offerk writes "Chip Salzenberg writes, 'In April of this year, Health Market Science of King of Prussia, PA, told police that they feared I was misappropriating trade secrets. That very afternoon, police raided my house with a search warrant to seize every computer in the house, paper files, CDs, and DVDs... even my wireless router and cable modem!' Chip was the pumpking for perl's 5.004 release. Keep reading for his description of his current legal troubles..."
Well, after heading over to http://geeksunite.net/ to put a little in, I think there are two lessons to be learned from this; be very careful of who you work for, and even more careful about threatening legal advice.
It's fair to say (and I know that Chip will know this by now) that threatening legal action to any company is enough to put them on to red alert - at which point, you can expect the most violent reaction possible. Virtually every company will be the same; they can't take the risk that you won't follow through. "Pre-emptive strikes" are the fashion today people, don't forget that we're at war.
One of the challenges with being an opensource geek is that you can end up being extremely honest. However you will face a conflict of interest if you cannot work for a company who are themselves honest.
Many of you will have seen incisive sociopolitical commentaries like the Corporation or Manufacturing Consent, even if you haven't then you'll probably have noticed that in the course of your life, the bull-shit-o-meter has been going off the scale in virtually all forms of media and marketing.
The media has been subverted from the role it used to take in challenging the views and policies of the establishment. Now, while 'they' pass horrendous fiscal and foreign policy, strip liberties via works like the Patriot Act, the media lap up every little piece of diversionary scandal and sensationalism like eager puppies. Of course, they are themselves forced to do this by their shareholders - after all, they have to maximise profit, too. Sorry people, the truth isn't profitable to tell anymore. Nobody wants to hear, nobody even knows how to find it.
If a corporation is required, under threat of shareholder legal action, to maximise profit before even telling the truth to its customers or the community, how can it be truthful to anyone's morals? The obvious counter-argument, to question whose moral standards you pick is moot; it doesn't really matter, so long as they have an inclusive view when it comes to who in the world should be the benefactor of business. That's what corporations were originally awarded their charter for, to serve the public, and it has only been in recent years that it has been perverted into the selfish state of sanctioned money grabbing we see today.
So, when you go for your next job interview - are you putting on a bright display of feathers and taking whatever you can get, or are you interviewing your potential employer to see if the culture in their business is one that has grown from a lust for profits, or from clear and honest multiple bottom lines? (torrent)
Re:Be wary of whose hand you bite
mugwumpjism on 2005-07-04T00:09:52
...even more careful about threatening legal advice. Bah. That should read, "threatening legal action", or perhaps "'threatening' obtaining legal advice".
My first reaction on hearing Chip's story was "Thank goodness I don't live and work in America". In fact, it seems to be a blatant violation of the fourth amendment, but IANAL and IANAA.
I would be interested in what rights and protection a whistle blower can claim under laws in different countries, when their employer is behaving unlawfully. The Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002 was introduced in the US, in the wake of Enron, and seems to give some protection to a whistle blower. But it seems that this might be restricted to financial issues - misrepresentation of a company's accounts, concealing/destroying data, etc. Also, its debatable whether this is true 'protection'.
In many ways, S-Ox has put many third parties, accountants and auditors especially, in an awkward position. They are now comitting a felony if they continue to cover up their client's misdemeanours, but they stand to lose the account if they speak the truth.
