3 ms·
It’s an argument that hits home at any bigcorp where the execs are entertaining the thought of suing CrowdStrike. Making it public once is a lot more effective
by wjnc 2y ago
It’s an argument that hits home at any bigcorp where the execs are entertaining the thought of suing CrowdStrike. Making it public once is a lot more effective than relaying it privately a hundred times. I expect most liability to come from abroad, where parts of the contract might be annulled because not in line with local law. But still I don’t expect it. CrowdStrike delivered the service they promised. The rest is on the customers IT. Hand over the keys and your car may be driven.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> It’s an argument that hits home at any bigcorp where the execs are entertaining the thought of suing CrowdStrike Maybe? Discovery is a core element of any lawsuit. It’s also a protected process: you can’t troll through confidential stuff with an intent to make it public to damage the litigant. If anything, I could see Delta pointing to this statement to restrict what CrowdStrike accesses and how [1]. (As well as with the judge when debating what gets redacted or sealed.) [1] https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/ConfidentialDisc.pdf https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/ConfidentialDis...
- wjnc 2y agoThank you. Nice read. Even given a protective order to keep discovery confidential, the ensuing discussion about the clients lacking IT-policies that exacerbated this crisis is public. Most entertaining would be the discussion where CrowdStrike would argue that based on common IT-risk criteria, you should never hand over the keys to an unaudited party not practicing common IT-risk best practices and (thus) the liability is on the organization. Talk about CrowdStrike managing risks worldwide. They are doing it right now!