Apple sacks iPhone X engineer after daughter posts hands-on video to YouTube

145791015

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 286
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    jd_in_sb said:
    A reasonable person might ask how much it would have really cost Apple to ensure that phones could not film without first obtaining a code number or other authorization.
    Huh? The iPhone X being used to film something is not the issue. It being the subject of a film is the controversy here. Codes and authorization built into the pre-release iPhone X to prevent it from filming would not stop the girl from pulling out her personal iPhone and filming the screen of the pre-release iPhone X. 
    In other words, assuming the girl used an Apple device at an Apple controlled facility to make unauthorized recordings, it is reasonable for a jury to ask if Apple could have and should have prevented the recordings from ever having been made. To answer the "could have" question, one need only look to see that Apple holds patents for disabling videos at live events, it could have a feature in iOS to enable automatic MDM enrollment of visitor devices or custom iOS controls --maybe just a single line of code that checks the GPS coordinates vs. the developer-status of a device before allowing recordings. (Hmm, what's that in the Timezone dialog? Oh, Cupertino, I see.) The fact they don't do this is pretty stupid regardless of this case. The answer to the "should have" question is not for you or me to decide, but you can bet the attorney for the poor bastard they just fired will likely have a few ideas: was it too much of a financial burden, was it reasonable to expect this to happen, etc. Again, not our call.
    I responded to a quote from a person who thinks the iPhone X made the YouTube video. I was simply saying it was made with her phone 
    netmage
  • Reply 122 of 286
    I am of the conclusion that Apple never does anything wrong here.

    The difference between being an Apple fan and a fanboy.

    There is a distinct difference.
  • Reply 123 of 286
    I wonder how many of the fools here claiming:  "Rules is rules -- Fire his ass!" have gotten warnings instead of a ticket from a cop after breaking a rule?

    For these people, rules generally only apply to those "other" people who break rules.....
    Nice try.  I doubt anyone considers all rules to be of equal importance with equal penalties.  If safeguarding sensitive information is a condition of your employment and you demonstrate an inability or an unwillingness to do so, you are not employable.

    You can still feel empathy for the guy while believing his termination was reasonable.  He is a human being with feelings.  It hurts to lose a job no matter what the circumstances. 
    TimJobsradarthekatpscooter63magman1979netmage
  • Reply 124 of 286
    During orientation at a new job, I was informed no cameras could be used on the premises at any time for any reason. I was also informed I could be fired if it was discovered I broke the rule. I signed the contract. I have not broken the rule. I still have a job. The rule is clear. My understanding of the rule is clear. I take responsibility for my actions. 

    The girl written about chose to do something that got her father fired. The moment she decided to make the video was the moment she didn’t give a damn about her daddy’s job. All that she cared about was becoming famous for leaking iPhone X details. Now she will be known as the girl who got her daddy fired. 

    As for Apple being sued for this firing. Not a chance. The rule is clear. The employee understood the rule. The employee’s daughter ignored the rule. Case closed. 
    avon b7 said:
    From the information presented, I think the decision was harsh but perhaps there is more context that hasn't come out yet.
    Agreed, I would have liked to see this employee reprimanded at most. However, leaking a video of a unshipped product would most certainly contractually be grounds for dismissal. The employee MUST have known this, which is why this seems so strange. The only reasoning behind this I can think of is that he assumed his daughter would publish the video AFTER shipping started.
    He wasn't fired for what his daughter did.  He was fired for what he did.  What she did brought to light his violation of the NDA.  I doubt very seriously that the NDA condones disclosure to friends and family but prohibits publishing to social media. 
    edited October 2017 svanstromanantksundarampscooter63magman1979netmage
  • Reply 125 of 286
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,816member
    May be her Dad wanted her to make and post such youtube to create followers so she gets famous, recognized among her friends. Bottomline, both Dad and daughter are at fault. Long time back I read saying may be spoken inside Apple, "Don't f*** it for others". Point is when every employee works so hard than one or few employees have no right to screw it up for others including Apple stock holders.
    magman1979
  • Reply 126 of 286
    jon.pdx said:
    smaffei said:
    Why is no one asking "How did she unlock the phone?" It's an employee phone, it is locked with facial recognition and a passcode. In order to use the phone she would need dad to use his face or give her the lock passcode. Dad knew this was going on. That is why he was fired.
    great point....

    I see this as half on her father, and half on the daughter.
    I suspect that he might get a job from a company that wants to take advantage of the situation, but the daughter has basically shot down her dad’s career. aka it’s a real get a clue moment.
    I suppose anything is possible, but it does not look good at this point.
    I hope that the daughter can understand how much she has injured her father and the trust that was given to him, but he totally had to unlock the phone to make it happen....
    This will take years for the daughter and her father to work out. I hope it will work out in the long run.
    I am sure the daughter will never be able to be hired in the future at Apple now.

    Take that!!
  • Reply 127 of 286
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    jd_in_sb said:
    What did she show in the video that wasn't already shown in the keynote?
    That’s completely irrelevant. He signed an agreement to accept job termination if he should do what he ended up doing. If the same video has been shot with the iPhone X powered off he could still be terminated. 
    There may be other contractual violations but an NDA cannot be enforced against information already in the public domain.
    That statement is also completely irrelevant.
    edited October 2017 netmage
  • Reply 128 of 286
    Yeah, I know NDA’s are important.

    i guess I just don’t see what is secret about  the X anymore. At 12:01am on Nov. 3, you can say and take video of it until your hearts content. This was like a week before availability. Heck, reviews will be coming out from the usual shills in another 3-4 days from now too.

    If this came out before the phone was introduced, sure, fire him, hang him, whatever. It would be warranted.
    Soli
  • Reply 129 of 286
    jon.pdx said:

    I see this as half on her father, and half on the daughter.
    I can’t argue with how you see it, but I can argue about how you should see it. :smile: 

    There are only two questions to consider here:
    1. Did the father break some sort of NDA or contract?
    2. Did the daughter break some sort of NDA or contract?

    There are no halves here, because it’s a simple yes or no answer to both these questions.

    The NDA/whatever he signed doesn’t go beyond him, so either he broke it or not while letting his daughter film the iPhone X. That “break” is completed no matter what the daughter did or didn’t do afterwards. 

    Same with whatever she might have signed; either she broke that, or she didn’t. 
    radarthekat
  • Reply 130 of 286
    dysamoria said:
    Soli said:
    Did the person who lost an iPhone 4 at a bar months before it was to be unveiled get fired?
    How about the person that uploaded the HomePod firmware that contained data on other unreleased Apple products?
    I think the person that uploaded the iOS 11 GM was a disgruntled employee, and while that part can't wholly be Apple's fault it's certainly Apple's fault for allowing an employee to add internet-facing files to their servers with secret URLs. They really need better security and likely a two-key system for uploading any new content, which would also have likely saved them from the HomePod firmware debacle.

    avon b7 said:
    From the information presented, I think the decision was harsh but perhaps there is more context that hasn't come out yet.
    What about the information already presented in the article strikes you as this move on Apple's part being 'harsh'?
    Clearly he referring to the engineer being fired. I agree that it appears harsh.

    There's literally no additional information to be had from this child's iPhone X video. Let's keep in mind that it was done the week of pre-orders and about 6 weeks after the device was already demoed in vivid detail by Apple. Based on the information presented I can't imagine firing this engineer over this one issue. If you had said, "Apple has a lot more information than we do and they felt it necessary to fire the engineer so who are we to say that they are wrong. It's their company and it's likely they didn't break any laws with letting the engineer go," that would be a very different response while still agreeing with Apple's firing of the employee. Instead you made a draconian implication that rules need to followed to the letter, that there's not room for gray areas or conscious consideration of the scope of an offense, and that punishments should be as brutal as possible in your initial comment. Maybe there were other circumstances, like other lapses I judgement which made this a final strike against him, but you made zero indication that this might simply be the final straw on the camel's back in your original comment. I can't agree with such despotic ways of thinking.
    It's amazing how so many tech people side with "liberty" and slam government "control and overreach", but will still side with and promote draconian corporate policy in discussions of public issues between a company and an employee... so long as they're not the employee themselves.

    Things are rarely so black and white as "you broke the rule and deserve whatever punishment is dealt", but these guys seem to be comfortable with nothing but. The second someone suggests that an employee's mistake might be better handled with grace and kindness instead of abrupt dismissal, the corporate fascists start using phrases like "victim card", "rules are rules", and demonstrating a callousness that suggests that they might make horrible vindictive employers themselves (or hoping to see everyone else treated with as much callous disregard as they themselves have been treated somewhere in their own personal histories). 
    Rule of law = "corporate fascists"? Wow. 'Nuff said. 

    /rolleyes 
    StrangeDaysSpamSandwichpscooter63magman1979netmage
  • Reply 131 of 286
    tomhqtomhq Posts: 22member
    MicDorsey said:
    Of course, I am not privy to the details of the fathers error beyond the article. But, all parties could come out ahead by making this incident a teachable moment where this apparently well respected employee could continue in some capacity at Apple. All employees, management and the public in general would benefit from witnessing Apple again as an entity with a compassionate corporate ethos and yet would reaffirm and strengthen their policy against this breach internally.  Being that it is a public problem now, the family is contrite, remorseful and apologetic and are still clearly Apple boosters, all parties can gain in an Apple PR sensitive move. The Public beyond Apple will be watching this in hopes of slinging arrows at Apple, as always.
    Teachable moment? Are you kidding me?? Oh wait, you're confusing "slings and arrows" with "slinging arrows," so you don't really have a clue anyway.
    It is very much a teachable moment - violating a signed contract and showing irresponsible behavior will cost you your job.  ;)
    edited October 2017 radarthekatpscooter63magman1979netmage
  • Reply 132 of 286
    Rules are rules, it sucks to be him!
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 133 of 286
    Apple, I Disagree with this decision. 

    Firing is extreme. 

    It is not correct.


    It is extremely correct. The engineer is fully culpable in the fact that his offspring gained access to material she never should have been able to touch.  I've worked at the corporate support level at companies with a much lower profile than Apple's and I've seen instant firings for  serious NDA breeches.  And this is about as serious as it can get. YOU SIMPLY DO NOT TAKE SENSITIVE WORK HOME WITH YOU. Or if you must for some reason, you keep it locked down from curious fingers.  Or face the consequences for your lapse.
    radarthekatpscooter63magman1979netmage
  • Reply 134 of 286
    jd_in_sb said:
    What did she show in the video that wasn't already shown in the keynote?
    That’s completely irrelevant. He signed an agreement to accept job termination if he should do what he ended up doing. If the same video has been shot with the iPhone X powered off he could still be terminated. 
    There may be other contractual violations but an NDA cannot be enforced against information already in the public domain.
    It doesn't matter that the information was publicly available.  Handing the device to his daughter amounts to an unauthorized disclosure because the device itself is not publicly available.  Directing his daughter to the website or linking the keynote is not an unauthorized disclosure.  Further, if he is not the authorized spokesperson for the iPhone X, directing someone to the website or to the authorized spokesperson is probably the only thing he is allowed to do. 
    radarthekatmagman1979netmage
  • Reply 135 of 286
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,325member
    dysamoria said:
    Soli said:
    Did the person who lost an iPhone 4 at a bar months before it was to be unveiled get fired?
    How about the person that uploaded the HomePod firmware that contained data on other unreleased Apple products?
    I think the person that uploaded the iOS 11 GM was a disgruntled employee, and while that part can't wholly be Apple's fault it's certainly Apple's fault for allowing an employee to add internet-facing files to their servers with secret URLs. They really need better security and likely a two-key system for uploading any new content, which would also have likely saved them from the HomePod firmware debacle.

    avon b7 said:
    From the information presented, I think the decision was harsh but perhaps there is more context that hasn't come out yet.
    What about the information already presented in the article strikes you as this move on Apple's part being 'harsh'?
    Clearly he referring to the engineer being fired. I agree that it appears harsh.

    There's literally no additional information to be had from this child's iPhone X video. Let's keep in mind that it was done the week of pre-orders and about 6 weeks after the device was already demoed in vivid detail by Apple. Based on the information presented I can't imagine firing this engineer over this one issue. If you had said, "Apple has a lot more information than we do and they felt it necessary to fire the engineer so who are we to say that they are wrong. It's their company and it's likely they didn't break any laws with letting the engineer go," that would be a very different response while still agreeing with Apple's firing of the employee. Instead you made a draconian implication that rules need to followed to the letter, that there's not room for gray areas or conscious consideration of the scope of an offense, and that punishments should be as brutal as possible in your initial comment. Maybe there were other circumstances, like other lapses I judgement which made this a final strike against him, but you made zero indication that this might simply be the final straw on the camel's back in your original comment. I can't agree with such despotic ways of thinking.
    It's amazing how so many tech people side with "liberty" and slam government "control and overreach", but will still side with and promote draconian corporate policy in discussions of public issues between a company and an employee... so long as they're not the employee themselves.

    Things are rarely so black and white as "you broke the rule and deserve whatever punishment is dealt", but these guys seem to be comfortable with nothing but. The second someone suggests that an employee's mistake might be better handled with grace and kindness instead of abrupt dismissal, the corporate fascists start using phrases like "victim card", "rules are rules", and demonstrating a callousness that suggests that they might make horrible vindictive employers themselves (or hoping to see everyone else treated with as much callous disregard as they themselves have been treated somewhere in their own personal histories). 
    Rule of law = "corporate fascists"? Wow. 'Nuff said. 

    /rolleyes 
    Yeah, dysa is this site’s ivory tower proletariat champion. always going on about apple being a capitalist devil, etc.. meanwhile, buys things. 
    edited October 2017 anantksundarammagman1979netmage
  • Reply 136 of 286

    T-R-U-S-T
    dewmeradarthekatSpamSandwichpscooter63netmagebigbillygoatgruff
  • Reply 137 of 286
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,574moderator
    johnbear said:
    oh, where is that humane apple CEO that is so concerned with human rights and all kind of social, antisocial and more or less rational rights??...


    You know, rights AND responsibilities?  
    edited October 2017 anantksundarampscooter63baconstangmagman1979netmage
  • Reply 138 of 286
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,325member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Did the person who lost an iPhone 4 at a bar months before it was to be unveiled get fired?
    I’m not sure why you’re equating the accidental loss of a device intended to be removed from the office for outside testing with the intentional violation of your NDA by letting your kid record a video of an unreleased product inside of Apple’s HQ where any filming isn’t allowed anyway and then publishing it YouTube. Obviously they are not the same. One is an accident. One was willful and demonstrates insanely poor judgement.
    He may have accidentally forgotten the device but do you think when he was issued the device for testing outside of campus that he wasn't given a disclosure agreement to sign that stated that he's not to leave it anywhere, allow anyone else to use it, and/or not to talk about the device he has in a special case to obfuscate its appearance? I'd think that's pretty standard boiler plate for any company with a modicum of security and probably barely scratching the surface when it comes to what Apple likely had him sign. If I were in charge of this issue at Apple I'd even put in there that the employee should not imbibe if they wish to be part of this testing program because of the greater chance of having a lapse in judgement. Accident or not, the comments here are mostly very adamant about any violation of an agreement being a fireable offense—"no exceptions!," hence my mention of the iPhone 4 incident.
    I can’t speak to what others believe. But there is a very real difference between accident and intentional. This guy let his daughter film her day at Apple with a dSLR, then willfully gave her an unreleased product to film. Then let her post it all to YouTube. Again the definition of insanely poor judgement, and far worse than losing a cloaked device at a bar where someone took it to sell to bloggers.
    edited October 2017 radarthekatmagman1979
  • Reply 139 of 286
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,325member
    johnbear said:
    oh, where is that humane apple CEO that is so concerned with human rights and all kind of social, antisocial and more or less rational rights??...
    Having equal civil rights doesn’t mean every idiot should be free of responsibility and consequence for personal decisions. Durr 
    radarthekatpscooter63magman1979
  • Reply 140 of 286
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,574moderator
    jd_in_sb said:
    A reasonable person might ask how much it would have really cost Apple to ensure that phones could not film without first obtaining a code number or other authorization.
    Huh? The iPhone X being used to film something is not the issue. It being the subject of a film is the controversy here. Codes and authorization built into the pre-release iPhone X to prevent it from filming would not stop the girl from pulling out her personal iPhone and filming the screen of the pre-release iPhone X. 
    In other words, assuming the girl used an Apple device at an Apple controlled facility to make unauthorized recordings, it is reasonable for a jury to ask if Apple could have and should have prevented the recordings from ever having been made. To answer the "could have" question, one need only look to see that Apple holds patents for disabling videos at live events, it could have a feature in iOS to enable automatic MDM enrollment of visitor devices or custom iOS controls --maybe just a single line of code that checks the GPS coordinates vs. the developer-status of a device before allowing recordings. (Hmm, what's that in the Timezone dialog? Oh, Cupertino, I see.) The fact they don't do this is pretty stupid regardless of this case. The answer to the "should have" question is not for you or me to decide, but you can bet the attorney for the poor bastard they just fired will likely have a few ideas: was it too much of a financial burden, was it reasonable to expect this to happen, etc. Again, not our call.
    Wait, so... the Boston Red Sox should also require automatic MDM enrollment, and support such, if even exists, for all devices that could possibly be used to record the game?  IOS, Android, Windows Phone, etc?   Should the Red Sox then also seek a license to Apple’s patented process for preventing video recording and require each game attendee to install software that enforces that process on the device?  Because if they don’t, they won’t be able to sue a game attendee who publishes or otherwise rebroadcasts video of the sporting event?  Do you see how silly it seems now what you are suggesting Apple should be required to do? 
    edited October 2017
Sign In or Register to comment.