3 ms·
> Time and time again firms are asked to pay fines in response to executive malfeasance rather then the executives themselves, why is this different? It's an i
by IncRnd 5y ago
> Time and time again firms are asked to pay fines in response to executive malfeasance rather then the executives themselves, why is this different?
It's an indication that engineers know in some cases they are releasing broken software, and management may not be aware. Just look at this page and it's article, developers know about this, because they congregate to discuss how they release broken software, know they should do better, yet don't always tell management about faults in the product. A business shield only protects people when they are conducting business.
- willcipriano 5y agoIf I'm taking the lion share of the risk on shipping a product, I'm also collecting the lions share of rewards or I'm not interested in participating. As new vulnerabilities are found every day, I'd expect those rewards to be ongoing, so they would look more like royalties, I'll need to be paid as long as you are using the software. Further I'll need to be able to invalidate that license when I no longer wish to carry the risk. I think under those conditions most firms would prefer to own the risk themselves.
- IncRnd 5y agoThose conditions aren't realistic for an employee, since anyone working for someone else who feels that way is bound to be extremely frustrated. The point that you missed, however, is that an employee should not accept the risk but should transfer the risk by notifying the employer. Otherwise, articles such as this are fodder for putting the blame of exploited vulnerabilities squarely on employees who knew of the risk and, according to some of the comments here, plotted not to tell their employers.