5 ms·

Not communicating clearly and pretending like dumb blog posts like this are an answer are both major red flags. I don't understand the thought process behind s

Not communicating clearly and pretending like dumb blog posts like this are an answer are both major red flags. I don't understand the thought process behind such legal-ese talk. Do they think we are dumb and can't see through it? Putting this sort of stuff up is just saying "we don't care about you in reality but here is a post saying we do".

kup0 5y ago
I think one thing that really got to me is that the post is by the VP of Engineering, which for some reason gave me an expectation of a detailed explanation of the problem, only to find none The post sounds like it was actually written by either legal or marketing instead
- redis_mlc 5y ago
- thrwaway9871 5y ago
  So much this. Don't use any online password managers but with this response lastpass became godaddy for passwords in my book.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  And when the VP of Engineering writes > some of these security alerts...were likely triggered in error one can conclude that they do not know that any of the alerts were triggered in error (else he would have said as much). Some of the VP's statements were likely triggered by the legal department, though I don't know that any actually were. It doesn't exactly shed light on anything.
  - LevGoldstein 5y ago
    Or more likely, there were probably some legitimate alerts that would have gone out at the same time as per normal operations, and they do not want to conflate these with the ones sent in error.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - nescioquid 5y ago
      None, some, all; always, sometimes, never. > some of these security alerts...were likely triggered in error Our VP made no statement about the totality. Draw what conclusions you may from the equivocal register of this public-relations statement, but he is relegating his statement to those alerts which, by his own words, he cannot say to a certainty whether or not they were triggered in error. I presume that this statement is calculated to exclude all those alerts that they can know were legitimate. If you want to expand the scope of the statement, then the only implication would be that they cannot discern the legitimate from the illegitimate alerts. The only purpose of my comment was to draw attention to the apparent equivocation, that is, the art of misleading without lying. If they can't tell right from wrong (alerts), so much the more damning.
- klyrs 5y ago
  If I were to guess, anything written by the VP of Engineering would be heavily edited by legal and marketing until the result was indistinguishable. Source: I work for a company that doesn't let anything go out without approval of Legal, Marketing, and a few other nebulous 'stakeholders'
- peakaboo 5y ago
  Some (bad) companies have a VP of Engineering that has no clue about technology and with a background in another field. But come on, Lastpass has been on a downwards slope for a very long time. They can't even make their main product as good as Bitwarden which is free.

kup0 5y ago

I think one thing that really got to me is that the post is by the VP of Engineering, which for some reason gave me an expectation of a detailed explanation of the problem, only to find none The post sounds like it was actually written by either legal or marketing instead

redis_mlc 5y ago
thrwaway9871 5y ago
So much this. Don't use any online password managers but with this response lastpass became godaddy for passwords in my book.
nescioquid 5y ago
And when the VP of Engineering writes > some of these security alerts...were likely triggered in error one can conclude that they do not know that any of the alerts were triggered in error (else he would have said as much). Some of the VP's statements were likely triggered by the legal department, though I don't know that any actually were. It doesn't exactly shed light on anything.
- LevGoldstein 5y ago
  Or more likely, there were probably some legitimate alerts that would have gone out at the same time as per normal operations, and they do not want to conflate these with the ones sent in error.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nescioquid 5y ago
    None, some, all; always, sometimes, never. > some of these security alerts...were likely triggered in error Our VP made no statement about the totality. Draw what conclusions you may from the equivocal register of this public-relations statement, but he is relegating his statement to those alerts which, by his own words, he cannot say to a certainty whether or not they were triggered in error. I presume that this statement is calculated to exclude all those alerts that they can know were legitimate. If you want to expand the scope of the statement, then the only implication would be that they cannot discern the legitimate from the illegitimate alerts. The only purpose of my comment was to draw attention to the apparent equivocation, that is, the art of misleading without lying. If they can't tell right from wrong (alerts), so much the more damning.
klyrs 5y ago
If I were to guess, anything written by the VP of Engineering would be heavily edited by legal and marketing until the result was indistinguishable. Source: I work for a company that doesn't let anything go out without approval of Legal, Marketing, and a few other nebulous 'stakeholders'
peakaboo 5y ago
Some (bad) companies have a VP of Engineering that has no clue about technology and with a background in another field. But come on, Lastpass has been on a downwards slope for a very long time. They can't even make their main product as good as Bitwarden which is free.