6 ms·

> A company I worked for had a few people at each site that had a kill switch ... Other than an admission of doing something shady, what else could this be?

by pif 3y ago

wolf550e 3y ago
Protection from corporate espionage
hef19898 3y ago
A court order, and all the necessary data will be provided anyway. That, and the company in question all of a sudden looks very guilty. As MorganStanley (?) showed us, in these cases absence of documents is considered to be proof the accusations of illegal behavior are true.
- avidiax 3y ago
  Yes, the company would comply with discovery, but it operated in hundreds of jurisdictions, and sometimes those jurisdictions think that kicking in doors and telling the interns that they'll go to prison if they don't give their passwords is easier. This is especially true if this authority intends to use the fishing expedition to build the case in the first place.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    That those jurisdictions are none of the big economies (US, Canada, UK, EU, Japan...). And in most of the others... Well, first I have no idea how anti-trust works there. Second, rules are totally different. Still, hiding evidence from authorities is a sure way to get you int trouble, as a company and as an employee. Every compliance training I had, covering everything from consumer goods to defense, told you to fully comply with authorities in case of a search. Call legal and site security, stay with the people conducting the search, but fully comply and NEVER try to hide stuff or hinder them in any way, shape or form. That's what legal councils are there for. And courts.
    - avidiax 3y ago
      > Call legal and site security Precisely the people that have IT on speed dial to cut off site access, deactivate accounts and badges.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        And if those people are wise, they won't do any of that is police and prosecutors are doing the search. The point is to have witnesses of the search present, e.g. to later challenge it in court. You never, ever interfere with a search of premises by police. What can happen if you do, well, look no further than Mar-a-Lago. because all you do is adding charges of obstruction. But hey, if you think that you know better than legal departments of some of the biggest, and most scrutinized, companies in the western world, sure, go ahead.
Bancakes 3y ago
The expectation of privacy is universal. Why would you go through someone’s data?
- hef19898 3y ago
  It is universal, but not absolute.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
Network, data-store and console kill switches aren't necessarily designed to impede lawful investigations. Anything that involves physical coercion might need to lock-down all terminals in a hurry. Acting against a legal seizure is probably not on their minds but larger orgs may have a fast response security team that can step in if: 1) An intruder enters the building, maybe armed, and tries to coerce an individual to do something on a console. 2) An insider threat is discovered and you need to hold the room for questioning without letting someone slip out the back and delete all the evidence.

> A company I worked for had a few people at each site that had a kill switch ... Other than an admission of doing something shady, what else could this be?

by pif 3y ago

> A company I worked for had a few people at each site that had a kill switch ... Other than an admission of doing something shady, what else could this be?

wolf550e 3y ago

Protection from corporate espionage

hef19898 3y ago

A court order, and all the necessary data will be provided anyway. That, and the company in question all of a sudden looks very guilty. As MorganStanley (?) showed us, in these cases absence of documents is considered to be proof the accusations of illegal behavior are true.

avidiax 3y ago
Yes, the company would comply with discovery, but it operated in hundreds of jurisdictions, and sometimes those jurisdictions think that kicking in doors and telling the interns that they'll go to prison if they don't give their passwords is easier. This is especially true if this authority intends to use the fishing expedition to build the case in the first place.
- hef19898 3y ago
  That those jurisdictions are none of the big economies (US, Canada, UK, EU, Japan...). And in most of the others... Well, first I have no idea how anti-trust works there. Second, rules are totally different. Still, hiding evidence from authorities is a sure way to get you int trouble, as a company and as an employee. Every compliance training I had, covering everything from consumer goods to defense, told you to fully comply with authorities in case of a search. Call legal and site security, stay with the people conducting the search, but fully comply and NEVER try to hide stuff or hinder them in any way, shape or form. That's what legal councils are there for. And courts.
  - avidiax 3y ago
    > Call legal and site security Precisely the people that have IT on speed dial to cut off site access, deactivate accounts and badges.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      And if those people are wise, they won't do any of that is police and prosecutors are doing the search. The point is to have witnesses of the search present, e.g. to later challenge it in court. You never, ever interfere with a search of premises by police. What can happen if you do, well, look no further than Mar-a-Lago. because all you do is adding charges of obstruction. But hey, if you think that you know better than legal departments of some of the biggest, and most scrutinized, companies in the western world, sure, go ahead.

Bancakes 3y ago

The expectation of privacy is universal. Why would you go through someone’s data?

hef19898 3y ago
It is universal, but not absolute.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

Network, data-store and console kill switches aren't necessarily designed to impede lawful investigations. Anything that involves physical coercion might need to lock-down all terminals in a hurry. Acting against a legal seizure is probably not on their minds but larger orgs may have a fast response security team that can step in if: 1) An intruder enters the building, maybe armed, and tries to coerce an individual to do something on a console. 2) An insider threat is discovered and you need to hold the room for questioning without letting someone slip out the back and delete all the evidence.