make sure of that. More importantly, the photo is of just macs... which we all know they get because they have a Mac unit.
So... your theories are great but ultimately not relevant. If they truly cared about future incidents they could've asked him to take the photo down, reprimanded him, and then sent email to the company asking that people don't do that.
But, instead they just fired the guy. Your theories don't mesh with the other facts.
politics, food, music, life: FatMixx
"It seems that my post is seen by Microsoft Security as being a security violation"
LOL
This is a microsoft's version of a security flaw but leaving ports open isn't (and all of the other long list of items)? Go figure.
"A good friend will bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, 'damn....that was fun!'"
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?