A video call in the same area as classified info, where presumably classified discussions could be happening in the background, seems like such a massive security issue.
A friend works at Airbus and needs to check his phone into a locker before entering the secure area where most of the work takes place, so if he wants to take a personal call he must do it outside that area and never bring his phone or other personal electronic devices inside.
Often you'll have penetration testers try to break in or security auditors who try to convince random employees to break security protocols to test you and it's no joke, if you loose your security certification you automatically loose your customers, as defense contracts depend on having said certifications. Rules are rules over there.
The paranoia is high because there are nation states who are well funded and well motivated to get their hands on your defense capabilities, so the tight security protocols must be obeyed by everyone if you choose to work for defense contractors, as consequences are dear, nothing against your ethnicity or language you speak.
If he took a video call in the space using their VC equipment, that's bad enough. (the understanding being that, you use equipment for work purposes, announce that there's an uncleared call taking place, and sanitize the area).
Accidents happen. I've seen people forget they were carrying a phone, it beeps, and they go running out of the room to deposit it, and later self-report the breach. No biggie. But if he brought in an actual phone, and retained it, and then took an incoming call on it, from within a secured area, well, then I'd expect the consequences to be exactly what happened.
To be clear, The article doesn't make clear that it's what happened, but if I watched someone do that, I think my jaw would fall off.
Edit: This applies to U.S. Government spaces which the article seems to imply. Private company security policies probably mirror this in many ways, but I can't speak for them.
HR isn’t dumb. If a video capable phone was contraband in that area, they’d take action on possession of it, as that’s a clear simple case.
With complaints like this, what isn’t said is more important than what is.
"“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.
Why the scare quotes around accepting a video call?
> "“Despite there being no policy prohibiting the call" - I don't think that's true at all.
Well, if there are, then this should be an open-and-shut case.
I am guessing the language is being brought in the discussion because the coworker in not understanding the language might have assumed the worst.
In the bureaucratic world of defense contractors, that might not be up to him to decide what is classified and what not. Usually there's a dedicated person who's job is to have the decision and liability on what is classified on what not, and not left up to each employee to decide.
If the meeting room is in a classified area, then whatever is in the room is by default considered classified as well regardless if there was no actual classified stuff inside at that time, so no personal electronic devices are allowed in.
Not just that, it's written to establish a narrative that is disputed. A more accurate title would be, "Indian-American engineer alleges he was fired for speaking Hindi."
You see this a lot in news articles about lawsuits, where the plaintiff's claims are presented uncritically. But plaintiffs can allege anything! It's like the recent Subway lawsuit that alleged that the tuna wasn't actually fish. It's unbelievable on its face: you're saying that Subway has found a fake fish that actually fools people and they aren't monetizing _that_? But the headlines lead with the complaint and only sometimes will end with ",says lawsuit."