4 ms·
Gosh - I've worked at shops where we handled multi-terabyte images and we'd regularly stream large chunks of that while debugging tools. I've also worked at pl
by munk-a 5y ago
Gosh - I've worked at shops where we handled multi-terabyte images and we'd regularly stream large chunks of that while debugging tools. I've also worked at places where data was king and 125GB of stuff might be a reasonable dispatch of data to help someone debug.
The volume of data is irrelevant - source code is usually teensy tiny and of far more value to companies than, say, three months of livestream chat logs.
I'm not certain what security hardware you're thinking of - but I'm pretty sure I hate it already since it doesn't effectively guard anything while making everyone's lives difficult. For effective corporate security you need 1) data use policies and 2) access control lists - both of those are generally more effectively implemented at an entirely software level.
- retbull 5y agoYeah volume is a terrible metric to go by. I work as a data engineer and a lot of the time if I am working between environments or when migrating between data centers will have a copy of the data locally that I can write tests against or move to somewhere I can compare it to a running output. This would be possible to do entirely remotely I guess but not nearly as easy. (note I never do this with anything that contains PII)
- manquer 5y agoIt is still fraught with problems, while you (knowingly) wouldn't do it with PII, is not all that reassuring, others could, or compromised system could be used to exfiltrate this data, if the only control is just trust on the users behaving well with their access That fact in general industry the controls on how PII data is accessed internally is so lightly managed should worry everyone