6 ms·

The story line may be being twisted by CNN but the idea of a CEO blaming his staff is fundamentally wrong. The message should be “I created a culture which mean

by harryf 6y ago

The story line may be being twisted by CNN but the idea of a CEO blaming his staff is fundamentally wrong. The message should be “I created a culture which meant an intern could put the whole company at risk. This was my mistake”

loceng 6y ago
Ted Cruz claimed it was his children's fault for pressuring him into their trip, e.g. there is no lacking in incompetence and integrity in many systems, organizations, companies, communities, families. It starts with the individual which requires someone caring about how they look, about accountability, chain of command/responsibility. How do we solve this though? Who is the CEO responsible to - who do they care, if anyone, about how they appear to? How do we shift this behaviour for the examples of CEOs and politicians who maybe haven't been outed yet by such a security breach but are vulnerable to such lacking of a rigid structure of command/responsibility? Edit to add: I'm beginning to think HN is full of really lazy people.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  > Edit to add: I'm beginning to think HN is full of really lazy people. Because of downvotes? That's probably just because you brought partisan politics into the discussion.
  - reagank 6y ago
    > Because of downvotes? That's probably just because you brought partisan politics into the discussion. Wut? Mentioning a politician’s name isn’t partisan politics. He said nothing about the politics of Cruz, he compared the Senator shifting blame onto his kids with this CEO blaming an intern. Don’t be like that. (Edited to correct typo)
    - loceng 6y ago
      Thank you for pointing this out - it's unfortunate that people can be immediately triggered to react after simply seeing a name that prevents/blocks them from continuing on to understand or critically think to understand what's actually said; it's definitely a sign of the times and state of our health and our thinking ability as a society.
      - rootusrootus 6y ago
        This is uncharitable. First, you assume people were offended (and you used the loaded term 'triggered' to describe it). Then you go on to assume this means that society must be degrading, because so many people are losing their ability to think (the implication being that you are not part of that group). A much simpler explanation is that people who read and comment on HN do not want to see every conversation degenerate into yet another political fistfight, since it seems to have infected every other part of our lives. One of the core values of this community is that we mostly manage to avoid that.
        loceng 6y ago
        My perspective is valid, you've done nothing to prove it's not - other than putting your own "much simpler explanation;" where you're also making assumptions. Hope you enjoyed the thought exercise writing out your reply. It's interesting how I can reference, with no personal opinion attached to it, a factual, recent situation that's comparable to the thread - about a well-known person who happens to be a politician - happens to be a politician, and as you said, because you're exhausted of hearing about them, you'd prefer they be censored/avoided in conversation. It's interesting to say the least. P.S. Triggered is a valid word, I used it in the correct context - and you were in fact triggered by using it and are trying to gate keep its use.
        rootusrootus 6y ago
        What you are doing here is a pretty good real world demonstration of Russell conjugations. Also very non-productive, so I don't think there is any reason to try continuing the discussion. Have a great day!
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      > Mentioning a politician’s name isn’t partisan politics Of course it is, why would you think otherwise? By calling out a particular politician by name, especially a controversial one, OP introduced a political slant to the discussion. Could just as easily have said "this is a problem we commonly see with politicians, or other people in leadership positions" without calling a particular one out. > Don’t be like that. Like what, exactly? OP made a comment, and when it started to go grey he maligned the HN commentariat as a whole as being full of lazy people. All I did was help him understand what aspect of his comment was the likely trigger for the downvotes. HN by and large does not like political discussions, it's even right there in the moderation rules.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- covidthrow 6y ago
  > I'm beginning to think HN is full of really lazy people. > Ted Cruz claimed it was his children's fault for pressuring him into their trip... I'll bite. (Stick with me; I'll get to the point after some analysis that may be objectionable or seem unrelated.) He's got responsibility to two parties: the citizens of his state and his children. Both are important in different ways, and the needs of each conflict in certain circumstances. Did he want to get somewhere warm? Probably. Did his children want their father with them? Probably. Was he unable to advise while in Cancun? Doubtful. Was he unable to legislate while in Cancun. He was not. So, despite the inappropriate optics of his trip (and reflection of poor character for a leader of the state), it appears as though he made a judgement that favored his family and his self, presumably because he judged no apparent harm to the state by his actions. I bring all this up because it's relevant to the parallel you bring: he blames his children for the choice. The problem is, neither you nor anyone else I'm aware of have demonstrated harm by his choice. So his "blaming" his children appears to reflect his choice between two conflicting priorities. The intern, on the other hand, caused demonstrable harm and the CEO blames his own decisions on said intern. Cruz did not blame lack of preparedness on his children. He blamed bad optics on his choice to acquiesce to his children. Far as I can tell, you're bringing a straw man to a knife fight. I don't think your assertion is incorrect, that incompetence and lack of integrity are responsible for the CEO's choice, but I don't think you demonstrated that properly with your parallel. I find Ted Cruz to be pretty unpalatable, but I believe the hype around his trip is exaggerated, and your use of it to affirm your assertion is misplaced. However, in an effort to make this more interesting, let's say the parallel is appropriate. I would, for the sake of argument, challenge that the fault, instead, lies in the hands of the people of Texas. If "the buck stops here", then let us remember that there is an entity above that of Ted Cruz, and that is the people of Texas. If we truly believe that mistakes are not the fault of the individual who made the mistake, but rather the person at the top of the chain, then it stands to reason that politicians are not at fault, but rather the citizens that voted that politician in. Since voters have ultimate responsibility to decide the way in which their community is governed—just as a CEO makes choices that bubble down—then it seems to me the people are ultimately responsible. And in this context, your parallel seems even more misplaced, because the people of Texas (and the rest of the country) are blaming the "little guy" when those in charge of actually deciding who's hired and who's fired are the responsible parties. Personally, I find the ultimate lack of integrity in "the people", because everyone blames "government" when "government" goes wrong, but fail to acknowledge that they are, in fact, said government. I charge you to challenge my assertion and justify your parallel.
- rirze 6y ago
  Your comment was down voted because it mentioned a political figure. In today's hyper-polarized society, any mention of politics in a discussion about something apolitical preemptively draws silence or disregard. No one wants to be dragged into an adjacent unproductive argument. Looking at your other posts, it also seems that you easily show a pessimistic attitude, similar to how old people will complain about younger generations. No one responds positively to such generalizations.
  - loceng 6y ago
    What you seem to be claiming as generalizations I can only assume you speak to the holistic view that I often speak from. Mentioning a political figure doesn't necessitate baiting one into a conversation - however yes, it's clear that people are tired, exhausted - and no longer actually read to comprehend, stunting critical thinking throughout what they're reading - and then making an assumption as to what they're reading, and then doing a lazy downvote for a dopamine hit to feel fulfilled - as if they were diligent, reaffirming their assumptions. And I disagree that "no one responds positively to such generalizations" - it doesn't make them untrue, and usually I also reference the solution, policy proposals, to solve the problems.
chapium 6y ago
Exactly, blaming the intern raises even more questions about internal security practices. When will IT companies learn not to use telnet, ftp, and easy to guess passwords on their intranet.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
This is a silly standard that nobody is held to in the real world. Nearly every company can have a breach due to an intern or another employee leaking credentials. There’s nothing the CEO can do about that. It is often the case after these breaches that HNers start assigning blame in ways that indicate their lack of practical experience in the security world. After 20 years working in security, from startups to fortune 500s, including the most well funded security teams in the world, EVERYONE has stupid password problems in some corners of their company. The password leak was absolutely not the CEOs mistake.
- camjohnson26 6y ago
  With all due respect to your experience in the industry, if knowing that an intern’s password is solarwinds123 is enough for an attacker to sign and release an unauthorized binary and publish it to hundreds of customers, then that’s an operational problem that the CEO is ultimately responsible for.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    Well, nothing like that even happened, so why are we talking about it? solarwinds123 was a password for a public ftp server. It did not let anyone sign anything and it didn’t push updates out. It isn’t even related to the solarwinds breach.
    - camjohnson26 6y ago
      That’s the reason they’re having the hearing, the point is that the CEO is bringing this up and blaming an intern for the massive breach when it’s pretty clearly either a red herring or a complete lapse in security.

by harryf 6y ago

loceng 6y ago

Ted Cruz claimed it was his children's fault for pressuring him into their trip, e.g. there is no lacking in incompetence and integrity in many systems, organizations, companies, communities, families. It starts with the individual which requires someone caring about how they look, about accountability, chain of command/responsibility. How do we solve this though? Who is the CEO responsible to - who do they care, if anyone, about how they appear to? How do we shift this behaviour for the examples of CEOs and politicians who maybe haven't been outed yet by such a security breach but are vulnerable to such lacking of a rigid structure of command/responsibility? Edit to add: I'm beginning to think HN is full of really lazy people.

rootusrootus 6y ago
> Edit to add: I'm beginning to think HN is full of really lazy people. Because of downvotes? That's probably just because you brought partisan politics into the discussion.
- reagank 6y ago
  > Because of downvotes? That's probably just because you brought partisan politics into the discussion. Wut? Mentioning a politician’s name isn’t partisan politics. He said nothing about the politics of Cruz, he compared the Senator shifting blame onto his kids with this CEO blaming an intern. Don’t be like that. (Edited to correct typo)
  - loceng 6y ago
    Thank you for pointing this out - it's unfortunate that people can be immediately triggered to react after simply seeing a name that prevents/blocks them from continuing on to understand or critically think to understand what's actually said; it's definitely a sign of the times and state of our health and our thinking ability as a society.
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      This is uncharitable. First, you assume people were offended (and you used the loaded term 'triggered' to describe it). Then you go on to assume this means that society must be degrading, because so many people are losing their ability to think (the implication being that you are not part of that group). A much simpler explanation is that people who read and comment on HN do not want to see every conversation degenerate into yet another political fistfight, since it seems to have infected every other part of our lives. One of the core values of this community is that we mostly manage to avoid that.
      - loceng 6y ago
        My perspective is valid, you've done nothing to prove it's not - other than putting your own "much simpler explanation;" where you're also making assumptions. Hope you enjoyed the thought exercise writing out your reply. It's interesting how I can reference, with no personal opinion attached to it, a factual, recent situation that's comparable to the thread - about a well-known person who happens to be a politician - happens to be a politician, and as you said, because you're exhausted of hearing about them, you'd prefer they be censored/avoided in conversation. It's interesting to say the least. P.S. Triggered is a valid word, I used it in the correct context - and you were in fact triggered by using it and are trying to gate keep its use.
        rootusrootus 6y ago
        What you are doing here is a pretty good real world demonstration of Russell conjugations. Also very non-productive, so I don't think there is any reason to try continuing the discussion. Have a great day!
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    > Mentioning a politician’s name isn’t partisan politics Of course it is, why would you think otherwise? By calling out a particular politician by name, especially a controversial one, OP introduced a political slant to the discussion. Could just as easily have said "this is a problem we commonly see with politicians, or other people in leadership positions" without calling a particular one out. > Don’t be like that. Like what, exactly? OP made a comment, and when it started to go grey he maligned the HN commentariat as a whole as being full of lazy people. All I did was help him understand what aspect of his comment was the likely trigger for the downvotes. HN by and large does not like political discussions, it's even right there in the moderation rules.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
covidthrow 6y ago
> I'm beginning to think HN is full of really lazy people. > Ted Cruz claimed it was his children's fault for pressuring him into their trip... I'll bite. (Stick with me; I'll get to the point after some analysis that may be objectionable or seem unrelated.) He's got responsibility to two parties: the citizens of his state and his children. Both are important in different ways, and the needs of each conflict in certain circumstances. Did he want to get somewhere warm? Probably. Did his children want their father with them? Probably. Was he unable to advise while in Cancun? Doubtful. Was he unable to legislate while in Cancun. He was not. So, despite the inappropriate optics of his trip (and reflection of poor character for a leader of the state), it appears as though he made a judgement that favored his family and his self, presumably because he judged no apparent harm to the state by his actions. I bring all this up because it's relevant to the parallel you bring: he blames his children for the choice. The problem is, neither you nor anyone else I'm aware of have demonstrated harm by his choice. So his "blaming" his children appears to reflect his choice between two conflicting priorities. The intern, on the other hand, caused demonstrable harm and the CEO blames his own decisions on said intern. Cruz did not blame lack of preparedness on his children. He blamed bad optics on his choice to acquiesce to his children. Far as I can tell, you're bringing a straw man to a knife fight. I don't think your assertion is incorrect, that incompetence and lack of integrity are responsible for the CEO's choice, but I don't think you demonstrated that properly with your parallel. I find Ted Cruz to be pretty unpalatable, but I believe the hype around his trip is exaggerated, and your use of it to affirm your assertion is misplaced. However, in an effort to make this more interesting, let's say the parallel is appropriate. I would, for the sake of argument, challenge that the fault, instead, lies in the hands of the people of Texas. If "the buck stops here", then let us remember that there is an entity above that of Ted Cruz, and that is the people of Texas. If we truly believe that mistakes are not the fault of the individual who made the mistake, but rather the person at the top of the chain, then it stands to reason that politicians are not at fault, but rather the citizens that voted that politician in. Since voters have ultimate responsibility to decide the way in which their community is governed—just as a CEO makes choices that bubble down—then it seems to me the people are ultimately responsible. And in this context, your parallel seems even more misplaced, because the people of Texas (and the rest of the country) are blaming the "little guy" when those in charge of actually deciding who's hired and who's fired are the responsible parties. Personally, I find the ultimate lack of integrity in "the people", because everyone blames "government" when "government" goes wrong, but fail to acknowledge that they are, in fact, said government. I charge you to challenge my assertion and justify your parallel.
rirze 6y ago
Your comment was down voted because it mentioned a political figure. In today's hyper-polarized society, any mention of politics in a discussion about something apolitical preemptively draws silence or disregard. No one wants to be dragged into an adjacent unproductive argument. Looking at your other posts, it also seems that you easily show a pessimistic attitude, similar to how old people will complain about younger generations. No one responds positively to such generalizations.
- loceng 6y ago
  What you seem to be claiming as generalizations I can only assume you speak to the holistic view that I often speak from. Mentioning a political figure doesn't necessitate baiting one into a conversation - however yes, it's clear that people are tired, exhausted - and no longer actually read to comprehend, stunting critical thinking throughout what they're reading - and then making an assumption as to what they're reading, and then doing a lazy downvote for a dopamine hit to feel fulfilled - as if they were diligent, reaffirming their assumptions. And I disagree that "no one responds positively to such generalizations" - it doesn't make them untrue, and usually I also reference the solution, policy proposals, to solve the problems.

chapium 6y ago

Exactly, blaming the intern raises even more questions about internal security practices. When will IT companies learn not to use telnet, ftp, and easy to guess passwords on their intranet.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

This is a silly standard that nobody is held to in the real world. Nearly every company can have a breach due to an intern or another employee leaking credentials. There’s nothing the CEO can do about that. It is often the case after these breaches that HNers start assigning blame in ways that indicate their lack of practical experience in the security world. After 20 years working in security, from startups to fortune 500s, including the most well funded security teams in the world, EVERYONE has stupid password problems in some corners of their company. The password leak was absolutely not the CEOs mistake.

camjohnson26 6y ago
With all due respect to your experience in the industry, if knowing that an intern’s password is solarwinds123 is enough for an attacker to sign and release an unauthorized binary and publish it to hundreds of customers, then that’s an operational problem that the CEO is ultimately responsible for.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Well, nothing like that even happened, so why are we talking about it? solarwinds123 was a password for a public ftp server. It did not let anyone sign anything and it didn’t push updates out. It isn’t even related to the solarwinds breach.
  - camjohnson26 6y ago
    That’s the reason they’re having the hearing, the point is that the CEO is bringing this up and blaming an intern for the massive breach when it’s pretty clearly either a red herring or a complete lapse in security.