Nuke wrote:As I said it has been normal in the large companies for which I have worked. Moreover my wife has worked for small companies in which the boss has gone ape on hearing that an employee has been talking about it in anything but marketing sound bites.
In the large companies where I have worked, it is certainly not normal. Of course slagging off one's employer/manager opens one to prosecution for slander or libel, but after knocking-off time, your life is your own. I have also worked for small companies where the boss routinely goes ape, because he doesn't know what else to do (which of course is why these companies stay small.)
A close relation of mine works for a US company (in the UK) ... He also writes OSS as a hobby ... and has several web sites. He must let them scrutinise everything before public release to ensure it does not infringe any of their copyrights, reveal any of their trade secrets, or suggest any connection with themselves. This practice is more widespread than you might be led to believe.
It may well be widespread. It also drives a coach and horses through the right to free speech. Such illegal terms and conditions are not enforcible. Large companies often get away with a good deal of such bully-boy type lawbreaking - more so in the US than here, thank goodness. (If I were your friend, I'd be tempted to stop letting them invade me privacy, I mean scrutinise my work before publishing, let 'em sack me, then go to a (UK) employment tribunal for wrongful dismissal. Oh, yeah, and keep the news hacks informed of progress!)
I am not sold on Freedom of Information myself. I have always worked in heavy industry, for certain companies that have been fashionable for people to bash, and have seen information released to the public in good faith only to be deliberately twisted around, quoted out of context and otherwise abused by opponents and their clever lawyers.
I am not sold on Control of Information myself. I have always worked in public, for certain companies that have been fashionable for people to bash, and have seen information released to heavy industry in good faith only to be deliberately twisted around, quoted out of context and otherwise abused by opponents and their clever lawyers. (well, give or take some liberties with my CV).
The existence of one Bad Bunny is no justification for approving a rival Bad Bunnie's bad habits.
For once I take Apple's side.
So you reckon "an Apple employee should ensure that content associated with [them] is consistent with Apple policies", eh?
That's infringing the right to free speech, not to freedom of information. I believe that one of these is enshrined in the American Constitution, the other is not.
"We don't need no frikkin' aliens, we c'n do this ourselves!" — anon.