Apple's internal employee social media policies leaked

By | December 3, 2011, 6:12pm PST

Summary: Only days after an Apple employee lost his appeal over company rants on a social media platform, the guidelines were subsequently leaked to the media.

After sacking one of its employees over a series of Facebook rants, Apple made it clear that the employee in question was acted in “gross misconduct” and against its internal social media policy.

Perhaps embarrassingly for Apple, the company’s policies on social networking and blogging were leaked during the week, which ironically state how its employees should conduct themselves as to not leak data.

Apple’s regulations include separate guidelines for social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and LinkedIn. They cover confidentially, customer privacy and rumour commentary in depth; with distinct guidelines of conduct over email and media platforms.


(Source: Flickr)

In general, what employees do in their own time is their choice, but Apple states in its guides that:

“The lines between public and private, and personal and professional are blurred in online social networks. Respect your audience and your co-workers. This includes not only the obvious (no ethnic slurs, personal insults, obscenity, etc.) but also topics that may be considered offensive or inflammatory. In sum, use your best judgment.”

Some interesting points include:

  • Employees may run their own websites, but are not permitted to discuss Apple on that website.
  • No speculating on rumours is allowed. This includes confirming or denying any information concerning new products, Apple regulations or services.
  • Blogs, wikis, social networks and other tools should not be used for communication among fellow employees. This regulation goes further in stating that differences shouldn’t be aired online, co-workers should not be discussed without their permission, and any images relating to other staff members cannot be posted anywhere without their express permission.
  • Staff are not permitted to post messages or commentary on any Mac or Apple related websites; whether they identify themselves as Apple employees or not.
  • If you identify yourself as an Apple employee, you connect yourself with co-workers, products, and the global brand itself — so conduct online needs to be consistent with Apple policies.
  • Apple’s full business conduct policy applies to employees and any who do business with Apple retrospectively. Apple retains the right to discipline (up to termination of employment), or cut ties of any that do not comply with these regulations.
  • Customer privacy is viewed as a priority for Apple as a brand. Any information concerning customers is not to be discussed online in any circumstance. Apple employees are also not permitted to contact customers for social reasons or soliciting outside of business.

Taking a deeper look at these guidelines, Apple emphasises that ‘public’ and ‘private’ information are no longer separate in online social networks; clearly where the hapless employee was snagged during his tribunal.

Privacy settings continually change, and any information we post is viewable in some manner or another, it becomes public domain. In this manner, any written, evidential proof of employer or brand-bashing can be viewed as a means of breaking the business conduct policy.

The Cupertino-based company is incredibly protective of their brand, and has a global image to maintain. Any negative comments placed online by an employee could have serious consequences; an iProduct rumour being confirmed or denied could ruin a product debut.

It is unlikely a rant or two would cause deep damage to the Apple image, but without online restriction the brand could lose that sense of professionalism that inspires so many.

Related:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

London-based medical anthropologist Charlie Osborne is a journalist, graphic designer and former teacher.

Disclosure

Charlie Osborne

I have no current affiliations or relationships that are worth noting.

Biography

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne, Medical Anthropologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, graphic designer and former teacher.

After studying Anthropology at university, she spent several years travelling and working across Europe and the Middle East, living for periods of time in Italy and Spain. She has been involved in the running of several businesses ranging from University media and events to b2b sales, and works currently as a freelance website designer and mobile development specialist.

She has particular interests in social media, intellectual property law, data protection and online hacker organisations.

52
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Apple's internal employee social media policies leaked
Zippereye125 11th Dec
@ Bozzer
Everyone should have more power than the Government.
0 Votes
+ -
Although I don't like Apple at all. I don't see anything wrong in the "employee social media policies" stated in the article.
@RelaxWalk

I see a lot wrong with those policies. The fact is that they infringe on the right to free speech and free expression (which does not disappear just because you are employed by someone) that the world community so lauds.
@Lerianis10: ... like in government, security services, medical or any other.

It is anyone's right to whether tell something or not, and workers at Apple voluntarily sign to these policies. No one forces them -- if they will not want it, then they can go away and get job at other place.

So if someone took the job and voluntary confirmed that he/she is not going to discuss certain matter, there is no way this is limitation of free speech because, the freedom is not only to speak, but also not speak when you want it this way.
@Lerianis10

The Constitutionally granted right to free speech is specifically about government, not private infringement. In my union we are forbidden to talk about issues brought up at meetings with outsiders. I have a signed NDA with a major audio company. In both cases, I have voluntarily agreed to an infringement on my right to free speech, and in both cases, it's quite legal. It happens all the time.
@dderss
@Lerianis10

So you are happy with companies having more power than the government. That you have free speech except when you're told not to by an employer.

Don't you see what your doing is allowing companies to have more power than the government. Which is exactly what is killing "democracy" and even, dare I say it, "capitalism" itself.
@dderss

Still laughing over "they can go away and get job at other place" - or perhaps you don't live in the US? You are essentially being coerced to give up your right to free speech.
@Bozzer

When you go to work for a tech company like Apple, you MUST sign an NDA. If you break the NDA you break your contract and they have every right to fire you.
0 Votes
+ -
@tonymcs Still laughing over "they can go away and get job at other place" - or perhaps you don't live in the US? You are essentially being coerced to give up your right to free speech.

You DO know that your favorite company Microsoft also has very similar NDA agreements as do most if not all large corporations and smaller companies that deal with sensitive information or tech right? So by taking a job with any of them or any government one is agreeing to a similar NDA - but since this is Apple for them to do it is evil...

As a one time commenter on here once said: Cue the Double Standards.
@Lerianis10

Freedom of speech means the government can't put you in jail for your speech. It has no bearing on any private individual or company which can and do censor speech.
@Lerianis10

I don't necessarily have a problem with a company being able to fire someone for speech activities which actively damage the company. Why pay someone who is working against you?
0 Votes
+ -
@Lerianis10... it simply isn't a workplace right. When I go to work, I am there to perform a specific function. My current function is supporting users and managing Exchange E-mail Servers. That does not permit me to use that time evangelizing for my favorite product, religion, or political stance, and certainly if I started disparaging my co-workers or my place of employment, I would certainly expect to see a termination notice.

Freedom of expression exists for the public to demonstrate against their government or in the face of a perceived injustices. Regardless if you agree with the movement or not that is what OWS is doing, exercising their 1st Amendment right.

If you have evidence that your workplace doesn't meet Federal Guidelines then report those violations to the appropriate authorities and seek protection under whistle-blower laws.

If you disagree with a way a company is doing something, and have a better idea, present it to management in a respectful way. They may just listen, especially if you can demonstrate how it may make the company more profitable.

And finally, you can resort to blasting about your employer or co-workers, but your employer has the right to terminate you over it, and you lose a reference. I certainly didn't get to where I am today by burning bridges with former employers. Even when I have felt that I was wronged by management or the company, I left respectfully, like being laid off from one position, and refusing to interviewing me for a different position with in the company, but yet wanted to me to stay in a lower paid reclassified position, I left respectfully. I was laid of from a job, as the positions were re-organized and rec-classified, I was a couple of weeks from getting my degree in IT, and an entry level PC Tech position was open, I applied, and they refused to even interview me for the position even though I had interned for a while in the same department and position. My previous supervisor wanted me to stay for quite a bit less that I was making, and which would have been a cap for the new position. I respectfully turned down the offer on the basis that I was graduating in two weeks with my degree, and would be looking to enter my new field, also I couldn't afford to drive to that job site for the pay cut they wanted. Thanked them for the opportunity and left. A few months later I was able to land my first IT job, and the rest is history. I could have burned the bridge over the resentment for not being interviewed for the IT position, as it seemed more sensible to me to keep an employee who is familiar with the company, it's software from a users perspective, and even as someone who had steadily work his way up and through the same company. I had a lot of loyalty, and personally I was disgusted that the company didn't see that. It was their loss, but I also know enough not to burn the bridge because management changes all the time, and you never know when you may do business with them again.
@Lerianis10 I agree, talk and post all you want. Apple is not stopping you. But I agree with Apple for firing someone who obviously does not like Apple.
Apple is certainly within its rights to dismiss a employee who does not like Apple. That's free enterprise at work.
@Lerianis10 You see a lot wrong with it? In that case you and anyone else at Apple not happy with the policy can find another job. No one is forcing you to work at Apple, it's your choice, follow their rules or get another job. End of discussion...
@dderss - voluntary or not, that's not relevant. Corporate policies usurp the national policies the companies enjoy living in, take subsidies and tax cuts from, etc.

And I wonder if Apple's contractors have to adhere to the same policies...
@msalzberg - I stand corrected, thank you. happy

Still, if a company takes government money or gets perks from government, then a little consideration would be nice in return as well...
@RelaxWalk Although I don't like Apple at all. I don't see anything wrong in the "employee social media policies" stated in the article.

Agreed. Actually a lot like what I'm used to.
0 Votes
+ -
@RelaxWalk You know I think before you rant on a social network I think its important to decide if you want to keep your job or not. Plus, do you want future employers to read those posts? I think its one thing to rant on the phone,or texting or out for dinner with friends. It quite another to do it on a social network. I think Apple has a right to retain some control over disclosures about company policies and procedures over public sites. Most companies do this. I have relatives who constantly post how bored they are at work or post other stuff on company time. Eventually it will catch up with them and they may get fired. People need to be more careful on what they say and do.
Where I work we have very similiar policies.

but...
When the lines blur between personal and work why are the rules more favorable to work. You would think it should be the other way around.
0 Votes
+ -
I have a hunch ...
jscott69 5th Dec
@rhonin ... I think it's basically because a company is a legal entity, a lot like another individual. And it's illegal for us to say or write disparaging things about individuals (and presumably companies). For one, there are privacy laws -- as an individual, we have no right to publicly discuss another individual's personal affairs. For another, we have laws about libel (defamatory written accusations) or slander (defamatory spoken accusations). People get sued over these sorts of things all the time.

More importantly, when accepting a job at a company -- any company -- it's SOP to sign some kind of agreement stating that you will adhere to corporate policies about a range of things, which these days also includes acceptable (or prohibited) behavior on social networks. If you don't like the policies, you don't need to accept the job. It's a requirement like any other -- like agreeing to show up each day and perform the various duties of the position. If people want the job badly enough, they'll sign the agreement. If they then break it, that's breaking a contract and is grounds for termination.

It's really quite simple.

If that doesn't make sense: just imagine that you have your own company and hire someone. Then you happen to go out to a local bar one night and overhear that employee bad-mouthing you and your business practices. Are you really going to want to keep paying that person, knowing that they're bad-mouthing you and potentially driving away business? Depending on what they were saying, at the very least, I'd confront them about it. If it was serious enough, I'd fire them.
I am not a macfan, far from it. This leak is not scandalous at all, these guidelines seem very mundane and common to me.
@xeptf4

So if a friend posts on your wall about an Apple product, you can't reply because you work for Apple.

Good grief.

What is this, the middle ages.
@Bozzer

No, it's called an NDA. Since you don't seem to understand the concept I'll tell you that it means non-disclosure agreement. When you sign a contract with tech companies or any company that can possibly deal with sensitive information, you sign an NDA.

How would you like it if the someone working for the government didn't have to sign an NDA and blasted your SSN all over the internet? That is an NDA as well, you know.
0 Votes
+ -
Presumably
use_what_works_4_U 5th Dec
@Bozzer
Presumably you would have access to the 'friend' over email, phone, any of a number of private methods. You get back to them through one of those channels. Just like if a friend posted on my wall about the person I took to drinks the other night, I would call or email them. I wouldn't discuss my date in a public forum. It's called discretion, something that the "Internet generation" isn't being taught enough about.
0 Votes
+ -
Apple is not a guildmaster, and you should be entitled to have free speech. In fact, it should be mandatory that organisations cannot prevent you from speaking about who you work for, or what you do.

"Cover up" is what it's commonly known as. And as for "democracy" and "capitalism", would Apple be worth what it is today if its employees were allowed to talk "freely". Thus, isn't the wool being pulled over the shareholders eyes here, as they are not seeing the true reflection of the company, only what Apple wants people to see.

Where do you draw the line. Isn't this the same as the way tabacco companies hid the dangers of smoking, and the same way the pharmacuticle companies hide the dangers of their "wonder" drugs.

And yet we critise China for an oppressive regime.

Pot Kettle Black.

When image comes before freedom, it's time to make a change.
@Bozzer
Actually, if a company was covering up a known and potentially dangerous drug then I expect you can go to the authorities and report it. Aka whistle blowing. However, you can not start blogging about it if you are under NDA.

Sounds like Ocupy Wall Street thinking.
@Bozzer As you have freedom of speech, your bos have freedom to fired you !!!
0 Votes
+ -
@Voltus Apple employees sign NDAs, which means they have given up their right to discuss certain topics publicly. No big deal. No real story hear. It's been going on for decades -- probably a half-century or longer.

And, yes, your boss/employer does have the "freedom" to fire someone who breaks a binding, legal agreement.
@Bozzer

Whistleblowing is an entirely different category of speech which should indeed be protected. If there are illegal things going on, they need to be brought to light. But that is not what is being talked about here.

Say you started a small widget making company. You have spent a lot of time and effort into making quality widgets and you are quite proud of the company. You started off with just family but have now stepped it up and hired five people. Two of which start websites and social media which disparage you and your family in a gross manner, publish your manufacturing processes, suppliers, customers, and financials. And spend a great deal of time talking about how rubbish the product is.

You really think that, legally, you shouldn't be able to fire those two? No one would ever run a business again if that sort of behavior was not a fireable offense.
0 Votes
+ -
Exactly right.
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 5th Dec
@SlithyTove.. and further more, I do believe there are laws against that as well, two come to mind... Slander and Espionage, then of course there is the civil suit the company could levy against you afterwards that will destroy you financially and permanently hinder you from getting a job outside of being a greeter at Wal-mart.
0 Votes
+ -
It's called "trade secrets"
jscott69 5th Dec
@Bozzer ... I can understand your concern. And I'm sure most people would agree that it can be unhealthy to have companies dictate the rules for individuals.

But the fact remains: People who work for Apple have signed a legal, binding Non-Disclosure Agreement and code-of-conduct agreements in which they specifically agree to NOT discuss certain aspects of company business and to behave in a prescribed manner. If they don't like the terms of the policy, they don't need to agree to it -- but they won't be hired. If they've signed it already, then they can quit, but that still doesn't allow them to discuss the matters that they learned of while under the NDA. It's a legal contract that they have no right to break.

As for tobacco companies ... that's entirely different because it's a health issue: tobacco causes cancer, which kills people. Killing people is illegal. Therefore, anyone who knows of a crime being committed -- especially one as serious as manslaughter -- is legally obligated by the government (which over-rides company policies) to report the crime, otherwise it's obstruction of justice.

Like it or not, the system does actually work the way it was designed. But an Apple employee has no right to steal the thunder of an Apple product launch by leaking trade secrets. We're not talking life or death here ... we're talking phones and tablet computers.

As for claiming everything is such a grave injustice against humanity ... I'd suggest you read the fable about the boy who cried wolf. Choose your battles. You'll be more effective and believable that way.
Those who find these policies offensive -- Remind me never to employ any of you. You take my money, I have every darned right to tell you what you should say publicly about me. If you want to practice your constitutionally enabled rights, you're free to do so after I've fired you. Jobs aren't an entitlement (in this country at least).
0 Votes
+ -
[deleted double post]
Companies social media policies are in place to protect the intellectual property, brand and reputation of a company in our uber connected technology world. These guidelines are not far fetched at all. Companies routinely have Non-disclosure agreements with their employees. It's not about taking away free speech, it's about protecting the confidential nature of their business.

As for controlling what their employees say online, it's about protecting their reputation and ensuring that information is accurate. If you are an Apple employee posting on a Mac forum, there is no escaping that you will be viewed as a source of knowledge or expert - whether you're an engineer, an accountant or administrative assistant. No company wants non-authorized employees speaking on their behalf or making statements. They have to have guidelines to ensure that is the case.
Nice rules !!! I'll put it on my company !!!
Sounds like just another case of a junk silo technology company gone awry.
If you work for a medium sized to large company policies like these are commonplace. On your personal Facebook don't identify yourself as an employee of that company. Besides Facebook or twitter isn't the place to take out your dirty laundry. If you feel that you need to, then register under a false name and again don't identify yourself as an employee of the company in question.
I see nothing wrong with these policies, or why Apple should be "embarrassed." Nor do I see a problem with signing the NDA.

Lesson: If you want to rant about work, do it verbally, privately, offline. Nothing is private on the Internet!
That is why alter egos exists!
guarantee, where "government" cannot stop you from expressing what you think.

A business environment is not the same as a guarantee between government and its people.

A business has a right to set up its own "constitution", and an employee can become a "citizen" of that company, as long as he or she abides by that constitution. No employee is forced to become a "citizen" of that company, and even after becoming an employee, a person can leave that company and is no longer bound to the "constitution" of that company, unless there was a non-disclosure agreement which follows the employee for a period of time.

Imagine two football players (employees), on different NFL teams. Both employees (players) are privvy to all of the plays, and are supposed to keep those play "secret". Now, imagine that, the 2 players discuss their team plays, and eventually, their teams meet to compete in a game. Those two players will know what the opposing coach will be doing in specific situations, and most plays will be rendered ineffective, because, the secrets are out and effective countermeasures will have been devised. So, should the two players not be punished if they're found out?

It's the same in business, where secrets about products and strategies can make or break a company.

What happens within a business environment has nothing to do with what transpires in regular everyday life. Now, even within a business, the right of freedom of speech still exists, as long as it's not related to specifics about a business. So, if someone discusses political or government or international issues within a company, and it doesn't interfere with the work being done, then a company doesn't have the right to punish or intervene.
Free speech does not mean you can say anything you want to say. The society in which one lives has acceptable limits and those which are not, such as you can't say "FIRE" in a crowed place. One of the many freedoms we have in this country is to pretty much work or not work for a company. If one does not like the way a company does or does things you have freedom to leave. One is always give a verbal or written rules of company policy when you start, if you do not like them, do not work for them. As much as we think we are Gods gift to the world, we are in reality just a pebble in the sea of sand. When I was going to engineering school in the late 40s my idol was Einstein and when he died the world did not shake, stall or change one tiny bit. When the most genius of men who lived in my 84 years died and it didn't seem to make one bit of difference, I stopped taking my life and life in general so damn seriously.` If you think you are really important, try ordering the neighbor's cat and see how important one really is.
Remember, Big Brother is watching. All your brothers: employer, FBI, Secret Service, whatever. And your enemies, too. If you have any. Wife, girlfriend, etc. You better think twice before posting anything on a public site. I worry, even posting stuff critical of the administration. Only thing is, I'm too little for them to waste time on. But I am very careful what I commit to the internet.
@Hans Schmidt

I was wondering if anyone else would mention that. Apple did not track the guy down; they weren't looking for negative comments. HIS CO-WORKER COMPLAINED TO THE COMPANY.
"Apple employees are also not permitted to contact customers for social reasons or soliciting outside of business."

Sounds like a great way to discourage employees family members from purchasing any APPLE products.
@BlueCollarCritic

Companies really don't care if you give advice to your friends and family about particular products, even if it is negative.

What they DO care about is contacting random people that you are not personally familiar with about the company's products, even if positive. And "Friend" 995 on Facebook does not count as Friends and Family. And, of course, divulging information that is not considered public.
0 Votes
+ -
Errr.....
Gisabun 5th Dec
If Apple has clearly made these rules available to all Apple employees to see at any time and notified the employees of any changes to these rules then Apple is in the right to fire an employee if against these rules.

I would suspect these rules apply to all Apple employees - from Tim Cook to "regular" employees to contractors to services staff [janitors, cafeteria workers, etc.]. You can't exclude one or it causes problems.
"Freedom of Speech"? Not according to Apple! This is nothing more than flat-out censorship! They are more interested in squashing negative comments that expose their dictatorial attitudes than anything else.

Now we are seeing "the worm" in the "rotten Apple".
The real question here is, why is this newsworthy? The policies are pretty standard as to what I've seen in different companies such as Dell, Oracle, Microsoft, etc.
You have to be pretty stupid to talk smack about your employer on a web site that anyone can read.
0 Votes
+ -
Because he had a tendency of replying to customers by email.
@ Bozzer
Everyone should have more power than the Government.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix