Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Rumor Casualty...
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: It won't do much but...
Are you kidding me? He DESERVED to get fired for his stupidity alone! Don't get me wrong, it's a shame and I do feel sorry for him, but Apple were IMO right to sack him.
Re: What I wanna know...
Oh yeah Adam is gay...if you read his journal entries before he talks about getting fired from Apple he talks about how cute this one dude is...
Oh yeah Adam is gay...if you read his journal entries before he talks about getting fired from Apple he talks about how cute this one dude is...
Hey Gus I did not realize...we are neighbors buddy...I live about 20 miles from the Nebraska border up near the Vermillion-Yankton, SD area...
damn
First of all i know this kid,
he sold me my powerbook 1ghz and when apple was to crappy to call me and tell me that my ram was in two months after i had recieved my Ti, adam was the only one considerate enough to take it upon himself to contact me and get my ram, he also installed it and i must say is one of the most professional and pleasant employess i have encountered at ANY retail store... He also didn't think anything of the screenshots, who thinks that screen shots of the retail software you use are rumor bait?? duh, i can look at the screen as i'm standing there purchasing things. maybe he was lax in not fully understanding the all-encompassing non-disclosure agreement, but i don't believe adam had any foul intentions. and as for his mistakes as a computer guru... HE IS A STUDENT, RETARDS, NOT A PROFESSIONAL.
I for one think that adam should sue the hell out of PBZone for posting his personal info, even though it was readily available. the thoughtless, reckless actions they took with his personal info are borderline malicious... we in the rumor mill are all full aware of what happens to apple employees who leak info, and PBZone should have exercised more responsibility in there actions.
I think this was a mistake on adam's part which was capitalized on by powerbookzone, and now a young man is out of the job, over retail store software screenshots...
Adam if you read this, i work for a big production company downtown raleigh, and i will try to hook you up with some filming and editing work... replay to this post, and i'll email you my info. we do commercials and internal film, video, tradeshows and multimedia for IBM, Ericsson, Sony Ericsson, UNC Chapel Hill, Audi, and Motorola... Hope things work out for the best, i know first hand that you were a good salesman, and knowledgeable mac-guy.
Technocoy
First of all i know this kid,
he sold me my powerbook 1ghz and when apple was to crappy to call me and tell me that my ram was in two months after i had recieved my Ti, adam was the only one considerate enough to take it upon himself to contact me and get my ram, he also installed it and i must say is one of the most professional and pleasant employess i have encountered at ANY retail store... He also didn't think anything of the screenshots, who thinks that screen shots of the retail software you use are rumor bait?? duh, i can look at the screen as i'm standing there purchasing things. maybe he was lax in not fully understanding the all-encompassing non-disclosure agreement, but i don't believe adam had any foul intentions. and as for his mistakes as a computer guru... HE IS A STUDENT, RETARDS, NOT A PROFESSIONAL.
I for one think that adam should sue the hell out of PBZone for posting his personal info, even though it was readily available. the thoughtless, reckless actions they took with his personal info are borderline malicious... we in the rumor mill are all full aware of what happens to apple employees who leak info, and PBZone should have exercised more responsibility in there actions.
I think this was a mistake on adam's part which was capitalized on by powerbookzone, and now a young man is out of the job, over retail store software screenshots...
Adam if you read this, i work for a big production company downtown raleigh, and i will try to hook you up with some filming and editing work... replay to this post, and i'll email you my info. we do commercials and internal film, video, tradeshows and multimedia for IBM, Ericsson, Sony Ericsson, UNC Chapel Hill, Audi, and Motorola... Hope things work out for the best, i know first hand that you were a good salesman, and knowledgeable mac-guy.
Technocoy
Adam Attarian:
He made a mistake by posting personal/sensitive/corporate materials online where people could, inadvertently or deliverately, stumble onto it. I do feel sorry for the guy though, we all make mistakes. But does he deserve to get fired? Yes.
PBzone:
Did they have the right to post things they found online? In my opinion, yes. Far as I am concerned, if certain material is online and it is not secured or instructed legally not to be shared (which then would have been secured anyway), then it is pretty much public domain. But was it ethical? No. If they had sense of courtesy, especially considering the material was obviously personal, they should have checked with the owner before posting its information. But, do they deserve any blame? No.
Apple:
Should they reinstate the guy? It is up to them. But frankly, if I were running the company, I wouldn't. Was it right to fire the guy? Yes.
He made a mistake by posting personal/sensitive/corporate materials online where people could, inadvertently or deliverately, stumble onto it. I do feel sorry for the guy though, we all make mistakes. But does he deserve to get fired? Yes.
PBzone:
Did they have the right to post things they found online? In my opinion, yes. Far as I am concerned, if certain material is online and it is not secured or instructed legally not to be shared (which then would have been secured anyway), then it is pretty much public domain. But was it ethical? No. If they had sense of courtesy, especially considering the material was obviously personal, they should have checked with the owner before posting its information. But, do they deserve any blame? No.
Apple:
Should they reinstate the guy? It is up to them. But frankly, if I were running the company, I wouldn't. Was it right to fire the guy? Yes.
check this out
http://virga-x.adtn.net/sysinfo/
look at his uptime... It may just be me, but I don't think the G4 has existed for 12000 days...
This guy definetly needs to make all of this stuff passworded or something, because he is soooo vulnerable...
If you browse around, you can find his AIM SN
http://virga-x.adtn.net/sysinfo/
look at his uptime... It may just be me, but I don't think the G4 has existed for 12000 days...
This guy definetly needs to make all of this stuff passworded or something, because he is soooo vulnerable...
If you browse around, you can find his AIM SN
as adam described in his weblog, the screenshots he took were of an application called 'vantive' which is a database application that apple uses to track customer information, purchases, serial numbers, applecare info, etc. if you've ever called apple for tech support or to buy something then whatever personal information you gave is stored in that database. the main issue with posting screenshots of vantive is that it could violate apple's privacy policies by having sensitive customer information posted on the web. adam claimed in his weblog that the vantive screens were of his own personal information...which probably makes no legal difference in apple's eyes, but makes the whole thing seem pretty insignificant in general. not that managing to have those images viewed by someone who has the capacity to fire him was a great display of common sense, but it's hardly a huge offense.
as for apple's reaction, i don't find it surprising or inconsistent. i worked for them doing frontline technical support on the phone for about a year and they are not a nice bunch of people. while i admire the products they create, i find that they treat their employees with serious disrespect. a huge portion of apple's tech support is contracted out to firms specializing in phone based customer support (such as the one i worked for)...contracting out benefits everyone but the actual employees. we were instructed to lie to customers if they asked us any questions related to who we actually worked for...as far as anyone who called in knew, they were talking to someone who worked directly for apple. getting threatening e-mails sent to all employees about keeping our mouths shut when we left work was not uncommon. the point is that apple's reaction to adam's indiscretion is fully consistent with how they treat their employees in general, and not very fair.
and BTW, it's been over a year since i worked for apple and so my non-disclosure agreement so longer applies.
as for apple's reaction, i don't find it surprising or inconsistent. i worked for them doing frontline technical support on the phone for about a year and they are not a nice bunch of people. while i admire the products they create, i find that they treat their employees with serious disrespect. a huge portion of apple's tech support is contracted out to firms specializing in phone based customer support (such as the one i worked for)...contracting out benefits everyone but the actual employees. we were instructed to lie to customers if they asked us any questions related to who we actually worked for...as far as anyone who called in knew, they were talking to someone who worked directly for apple. getting threatening e-mails sent to all employees about keeping our mouths shut when we left work was not uncommon. the point is that apple's reaction to adam's indiscretion is fully consistent with how they treat their employees in general, and not very fair.
and BTW, it's been over a year since i worked for apple and so my non-disclosure agreement so longer applies.
What is "private?"
This whole incident raises an important question.
Just what are the rights to materials many of us have posted on our web servers? Does the fact that they are "accessible" make them public property?
I, briefly, failed to have an index.html file in my root directory a couple of weeks ago, inadvertently leaving all of my files there open to simple browser access. That's fixed now. But, during that two-day period, did the whole world have a "right" to rummage through everything there, grab whatever they might want, post direct links to those files?...
What ever happened to the concept of "permission?"
Just because I can gain "access" to a place does not somehow empower me with the "right" to be there.
If my neighbors go to work and forget to lock their home, does that give me the right to enter their house and begin rummaging through their property?
This is a challenging idea, one that bores straight to the root of the nature of the internet.
I, personally, don't believe being crafty enough to enter a place without the owner's permission somehow embues me with the right to do so.
I am startled by people who post here with comments based around the idea that, "If he was silly enough to have th files on his server..." Whoa... hold on a minute... Are these people claiming that, if someone has property in their house, and leaves the garage door open, everybody in the world is somehow entitled to enter, plunder, and publish?
This whole line of faulty reasoning scares me.
Folks, the last time I checked, I could have a chair sitting just inside a glass window at the front of my house, one that everyone walking by could see; and, I could have my front door unlocked, and not be at home. If you walk by under these circumstances, is that then (somehow) your chair?
I think this is an important issue. What do you think?
This whole incident raises an important question.
Just what are the rights to materials many of us have posted on our web servers? Does the fact that they are "accessible" make them public property?
I, briefly, failed to have an index.html file in my root directory a couple of weeks ago, inadvertently leaving all of my files there open to simple browser access. That's fixed now. But, during that two-day period, did the whole world have a "right" to rummage through everything there, grab whatever they might want, post direct links to those files?...
What ever happened to the concept of "permission?"
Just because I can gain "access" to a place does not somehow empower me with the "right" to be there.
If my neighbors go to work and forget to lock their home, does that give me the right to enter their house and begin rummaging through their property?
This is a challenging idea, one that bores straight to the root of the nature of the internet.
I, personally, don't believe being crafty enough to enter a place without the owner's permission somehow embues me with the right to do so.
I am startled by people who post here with comments based around the idea that, "If he was silly enough to have th files on his server..." Whoa... hold on a minute... Are these people claiming that, if someone has property in their house, and leaves the garage door open, everybody in the world is somehow entitled to enter, plunder, and publish?
This whole line of faulty reasoning scares me.
Folks, the last time I checked, I could have a chair sitting just inside a glass window at the front of my house, one that everyone walking by could see; and, I could have my front door unlocked, and not be at home. If you walk by under these circumstances, is that then (somehow) your chair?
I think this is an important issue. What do you think?
Re: damn
Hey, Technocoy... I know Adam as well... I am not a close friend of his, i am as people would say a "friend of a friend" though i still talk to him on occasion. I wrote him an e-mail telling him that i had my sympathy's for him and asked him to e-mail me back... I do not know if he does read the forums around here but i will try and make sure that he gets your post.
For everyone else that has posted negative things about adam, just understand that you do not know who he really is in real life. I know for fact that if adam knew that the information was secretive then he would not have even taken the screen shots.
That is all for my venting.
JAM
Hey, Technocoy... I know Adam as well... I am not a close friend of his, i am as people would say a "friend of a friend" though i still talk to him on occasion. I wrote him an e-mail telling him that i had my sympathy's for him and asked him to e-mail me back... I do not know if he does read the forums around here but i will try and make sure that he gets your post.
For everyone else that has posted negative things about adam, just understand that you do not know who he really is in real life. I know for fact that if adam knew that the information was secretive then he would not have even taken the screen shots.
That is all for my venting.
JAM
Re: What is "private?"
Interesting thought... but not really a valid comparison. If people put something on their web server, then I don't think people should expect it to remain private.
Now, obviously, people make mistakes... and that's a shame...
but a better analogy is placing your stuff on the sidewalk... if you leave something you actually wanted to keep there by accident... well, that's "your fault" and it would be a shame if someone took it... and we would hope people wouldn't take it... but there shouldn't be any true expectations of privacy.
Now... there is a queston of "responsible" linking... especially with sites such as Slashdot which have an enormous ability to affect another site's traffic, bandwidth. And of course, something like this... where the person didn't indend to post the information.
That being said, I think it is a shame what happened here and feel very bad for adam.
arn
Interesting thought... but not really a valid comparison. If people put something on their web server, then I don't think people should expect it to remain private.
Now, obviously, people make mistakes... and that's a shame...
but a better analogy is placing your stuff on the sidewalk... if you leave something you actually wanted to keep there by accident... well, that's "your fault" and it would be a shame if someone took it... and we would hope people wouldn't take it... but there shouldn't be any true expectations of privacy.
Now... there is a queston of "responsible" linking... especially with sites such as Slashdot which have an enormous ability to affect another site's traffic, bandwidth. And of course, something like this... where the person didn't indend to post the information.
That being said, I think it is a shame what happened here and feel very bad for adam.
arn
I wrote PBzone and he wrote back with this reply that he said he also sent to Adam:
Adam,
I'm only going to reply with one fact for you.
At 1:00 PM central time, an Apple employee in tech support at Austin sent
emails to the following people letting them know of your website and its
images:
1) Apple corporate security
2) Your boss (listed on Apple directory)
3) His own boss (in Austin)
At 1:20, assured that PBZone.com's involvement wasn't going to matter, I
posted the story.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Thanks,
Doug
Adam,
I'm only going to reply with one fact for you.
At 1:00 PM central time, an Apple employee in tech support at Austin sent
emails to the following people letting them know of your website and its
images:
1) Apple corporate security
2) Your boss (listed on Apple directory)
3) His own boss (in Austin)
At 1:20, assured that PBZone.com's involvement wasn't going to matter, I
posted the story.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Thanks,
Doug
Got that email from Doug too... it makes what he did a lot more understandable. :/ Adam was stuffed from the beginning.
-----I, briefly, failed to have an index.html file in my root directory a couple of weeks ago, inadvertently leaving all of my files there open to simple browser access. That's fixed now. But, during that two-day period, did the whole world have a "right" to rummage through everything there, grab whatever they might want, post direct links to those files?...
They don't have the "right" to go through your stuff, but they can. If you don't want something to be viewed online, you should always protect it.
-----If my neighbors go to work and forget to lock their home, does that give me the right to enter their house and begin rummaging through their property?
That is not valid comparison. First of all, things online are more of intellectual property, whereas what you are talking about is tangible property within your territory. Is your server space territory? Yes. But you sometimes allow people access to it and sometimes you protect it. Same thing you do with your tangible territory. But difference is we are talking about intellectual property not a chair. If you had giant purple Barney doll and it was in clear view in your window, people can go around and tell others about it. If you didn't want it to be viewed, it should have been hidden. This is not same as physically taking your tangible property.
-----I am startled by people who post here with comments based around the idea that, "If he was silly enough to have th files on his server..." Whoa... hold on a minute... Are these people claiming that, if someone has property in their house, and leaves the garage door open, everybody in the world is somehow entitled to enter, plunder, and publish?
This is similar to the whole issue of paparazzi. What they do is, at least most of the time, not illegal. But highly unethical.
-----Folks, the last time I checked, I could have a chair sitting just inside a glass window at the front of my house, one that everyone walking by could see; and, I could have my front door unlocked, and not be at home. If you walk by under these circumstances, is that then (somehow) your chair?
If someone had left access to his/her server and I had ability to teleport his physical hard drive into my livingroom via internet connection, that would be stealing and which is more in line with what you are talking about. Again, we are talking about intellectual property here.
-----I think this is an important issue. What do you think?
I absolutely agree. But it seems what is at issue here is more of ethics than technicality or legality. PBzone technically could view this fellow's server content because it wasn't secured. But it was not very ethical, not obtaining his permission to post his personal materials.
They don't have the "right" to go through your stuff, but they can. If you don't want something to be viewed online, you should always protect it.
-----If my neighbors go to work and forget to lock their home, does that give me the right to enter their house and begin rummaging through their property?
That is not valid comparison. First of all, things online are more of intellectual property, whereas what you are talking about is tangible property within your territory. Is your server space territory? Yes. But you sometimes allow people access to it and sometimes you protect it. Same thing you do with your tangible territory. But difference is we are talking about intellectual property not a chair. If you had giant purple Barney doll and it was in clear view in your window, people can go around and tell others about it. If you didn't want it to be viewed, it should have been hidden. This is not same as physically taking your tangible property.
-----I am startled by people who post here with comments based around the idea that, "If he was silly enough to have th files on his server..." Whoa... hold on a minute... Are these people claiming that, if someone has property in their house, and leaves the garage door open, everybody in the world is somehow entitled to enter, plunder, and publish?
This is similar to the whole issue of paparazzi. What they do is, at least most of the time, not illegal. But highly unethical.
-----Folks, the last time I checked, I could have a chair sitting just inside a glass window at the front of my house, one that everyone walking by could see; and, I could have my front door unlocked, and not be at home. If you walk by under these circumstances, is that then (somehow) your chair?
If someone had left access to his/her server and I had ability to teleport his physical hard drive into my livingroom via internet connection, that would be stealing and which is more in line with what you are talking about. Again, we are talking about intellectual property here.
-----I think this is an important issue. What do you think?
I absolutely agree. But it seems what is at issue here is more of ethics than technicality or legality. PBzone technically could view this fellow's server content because it wasn't secured. But it was not very ethical, not obtaining his permission to post his personal materials.
Seriously... aren't all mac users gay? I got my girlfriend a powerbook for Christmas and I've caught her oogling some girls now.
Coincidance? I think not.
You know, I land at different positions every time I try to reason through this. The whole idea of the web, as an inherently public medium challenges many of our traditional stances toward "property rights," to their core.
On the one hand, nearly everyone would instantly agre that pulling an original piece of artwork from one site and using it on your own, without the artist's permission would be both unethical and illegal.
At the same time, the idea of linking to that piece of art from your site would be considered both ethical and legal, if a proper credit was associated with the link... even though the link is without the artist's explicit permission, and that the link saps costly bandwidth from the artist's site.
Bit, what if the image is not displayed on the artist's web page? What if it's just one of many files inside an innocuos directory, one of many on the artist's web server? Is the link ethical then? Is it legal? What if the root directory is passworded, but someone sends you the acces info, and you post a direct link (with the security acces info embedded)? Is that wrong? Is it illegal?
What if the server's not passworded at all? What if, instead of an artist's server, with images, it's an attorney's server, with client meeting notes? Would pulling and making public those notes be moral?... legal?
A doctor's server, with patient case notes? A company server, with internal business correspondence?
A personal server, with archived materials intended to help the owner with his job?
Is mis-purposing private materials wrong?
The answer to all of these questions can be found in an ancient concept called the Golden Rule.
How would you feel if it was done to you? If the answer is, "Damn, that would suck if somebody did that with my data," then I think it's unethical to do it.
Should we all safeguard our data as best we can? Of course. But, again, this parallels the specious argument that a woman wearing a short dress "deserves" to be raped. If we have server security that's short of a certain standard, does that make us repsonsible for someone taking and mis-purposing our data?
It's all enough to cause sleeplessness. And, I'm not sure where the hard and fast answers lie.
I don't think anyone's going to dispute that Adam was negligent and foolish in leaving those photos on his server accessible to everyone. The real issue here, IMHO , is how careless pbzone was in publishing the kid's personal info without a thought about the consequences. Adam's actions were a product of neglect and foolishness. While pbzone's act was not malicious in nature, it was intentional.
Although pbzone has made it clear that it published the story only after other Apple employees had been notified (and hence wouldn't have made a difference concerning Adam's fate), it should still make you think: An incident like this should remind us how quickly our personal information can spread throughout the Internet--and how that information could be used for or against us.
Although pbzone has made it clear that it published the story only after other Apple employees had been notified (and hence wouldn't have made a difference concerning Adam's fate), it should still make you think: An incident like this should remind us how quickly our personal information can spread throughout the Internet--and how that information could be used for or against us.
I know I'm a macgay, and I know of at least 3 other macgays. I'm pretty sure being gay must use the same part of the brain as being a Macuser. More open to alternative thinking. (i.e. gay & MacOS versus straight & Windows).
Seems perfectly logical to me javascript:smilie('
')
-----On the one hand, nearly everyone would instantly agre that pulling an original piece of artwork from one site and using it on your own, without the artist's permission would be both unethical and illegal.
MacWhispers, first of all, I appreciate you candid and passionate discussion about this. I do agree with your sentiments about the gray areas regarding privacy and property. And I'll try to respond to you not for the sake of rhetoric or debate, but to share my own thoughts and offer you a different view.
If someone were to take my artwork from my server, which was not secured, then it would be upsetting. But it would have been no one's fault except my own. If someone were to take my artwork and then post it in his/her server claiming it as his/her own, I would be extremely upset. But still, it would have been my fault. Up to this point, it is all just matter of ethics. However, things can escalate beyond ethics. Now, if this someone were to benefit/profit using my artwork, getting a job or making money off of it, then this is no longer matter of ethics. It is then technically stealing because certain value exchanged hands and the beneficiary is not the creator of said artwork.
In this situation with PBzone and Adam that doesn't seem to be the case. PBzone seemingly posted said information online for the sake of sharing it with other Mac enthusiasts. There is no clear proof that PBzone directly profitted from posting contents from Adam's server. It is possible that due to this incident, which demonstrated PBzone's ability to gather information, they could perceivably increase their traffic and have more visitors clicking on their advertisers and generate some kind of revenue. But this is arguable at best and still does not clearly demonstrate benefitting from taking someone's intellectual property.
So the situation here, as far as I am concerned, is not about legal right or wrong. It is about ethics. And unfortunately ethics cannot be enforced. Perhaps some clever lawyer could draw up a documentation on how PBzone wronged Adam. But I am no lawyer and do not see any legal wrong doing on PBzone's part, even though their action was clearly unethical.
MacWhispers, first of all, I appreciate you candid and passionate discussion about this. I do agree with your sentiments about the gray areas regarding privacy and property. And I'll try to respond to you not for the sake of rhetoric or debate, but to share my own thoughts and offer you a different view.
If someone were to take my artwork from my server, which was not secured, then it would be upsetting. But it would have been no one's fault except my own. If someone were to take my artwork and then post it in his/her server claiming it as his/her own, I would be extremely upset. But still, it would have been my fault. Up to this point, it is all just matter of ethics. However, things can escalate beyond ethics. Now, if this someone were to benefit/profit using my artwork, getting a job or making money off of it, then this is no longer matter of ethics. It is then technically stealing because certain value exchanged hands and the beneficiary is not the creator of said artwork.
In this situation with PBzone and Adam that doesn't seem to be the case. PBzone seemingly posted said information online for the sake of sharing it with other Mac enthusiasts. There is no clear proof that PBzone directly profitted from posting contents from Adam's server. It is possible that due to this incident, which demonstrated PBzone's ability to gather information, they could perceivably increase their traffic and have more visitors clicking on their advertisers and generate some kind of revenue. But this is arguable at best and still does not clearly demonstrate benefitting from taking someone's intellectual property.
So the situation here, as far as I am concerned, is not about legal right or wrong. It is about ethics. And unfortunately ethics cannot be enforced. Perhaps some clever lawyer could draw up a documentation on how PBzone wronged Adam. But I am no lawyer and do not see any legal wrong doing on PBzone's part, even though their action was clearly unethical.