4 ms·

Yes, access controls are critically important for many companies in many domains. My employer operates under such operating procedures. It seems reasonable tha

by bmj 4y ago

Yes, access controls are critically important for many companies in many domains. My employer operates under such operating procedures. It seems reasonable that if your software collects and stores user information, employee access to all systems should be tightly controlled, and "turned off" if an employee is fired, laid off, or quits.

fzeroracer 4y ago
This is a great way to quickly lose critical information from your engineers. The few companies that do follow what you recommend end up scrambling when a key infrastructure engineer leaves, they immediately cut access and realize that he was the only one who knew how to work certain parts of the system. If you're the kind of company that conducts exit inteviews (which are the majority of large tech organizations) then you're no longer going to get any valuable info out of them by burning bridges like this.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  You're misunderstanding the difference between a voluntary exit and a firing. This is not standard procedure for a voluntary exit at most companies. The employee puts in their two weeks, works the time, and exits. The assumption is good faith on both ends, because the employee has chosen to leave. It absolutely is the standard procedure for GETTING FIRED. The other standard part of getting fired is that the company has already decided they no longer need your skills or expertise (excluding twitter's situation, where they decided poorly - according to the news). If you're laying off 100 people - the odds that any one of them might do something silly is very low. But that chance * 100 is usually considered an unacceptable risk from a security standpoint. Multiply it by several thousand, and it's absolutely not ok to leave the keys to the kingdom with that many fired employees. All it takes is one drunk employee holding a grudge and you get a really nasty mess on your hands. Not to mention legal hot water.

by bmj 4y ago

fzeroracer 4y ago

This is a great way to quickly lose critical information from your engineers. The few companies that do follow what you recommend end up scrambling when a key infrastructure engineer leaves, they immediately cut access and realize that he was the only one who knew how to work certain parts of the system. If you're the kind of company that conducts exit inteviews (which are the majority of large tech organizations) then you're no longer going to get any valuable info out of them by burning bridges like this.

horsawlarway 4y ago
You're misunderstanding the difference between a voluntary exit and a firing. This is not standard procedure for a voluntary exit at most companies. The employee puts in their two weeks, works the time, and exits. The assumption is good faith on both ends, because the employee has chosen to leave. It absolutely is the standard procedure for GETTING FIRED. The other standard part of getting fired is that the company has already decided they no longer need your skills or expertise (excluding twitter's situation, where they decided poorly - according to the news). If you're laying off 100 people - the odds that any one of them might do something silly is very low. But that chance * 100 is usually considered an unacceptable risk from a security standpoint. Multiply it by several thousand, and it's absolutely not ok to leave the keys to the kingdom with that many fired employees. All it takes is one drunk employee holding a grudge and you get a really nasty mess on your hands. Not to mention legal hot water.