3 ms·

Likely the company in question does not want to share what their internal proprietary data that was leaked was. Either way, that, along with the brags from the

by dekhn 2y ago

Likely the company in question does not want to share what their internal proprietary data that was leaked was. Either way, that, along with the brags from the ex-employee about still having access to the company's machines after termination, speaks to his character. It seems pretty clear, taking all the evidence into account, that it was unwise to give him a high level of access to government data.

like_any_other 2y ago
> Likely the company in question does not want to share what their internal proprietary data that was leaked was. If they want us to use it to evaluate his character, some hint would be needed. Was it a legitimate trade secret, or was it trivial and only an excuse to fire him. Companies claiming everything under the sun is a "trade secret" is nothing new - Microsoft famously claimed their extensions to Kerberos were a trade secret, despite releasing their spec to everyone, guarded only by a clickthrough license: https://slashdot.org/story/00/05/02/158204/kerberos-pacs-and-microsofts-dirty-tricks https://slashdot.org/story/00/05/02/158204/kerberos-pacs-and... But if they say what we like to hear, corporations turn into saints incapable of even slightly bending the truth. > Either way, that, along with the brags from the ex-employee about still having access to the company's machines after termination, speaks to his character. They neglected to change passwords, and yet "I never exploited it because it's just not me." were his words. Yeah, what vile character.
- relaxing 2y ago
  How would he know the passwords weren’t changed.
- dekhn 2y ago
  The magnitude of the secret does not matter: if your company says "don't steal and leak our data" and you go ahead and do it, it's still wrong (the main exception I can think of is ethical whistleblowing). Again, bragging you have access after being terminated is bad regardless of whether you exploited the access. To me these are the sort of details that could prevent you from passing a security clearance process, although I am not highly knowledgeable about the process beyond talking to people who have (and they weren't forthcoming).
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    > The magnitude of the secret does not matter: if your company says "don't steal and leak our data" and you go ahead and do it, it's still wrong I don't share your reverence for corporate secrets. To you, the exceptions are the secrets it is ok to share. To me, the exceptions are the secrets it is ok for corporations to keep. And corporations have certainly not earned the benefit of the doubt that I would assume, despite their willful silence, that these were legitimate.
    - dekhn 2y ago
      you're entitled to your opinion, but it is not one shared by the normal parts of the government (which supports corporate IP). I think you have a larger issue that is independent of whether this individual is qualified for the role they most recently occupied.
      - like_any_other 2y ago
        Don't I know it. It's why trade secrets are protected by law, while smart TVs spying on users, with or without revealing it somewhere deep in their EULA, does not get even a slap on the wrist. And why the government bullies other countries into adopting restrictive, maximalist IP laws, but is wholly unbothered by consumer rights getting trampled by DRM and EULAs, or ridiculous patents getting granted. We're racing to a corporate dystopia, and this is the reason why.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  That the alleged leak was to a competitor rather than the public is a bit of a giveaway.

by dekhn 2y ago

like_any_other 2y ago

> Likely the company in question does not want to share what their internal proprietary data that was leaked was. If they want us to use it to evaluate his character, some hint would be needed. Was it a legitimate trade secret, or was it trivial and only an excuse to fire him. Companies claiming everything under the sun is a "trade secret" is nothing new - Microsoft famously claimed their extensions to Kerberos were a trade secret, despite releasing their spec to everyone, guarded only by a clickthrough license: https://slashdot.org/story/00/05/02/158204/kerberos-pacs-and-microsofts-dirty-tricks https://slashdot.org/story/00/05/02/158204/kerberos-pacs-and... But if they say what we like to hear, corporations turn into saints incapable of even slightly bending the truth. > Either way, that, along with the brags from the ex-employee about still having access to the company's machines after termination, speaks to his character. They neglected to change passwords, and yet "I never exploited it because it's just not me." were his words. Yeah, what vile character.

relaxing 2y ago
How would he know the passwords weren’t changed.
dekhn 2y ago
The magnitude of the secret does not matter: if your company says "don't steal and leak our data" and you go ahead and do it, it's still wrong (the main exception I can think of is ethical whistleblowing). Again, bragging you have access after being terminated is bad regardless of whether you exploited the access. To me these are the sort of details that could prevent you from passing a security clearance process, although I am not highly knowledgeable about the process beyond talking to people who have (and they weren't forthcoming).
- like_any_other 2y ago
  > The magnitude of the secret does not matter: if your company says "don't steal and leak our data" and you go ahead and do it, it's still wrong I don't share your reverence for corporate secrets. To you, the exceptions are the secrets it is ok to share. To me, the exceptions are the secrets it is ok for corporations to keep. And corporations have certainly not earned the benefit of the doubt that I would assume, despite their willful silence, that these were legitimate.
  - dekhn 2y ago
    you're entitled to your opinion, but it is not one shared by the normal parts of the government (which supports corporate IP). I think you have a larger issue that is independent of whether this individual is qualified for the role they most recently occupied.
    - like_any_other 2y ago
      Don't I know it. It's why trade secrets are protected by law, while smart TVs spying on users, with or without revealing it somewhere deep in their EULA, does not get even a slap on the wrist. And why the government bullies other countries into adopting restrictive, maximalist IP laws, but is wholly unbothered by consumer rights getting trampled by DRM and EULAs, or ridiculous patents getting granted. We're racing to a corporate dystopia, and this is the reason why.
anigbrowl 2y ago
That the alleged leak was to a competitor rather than the public is a bit of a giveaway.