Returning to the point of the article
I know it's great to go off on one about the privacy issues, but slightly irrelevant to the point of the article which most commentators seem to be ignoring (hanks to the few who have addressed the issue). The action against Microsoft seems completely reasonable. Sifting through this sort of material - it's difficult to call it "porn" it's simply evidence of abuse, rape and murder - would induce nightmares for most reasonable people. Doing it day in day out when you didn't want to do the work in the first place is even more degrading and distressing. I'm involved in digital forensics, don't do this sort of work and don't want to. I know police officers who have to do this sort of thing. Their employers try to take care of them because it's known that constant exposure to this material can cause PTSD and other mental problems and at the worst can de-sensitise people and turn them into consumers of this filth.
Police investigators therefore get rotated in and out of the work, have counselling and are monitored carefully by their employer. I doubt that the sort of care needed was even recognised by Microsoft management. MS don't have either the background or the experience to undertake this work. They don't even have the experience of managing workers in this situation. This is clear from the periods of time mentioned in the article. The police tend to rotated staff out of the job after a few months. I don't know anyone who has been asked to attend and look at this class of images over a period of years.