4 ms·
You really don't want to do that. We use one of those services, too, and you have to use a very light touch. Just using them at all makes people paranoid. If t
by _jal 5y ago
You really don't want to do that.
We use one of those services, too, and you have to use a very light touch. Just using them at all makes people paranoid. If there are people you find who pose a risk, yes, you should do something about that, but terrorizing your workforce is a terrible idea for multiple reasons.
> putting their own employment at risk
Even looking at it amorally, that only really works in declining industries where people don't have a choice. Do that to engineers in a hot economy, and I suspect you'll be employing only the otherwise-unemployable soon.
- imroot 5y agoAbout two years ago, where I worked really amplified up their phisting testing, and after the first batch when SO MANY PEOPLE failed (I heard the number was around 60%), they pushed out a new HR policy that included a suspension/termination for repeated offenders. Less than 3 months later, HR was begging people to click the link in their email to set up their benefits for the year, because they had a 0% click-through rate.
- RF_Savage 5y agoNow thats some successful anti-phishing training.
- ReactiveJelly 5y agoPerfect! Hang up, look up, call back.