| It is. We can't be sure the exact circumstances, but reading this leads me to believe that there's some important facts that are missing. "“Before doing so, he made sure there were no classified materials or anything else pertaining to MDA’s (Missile Defence Agency) or Parsons’ work anywhere near him,” That's an important tell. The only way the presence of classified materials would even be a consideration would be if he was in a SCIF (secure facility for the handling of such.) And to be in there means he had been read on to and periodically briefed on that room's procedures. Placing a call, from inside that room, to a foreign country, is highly suspicious. Note that similar exfiltration of data has taken place in previous instances. I'm incredibly suspect of the claim that he "accepted the call". "Accepted" a video call? Into an empty, random cubicle? That doesn't make sense. I suspect (speculating here) that the individual got a message like an email and was asked to call, and so went into an empty cubicle with the needed VC gear and called. And frankly, he should have known better. You need to make a personal call, you step outside. "“Despite there being no policy prohibiting the call" - I don't think that's true at all. I'm sad at the circumstances that lead to this, and I'm sure the individual was trying to act in good faith. But that was a really, really dumb move, and I'm not surprised at the consequences. |
The reporter may have gotten facts wrong. The Hindustan Times is probably not going to have a good vetting of stuff happening in Alabama. But if he didn’t, there’s definitely key facts missing because attorneys making complaints like this generally don’t make errors in facts like “no policy was violated”.
Perhaps this incident highlighted some inconvenient facts about the company’s policies (or lack thereof). Maybe the almost 80 year old engineer was a pain in the ass so some charge was ginned up. Or maybe the guy is just going out as loudly and painfully as possible.