bigbillygoatgruff

pscooter63 said:

dysamoria said:
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.

Clearly, you’ve never been in a position to sign an NDA.  I have, they ARE black and white, and for very good reasons already articulated far better than I could hope to

All the emotionalism and hand-wringing on display here is simply ill-informed.

Well-stated.  I have to sign them all the time, and I have never seen a provision that says disclosure is authorized when your daughter says "please, daddy."

You know you better than anybody else does.  If you know you can't or don't want to keep secrets, don't get a job that requires that.

GeorgeBMac said:

bigbillygoatgruff said:

GeorgeBMac said:

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. 

Good Excuse!   Very good!
...  I wonder which one you would have chosen had it been your kid?

What does that even mean?  I would be an unloving father for not violating the terms of my agreement for my adult daughter?  This was not a life safety situation. 

dick applebaum said:

dcgoo said:

StrangeDays said:

While we don’t know the details, sure a demotion of something could also be considered. But it’s not like Apple cut his finger off... Apple engineers can work anywhere they want. Many will sympathize with him and I doubt he’ll have much trouble finding another gig. 

Violation of an NDA in your history, is going be a little tricky to overcome.  Let alone with all the follow-up publicity.  He can probably get a job selling tools or paint at Home Depot, but I doubt he will ever be hirable in any firm developing some new groundbreaking product.

As I understand it an employer (Apple in this case) can only verify the fact that he was employed and the dates of his employment -- not that he was fired/quit or why.

Any difficulty he might encounter due to publicity is of his own (or his daughter's) doing.

If you have a reference, I would like to see it--not because I am trying to agree or disagree with you.  I would just like to have the information.

HR departments only verify the employment.  A supervisor may provide additional information if contacted for a reference.  The company may have policies for providing references, though.  

SoundJudgment said:

So, should they now also sue all the Apple Event attendees who showed off the iPhone X on camera and on their Vlogs... at the Opening Event hands-on demo... which was held earlier in time? Here's your subpoena, CNET.

No.  That's just nonsense.  The announcement was a public event intended specifically to disseminate that information.  The presenters are not being fired because that was an authorized disclosure.  There is no legal liability for the event attendees.  Handing the phone to your daughter is an unauthorized disclosure.  And there is probably no legal liability for the daughter--especially since she honored Apple's request to remove the video.  I doubt Apple suffered any damages from the daughter's actions.

I don't understand why so many on this forum are troubled by the concept of authorized vs unauthorized disclosure. 

mikethemartian said:

jd_in_sb said:

mikethemartian 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.