Re:Since-fired SF Apple employee used work iPhone to leak to...
by cqqxo4zV46cp on Friday March 29, 2024 @09:44PM
(#39871052)
How did you get “he didn’t like the company” from that story?
People routinely have feelings and opinions way more nuanced than this. And Apple is not a monolith. That’s certainly what happened here, as made apparent by the employee selectively leaking things that he wanted to kill.
Re:Since-fired SF Apple employee used work iPhone to leak to...
by duxup on Friday March 29, 2024 @10:02PM
(#39871157)
It sounds like what he leaked was a wide range of things for all sorts of reasons including his own joy at “Can’t wait for chaos to break out before Apple corporate people even wake up.”
Re:Since-fired SF Apple employee used work iPhone to leak to...
by ohmyiv on Saturday March 30, 2024 @03:07AM
(#39872523)
It depends on the vesting requirements. Unvested stocks are given to employees and have requirements such as job performance and/or length of service. Once an employee reaches the requirements, the stock becomes vested. It seems that the leaker didn't reach the goals, so the stocks are still unvested.
Re:Since-fired SF Apple employee used work iPhone to leak to...
by subharmonicon on Saturday March 30, 2024 @07:31PM
(#39879684)
Page 11 of the complaint makes it clear these are vested shares that had as part of the requirement for receiving them that he maintain confidentiality. So they are claiming breach of contract and want the money back.
Re:Since-fired SF Apple employee used work iPhone to leak to...
by RedComet on Saturday March 30, 2024 @11:24AM
(#39875708)
"A forensic analysis of Mr. Aude’s Apple-issued work iPhone reveals that, between June and September 2023, Mr. Aude had over 1,400 connections with a single journalist via Signal."
Re:Since-fired SF Apple employee used work iPhone to leak to...
by rekttrader on Sunday March 31, 2024 @12:40AM
(#39881502)
They could because it’s his work phone get the push notifications stream and analyze that... that would leak the metadata needed to connect him to the reporter.
Re:Since-fired SF Apple employee used work iPhone to leak to...
by RedComet on Sunday March 31, 2024 @05:01PM
(#39888033)
That's plausible, although it would be quite egregious of Signal to send plaintext push notifications (even of only the contact name) in my opinion.
It isn't difficult to contrive possibilities even in the case of using practices for an iDevice (such as for the screenshot: find incriminating picture [somewhere] -> search for picture hash -> find out that Aude has that same picture on his phone even though it is using iCloud Advanced Data Protection).
The real interest is in the explanation they give and if it is plausible or if it seems to be parallel construction to cover pushing out specialized signed software to employee phones to detect this.
Re:Since-fired SF Apple employee used work iPhone to leak to...
by danielscrubs on Saturday March 30, 2024 @12:43AM
(#39871892)
For others that wonder: “details of an unannounced app; strategies for regulatory compliance; product hardware characteristics; research and development efforts in the spatial computing space; product development policies; and even corporate and department headcount.”.
I first thought he leaked something small and the lawyers went overboard like they always do, but I was wrong.
Go work somewhere you like…
I suspect having Steve Jobs as an absolute authority might have eliminated this kind of stuff back when he was around.
I'll bet after SJ there was a lot of infighting, like the apple chaos before he came back after next.
People routinely have feelings and opinions way more nuanced than this. And Apple is not a monolith. That’s certainly what happened here, as made apparent by the employee selectively leaking things that he wanted to kill.
If you are going to mess-up, at least become a bit sophisticated
Surely they meant to say “vested” instead of “unvested” right?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24522887-apple-v-and...
I'm also interested in this forensic analysis.
It isn't difficult to contrive possibilities even in the case of using practices for an iDevice (such as for the screenshot: find incriminating picture [somewhere] -> search for picture hash -> find out that Aude has that same picture on his phone even though it is using iCloud Advanced Data Protection).
The real interest is in the explanation they give and if it is plausible or if it seems to be parallel construction to cover pushing out specialized signed software to employee phones to detect this.