3 ms·
The same goes for Banks, a.o. Dutch banks. They are a bit more picky though. Domestic and US is fine, Russian and Chinese is not.
by smooc 5y ago
The same goes for Banks, a.o. Dutch banks. They are a bit more picky though. Domestic and US is fine, Russian and Chinese is not.
- sjaak 5y agoProof?
- misja111 5y agoThis is nonsense. Source: I have been working in the cyber security department of a major Dutch bank.
- isoprophlex 5y agoDoesn't an admission that you work for the cybersecurity of a Dutch bank immediately discount any claims you make? If you're responsible for their cyber security, I guess you have a stake in projecting the idea that everything is fine. Either way you can't prove anything with a one line comment like this. The only winning move is not to play... (Or ask for sources. Of course the assertion by smooc is equally devoid of proof; I'm commenting because this chain amuses me)
- ziddoap 5y agoThis is one of those interesting lines of argument where you position yourself so that you can't possibly be proven wrong. No one can prove you wrong when you claim that anyone with knowledge from the other side should be immediately discredited. You mention sources, but if you discredit the first-party source out of the gate, what sources are even left? Documents from the bank created by the people you discredit? (I take no position either way, I'm just commenting because your comment amuses me.)
- misja111 5y agoI have been working there. I don't work there anymore. But I doubt that whatever I say could change your opinion, you seem to have your mind already made up.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoIf US Gov espionage were discovered, would customers be notified - including ID'ng US Gov as the infiltrator? If not, wouldn't that show deference to US Gov's interests (even indirectly)?