> If you want to keep something safe the real question isn't if your employee wants to abuse you, but if he can. This assumes that 100% safeguarding is someth

> If you want to keep something safe the real question isn't if your employee wants to abuse you, but if he can. This assumes that 100% safeguarding is something that you are 100% capable of doing. If Google had that, they may not even need security guards (hyperbole). > Consider Snowden In the case of Snowden, we know that he attempted to raise the issue internally. Many argue that Snowden actually did serve his drive and oath comparatively to Manning. Drive goes into these aspects that inspire people. It suggests that autonomy and purpose matter much more than pay - and Google having greater control over this could certainly help control.