5 ms·

Hum, 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.

Hum, 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 ago
Why 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 ago
Public 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?
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    He released private materials. "New documents for the Okta breach: I have obtained copies of the Mandiant report...".
treesknees 5y ago
I'm not standing up for Zoom by pointing out their right to fire someone, I'm just acknowledging the situation as-is. It's not a stance. Most of these reactions are to the 2nd half of the tweet, not to the leaked document. I think you are missing this key aspect. "Anyone have recommendations for wrongful termination lawyers based in California?" I wouldn't recommend anyone to him because there's no wrongful termination here. It's not being on moral high ground to point this out.
- martimarkov 5y ago
  So you know the contract he has signed in order to claim there is no wrongful termination? Or maybe CA employment law? Maybe he went to Zoom and told them about this and they said -it’s okay to post it. Given that I, like most others, don’t know it either - there could be grounds. It’s very shortsighted to dismiss someone based on your priors and bias.
  - treesknees 5y ago
    You can make up as many what-if scenarios as you wish, at the end of the day someone asked for legal advice in a (now deleted) Tweet about not complying with his company's request while working in an at-will state. I think he, unfortunately, had to learn the hard way that distributing illegal documents on a Twitter account with a bio that associates your employer isn't going to go over well.
- dogleash 5y ago
  Why wouldn't you recommend a lawyer to someone who wasn't legally wronged, but feels they may have been? What's wrong with pointing someone to a professional consultation in this scenario?
  - treesknees 5y ago
    It seems pretty clear to me that this was nothing but a move to either get free representation or to generate outrage among his technical peers. Maybe a tweet "in the moment" because he just feels entitled, like Zoom owes him something. The Tweet has been deleted, if he really felt justified or in need of a lawyer, it'd still be up.
tobyjsullivan 5y ago
Update: Some of my assumptions here are wrong. As a commenter noted, Okta had posted a PR-response about the breach a few days before the tweets. The termination was specifically about posting confidential documents which detail the hack, not exposing the breach generally. I'll leave the original post in tact for posterity: Exactly this. I see multiple [moral] failings here and none are from the author. Okta, a security company, was breached. Rather than getting ahead of it, admitting their failures and committing to be better, they are actively trying to cover it up. Zoom, a company with a reputation for misrepresenting their own security, has gotten into bed with Okta. Apparently their values align so that’s making more sense now. One of zoom’s employees tweeted about some documents which he found in the wild. Zoom decided the best next move was to be an active participant in Okta’s cover up. Rather than support their employee, they fired him. And now, as anyone could predict, we’re seeing the Streisand effect in action.
- gruez 5y ago
  > Exactly this. I see multiple [moral] failings here and none are from the author. Just because it's not a "[moral] failing", doesn't mean it's smart to be a martyr.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - tobyjsullivan 5y ago
    A martyr is someone who is killed because of their beliefs - it is the ultimate sacrifice. I don't know the author but I'm going to guess he's not a martyr. He will get another job by the end of the week if he wants and I'm sure he knew that going in. The cost of getting fired was probably very low. He was presented with an ultimatum: hold your high ground or keep your job. It's precisely because of the low cost of losing his job that he was able to hold the high ground. It won't be the same for everyone. For every person who can afford to stand their ground, there's someone else who can't - someone else who has to sacrifice their own values to keep their medical benefits. And that's why we celebrate and hold up the people who can hold their ground - because they represent everyone who can't. This isn't a pity party for the author. He never asked for pity. I read his post as surprise at how low Zoom would go.

batch12 5y ago

Why 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 ago

Public 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?
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  He released private materials. "New documents for the Okta breach: I have obtained copies of the Mandiant report...".

treesknees 5y ago

I'm not standing up for Zoom by pointing out their right to fire someone, I'm just acknowledging the situation as-is. It's not a stance. Most of these reactions are to the 2nd half of the tweet, not to the leaked document. I think you are missing this key aspect. "Anyone have recommendations for wrongful termination lawyers based in California?" I wouldn't recommend anyone to him because there's no wrongful termination here. It's not being on moral high ground to point this out.

martimarkov 5y ago
So you know the contract he has signed in order to claim there is no wrongful termination? Or maybe CA employment law? Maybe he went to Zoom and told them about this and they said -it’s okay to post it. Given that I, like most others, don’t know it either - there could be grounds. It’s very shortsighted to dismiss someone based on your priors and bias.
- treesknees 5y ago
  You can make up as many what-if scenarios as you wish, at the end of the day someone asked for legal advice in a (now deleted) Tweet about not complying with his company's request while working in an at-will state. I think he, unfortunately, had to learn the hard way that distributing illegal documents on a Twitter account with a bio that associates your employer isn't going to go over well.
dogleash 5y ago
Why wouldn't you recommend a lawyer to someone who wasn't legally wronged, but feels they may have been? What's wrong with pointing someone to a professional consultation in this scenario?
- treesknees 5y ago
  It seems pretty clear to me that this was nothing but a move to either get free representation or to generate outrage among his technical peers. Maybe a tweet "in the moment" because he just feels entitled, like Zoom owes him something. The Tweet has been deleted, if he really felt justified or in need of a lawyer, it'd still be up.

tobyjsullivan 5y ago

Update: Some of my assumptions here are wrong. As a commenter noted, Okta had posted a PR-response about the breach a few days before the tweets. The termination was specifically about posting confidential documents which detail the hack, not exposing the breach generally. I'll leave the original post in tact for posterity: Exactly this. I see multiple [moral] failings here and none are from the author. Okta, a security company, was breached. Rather than getting ahead of it, admitting their failures and committing to be better, they are actively trying to cover it up. Zoom, a company with a reputation for misrepresenting their own security, has gotten into bed with Okta. Apparently their values align so that’s making more sense now. One of zoom’s employees tweeted about some documents which he found in the wild. Zoom decided the best next move was to be an active participant in Okta’s cover up. Rather than support their employee, they fired him. And now, as anyone could predict, we’re seeing the Streisand effect in action.

gruez 5y ago
> Exactly this. I see multiple [moral] failings here and none are from the author. Just because it's not a "[moral] failing", doesn't mean it's smart to be a martyr.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tobyjsullivan 5y ago
  A martyr is someone who is killed because of their beliefs - it is the ultimate sacrifice. I don't know the author but I'm going to guess he's not a martyr. He will get another job by the end of the week if he wants and I'm sure he knew that going in. The cost of getting fired was probably very low. He was presented with an ultimatum: hold your high ground or keep your job. It's precisely because of the low cost of losing his job that he was able to hold the high ground. It won't be the same for everyone. For every person who can afford to stand their ground, there's someone else who can't - someone else who has to sacrifice their own values to keep their medical benefits. And that's why we celebrate and hold up the people who can hold their ground - because they represent everyone who can't. This isn't a pity party for the author. He never asked for pity. I read his post as surprise at how low Zoom would go.