What am I missing here? This article talks a lot about other "Chief information security officer"'s (or similar) being worried about what this means for them b

What am I missing here? This article talks a lot about other "Chief information security officer"'s (or similar) being worried about what this means for them but it's not like Uber got ransomware'd and now this guy is in hot water. It's also not like this is a low-level engineer. This is a C-level exec who paid off the hackers and swept the whole incident (leaking of ~600,000 driver's personal data and some data on the 57M customers) under the rug. > Prosecutors have accused Mr. Sullivan of obstructing justice and concealing a felony for not disclosing the breach or revealing it to the F.T.C. He isn't being prosecuted for the hack but rather for his response to it. These CISO's who commented about him being scapegoated seem off their rockers. I have no doubt that this gross practice of hiding hacks and not altering affected people is somewhat common, that doesn't make it ok/right. For myself, I'm happy to see CISO actually sweat this stuff instead of knowing they can do a piss-poor job and walk away without consequences. That's what they get paid for, that's what the title is for, that's their freaking job. And again, I cannot stress this enough, based on this a CISO should only be worried if they get hacked and then try to cover it up.