5 ms·

I really hope this is sarcasm... You think it's appropriate for every employee to be searched before entering a facility because there might be a "terror attack

I really hope this is sarcasm... You think it's appropriate for every employee to be searched before entering a facility because there might be a "terror attack"? How many IT workers are there in the country, how many attacks have occurred in IT offices, and how many attacks have been prevented by searching employees bags? Giving up personal liberties and freedoms out of unsubstantiated fears based on a few fringe cases is a slippery slope. Also, I highly doubt that's what the policy is even about. The person you are replying to is probably correct that the policy is an attempt to prevent employees from leaving with company data

pravinva 8y ago
It's like the TSA- Security theatre, not security that's being sold here
shripadk 8y ago
How do you prevent employees from leaving with company data if one copies all the sensitive data onto a pen drive? Does security check the pen drives too? It's actually ridiculous to cast aspersion on the security when their job is to prevent threats. > You think it's appropriate for every employee to be searched before entering a facility because there might be a "terror attack"? How many IT workers are there in the country, how many attacks have occurred in IT offices, and how many attacks have been prevented by searching employees bags? It just takes one attack to lose a loved one and put a family in complete disarray. In India there have been multiple terror threats to software companies in the past decade alone. You forget that the agencies work 24/7 preventing terror plots and if even one of them slips through it would be disaster for everyone involved. Multi layered security is the only way to thwart terror plots. Here are few examples: 1. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-terror-plot-against-infy-in-mysore-busted-1060458 http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-terror-plot-against-inf... 2. http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/05blore.htm http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/05blore.htm 3. https://www.indiatoday.in/latest-headlines/story/infosys-wipro-get-terror-threats-36574-2009-01-04 https://www.indiatoday.in/latest-headlines/story/infosys-wip... You can use logic and statistics to argue about probability of terror threats but none of your statistics takes into account the mental health or the radical motivation of an individual/group. > I really hope this is sarcasm... You think it's appropriate for every employee to be searched before entering a facility because there might be a "terror attack"? EDIT: I am not being sarcastic. I am being a realist. In an ideal world I wouldn't want any sort of security. But we don't live in an ideal world.
- icebraining 8y ago
  So, from your links, nobody was actually killed by terrorists, nor has a security guard actually stopped any terrorist. Meanwhile, you know who actually has killed Infosys employees? A security guard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN9MenY2dEs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN9MenY2dEs
  - shripadk 8y ago
    > So, from your links, nobody was actually killed by terrorists That is not a justification for no security checks. That's my only argument. If one is willing to go through security checks at malls, airports, movie theaters, sports game at a stadium, a music concert without any fuss I don't see why one would want to be treated differently at the workplace. You don't find anyone talking of "giving up personal liberties and freedoms out of unsubstantiated fears based on a few fringe cases is a slippery slope" when trying to enter any of these secured areas do they? I don't see people complaining about feeling insulted while being frisked trying to enter a stadium but the very same people feel insulted while being frisked entering their workplace! > nor has a security guard actually stopped any terrorist. Nope. I never claimed that a security guard actually stopped a terrorist. If you read my comment you would understand that I spoke of multi-layered security and that terror threats on those companies are real and not a figment of one's imagination. If those terror threats were not thwarted by agencies do you agree that having security at the gates of an IT enterprise would be a second line of defence? Or is your assertion that until there is a terror attack of significant magnitude one should not care about security? > Meanwhile, you know who actually has killed Infosys employees? A security guard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN9MenY2dEs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN9MenY2dEs So you say just because of this one incident we remove all security from these companies and let anyone walk in and out? Maybe better security here: http://time.com/5226892/youtube-headquarters-security-silicon-valley/ http://time.com/5226892/youtube-headquarters-security-silico... could have prevented 3 employees from getting injured don't you think?
    - icebraining 8y ago
      If one is willing to go through security checks at malls, airports, movie theaters, sports game at a stadium, a music concert without any fuss I don't see why one would want to be treated differently at the workplace. You don't find anyone talking of "giving up personal liberties and freedoms out of unsubstantiated fears based on a few fringe cases is a slippery slope" when trying to enter any of these secured areas do they? Yes. Yes, I do. In fact, I'm one of them. Thankfully I live in a relatively sane country, so there's no such nonsense except on airports, where we must comply with global rules. By the way, Brussels - which as you may know has had a recent history of multiple terrorist attacks - doesn't have that nonsense either. Even in the main train station, where some poor lunatic tried to harm others and only ended up immolating himself, the doors are all wide open without any checks. If those terror threats were not thwarted by agencies do you agree that having security at the gates of an IT enterprise would be a second line of defence? My complaint wasn't with any security checks, it was with rummaging through people's bags. Guys carrying AK-47s are not going to be deterred by a bag check. Having secure doors that only open with a badge makes sense. So you say just because of this one incident we remove all security from these companies and let anyone walk in and out? Just like you never claimed a security guard actually stopped a terrorist, I never claimed we should remove all security. All I'm saying is that the importance of terrorists is being overblown. In practice, even security guards themselves are more dangerous.

pravinva 8y ago

It's like the TSA- Security theatre, not security that's being sold here

shripadk 8y ago

How do you prevent employees from leaving with company data if one copies all the sensitive data onto a pen drive? Does security check the pen drives too? It's actually ridiculous to cast aspersion on the security when their job is to prevent threats. > You think it's appropriate for every employee to be searched before entering a facility because there might be a "terror attack"? How many IT workers are there in the country, how many attacks have occurred in IT offices, and how many attacks have been prevented by searching employees bags? It just takes one attack to lose a loved one and put a family in complete disarray. In India there have been multiple terror threats to software companies in the past decade alone. You forget that the agencies work 24/7 preventing terror plots and if even one of them slips through it would be disaster for everyone involved. Multi layered security is the only way to thwart terror plots. Here are few examples: 1. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-terror-plot-against-infy-in-mysore-busted-1060458 http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-terror-plot-against-inf... 2. http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/05blore.htm http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/05blore.htm 3. https://www.indiatoday.in/latest-headlines/story/infosys-wipro-get-terror-threats-36574-2009-01-04 https://www.indiatoday.in/latest-headlines/story/infosys-wip... You can use logic and statistics to argue about probability of terror threats but none of your statistics takes into account the mental health or the radical motivation of an individual/group. > I really hope this is sarcasm... You think it's appropriate for every employee to be searched before entering a facility because there might be a "terror attack"? EDIT: I am not being sarcastic. I am being a realist. In an ideal world I wouldn't want any sort of security. But we don't live in an ideal world.

icebraining 8y ago
So, from your links, nobody was actually killed by terrorists, nor has a security guard actually stopped any terrorist. Meanwhile, you know who actually has killed Infosys employees? A security guard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN9MenY2dEs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN9MenY2dEs
- shripadk 8y ago
  > So, from your links, nobody was actually killed by terrorists That is not a justification for no security checks. That's my only argument. If one is willing to go through security checks at malls, airports, movie theaters, sports game at a stadium, a music concert without any fuss I don't see why one would want to be treated differently at the workplace. You don't find anyone talking of "giving up personal liberties and freedoms out of unsubstantiated fears based on a few fringe cases is a slippery slope" when trying to enter any of these secured areas do they? I don't see people complaining about feeling insulted while being frisked trying to enter a stadium but the very same people feel insulted while being frisked entering their workplace! > nor has a security guard actually stopped any terrorist. Nope. I never claimed that a security guard actually stopped a terrorist. If you read my comment you would understand that I spoke of multi-layered security and that terror threats on those companies are real and not a figment of one's imagination. If those terror threats were not thwarted by agencies do you agree that having security at the gates of an IT enterprise would be a second line of defence? Or is your assertion that until there is a terror attack of significant magnitude one should not care about security? > Meanwhile, you know who actually has killed Infosys employees? A security guard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN9MenY2dEs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN9MenY2dEs So you say just because of this one incident we remove all security from these companies and let anyone walk in and out? Maybe better security here: http://time.com/5226892/youtube-headquarters-security-silicon-valley/ http://time.com/5226892/youtube-headquarters-security-silico... could have prevented 3 employees from getting injured don't you think?
  - icebraining 8y ago
    If one is willing to go through security checks at malls, airports, movie theaters, sports game at a stadium, a music concert without any fuss I don't see why one would want to be treated differently at the workplace. You don't find anyone talking of "giving up personal liberties and freedoms out of unsubstantiated fears based on a few fringe cases is a slippery slope" when trying to enter any of these secured areas do they? Yes. Yes, I do. In fact, I'm one of them. Thankfully I live in a relatively sane country, so there's no such nonsense except on airports, where we must comply with global rules. By the way, Brussels - which as you may know has had a recent history of multiple terrorist attacks - doesn't have that nonsense either. Even in the main train station, where some poor lunatic tried to harm others and only ended up immolating himself, the doors are all wide open without any checks. If those terror threats were not thwarted by agencies do you agree that having security at the gates of an IT enterprise would be a second line of defence? My complaint wasn't with any security checks, it was with rummaging through people's bags. Guys carrying AK-47s are not going to be deterred by a bag check. Having secure doors that only open with a badge makes sense. So you say just because of this one incident we remove all security from these companies and let anyone walk in and out? Just like you never claimed a security guard actually stopped a terrorist, I never claimed we should remove all security. All I'm saying is that the importance of terrorists is being overblown. In practice, even security guards themselves are more dangerous.