3 ms·
It's a pretty egregious failure for the org because it controlled the conditions for it to happen. The security guy is just the patsy because he actioned it.
by ljm 7mo ago
It's a pretty egregious failure for the org because it controlled the conditions for it to happen.
The security guy is just the patsy because he actioned it.
They have obviously done this a million times before and now they got burned.
- sonofhans 7mo agoYes, this. That same engineer shouldn’t have a pocket nuclear trigger shaped just like their key fob, either. Humans are predictable.
- throwaway894345 7mo agoAren’t staff part of engineering leadership?
- wmichelin 7mo agoAt my job, I would just say they are in the ear of engineering leadership, but are not part of it.
- throwaway894345 7mo agoThat makes sense. I guess I usually think of developing policies for this kind of thing to be pretty much what staff would do. I don’t usually expect the CTO to make decisions about how to do testing. To the extent the engineering leadership are to blame, it’s that they were the ones who hired/retained this guy. The buck ultimately stops with them to be sure, but making these kinds of policies seems within the remit of a staff eng.