4 ms·
Why do people always believe the story that there was a solo perpetrator who acted alone and without the consent of the organization? Most likely they were not
by DamnYuppie 9y ago
Why do people always believe the story that there was a solo perpetrator who acted alone and without the consent of the organization? Most likely they were nothing more than a sacrificial pawn in this scheme.
- imron 9y agoI'm just surprised they admitted it was an employee and not an 'intern' or 'third-party contractor'.
- geomark 9y agoThat brought to mind Sunday's Dilbert comic. http://dilbert.com/strip/2018-03-04 http://dilbert.com/strip/2018-03-04
- nkokonas 9y agoCorrect. They have a pattern of this behavior IMO. See my Medium post on this subject, linked in the Eater article.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- calt 9y agoWhich brings up the topic of responsible disclosure of security vulnerabilities and leaked credentials.
- xkcd-sucks 9y agoScrewed over a rival, and got to fire that dude who's a bad cultural fit.
- ChuckMcM 9y agoAre you saying that you think that I believe the story of a solo perpetrator? My only comment was that I gave Open Table props for firing the employee. Whether or not the company was complicit it is pretty clear to other employees that 'losing your job' is a very real possibility here. And that, in my experience, reinforces 'rule following' and 'ethical' behavior on the part of employees.
- sokoloff 9y agoIf the company was complicit or directed the behavior, firing an employee over it for PR sake makes their actions worse not better. That's what I read when I read "sacrificial pawn".
- ChuckMcM 9y agoI agree with you that if the company did this to "get away with it" that it would be reprehensible. That said, by actually firing people it makes it hard for the company to do this again in the future, even if it wants to, because employees who remain are more careful about being compliant with activities. In my experience watching company cultures, companies that fire employees for bad behavior (as opposed to reassigning or sending them for additional training) are less likely to be complicit in that behavior. And when this sort of behavior is uncovered at a higher level, more likely to fire the senior leader as well.
- xor1 9y agoHow do you know that they actually fired anyone?
- freeone3000 9y agoIt's irrelevant whether anyone was actually fired - there's now a news article saying that someone was fired over this, which is the same (if not wider reaching).
- sokoloff 9y agoIf they didn't actually fire anyone, you don't think word would get around a 625-person company that the PR statement that a rogue employee was fired was BS?
- srtjstjsj 9y agoOT only deserves props if they paid compensation for the damage they did. The employee represents the company.
- rdiddly 9y agoSo they believe the employee acted alone eh? His name wasn't Oswald by any chance? Well I'm glad they got rid of the only dishonest person in the company. Phew!
- rdiddly 9y agoAh blow me.
- lr4444lr 9y agoEven if you're right, it's the kind of stunt the company can only pull once. No employee in their right mind would be the fall guy for this scheme again once they've shown that they'll throw someone under the bus.