9 ms·
I have been terminated from Zoom for refusing to remove the following tweets
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago(EDIT: The now-deleted Tweet said “I have been terminated from Zoom for refusing to remove the following tweets. Anyone have recommendations for wrongful termination lawyers based in California?” His Twitter feed still has the leaked materials and Tweets critical of Okta) So he’s posting leaked, private materials that he doesn’t have rights to, and the materials are from a Zoom partner company that provides a critical integration for the company’s operations? Obviously he’s going to get fired if he refuses to remove the Tweets. I’m surprised they even offered to let him stay if he removed them. You can’t have an employee actively leaking private materials from one of your key partner companies with which you’ve undoubtedly engaged in a lot of contracts. This isn’t really a wrongful termination case. If you want to be a Twitter leaker of private company materials on sensitive topics, you can’t also expect to work for companies adjacent to those leaked materials.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoActually, for publicly sharing leaked private materials of partner companies, the offer to delete the tweets instead of getting fired was merciful.
- davidg109 5y agoI agree, Zoom seemed willing to work with the ex-employee. Unfortunately people often overlook that they are an ambassador for the company they work for. Their employer will usually not tolerate aggravating a (potential) revenue-generating relationship with a third party by any employee. I believe Zoom did the right thing here, but I’m curious what CA law says.
- SuperGent 5y agoI believe that California is an 'at-will' state so it might not make any difference, but I'm not a lawyer.
- peoplefromibiza 5y agothat's the difference between countries where workers are protected and where they are not. You can't fire someone just because they posted pictures online only because you don't like them, where I live. Because your employer have no saying in what you do in your private life. The most probable outcome if the picture were removed was being fired from Zoom after removing the pictures. At least now we know about them.
- akerl_ 5y agoThese weren’t pictures of him wearing a racy outfit on a vacation. He works in the tech industry, and he posted leaked documents from a tech company. His employer can pretty sanely draw the parallel and say “we don’t want to employ someone who is OK with broadcasting leaked documents from companies like ours”. Even in countries with different levels of worker protections, that’s a pretty clear cause for termination.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago> He works in the tech industry, and he posted leaked documents from a tech company You can't be fired for that. It's against the law. The leaker is responsible, not the employer posting them. As it should be in a decent country with decent laws in the west. We don't live in Vladimir Putin's Russia, do we? > Even in countries with different levels of worker protections, that’s a pretty clear cause for termination. actually, it is not. And if you really wanna try that, you can't do it without a judge saying you could do it. And if the employer is right, you have to give them the job back and pay all the legal fees.
- vageli 5y ago> > He works in the tech industry, and he posted leaked documents from a tech company > You can't be fired for that. > It's against the law. Citation needed. In most US states you can be fired for no reason at all.
- 5y ago
- mywittyname 5y agoI suspect the firing would happen either way, but the difference would be in how the company handled it. Delete the tweets and the person gets a severance, maybe a "layoff" instead of firing with cause, and no pushback on unemployment claims. Don't delete it, fired with cause, no severance, no unemployment, potential criminal charges. It looks like the tweets are gone now anyway.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoI think so, they don't need the bad publicity so let it die down and fire him in 3 to 6 months out for something else but really this.
- TehShrike 5y agoHe says > None of the data I shared is from my organization and it was obtained entirely independently. I did not break any NDA or contract. I would never violate the trust of the organization I work for. https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508614036719648771 https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508614036719648771
- gjsman-1000 5y agoIt doesn't have to be obtained from your organization if it is an embarrassment to the company or its partners. It would be like an NSA Employee tweeting about Snowden.
- PragmaticPulp 5y agoDoesn’t matter that it was obtained “independently”. Doesn’t matter that he didn’t sign an NDA with Okta. Zoom certainly had agreements with Okta that prohibit employees from either company from sharing private information publicly like this. To remain compliant, they can’t continue to employ someone who is publicly violating that (with his handle emblazoned all over the documents, no less) You can’t expect to work for a company while publicly leaking materials from one of their partners, regardless of how you acquired it.
- rendall 5y ago> the materials are from a Zoom partner company that provides a critical integration for the company’s operations? > Zoom certainly had agreements with Okta that prohibit employees... Partner? Can you say more about this? How do you know Zoom and Okta are partners?
- helsinkiandrew 5y agohttps://www.okta.com/partners/zoom/ https://www.okta.com/partners/zoom/
- dmd 5y agoThere are tens if not hundreds of thousands of organizations that log into Zoom via Okta.
- syshum 5y agoThis is why anonymity is important. Having grew up in the 80's getting internet in the 90's, using "real names" online was unthinkable.
- spacemanmatt 5y agoOTOH it's been curious to see the real humans I only knew by famous nicknames come out, in more recent times.
- syshum 5y agoI have had many names over the years... I tend to shred them every 2 years or so, this one has lasted longer than normal, and I am close to shredding it just lazy.. I dont think I will ever change that, and keep a fake name very long, and I can never envision going full real names.
- joshribakoff 5y ago> I’m surprised they even offered to let him stay if he removed them Isn’t it just like with the police, they can legally lie in this context? “If you turn yourself in we’ll go east on you”. They can just turn around and fire him anyway because it is an at will work state
- bhaney 5y ago> They can just turn around and fire him anyway There wouldn't be much point in them lying like that. He can also just turn around and repost the tweets after all.
- kingofpandora 5y agoThis is a warning or future leakers not an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle since that information is out forever.
- px43 5y agoThe leak is already widely available publicly. It's OSINT now, public domain. Pretending like it doesn't exist is going to do customers a lot more harm than good, so doing your part to make sure that people know that these materials are public is 100% in the interest of the public, and Zoom's customers.
- lelanthran 5y ago> The leak is already widely available publicly. It's OSINT now, public domain. Pretending like it doesn't exist is going to do customers a lot more harm than good, so doing your part to make sure that people know that these materials are public is 100% in the interest of the public, and Zoom's customers. Yeah, but what an employee thinks is good for the customer is irrelevant. What the company thinks is good for the customer is the relevant question. If the employee thinks that republishing publicly available leaks is good for the customer, they should get permission from the company before publishing it. It's not the employee's call, even if it is in the customer's interest. Whistle-blowing is a totally different thing; this wasn't that.
- smsm42 5y agoHe didn't "leak" the materials, as far as I can see, only reproduced them.
- xwdv 5y agoTermination warranted. He had a chance to avoid it but chose this path instead. Good luck finding a job now.
- hkt 5y agoTweeting with your real name is a tiny bit mad when it is anything remotely sensitive. Leave it to journalists, they're used to the flak and protected.
- lelandfe 5y agoNot that I’m suggesting he should have shared these files anonymously with someone else… But surely he could have seen this coming when he posted it on his own Twitter…?
- abirch 5y agoThe best advice would have been to consult with a lawyer before refusing to take them down.
- dylan604 5y agobefore posting them in the first place
- SpicyLemonZest 5y agoI've talked to a surprising number of people who honestly believe that any private documents shared in any context constitute (legally and morally protected) whistleblowing as long as they're embarrassing to a major organization.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 0des 5y agoWhen you try to attract attention using your real name, you might attract attention using your real name.
- abirch 5y agoThe last thing you want from when a future employer tries to google your name is to have this come up. There are only a handful of people I'd put my neck-on-the-line to bring into my company after something like this.
- datalopers 5y agoYep. Nobody should ever hire Bill Demirkapi because he leaks confidential company information.
- abirch 5y agoI definitely believe in second chances and fortunately Bill deleted this tweet. If you're a hiring manager, how much of a risk would you take? How much better would he need to be than the average candidate?
- martimarkov 5y agoI’ll probably hire him just because of the tweet - it shows to me that he cares about doing the right thing and not just bottom line
- datalopers 5y agoLet’s see you do it, he’s available and actively looking [1]. And make sure you let the rest of the company and your prospective clients know you’re hiring this guy specifically for his track record of leaking privileged information. Leaking information that “needs to be public” is one thing. Doing it under your own name is sheer stupidity and reflects the worst possible judgment. [1] https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508820739968880640 https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508820739968880640
- xnorswap 5y agoI think he should have considered talking to a lawyer before posting this tweet. This doesn't feel wise to double-down on without first checking with a lawyer the following: 1. What are his employment rights 2. What is the legal standing of his previous tweets
- gkoberger 5y agoWell, the tweet linked literally says "Anyone have recommendations for wrongful termination lawyers based in California?", so I don't think he has a lawyer. He also seems to be 20 years old.
- black_puppydog 5y agoHum, reading that material, and seeing it also discussed on the HN frontpage, seemt to imply there was a an interest. From the public. Like, a public interest. People seem awfully quick to say "zoom did the right thing here" or "what did you expect?" But these timelines look like people kept it quite for long enough that "oh they'll get around to disclosing it in due time" doesn't cut it. So yeah, "zoom was in their right to fire someone for raising legitimate concerns, bEcAuSe Of ThEiR BoToMlInE" is a stance you can take. But it also means putting corporate interest over public interest once more. Great... Edit: don't get me wrong I'm not surprised companies would react like that. But "what did you expect" implies that the person would better not have done that, or doesn't have the moral high ground here when they say that the termination, lawful or not, was a dick move.
- batch12 5y agoWhy would a company allow a person that they no longer trust access to their resources? Zoom offered a compromise to accommodate his "moral high ground" but he dug in. Now we are supposed to be outraged on his behalf. Nah, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
- PragmaticPulp 5y agoPublic interest doesn’t automatically protect the release of private materials, nor does it obligate Zoom to continue employing someone who is actively working against their key business partners. This isn’t really a whistleblower case either. The person didn’t take materials to authorities to notify them of a coverup. They watermarked their Twitter handle on them and put them on Twitter for personal gain and fame. I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply regarding the firing, but this seems like a very clear cut case of Zoom being in the right and the employee getting fired for clear reasons.
- dogleash 5y ago>Public interest doesn’t automatically protect the release of private materials Did this fired guy release private materials, or dig through already-published materials for something relevant to his interests to highlight?
- vlark 5y agoFreedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
- rkangel 5y agoMore accurately - freedom of speech means freedom of consequences from the government. It means nothing between private entities.
- aaron695 5y ago
- rossdavidh 5y agoI'm trying to see the reason not to just point these docs out to a journalist in the security-related field, as opposed to tweeting them himself.
- addingnumbers 5y agoVanity and the prospect of social media clout? He even watermarked the documents with his Twitter handle, he can't stand the idea of someone seeing the information without knowing it came through him.
- Jyaif 5y agoWatermarking an image of text, it doesn't get any more stupid.
- hn_version_0023 5y agoAttention seeking?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwawaytwitta 5y agoYou broke the first rule of twitter, never post anything on your public twitter other than banal corporate hype and safe, non controversial topics you've already seen other worker-drones post. Or, just be uncontroversial enough in your personal life that everything you'd post anyway would never possibly offend the hierarchs now or at any time in the future, like 10+ years down the road. For most of us, it's just not worth it. The only thing I post on my identity-linked twitter is stuff I'm told to post by my employer. It's just not worth taking this sorts of risks in this environment.
- busterarm 5y agoThe InfoSec industry is a status economy. Attention is the most important currency. If you're already trading on your real name in order to eat, then you have to continue down that road.
- syshum 5y agoThis is a huge problem we have in many area's of society. Cult of personality has taken over more than just entertainment, but Academia , Research, and now it seems InfoSec That is not a good thing
- darkwater 5y agoInfoSec, DevRel, Architects, Cloud Experts and on and on and on...
- busterarm 5y agoI mean, fair, but I'm a working Cloud Expert and Architect and I never do any public speaking or publishing whatsoever. The other two I will full-on agree with.
- darkwater 5y agoFor the latter two not everybody, but many - especially the ones doing consulting - will have a very visible public face and status. Which is not a b ad thing per se, but you should always read any claim/suggestion with a grain of salt, as there might be some conflict of interest behind them.
- robgibbons 5y agoIronically, he deleted this tweet, but not the one that got him fired.
- orangepurple 5y agoDoes anybody have an archive of the Tweets in question?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- renewiltord 5y agoTweet that caused deletion https://mobile.twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508527487655067660 https://mobile.twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/150852748765...
- Aachen 5y agoAaand it's gone... Sounds like a great way to ensure future employability though.
- sergiotapia 5y agoI'm sure the 80 twitter likes was worth it
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jffry 5y agoHere is the mirror that got archived by the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20220329014412/https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508610588200607746 https://web.archive.org/web/20220329014412/https://twitter.c...
- awb 5y agoTweet has been deleted. Anyone have a screenshot or archive?
- Bedon292 5y agoHe deleted that one, but the ones it linked to are still there: https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508527487655067660 https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508527487655067660
- gkoberger 5y agoThe (now deleted) tweet said: "I have been terminated from Zoom for refusing to remove the following tweets. Anyone have recommendations for wrongful termination lawyers based in California?" And it links to this: https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508527487655067660 https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508527487655067660 (Editorializing: The poster seems to be a 20-year-old college student. The linked tweet may have been deleted because the replies pointed out California is at-will and no lawyer would be able to help.)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- chris72205 5y agoArchive of the deleted tweet: https://archive.ph/JWRdH https://archive.ph/JWRdH
- saul_goodman 5y agoThere we go, thanks. The most useful comment buried at the bottom. I'm not in disagreement of the ethical issues pointed out by the top 20 top comments here. But I think it demonstrates how many people here are from the ivory tower of IT rather than the gutter like the rest of us enlisted IT folk. If industry could be trusted to self-regulate I'd be all uppity about supporting them, but they can't and I'm not.
- bastardoperator 5y agoHow do people still not understand at will employment? I hope the twitter clout was worth it in the end.
- pantulis 5y ago"Sorry, that tweet got deleted" That escalated quickly.
- kerng 5y agoHow would say this is whistleblowing - why does he nor argue that way? His actions are for the publics favor and interest - considering how much Okta lied about all of this.
- firstSpeaker 5y agoI hope to see a response from Zoom on this.
- danso 5y agoThe OP tweet has since been deleted; this appears to be a snapshot of it: https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508610588200607746 https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508610588200607746
- elzbardico 5y agoThis is the kind of stuff that any IT professional even tangentially interested in computer security could have twitted. People are too eager to have opinions based on a single headline and on their pre-conceived notions, instead of going there and looking at the tweets. There's definitely public interest on this posting, it is not something that could cause irreparable damage to okta beyond their own stupid reaction to their own errors. He was not posting internal confidential financial documents or lists of credentials. Yes, Zoom is on their LEGAL rights to terminate the employee, but this is a stupid decision that shows that company is run by stupid obtuse lawyers and MBAs and doesn't give a damn about the technical side of things and the professional ethics of engineers. Definitely not the place a security professional would like to work at, and because of that, not the place I would like to trust for my business.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y agoWhen you see IT professionals make other tweets like this, the pictures they're tweeting are always, always from publicly available data dumps. Making a new disclosure is very different, even if the tweets look the same.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- julianozen 5y agoTo everyone here saying “duh he got fired” I would ask you to step back and think about the implications. Why would you take the side of a corporation covering a legitimate data breach over an employee that is broadly sharing that information? Why would you support a company trying to censor its employees on their personal social media page? Yes, the employee can be reasonably and legally fired. But this isn’t the society we should be striving for and we should feel angry at Zoom’s response
- lamontcg 5y agoYou're conflating pointing out how the world works, with defending the way that the world works. I can think that in an ideal world he wouldn't get fired, but I also agree 100% with "duh he got fired". I'm also not sure that even in a reasonable ideal world that this wouldn't be consequence-free. He's inherently burning the political capital of anyone managing the relationship between those two companies and stressing their relationship. Even if the law doesn't allow the company to terminate him, there will probably still be social consequences. People don't behave like robots and they get annoyed at other people. And if those people managing that relationship were so perfect that they could always understand the larger picture, and if the whole world was composed of people who were that perfect, we would never be in this situation because Okta would never have mismanaged the breach that badly.
- dec0dedab0de 5y agoI don't understand how anyone with half a clue could outsource internal authentication with something like Okta. As far as I can tell the logic is Let's send all of our credentials to a third party to then send us back a token, so we don't have to type our password more than once. Unless you use a browser that is not fully supported, in which case you're going to type it way more than once.
- dang 5y agoRelated: New documents for the Okta breach - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30841413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30841413 - March 2022 (61 comments)