3 ms·
It's really impossible to pass judgement on this decision without hearing the reasons. Reading between the lines (and using common sense) suggests that the NYT
by shaki-dora 7y ago
It's really impossible to pass judgement on this decision without hearing the reasons.
Reading between the lines (and using common sense) suggests that the NYT does have a security team, only that its focus is larger than just the newsroom. One scenario therefore would be a consolidation of security roles. The "Head of Newsroom Security" position would no longer exist, even if there is/are dedicated people with that portfolio.
- ARandomerDude 7y agoNah, don't think it through. Just react. Those idiots at the NYT are so thoughtless and naive.
- jonahbenton 7y agoFrom a PR perspective, it is possible to pass judgement. The clear judgment here is that this move, in the way it was handled, created a PR problem for the NYT at a really poor time for it to have this sort of PR problem. It may be that the new NYT CISO feels that newsroom, journalist, and source defense is a) critical and b) better handled by eliminating this role. Every security person would agree with a). Given the visibility Runa had and the positive PR she created around this unique need, b) is not the outcome one would predict. There is always more to the story than the headline, but as the NYT knows the headline is important in its own right. Here, the NYT wrote the wrong headline.
- rsj_hn 7y agoA director position is a managerial role, not a security engineering role, moreover a director is typically a manager of other managers, who in this case has at least one more security manager above them before the change. I am not a fan of measuring a firm's commitment to security engineering by counting the number of managers in this role, rather than looking at the quantity and quality of engineers. This could be a flattening of a hierarchy or it could be something else.