4 ms·

Covering up a data breech sounds like criminal behavior in the example above. Which you know, lands people in jail? I seriously doubt many employees will risk j

by cf498 8y ago

Covering up a data breech sounds like criminal behavior in the example above. Which you know, lands people in jail? I seriously doubt many employees will risk jail time so their company is spared a fine. If it is mandatory to disclose data breeches and equally mandatory to cooperate with full transparency to fix the issue, then we are assuming that employees would act criminally with being accountable themself because it would be best for the company?

michaelt 8y ago
Covering up a data breech sounds like criminal behavior in the example above. Which you know, lands people in jail? Only if the cover-up isn't successful.
- cf498 8y ago
  I would like to meet those employees who are that loyal that they will risk jailtime for their company. Sure, some people will risk persecution to work in outlawed political groups, but that is some real dedication in the example. Especially as they have nothing to gain whatsoever.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Especially as they have nothing to gain whatsoever. Other than their stock options, their relationships with other employees and potentially their job and career. True, whistleblowers have little to gain, but they have much to lose.
    - cf498 8y ago
      They have their freedom to loose and nothing to gain by not sending in an anonymous tips. You have groups of multiple peoples there, where only one has to talk for everyone to go to jail. This is how organized crime has been prosecuted for years. The only one of the guilty who gets out is the snitch.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > They have their freedom to loose and nothing to gain by not sending in an anonymous tips. Sending an anonymous tip that could result in their company losing a lot of money if not going out of business has a highly undesired effect on their continued employment, future raises, stock options, etc. > You have groups of multiple peoples there, where only one has to talk for everyone to go to jail. This is how organized crime has been prosecuted for years. The only one of the guilty who gets out is the snitch. Prosecuting organized crime works by busting the little fish and cutting a deal to go after the big fish. There is no starting point for that process when you're dealing with an otherwise non-criminal organization. If you're not already aware of their offense you have no reason to be investigating them to begin with and nobody there has the incentive to tell you when they don't expect you to have any other way to find out. "The only one of the guilty who gets out is the snitch" is also obviously incompatible with remaining anonymous. Anyone would be able to deduce what happened. You get whistleblowers when someone is outraged at what the company is doing sufficiently to take the risk to try and stop them. Not when the government is threatening severe penalties for a past mistake that has already been remediated. The NTSB method produces better outcomes than the War On Drugs method.

by cf498 8y ago

michaelt 8y ago

Covering up a data breech sounds like criminal behavior in the example above. Which you know, lands people in jail? Only if the cover-up isn't successful.

cf498 8y ago
I would like to meet those employees who are that loyal that they will risk jailtime for their company. Sure, some people will risk persecution to work in outlawed political groups, but that is some real dedication in the example. Especially as they have nothing to gain whatsoever.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Especially as they have nothing to gain whatsoever. Other than their stock options, their relationships with other employees and potentially their job and career. True, whistleblowers have little to gain, but they have much to lose.
  - cf498 8y ago
    They have their freedom to loose and nothing to gain by not sending in an anonymous tips. You have groups of multiple peoples there, where only one has to talk for everyone to go to jail. This is how organized crime has been prosecuted for years. The only one of the guilty who gets out is the snitch.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > They have their freedom to loose and nothing to gain by not sending in an anonymous tips. Sending an anonymous tip that could result in their company losing a lot of money if not going out of business has a highly undesired effect on their continued employment, future raises, stock options, etc. > You have groups of multiple peoples there, where only one has to talk for everyone to go to jail. This is how organized crime has been prosecuted for years. The only one of the guilty who gets out is the snitch. Prosecuting organized crime works by busting the little fish and cutting a deal to go after the big fish. There is no starting point for that process when you're dealing with an otherwise non-criminal organization. If you're not already aware of their offense you have no reason to be investigating them to begin with and nobody there has the incentive to tell you when they don't expect you to have any other way to find out. "The only one of the guilty who gets out is the snitch" is also obviously incompatible with remaining anonymous. Anyone would be able to deduce what happened. You get whistleblowers when someone is outraged at what the company is doing sufficiently to take the risk to try and stop them. Not when the government is threatening severe penalties for a past mistake that has already been remediated. The NTSB method produces better outcomes than the War On Drugs method.