Slashdot Mirror


Perl's Chip Salzenberg Sued, Home Raided

Chip Salzenberg writes "In April of this year, Health Market Science of King of Prussia, PA, told police that they feared I was misappropriating trade secrets. That very afternoon, police raided my house with a search warrant to seize every computer in the house, paper files, CDs, and DVDs... even my wireless router and cable modem!" Chip was the pumpking for perl's 5.004 release. Keep reading for his description of his current legal troubles, and for a shortcut into what he says prompted his former company's actions, read his letter warning about abuse of open proxies.

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."

21 of 698 comments (clear)

  1. Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If his version of events is true, then wouldn't there exist whistleblower protection laws he can seek refuge under?

    1. Re:Uh... by n0-0p · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Laws do exist, but the simple reality is that most whistle blowers still get screwed and are never able to work in their respective industry again. That's probably why he tried to resolve the problem internally first, although creating a paper trail exposing misconduct can scare management just as bad.

  2. Lesson to be learned here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any time you're going to be challenging the mental giants that are in charge, ALWAYS have a lawyer in your pocket and all your ducks in a row. And offsite backups.
    Seriously, what the hell did he expect - if they can use open proxies like this, that they would play nice with him?

  3. The moral of this story by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Retain, and have a very long chat with a very good lawyer before you threaten your bosses with police action.

    --

    News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

    1. Re:The moral of this story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Retain, and have a very long chat with a very good lawyer before you threaten your bosses with police action.

      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.

  4. false police report by Deton8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You should take your original letter to the police who raided you. Hopefully they will then prosecute your employer for filing a false police report.

  5. Two lessons by Otter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    1) Past and future Ask Slashdot questioners: when we tell you to document your situation and to see a real lawyer, do it! This is why!

    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.)

  6. Re:Am I missing something? by mcc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What did you think they were going to do, make you an SVP?

    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.

  7. Re:Am I missing something? by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IANAL, and I know this varies by state, but this kind of retribution and harassment for filing a complaint may be very illegal, and the company may have opened themselves up to liability for it. I know reporters of sexual harassment or discrimination are protected from retribution, and it would be interesting to know what protection a whistleblower for unethical behavior has under state and federal laws.

    Regardless, no one deserves this treatment for stating their beliefs the company is doing something wrong.

    --
    It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
  8. Re:Am I missing something? by caryw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes but how is it that a judge or magistrate (I'm sure under intense pressure from the police department) will issue a search warrant without hard evidence of any illegal activity? Strongarm tactics like this are what is wrong with our judicial system today.

    This is your tax dollars at work!
    --
    Fairfax Underground: Fairfax County and Northern Virginia message board

  9. No probable cause... by jhoger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Based on the evidence at hand there was no probable cause for the search.

    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 :-) or a nice juicy settlement favoring the plaintiff.

    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.

  10. Re:The company's website and contact info by TwistedSpring · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think a legion of slashdot readers blasting these contact details and sending trollish e-mails will only worsen this guy's situation: "Then he got his legion of goons to come to his defence, causing massive problems with our e-mail infrastructure and bringing our website to a crawl, before this had even got to court." That cannot be good.

    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.

  11. Missing Something! by NickFortune · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Chip isn't a whistleblower. Whistleblowing involves running to external authorities with a story.

    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.

    --
    Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    1. Re:Missing Something! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I *am* a lawyer......

      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.

  12. Sounds pretty clear to me by suitepotato · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and immediately attempted a smear campaign to draw attention away from themselves.

    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.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  13. Re:Am I missing something? by oliphaunt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Deserves? No. Expects? well, that's another matter entirely. If you've already confronted the founder of the company and pointed out that the business practices that he himself WROTE THE CODE to perform are, in fact, illegal... and he didn't seem shocked and appalled by that news... then odds are, he's already well aware of the legal status of his company's activities, he's a (wealthy? powerful?) unscrupulous bastard anyway, and won't mind squashing you like a bug if it keeps things just the way they are.

    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.

    Vince: Hey Dutch, I've been thinking.
    Dutch: That's a dangerous habit.
    Vince: You know, this Prohibition thing? That makes alcohol illegal right?
    Dutch: Yeah.
    Vince: So, all this beer we're selling, that's illegal too, right?
    Dutch: Yeah. That's why we make so much money.
    Vince: Well, I don't feel so good about breaking the law.
    Dutch: I don't like where you're going with this.
    Vince: I think maybe we should, you know, stop?
    Dutch: Don't make me shoot you in my 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.
    --




    Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
  14. Re:I can't send money by Zaak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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 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

  15. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I read the affadavit, and I saw no legal basis for the seizure of this man's property. This was one step above an anonymous tip. I imagine the conversation might have been like this: Mark Brosso: "Look! This guy that we've employed for 2+ years at a job involving software development has been transferring data to and from our network using our computers! He's a thief! Seize him!" Affiant Det. Al Elverson, Jr: "Er, didn't you, his employer, issue him the computer and the account? Wasn't it his job to access your computer network? Didn't his job involve transferring data? If you wanted him to stop, why didn't you deactivate those? Do you have any EVIDENCE that what he downloaded was outside the normal course of his work? Can you prove to us that you have even informed him that he is no longer authorized to access the data? Can you prove that any of your trade secret information has been disclosed to ANYONE? So, you have a SUSPICION that a person who you employ MIGHT have trade secret information on his company laptop, or on removable media... which isn't illegal, since he hasn't DISCLOSED it... and you want me to bring the force of the law in to seize private property? I think I can find a judge that will do that..." Judge: "So, you have no evidence of any actual wrongdoing, and you want me to sign a warrant to seize private property? Sure! Where do I sign?

    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.

  16. Re:Am I missing something? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're not real clued in to how criminal investigations work, huh?

    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.

    --
    Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  17. Re:Am I missing something? by siliconbunny · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think what's wrong is the election of judges. To any lawyer observer from another common law country (like me), it just seems unbelievably wrong.

    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?

  18. Outsourcing is usually corporate corruption. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, 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:
    1. Any serious project will be at least a partial failure, because no project plan defines everything. In serious progamming projects, there is a need for additional research and creative decision-making every few hours, and usually much more frequently.
    2. The corrupt manager can avoid responsibility, and can easily find a job at a new company by the time the low quality of the software becomes generally known.
    3. The contracting company has assured that they will have an Indian competitor (if the outsourcing is to India), because the outsourcing defines for another company what is needed for that particular application.
    4. The Indian company can be blamed.