Also why pull out in the last 30 mins? And why fire them? No warnings ? Mistakes happen, you don't fire a director for something like that. The PR process is to make sure the company's image looks good, who better knows the Defcon audience? Hackers or PR people who don't understand the framework?
There is really no other way to see it than Salesforce fucked up.
I wonder why they didn't pick Metapistol.
I too hope that nobody actually uses such a mnemonic in this day and age, but for such a mnemonic to be forgotten entirely would be a massive loss. Whitewashing the past of its blatant racism and sexism will only serve to erase the reminders we as a society have of why the present is an improvement on the past. Every artifact of such archaic and abhorrent beliefs serves as yet another datapoint demonstrating the whole concept of "Mak[ing] America Great Again™" to be misguided at best and abhorrent at worst.
In other words: we absolutely shouldn't be teaching such a mnemonic in classrooms, but we absolutely should continue to document their existence as evidence of exactly how fucked up the past really was.
HN has a setting that allows you to view dead posts.
OK, try getting a PR department to sign off on that.
And they presented it at Hushcon before with approval so what's the problem with that?
I don't see why you keep defending Salesforce, they did mess up even if say the employees did not go through the approval process. You don't fire People over that, especially if previous talks are public on the same subject. Especially not at Defcon. That's why SF is in the wrong.
Why do we have to feel obliged to take offense at the whole word due to one slang definition.
Why should MEATPISTOL be a problem?
retard
1. to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede. verb (used without object)
2. to be delayed.
noun
3. a slowing down, diminution, or hindrance, as in a machine.
4. Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a contemptuous term used to refer to a person who is cognitively impaired.
a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way: a hopeless social retard.
5. Automotive, Machinery. an adjustment made in the setting of the distributor of an internal-combustion engine so that the spark for ignition in each cylinder is generated later in the cycle.
Seriously, there is a balance to be had. People who went through traumatic events are often offered therapy precisely because you can't reasonably expect the entire world to guess and remove every single thing that can trigger someone's hurtful memories.
I'm so used to hearing without any conceit that antibacterial mouthwashes can retard bacterial growth.
Actively developing and planning to release a malware creation tool? That sounds like developing and releasing cyber weaponry. We've got export laws regarding that IIRC.
[1] https://community.rapid7.com/community/infosec/blog/2015/06/...
I think that article only emphasises that it is not subject to those regulations. Quote:
We conclude that, at a technical level, the distinction between weaponry and non-weapon malicious software lies in the payload component of the tool, which must be capable of creating destructive digital or physical effects
Meatpistol is only a framework, therefore there's no payload component.
Given that SF employees have presented at many conferences in the past I don't see that getting official approval for the presentation is that strange.
I agree that we need more details, but can you really say that this situation has not played out many times before?
Like if they went on stage and flopped, they could get fired. Similarly maybe they were too good. Or the boss was having a bad day.
One of the employees is based out of Sydney, so No, California at-will employment law doesn't apply.
It would be interesting to see what grounds they are using to fire him.
Based on previous experiences with other companies, I found that it's not unusual for executives in one country to think that the employment law in their jurisdiction is universal and just assume they can apply it to employees in other countries.
Most notice periods in AU are 4 weeks so you either are fired with 4 weeks notice or fired immediately and paid for those 4 weeks.
(The notice period also applies if you decide to leave the organisation)
The rule specifically is:
Can notice be paid out instead of worked?
Yes. An employer can either:
Let the employee work through their notice period, or
pay it out to them (also known as pay in lieu of notice).
If the employer pays out the notice, the amount paid to the employee must equal the full amount the employee would have been paid if they worked until the end of the notice period. This includes:
incentive-based payments and bonuses loadings monetary allowances overtime penalty rates any other separately identifiable amounts.
If the employer pays out the notice, the employee does not accrue any annual leave for the notice period they were paid out for.
https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/notice-and-fin...
https://www.lawsociety.com.au/community/publicationsandfaqs/...
They might have one here, but I doubt it.
Specifically John Cramb (the Australian) was presenting alongside Josh Schwartz the director of offensive security. It seems that one could reasonably establish that John was acting under the directions of his superior, and that would mean that the default position would be to assume that his actions were sanctioned by the company unless they can prove that he knew otherwise.
And even then, they would be expected to provide a written warning, or justify why the violation was so extreme to justify immediate termination (which would be very difficult given he was active under the instructions of a superior).
Base on the limited evidence we have, it seems that Salesforce has unfairly dismissed John, and that the Californian executive ought to have consulted with an Australian HR lawyer before he acted.
Generally speaking, multinational companies will offer employment contracts through a local subsidiary. In that case the employment will fall under the laws of that country. And if they send you on an overseas business trip that doesn't change anything - even if the parent company is domiciled in that country.
If they don't have a local presence, and you're working remotely, then you're more likely to be a contractor and dismissal laws are pretty loose.
The interesting thing would be if they had a local subsidiary but chose to employ you on contract to the parent company. I suspect (but IANAL) that the Australian Fair Work Commission would determine that (if the contract was long term and indefinite) that you were actually an employee of the local subsidiary.
That's not true, we have unfair dismissal laws: https://www.fwc.gov.au/termination-of-employment/unfair-dism... . From the page:
Your dismissal may be considered unfair if:
* you were dismissed, and
* your dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and
* your dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy, and
* if you were employed by a small business, your dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.
Personally I would consider this harsh, unjust and unreasonable, especially if this is the first time and the person doesn't have a lot of publicity experience.
(a) and (b) give you Australian employment protections. (c) obviously only gives you whatever protections are in the contract.
I've never seen anyone under a contract of employment (rather than a contract for services) of a foreign company that purports to not be governed by Australian employment law.
Firing someone in California requires that they be paid in full right then and there. This includes payment for accrued vacation time, comp time, etc. Were these employees paid off properly?
[1] http://www.turleylawfirm.com/blog/final-paycheck-laws-for-te...
Actually, they can (with a few exceptions). California is at-will employment:
"At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning."
Or, as the Supreme Court of California explains:
"[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment ... The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms."
Like, if someone decides to come out of the closet on social media and their co-workers find out and their boss hears about it and fires themthe next day but claims that it's a "no reason" termination, it would certainly raise suspicion that they were actually being fired for being gay and they might win a wrongful termination lawsuit, even in an at-will employment state.
[0] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employment...
It's not strange at all. So dig up some of those slide decks of past SF talks and compare them to what was presented in the meatpistol talk. Then you can decide for yourself whether you think this talk was approved or not -- it would be the same PR department approving all the talks, right?. In any case, the facts may come out in the representation, as you suggest.
Generally I can kinda see how the EFF would be interested in the topic of their presentation, but effectively this is an employee and employer legal issue now.
The exec that fired them was an attendee at the conference. How can he not have known about their talk? That makes no sense.
Amen.
But before everyone gets on their high horse, please pause to reflect:
This was all company work product being presented by company employees who were on a company funded conference trip. Therefore there is an approval process for vetting presentations as well as a legal process for opensourcing code. This is standard practice at all companies.
Now what do you think is more likely: That the PR department would approve of a talk titled "meatpistol" (FIXED) (have you seen the slides?) and the legal dept would approve of open sourcing the code and then at the very last minute both groups would change their mind and try to pull the talk, or that the presenters never got the OK in the first place, the company found out at the last minute, asked them to pull the talk and they refused?
How likely is it that they would get official approval for their talk under a "Chatham's rules" meeting in February to for a presentation <strike>in August</strike>at the end of July? Isn't it more likely that they got some initial approval for a talk in February, but that PR still wanted to vet the actual slides in <strike>August</strike>July? (I'm assuming that the slides were made after February.) Which PR department gives approvals like that? What legal department works this way? In my experience, stuff like this happens at the last minute, because that's when you're finishing your slides (as well as your code), and generally PR is going to ask that you make some changes to your slides and they will want the final copy before signing off. Now maybe I'm wrong and the article is correct, but I think it's unlikely.
Moreover given that Salesforce can't talk about this matter, who do you think is the source for the article and whose side are you hearing?
The last few days have really highlighted how quick people are to pile on with outrage and self-righteous indignation before getting all the facts.