3 ms·
If you see a diplomat as a passive subject then I do agree. It's in human behavior to bypass complex procedures just to get the task done. But if you can't exp
by kh_hk 12y ago
If you see a diplomat as a passive subject then I do agree. It's in human behavior to bypass complex procedures just to get the task done.
But if you can't expect an US diplomat to follow his country regulations and security requirements, maybe he is not qualified for the task.
- CHY872 12y agoI don't think that holds much water. Users obviously have some concern for security, but you can't expect them to care as much as the security people. Furthermore, that goodwill only gets you so far - they have their own jobs, which are unconnected to security. He's obviously far beyond what's acceptable, but if he finds doing his job difficult because of poor IT, it's exactly what you'd expect. If requirements are far too onerous, you expect people to work around them.
- kh_hk 12y agoI do agree in most of what's been said. Poor knowledge, an understaffed IT department and no support from Washington sounds like a recipe for disaster, even more if the guy just wanted to get his job done. Do note however that being a diplomat is hardly unconnected to security. I would root for anyone that goes against procedures because they know better.