There's a NDA along with various company confidential rules, the engineer made a major mistake and received a legitimate response. As for the daughter, she seemed to be still bragging with intent on attracting more clicks. Definitely no sympathy here.
I say let him keep his job but charge him for all lost sales associated with Apple exclusives that are no longer valid. Also releasing info. To the competition so they can start duplicating quicker.
I think even if Apple has a heart and didn’t really want to fire him they really had no choice because setting the president of making an exception to breaking the NDA would allow others to think their reason to break the NDA was clearly less harmful than the previous person forgiven.
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
You do realise that to film the iPhone X she had to use another camera, right? And Apple can't just add pattern recognition and block all other cameras in the world from filming their products without some sort of Apple code…
I’m prone to think she had some motivation to get popular by making that video and posting it on YouTube.
Perhaps, but why does that matter?! There's really no need to gossip about what her intentions might have been, nor to judge her for what other people's intentions might be.
As far as discussing this from an Apple perspective more or less the whole internet could tell, the instant that they saw that video, that an Apple employee had screwed up badly by letting someone film his iPhone X. Even without actually getting employed by Apple and actually reading and signing documents saying that what he did isn't allowed, we all knew it would get him fired.
He didn't even just passively make a misstake, but actually participated actively while she very obviously filmed the iPhone X; at a location at Apple where probably not even the location itself should be filmed, just because by accident some secret stuff might be caught on camera.
He should not have given the new iPhone to her daughter to use! Teenagers are loose ships sink ship type of people. In other words, they cannot keep secrets and will do stuff like this without think of the consequences!
She's at least in her 20s! Married, trying to get pregnant...
Well, she's an insufferable twit that acts like a 13 y.o.
Ffs. If a guy can’t even honour a simple NDA, they don’t deserve the privilege of working for a company like Apple, never mind the concern whether he can honour a signed agreement in general, which in turn raises concerns about his employability at large in his particular sector and even outside of it.
I find it, slightly uncomfortable that someone thinks firing is wrong. Because any grown up adult should have known better.
The only person, ever to allow filming a Video on new unreleased iPhone, and Apple Campus is Steve Jobs. Unfortunately that person is long gone.
Losing iPhone 4 - unintentional , ( May have been fired but we dont know )
HomePod Firmware - unintentional, also a company policy and mistake.
Uploading iOS 11 GM ( May be fired but we dont know )
Unless his Dad didn't know
1. He is not allowed to film an unreleased product.
2. He is not allowed to film inside Apple HQ
3. He is not allowed and should know better not to upload the film to public viewing, especially on a popular site like Youtube.
~4. He signed an NDA
So -
If he didn't knew any of the 2 point above, he should be fired anyway, what is the point of a company continue to have you if you dont even know the basic of basic policy.
Point 3 - If he didn't know his daughter was filming, or was going to upload to youtube, which is clearly shown in the video, then..... I am wordless.....
And finally, we are talking about Apple. The company which is known for its secrecy, the company that hired agents from FBI to CIA to prevents leaks of Information. The company that had courses and lecture to its employees on these security issues. There are 14 billion other company you could have done that.
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.
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.....
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.
i.e., the implications of unauthorized disclosure are not assessed based on the potential impact of the actual incident.
That's what I said. You, on the other hand, said, "This guy put his coworker's and teammate's jobs at risk," which specifically indicated that he put others at risk, not that the NDA is in place to prevent the potential risk of putting the company (and individuals) at risk. Those are very different claims.
No, I’m saying that it doesn’t matter what the actual or potential impact is for a specific incident. By definition, any violation of an NDA puts the company, employees, teams, and other stakeholders at greater risk. That’s why the NDA is in put place, to reduce the probability of loss, I.e., reduce risk) that may occur if unauthorized or unintended disclosure occurs. Even if no actual damage is found to have occurred after an NDA violation, the violation of the NDA inherently increases risk.
Again, no. Violating the NDA could put various parties at risk but violating it doesn't necessarily put them at risk. As you later correctly state to "reduce the probability of loss," but you keep interjecting absolute statement that violating an NDA has absolutely put parties at risk.
Are you a lawyer? On matters NDA? Or just sounding highfalutin?
What did she show in the video that wasn't already shown in the keynote?
It doesn't matter.
It matters legally and since an NDA is solely a legal document that means it matters. You can simply Google NDAs and "public domain" to see that information already widely known is not subject to an NDA.
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.....
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.
Well… he’s got no grounds for suing Apple for letting him go; but if Apple didn’t let him go, then the next person getting fired for anything similar could sue.
Suddenly Apple is stuck in a quagmire of having to defend how they go about choosing whom to fire or not; and just think how bad that could get if they only reprimanded this white guy, and then went on to fire minorities and women.
It’s the same as when companies sometimes must threaten to sue their fans to protect their trademarks. It’s a shitty thing to do, but the way that the laws are the long-term costs of not doing a shitty thing today might be astronomical.
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.
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).
Comments
As far as discussing this from an Apple perspective more or less the whole internet could tell, the instant that they saw that video, that an Apple employee had screwed up badly by letting someone film his iPhone X. Even without actually getting employed by Apple and actually reading and signing documents saying that what he did isn't allowed, we all knew it would get him fired.
He didn't even just passively make a misstake, but actually participated actively while she very obviously filmed the iPhone X; at a location at Apple where probably not even the location itself should be filmed, just because by accident some secret stuff might be caught on camera.
This is just common sense.
He intentionally broke it.
Apple didn’t have any choice but to fire him.
And and if he wants to work in a position of trust again then he’s better off sucking it up and moving on.
Oh, and he should teach his kid about responsibility during his time off.
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.
For these people, rules generally only apply to those "other" people who break rules.....
This is a poor analogy at many different levels.
Suddenly Apple is stuck in a quagmire of having to defend how they go about choosing whom to fire or not; and just think how bad that could get if they only reprimanded this white guy, and then went on to fire minorities and women.
It’s the same as when companies sometimes must threaten to sue their fans to protect their trademarks. It’s a shitty thing to do, but the way that the laws are the long-term costs of not doing a shitty thing today might be astronomical.
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).