3 ms·
> But the complaint that teams that put barriers in front of other teams are always bad is insufficient at best and downright dangerous at worst. Nobody made t
by strix_varius 4y ago
> But the complaint that teams that put barriers in front of other teams are always bad is insufficient at best and downright dangerous at worst.
Nobody made that complaint.
Please don't misrepresent my statement, which was specifically, "to justify your own existence, you have to put blockers in front of people who are actually trying to build things."
Good security teams build & they help others build as well. They build secure-by-default platforms, secure common libraries, and guidelines for others to follow with confidence. Working with a good security team means you're confident your product will get to market faster because, at launch time, you know you'll be green-lit since you followed the org's security best practices.
That kind of team doesn't have to invent blockers in order to justify its own existence.
- neon_electro 4y agoYou should edit your statement to include the word "invent" - that goes a long way towards describing the blockers you talk about as invalid, made up, not relevant to real business constraints, etc. Definitely helps you make your point.
- joshuamorton 4y agoSo then the followup question is, based on what do you make the claim that the team under discussion didn't build anything? You admit that teams in this space can and do often build tools to make things secure by default or private by default, so why couldn't this team be involved inbuilding "responsible" by default? Your argument here is basically that you believe security and privacy "blockers" are inherently of value, so a team enforcing them isn't 'inventing' blocks, but other teams are.