I agree generally with the reactions of disbelief in reply to this article. Its in a company. I know of no hindrance to company policy or ability to make the

I agree generally with the reactions of disbelief in reply to this article. Its in a company. I know of no hindrance to company policy or ability to make the most rational decisions about networking security, from the starting point of not compromising security, and forcing users or client applications adapt to the needs of compliance with data retention and discovery rules. Security measures must come first. If security is necessarily compromised by the requirements of compliance systems or protocols (policies not network encoding) THEN THE PROBLEM HAS TO BE RAISED WITH HIGHER MANAGEMENT AND WITHOUT ADEQUATE RESPONSE, WITH THE BOARD AND SHAREHOLDERS FINALLY. sorry for my shouting, but the legal risks to the author of this article are extremely real, and he should be immediately taking the problem seriously out of his hands. Unilateral decisions, EVEN IF YOU IMAGINE THE ABSENCE OF LOGICAL ALTERNATIVES ABSOLVED YOU FROM RESPONSIBILITY I ASSURE YOU THAT IT WILL NOT, so please do not ever place yourself into situations like this where you are exposed to a specific liability for any resulting breach of security or loss of compliance with your employers legal regulations. Just don't take the risk. And certainly don't think that receiving moral support from your blog is any kind of indemnity. Instead it's advertising "don't hire me" as many industries will interpret the course of action. Or INACTION since you are throwing your hands up in the air, very publicly. Edit: a word of autocorrelation, and first line for clarity