A case of secrecy overkill?
John Chan | Jul 24, 2009
Manufacturing giant Foxconn (one of Apple's suppliers for iPods and iPhones) was thrown into the limelight this week when one of its employees killed himself after losing a fourth-generation iPhone prototype. Based on text messages to friends found on his personal mobile phone, he was put under pressure by the company's security department before the said suicide.
Apple has always been highly secretive and hundreds of Web sites dedicate their time to ferreting out bits of information about the company's upcoming products. If someone from Foxconn really did mistreat this employee just because he was suspected of leaking information, then the perpetrator deserves to be punished and Apple should take its business elsewhere. But it set us thinking, does the Cupertino company need to tone down the level of secrecy it requires from its partners so this doesn't happen again? Let us know what you think.
Filed under:
Mobile Phones
2 Comments | Bookmark | Share
2 Comments | Bookmark | Share
Tags: iphone, secrecy, foxconn, cell phone, web site, apple iphone, phone, cupertino, security, apple ipod
Talkback
Devlin says...
No, I don't believe Apple needs to lower the standards of their non-disclosure agreements with any of their suppliers. First of all, any exchange between Apple and their suppliers should be handled with the utmost secrecy, as to be expected of any client-service provider relationship. It is the responsibility of the contracted manufacturer, in this case, to ensure the confidentiality of any projects it carries out on behalf of its client, Apple.
Apple cannot be held responsible for the security holes of their providers. The only thing they can do is audit their contractors to ensure they policies are up to Apple's standards. If a supplier fails an audit then they naturally will lose their contract either immediately or as soon as legally and economically feasible for Apple to terminate it.
Secondly, this whole incident falls solely on Foxconn and their security affiliates. It was their security officers who conducted the investigations and carried out the disciplinary action that ultimately led to the suicide. Whether the security officer's actions were within company policy or not, he acted in an official capacity that implies his actions were sanctioned either by a superior officer or the company.
It is truly sad to hear something like this but Apple is too far removed from the incident to take any blame. Also, as Apple's contracted supplier, it is Foxconn's responsibility to ensure their client's technical innovations/secrets are handled with the utmost discretion so as not to fall into competitors' hands.
Jul 24, 2009 17:01
No, I don't believe Apple needs to lower the standards of their non-disclosure agreements with any of their suppliers. First of all, any exchange between Apple and their suppliers should be handled with the utmost secrecy, as to be expected of any client-service provider relationship. It is the responsibility of the contracted manufacturer, in this case, to ensure the confidentiality of any projects it carries out on behalf of its client, Apple.
Apple cannot be held responsible for the security holes of their providers. The only thing they can do is audit their contractors to ensure they policies are up to Apple's standards. If a supplier fails an audit then they naturally will lose their contract either immediately or as soon as legally and economically feasible for Apple to terminate it.
Secondly, this whole incident falls solely on Foxconn and their security affiliates. It was their security officers who conducted the investigations and carried out the disciplinary action that ultimately led to the suicide. Whether the security officer's actions were within company policy or not, he acted in an official capacity that implies his actions were sanctioned either by a superior officer or the company.
It is truly sad to hear something like this but Apple is too far removed from the incident to take any blame. Also, as Apple's contracted supplier, it is Foxconn's responsibility to ensure their client's technical innovations/secrets are handled with the utmost discretion so as not to fall into competitors' hands.
Jul 24, 2009 17:01
To post comments, you need to become a member. It's FREE.
Crave is...
The name says it all. Crave is our blog about cool gadgets and other crushworthy stuff.
Drop us an email if you have tips or suggestions.
Crave for...
» Mobile Phones (2233)
» Digital Cameras (987)
» Notebooks (1235)
» PC & Peripherals (1312)
» Handhelds (585)
» Printers (83)
» Home AV (1147)
» Music & Play (894)
» Gadgets (1486)
» Future Tech (396)
» Green Tech (172)
» Lifestyle (157)
» Luxury (22)
» Home Appliances (58)
» Cars (99)
» Games and Gear (248)
» Software (95)
» Web (118)
Previously...
Hot Topics
What's Hot
apple apple inc. apple iphone apple ipod asia battery camera game google inc. iphone microsoft corp. microsoft windows mobile phone photograph singapore smart phone software sony corp. video
Copyright © 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy.
Devlin
No, I don't believe Apple needs to lower the standards of their non-disclosure agreements with any of their suppliers. First of all, any exchange between Apple and their suppliers should be handled with the utmost secrecy, as to be expected of any client-service provider relationship. It is the responsibility of the contracted manufacturer, in this case, to ensure the confidentiality of any projects it carries out on behalf of its client, Apple.
Apple cannot be held responsible for the security holes of their providers. The only thing they can do is audit their contractors to ensure they policies are up to Apple's standards. If a supplier fails an audit then they naturally will lose their contract either immediately or as soon as legally and economically feasible for Apple to terminate it.
Secondly, this whole incident falls solely on Foxconn and their security affiliates. It was their security officers who conducted the investigations and carried out the disciplinary action that ultimately led to the suicide. Whether the security officer's actions were within company policy or not, he acted in an official capacity that implies his actions were sanctioned either by a superior officer or the company.
It is truly sad to hear something like this but Apple is too far removed from the incident to take any blame. Also, as Apple's contracted supplier, it is Foxconn's responsibility to ensure their client's technical innovations/secrets are handled with the utmost discretion so as not to fall into competitors' hands.
Jul 24, 2009 17:01