-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2006/12/04/niall-sends-microsoft-team-a-porn-message/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I don't get what being nice and professional has to do with free speech anyway. This wasn't a free speech issue. It was an intellectual property control issue. Easily taken care of, if you want, with a single email to the right guy.
...yeah so what? It's not like Niall was working for them in a 'professional' capacity at the time. Do we have to be 'professional' and on our best behaviour *all* the time?
Sure you might be 'burning bridges' by exercising that choice to be unprofessional, but equally I'd to think that people would hire/not hire me based on my work not on what I choose to do in my spare time and on my personal blog.
Sure these issues, and that aspiration, are nothing new - but I does frustrate me that people feel the need to keep their *entire life* 'squeeky clean' in order not to fuck up their potential career.
We're human beings, and a bit of out-of-work mischeif doesn't make me any less capable of doing a given job.
And, what you do IN PUBLIC to former employers (or future ones), does define professionalism for many of us.
Thanks to Google it all sticks around.
So, if you don't want your unprofessionalism to be considered when you need a job (and not all of us are in the boat where we never need to worry about that) then keep it off the Internet and out of Google.
Now, being "unprofessional" for some of us means more work. Just see http://www.gapingvoid.com for examples of such.
But, word does get around when you're a jerk to other people and it does make your professional life harder.
And I know you know what I'm talking about, Ben. :-)
But in general I agree with you Robert. He could have simply mentioned in his blog that they used an image of his without regard for the licensing of that image. That would have been enough negative press against Microsoft and Niall gotten his point across without seeming vindictive.
If they didn't pull it down (or pay a licensing fee) then I might try something smart.
But he sure did miss a good opportunity to really have some fun.
Imagine if he put a "Firefox is a better browser than IE" message on it?
I mean, if you're gonna blow up the bridge, at least do it in style!
But, if you ever need to call someone at Microsoft, the phone number is 425-882-8080. Or, call Frank Shaw at Waggener Edstrom, who runs PR. He has a blog.
But, did you leave a comment on their blogs saying "I have a PR problem and a legal problem for you that I need to get through to someone about?"
Funny...didn't Robert just rail on something about this recently...about calling and checking facts or something?
The image that Niall used was the "goatse" one which was partially covered up. But that image is pornographic and the message it sends is FAR deeper than a simple 'please don't use my images' one.
This is too tight a network of people to potentially burn bridges.
Unprofessional or not, if you're not getting a paycheck from them, then fuck it, they should know better (but I still believe in giving a warning first). As for burning bridges, perhaps... but I imagine Microsoft burned down their bridge with Niall before he made sure to blow up any remaining pieces. Perhaps some ex-Microsofties might be offended and never want to talk to Niall, but I imagine most are giggling on the inside.
I've already seen people lose opportunities for far less than this, so I'd rather be on the safe side of this line.
In either case, the team says that they never heard from him. Usually Microsoft lawyers are pretty good about getting back on stuff like this because they want to avoid lawsuits and PR stains, if possible.
But, do what you want in public. It's your life, not mine.
Also...
"But, did you leave a comment on their blogs saying 'I have a PR problem and a legal problem for you that I need to get through to someone about?'"
Huh? There's no way you would get a serious response.
I'm actually curious about though. In about a month after this thing has blown over I'm going to pick a random MS blog and post that comment and see what happens.
Would be an interesting experiment to see if MS legal reviews their own blogs.
One problem is figuring out who to even call. If Niall wanted to receive compensation for the use of his image it would have taken months.
Now of course he could have done a DMCA takedown. That would have been interesting.
The point I'm trying to make is that if MS's IP were "stolen" they would have been on you in a second but when the reverse is true it's David vs. Goliath and a bit harder to seek justice.
Good thing I don't take many pictures of MS employees. :)
Kevin
Oh, I completely agree on your side there... hence, I would've given Microsoft a warning before pulling something like that. And even then, I'd probably want to file a lawsuit before doing the porn-switcharu. Porn-switcharus should be left for MySpace hipsters who steal your images. More humorous that way.
I contacted Sean Lyndersay, the author of the post, this morning telling him he might want to swap out the image and let him know each of both the <acronym title="Creative Commons">CC</acronym> violation and the Flickr ToS violation. After the image was removed from the Microsoft blog I swapped the original photo back in. Sean replied to my e-mail with his own interpretation of non-commercial.
I'll be seeing Dean next week.
Seriously, do you have any questions you'd like to ask directly? I post a link to my contact info on every post. Feel free to ask questions.
Tomorrow will be a new thing.
But what strikes me queerest (in the strange, not gay) sense is that Flickr isn't for pornographic images.
I like Thomas Hawk's take on it:
http://thomashawk.com/2005/05/flickr-and-porn.html
Me tho, I wouldn't have done pr0n... I would've done something more chic, like an "alternate history" image. Like say if someone copped a photo of trees I took, I'd change the type of trees, or maybe the season, or put birds on them.
All sorts of avenues for creativity.
"precondition failed"
Strangely enough when followed from your about page at the root it worked.
So I'll leave this comment here before trying you on Skype.
After reading through your comments, Niall, I'm not sure what the order is here. Did you contact Sean after you swapped out the image with porn or before?
I wonder if they are making their hiring decisions off the dumb moves 20-somethings are making on the web they are going to have a hard time finding people to hire. Especially if they can track down all these people's aliases.
As TDavid said, would that mean great people are being overlooked for stupid things they do? Look at that president that didn't inhale. Would he be overlooked for an IT job just for that?
I see folks use images and writing on sites without attribution all the time. Could say that's unprofessionnal. Yet the solution need not be vindictive (I'm with Diego).
Typically all I need to do is email the folks using the content and remind them to use proper attribution.
Like Ben, I too bristle at the word "professional" because it often connotes conformity and silencing our self.
Play nice in the sandbox, and it is a small world seems like the gist of Robert's post...and I agree.
That's a completely different issue than revenge for having your stuff non-credited.
Didn't mean to put all 40+ people in the same bucket. Sorry :)
As someone who has had work stolen myself, I feel Microsoft should be bending over backwards to placate Niall Kennedy. After all, it was *his* rights that were violated, not Microsoft's! Try to remember that, okay?
Eric
Niall should know better how this stuff works since he actually worked there. Microsoft has tens of thousands of employees and the actions of one on an official blog shouldn't be compeletely representative of the company as a whole.
Yes, I realize employees are representing the company, but it wasn't a post about how to steal images on Flickr from Niall Kennedy. If that was the case, then get the torches, otherwise, what we have here is fail to communicate.
I doubt seriously anybody at Microsoft would advocate, support or encourage unauthorized hotlinking.
I'm sure that internally some fur flew over this incident.
Respectfully, your response contains the crux of the matter, though you overlook it:
"Niall should know better how this stuff works since he actually worked there. Microsoft has tens of thousands of employees and the actions of one on an *official* blog shouldn’t be compeletely representative of the company as a whole."
Yes, it was an individual employee that did this. Yet it was an individual on Microsoft's time, posting on Microsoft's blog that made the mistake. Therefore, it *was* Microsoft that is responsible for the error. As you said, it was posted on one of Microsoft's "official" blogs.
If we are to hold employees (or ex-employees) of companies professionally and personally responsible for what they say on their *personal* blogs, then companies should expect to be held to the same standards on their *corporate* blogs. If it's wrong for John Q Public to do, then so it is wrong for Company X to do -- whether or not it was an accident (which it most likely was).
Eric
Instead of porn, I simply replaced the image with a graphic with the words "Stop stealing my pictures".
Things were resolved in a matter of minutes...
Besides, I dont understand how this would amount to stealing. It wasnt even used commercially.
Microsoft is a thief.
Microsoft steals.
And then Microsoft's cronies blame the victim of their theft.
Sure, some people will think - "Oh, that's really unprofessional, I would never hire this guy".
However, others will just think, "He was within his rights to post whatever pictures he wants on his Flickr feed. And if he wants to have a little fun with that, good for him."
The truth is: this kind of thing can work both ways...
So, you want to reduce the chances you'll be hired by even 10%? Go for it. Doesn't sound like smart career management to me, though, particularly in this world where the word-of-mouth network is hyper efficient and where EVERYTHING you do can be called up on Google.
If it was a member of the public who linked, Niall might not have minded. But we're talking about a 1600 lb corporate gorilla which spends the GDP of some european countries forcing Digital Rights management down our throats, who has the money, who has the expertise and who should know better.
Embarrassed? Microsoft should be making a REAL effort to apologise and offer some sort of reconstitution and you, Robert, as a content creator should be demanding they do so on your own blog rather than defending your old boys network.
At the end of the day, not being hired for a job because he protected your own assets from a thief is probably not going to lose Niall any sleep. I wouldn't want to work for a company that condoned theft either.
I'd hire Mr. Niall Kennedy in an instant, if ever I was in the fortunate position to do so. I admire people who don't take sh*t from anyone and give it straight back.
I want to work with ballsy, hungry, driven, take-no-prisoners employees with a strong sense of ethics and integrity. People who don't give a damn about the "optics" of being a bastard at times, and who don't cry when they're criticized and who don't fake being "nice" when they're actually devious political back stabbers.
These are the kinds of people who build great things in their lives. Yes, they piss off a lot of people, but they don't screw people over, steal or lie. They don't smile politely and wink when their stock options are rigged in their favor. They say No.
The kind of person I'd never hire? Someone who actually thinks that being "professional" and never pissing people off is a ticket to success. Those people are sheep, and you can never trust them to tell it like it is because you never know whose feelings they don't want to hurt.
Clearly, I feel strongly about this and I am definitely not a corporation man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_linking
If somebody links to one of my images, hosted on my server, where I pay for the bandwidth, then I will brand that graphic with great big letters that say "DO NOT STEAL BANDWIDTH" or "THIS IMAGE IS THE PROPERTY OF..." That is the risk that bandwidth thieves take when they link to graphics in such a way, and they only have themselves to blame.
If the blog author did not realise that inline linking without permission is unethical and costs their victim money, then this fact reveals a lack of education on the part of Microsoft that should be addressed. Microsoft can well afford to host their own images and should have a policy in place that bans inline linking to graphics that are not hosted on their server, and for which they do not pay the bandwidth costs. They should also ensure that their bloggers are not impeding on the rights of others.
I don't think Robert (in his original post long ago and waaaay up there at the top) is saying that Microsoft did not do something wrong... I think he is saying that Niall was being unprofssional in his response and that he was burning bridges that he might "need to cross in the future".
Now - we can see two things from this post and its responses:
1) Lots of people have different standards and personal codes as to what is acceptable / professional behaviour and what is not. I personally think it was a prank, a bit childish but not really harmful to Microsoft - more damaging really to the person who linked the image in the MS blog... not the way to behave _if_ you want to work in the corporate IT sector today. Employers in major (and many minor) companies _do_ google employees and they _do_ check other sources to see if they can guage a person's personality and behavioural patterns. If I were a prospective employer I wouldn't be so worried that Niall played a prank on someone stealing his bandwidth - I'd be concerned that he has no respect for a former employer. If you can fall out with one employer (and let it blow up publically in any way) you can fall out with the next just as easily... Therefore you are a permanent risk!
2) Robert Scoble's post from the other day http://scobleizer.com/2006/11/28/uk-press-compl... has been proven correct. Scoble did not do his research as thoroughly was he would have to if he were a journalist (if your facts come from other mainstream media and you are not going to check them thoroughly you don't just cite them you make clear at each point that "if [such and such a source] is correct] then he behaved childishly" or "So, what did Niall do? Did he call up one of his former co-workers at Microsoft and explain that he was pissed and get the problem taken care of nicely and behind closed doors? [According to such and such a source] No.") However if a blogger does not do this then the person being discussed on the blog (Niall Kennedy in this case) can reply and make his case clearer... Hence, if one day, someone googles Niall Kennedy and sees from Scoble's blog that he did X, Y and Z - they also see that he responded and clarified the situation.
Now my big question for Niall would be: if Robert Scoble quoted media sources that have got the facts wrong, what is he doing to get those facts amended in the mainstream media where they will do just as much (if not more) harm to his career?
This isn't drinking company Kool-aid, it's the reality of being a manager and/or owner of a company with employees. Managing people means people make mistakes and managing those mistakes. Was this done by the employee with malice? It seems to me from the facts we all have, this wasn't done maliciously and the image has been removed. Yes, the employee should have known better, yadda, yadda.
Employees making mistakes has happened to me many times and I'm sure it happens at Microsoft routinely. It happens from time to time in any company, regardless of posted, well known policies and procedures. There are also even more litigious employee infractions to deal with like sexual harassment, theft of company property, etc.
As I said above in #35, I'm sure some fur has flown internally. The Microsoft company response to the employee in question -- and again, it's one employee -- shouldn't be a blog transparent response for the rest of the world to see.
And Eric - I agree with most of what you said in your response. I never said Microsoft the company wasn't responsible here (in fact I'm saying almost the same thing as you), just asking that (some) people keep this situation in perspective.
Too many times on the web the response for Microsoft -- wrong or right -- is get out the pitchforks. Yes, sometimes the company deserves criticism and I'll jump aboard that train when it is reasonable. I don't think blaming Microsoft the company here completely is a reasonable response. If we set the bar too high then every company with employees is in trouble when their employee hotlinks an image.
Finally, I doubt we'll see any public response from Microsoft on this one, nor should we, but I do think that the parties involved, including Mr. Kennedy and Yahoo (since they own Flickr and thus it was them who had their bandwidth used) should receive a direct response and apology for the incident.
Were there two hands on the sides of the CC logo pulling it open?
Dominic - agreed. Scoble (no offense) seems to be taking the role of the nagging father figure by warning us to bend over or, god forbid, risk 10% of getting hired in the future. Scoble should see that he has risked at least 10% of his career by simply having a blog and having the balls to occasionally call out and talk shit on companies. And if you think that's any different than having a photo switcharu, you're wrong. Companies take it very personally whether it's through words or photos. Niall is known for his photography, so this was his ode to a shit-talking blog post. Doesn't make it "right" but that's besides my point.
Someone just today sent me something about how we should ban hiring people who "fuck up", to which I went off on an opposing rant:
http://www.shakewellbeforeuse.com/2006/12/if_yo...
It's a lot easier to say "to hell with 10 percent of my future job prospects" when you're young. Scoble's paternal instinct is something you crazy kids with your "F the Man" tattoos and your hip-hop music and low-rider jeans with the butt flosser underwear sticking out the top should think about every once in a while. You'll thank me when you have kids and a mortgage.
Here's the section from the group agreements for a weekly "Daring to Live an Authentic Life" group that I used to faciliate/run (I say 'used to' because it's not I that runs it now, but We.) Yes, you can be both professional/kind AND straightforward/true to your integrity.
"TRUTH AND INTEGRITY: Group members agree to be authentic and truthful. Speaking the truth involves risk and can only occur safely in a compassionate environment.
Due to the topic of this group “Daring to Live an Authentic Life,” this is especially important. There is a way to communicate with compassion and diplomacy and not suppress our intense feelings, avoid “elephants in the room”, or skirt difficult issues.
Often in our interactions with others we have conditioned and trained ourselves to squash what we need to say out of habit – and an overt sense of “politeness”, fear of judgment, or our need for approval.
This is a rare opportunity to practice authentic conversation in a safe environment. Speak with integrity, respect, and dignity for other people. Remember honesty is not the same as bluntness. Be kind."
First, it was a clear mistake on my part not to link back to Flickr or attribute Niall for the use of his photo. I had fully intended to attribute to the photo to Niall, and simply forgot while writing the post.
In updating the post, I immediately apologised publicly for that mistake (TDavid: it's still there: you can go and read it).
Personally, I fully support Niall's (and flickr's) rights here (including, for that matter, Niall's right to change or remove the image).
I found out about the change from a co-worker and had removed the image from the post just before Niall emailed me.
Rogers: yes, the picture you're thinking of is the one that was posted.
Would it be funny if a no-name webhosting company did this? I think people would never recognize.
Blogging 101.
I'm sure he thought long and hard before he did it. And I'm sure to some extent he regrets doing it, but he also knows he'd feel a lot worse if he'd done nothing.
Some people are just wired that way. They're proud. Frankly, they make the world much more interesting than it otherwise would be.
Since Robert is travelling, I won't go too far on this point, but I thought the whole point of blogs was authenticity.
When people start saying you shouldn't burn bridges and should always be nice even if you don't want to be, I start to question how authentic they are. It's a form of self-censorship that runs counter to the spirit of blogging.
It makes me question Robert's motives for questioning Niall's transparently obnoxious behavior. Would he have said the same thing if the person responsible was potentially going to be a future employer?
What about goat man's rights? His picture was copyrighted too. I'll bet he's feeling violated right now.
Have you even tried to contact Microsoft to change something without your blue badge and access to active directory address book ?
It's worth to try.
Niall did everything correctly. If you think that kissing Microsoft ass till end of your days is good strategy to be hired back - nobody will try to change your opinion - keep doing this.
For human resources there must be different hiring criteria: Will this person be able to work good and in creative way - not kissing ass of his managers to get nice annual review score.
For you better to keep doing good job at PodTech - otherwise you will never that fame that you got from posting under Microsoft badge.
If you'd like a long read of the events from my point of view I've posted my own account to my blog.
I think it was from "Email" link (contact.aspx) at blog.
Also - take a look at this from other point of view. He has account at Flickr, he is free to do anything he wish with it - upload/delete/change pictures at it.
Why should he care if somebody has linked to HIS pictures ?
It's big mistake at web-world - linking instead of hosting on your own host.
One salient point:
por·nog·ra·phy: n. Depiction of erotic behaviour intended to cause sexual excitement.
I'm not even sure if this image qualifies as "offensive". It's more anatomical than anything.
This is just an (amusing) storm in a teacup...
If the image was not insulting or offensive why not post it on your blog, but only link to it. Porn or not, do you think that MS blog readers deserve this picture while your readers not?
MS blogger may be wrong, but this could not use as your excuse, you are responsible for what you have done. At least you should apology to MSDN blog readers
Secondly, I've read that he replaced it with a pornographic image - no he didn't. The naked back is not pornographic.
As a former Microsoft-y myself, I have to say that -- having experienced the kind of self-absorption that runs rather rampant within the company -- the Niall stunt probably was more effective than you may think.
If asked nicely, the individual responsible may have pulled down the "offending" image. If shown, publicly, how inappropriate the action is, now many within management and throughout a variety of teams are going to be more careful in future.
It wasn't exactly tactful, but it's dead certain to more effective than a gently-worded (and quickly ignored) e-mail.
Just like Niall owes a written apology to readers of that blog. I don't think he's going to do it anyway. A naked back may not be pornographic but it's definitely not tasteful.
"It wasn’t exactly tactful, but it’s dead certain to more effective than a gently-worded (and quickly ignored) e-mail."
The e-mail needn't have been gently-worded. He should have probably e-mailed them first and done this if that didn't work, you know?
Scoble, you're a douche.
1. Send an email.
2. Remove the image or replace with something not in poor taste.
3. Jump up and down screaming. Or you know, try contacting Microsoft by phone. I'm sure if you rang their reception and said "one of your websites is violating my copyright, put me through to a lawyer" you'd get things sorted pretty quickly.
For those bringing up the bandwidth issue, if this was a flickr image, he's not paying bandwidth.
Personally I think this makes Niall look like really immature - I would think twice before working professionally with him, and I'm sure others will too. It's not about being a yes man, it's about thinking about the fact that he's not just alienated himself against Microsoft, but potentially many readers of that blog
I think that was the point. Professional or not, sometimes you need to do something radical to get the attention of a large corporation. Even if he did work there. Lets see I could make 30 phones calls to get it resolved or put up one porn image. Hmmm how much is your time worth?
That's just weak. And unprofessional.
He already admitted that he didn't give the team a chance. You say that's fine in your book. Geesh, if I screw up, I hope someone gives me a chance to fix my mistakes before making a capital case out of it.
Hell, if it were me I would have asked for a nice licensing fee first. Then I would have thrown up a Firefox advertisement if they didn't do anything. That would have been FAR funnier AND gotten their attention JUST as effectively (even moreso, me thinks).
What Niall did is a reflection of his character, it's how he operates, whether he thought it was funny or did it out of angst and languor, or even anger is irrelevant. If it did not appear during the time that he worked at Microsoft then he repressed part of his character while working there.
I don't mean to morally justify what he did, so much as point out that Microsoft should have a good sense of humor about itself in remembering stunts like this.
I didn't mean to insinuate that you did, I just meant to notice your consideration here:
"Remember Niall, maybe someday this Web 2.0 bubble will end and you might need to go back to a company and look for a job. I know that doesn’t seem probable right now, but I’ve been there.
Burn bridges if you want, but I’ve learned over and over that people remember this kind of treatment and it certainly never disappears from Google. All three of my last job interviews had people looking over Google for unprofessional stuff like this to bring up in the interviews. And, all big companies have people who used to work at Microsoft so that bridge you’re blowing up? Might turn out to be the one you need to cross in the future."
That perhaps Microsoft would not consider having him back after something like this, in which case I am trusting your perception, you having worked at Microsoft and I having not worked there.
Of course I have no real perspective on what you mean when you say "I don't work for Microsoft" seeing as how I don't have any personal perspective on you, so perhaps this whole game is a bit tenuous and strained when thinking about trusting people or some level of truth.
I just meant to say: lighten up eh?
So-- yay for philosophical debate and pranks!
And by perspective I mean hermeneutic of interpretation. I have no idea how to understand the implications of that sentence: as sarcastic, as ironic, as factual, etc...
Hope that seems more lucid now.
Carry on!
People get pissed off when big companies send rude take-down messages and don't understand New Media. If I had gotten the video removed, it would have created hostility and bad PR for me. The guy quickly responded and offered to remove the video, even though I said it was okay for him to leave it there.
Kindness and words can go a long way; you don't have to be rude or piss people off to make a point. I've learned this lesson myself, but it seems Niall hasn't.
Actually, I wasn't thinking he'd go back to Microsoft. But enough other people would see this kind of behavior and be troubled by it.
Former Microsoft employees now work at lots of other companies too, so if you burn a guy who works today at Microsoft, chances are that tomorrow he'll work at Google or Apple or some other place you might like to work and you'll never figure out why you didn't get hired.
EVERY IT pro knows that making a point to Microsoft regarding its security or operating practices takes the equivalent of a baseball bat to the head to get their attention.
Conversely, when given a choice between courteously getting ignored in a "professional" way by MS and cranking up one's public act to the point where MS can NOT ignore issues presented by an IT professional, professional responsibility dictates that one do what has to be done.
MS should be glad that the image they used without permission was edited, I would have been careful to make sure the CC license info did NOT interfere with viewers' full enjoyment of the image.
I presume that you're also one of those idiots who think that once one tells MS about a critical security vuln in their products, "professional courtesy" means that one should stay silent about it even if MS seems inclined to leave the hole unpatched forever.
You have no business commenting on IT-related issues or professional conduct in a public forum.
Of course, all this does in the long term is ensure companies host the content they've stolen instead of linking to it.
AEM
This reminds me of an interview I had with Amazon in 1998. The interview with blazingly well with the engineers I spoke to. Things looked great right up until I met with the VP of engineering, a recent hire from Microsoft.
He took one look at the Apple Newton 2100 in my hands and said, "I don't care what I'm being told about you. I think your choice of PDA tells me all I need to determine that you won't be working here."
I don't feel bad about that interview. That attitude told me all I needed to knwo about working for Amazon, especially while that guy was VP of engineering.
Comment by Greg — December 12, 2006 "
Yeah i heard he got a new job in PR at apple???
I reckon the word blogging is probably interchangeable with evolution here...