4 ms·
This article didn't do this person any favors. Hired for web development, they go trawling through the network finding any insufficiently secured material they
by endorphone 9y ago
This article didn't do this person any favors.
Hired for web development, they go trawling through the network finding any insufficiently secured material they can access to appease their sense of justice (and have since used various emails of other people's for media discussions to bolster their case, while ironically talking about email security -- ala "defend against me"). Then they continue working while acting as an agent of the government. Or such is what I take from this article.
As good as it seems that the company and "frat" brothers (always a wonderful word in these articles to prejudice the reader) were brought down, does this article give anyone any comfort about hiring this person?
To make it even worse (regarding the "side with criminals" nonsense), thus far nothing criminal has even been demonstrated. For instance a core contention is that they used management fees for separate investments. There is nothing illegal about that. Investors are partners of specific funds, and management fees are the fees and profit to the management company for running that fund. It just sounds like a shitty company shittily run, but running around exposing various emails that were arguably criminally accessed just smells really stinky.
- jackmott 9y agoYes, I would hire him, and not you.
- BEEdwards 9y agoJust to be clear, in this case your siding with the criminals?
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoAgainst the hypocrite isn't at all the same thing, as 'for the criminals'. Its that 'you're with me or against me' thinking that plagues the internet lately.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoWhere's the hypocrisy?
- endorphone 9y agoI'm not "siding" with anyone. I'm pointing out how this story leads organizations -- including organizations that have no desire to be criminal -- to steer clear of this individual. Cheap rhetoric by the peanut gallery about how eager they would be to hire this person rings incredibly hollow. So I guess their job problems are solved. Quite aside from what looks like a gross abuse of access (again, and maybe the article is representing it wrong, but I'm pointing out why the article does them no favors), which itself is ironically criminal, society in general looks unfavorably on "tattle tales" for a reason. If you didn't cross all t's and dot all i's when creating your DR strategy, will they call the BSA on you? If a painter's van partly blocks a handicap space, will they report you to the city? Etc. Everyone breaks the law to some degree. If this person were your passenger on a commute and they called 911 to report that you were 10 over, would you say "Well that's fair. I understand why they don't side with the criminal.". Again, my core point is how this article does them no favors.