3 ms·
You’re missing the point. It’s not to show that the brand is more important than user data, it’s to show that security events are multifaceted. You want employe
by ryanSrich 4y ago
You’re missing the point. It’s not to show that the brand is more important than user data, it’s to show that security events are multifaceted. You want employees to avoid making mistakes that lead to security events. Showing all the ways those events can fuck things up is the point.
- adrianN 4y agoWell, all problems are multifaceted. If I had to take trainings about how not to spill toxic waste in local rivers, I would not find it appropriate to mention damage to the brand either even though the brand certainly would suffer from such an event.
- iamben 4y agoI think inherently we're all pretty selfish (for better or worse). I'd guess that saying "we can see the from the past that the brand is damaged enough to cause XX% layoffs/go under" - as in an implicit 'this kind of thing will have real life consequences to your job' - probably has more impact than saying "there are real world consequences to people you have and are never likely to meet". Not saying it's right, but it's probably true.