Miscellaneous Tech News
-
@momurda said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Look at these corporate crime apoplogists. Seriously, corps need to be smacked down regularly. Even small ones. Companies being forcibly shut down for malfeasance should be a regular thing.
Wow, you're calling me a corporate crime apologist?
-
@kelly said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@momurda said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Look at these corporate crime apoplogists. Seriously, corps need to be smacked down regularly. Even small ones. Companies being forcibly shut down for malfeasance should be a regular thing.
Wow, you're calling me a corporate crime apologist?
Yeah, umm just what the fuck?
Then again from some of his other posts I should not be surprised.
-
@obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@kelly said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@kelly said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
think if there is a case for negligence on the part of the employer it would be appropriate, but it sounds like (from the blog post) that the court is punishing the company for the stupidity of one employee.
Who else would it be? "A company" is made of people. When a mistake happens, it's always the fault of a person or persons.
Where do you draw the line of accountability? If PII is released to the general public by "a company", yes they should be liable no matter how many employees took part in it.
Ignorance is not an excuse... and rarely is.
The court decision is not punishing the ignorant person. They're punishing the entire company. This seems to me to be a ridiculous level of collective responsibility. Again, if the company was negligent in their responsibility to train and safeguard the information then I can see there being a case, but if the employee did something against training and policy then you end up in a very difficult place for employers.
That's the responsibility employers take when they hire people. The employees make up the company, so the company is responsible for the employees actions regarding "company data". That it was an individuals action makes no difference that company data was misused (PII).
That is a bunch of bullshit. Let us assume that the company had policy and procedure in place as specified in the discussion point by @Kelly.
How should the company be held liable for a rogue employee? Malicious or not.
Use logic and give me facts.
The company did everything they were supposed to do.
-
@obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@kelly said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@kelly said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
think if there is a case for negligence on the part of the employer it would be appropriate, but it sounds like (from the blog post) that the court is punishing the company for the stupidity of one employee.
Who else would it be? "A company" is made of people. When a mistake happens, it's always the fault of a person or persons.
Where do you draw the line of accountability? If PII is released to the general public by "a company", yes they should be liable no matter how many employees took part in it.
Ignorance is not an excuse... and rarely is.
The court decision is not punishing the ignorant person. They're punishing the entire company. This seems to me to be a ridiculous level of collective responsibility. Again, if the company was negligent in their responsibility to train and safeguard the information then I can see there being a case, but if the employee did something against training and policy then you end up in a very difficult place for employers.
That's the responsibility employers take when they hire people. The employees make up the company, so the company is responsible for the employees actions regarding "company data". That it was an individuals action makes no difference that company data was misused (PII).
I'm not stating that there shouldn't be consequences and that the company needs to actually do something about what happened, but how is a company to avoid being shut down by the failure of an employee to do their job (again, I'm making an assumption that there were policies and training that were violated)? To make it more personal, think about the impact for you if the accountant at your company did this, a group of employees sued the company for punitive damages, and the company cut jobs and you lost yours. How can a company avoid this? Hiring better isn't the answer since intelligent, aware people get caught by this when they're stressed or in a hurry.
-
@jaredbusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@kelly said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@kelly said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
think if there is a case for negligence on the part of the employer it would be appropriate, but it sounds like (from the blog post) that the court is punishing the company for the stupidity of one employee.
Who else would it be? "A company" is made of people. When a mistake happens, it's always the fault of a person or persons.
Where do you draw the line of accountability? If PII is released to the general public by "a company", yes they should be liable no matter how many employees took part in it.
Ignorance is not an excuse... and rarely is.
The court decision is not punishing the ignorant person. They're punishing the entire company. This seems to me to be a ridiculous level of collective responsibility. Again, if the company was negligent in their responsibility to train and safeguard the information then I can see there being a case, but if the employee did something against training and policy then you end up in a very difficult place for employers.
That's the responsibility employers take when they hire people. The employees make up the company, so the company is responsible for the employees actions regarding "company data". That it was an individuals action makes no difference that company data was misused (PII).
That is a bunch of bullshit. Let us assume that the company had policy and procedure in place as specified in the discussion point by @Kelly.
How should the company be held liable for a rogue employee? Malicious or not.
Use logic and give me facts.
The company did everything they were supposed to do.
It is a FACT, that employees can not be sued due to negligence.
Another fact, employees can be sued, if they act fraudulently or commit acts of intentional wrongdoing (malicious intent) beyond the scope of their authority... but this was not the case.
-
Exactis - Another gigantic leak of data.
-
@wrx7m said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Exactis - Another gigantic leak of data.
And this is why the Red Shell "analytics" software is not a good idea even if they will only use it for benign purposes.
-
-
Agentless Linux vulnerability scanner looks interesting: https://n0where.net/linux-vulnerability-scanner-vuls.
-
Gentoo code on Github has "been totally pwned": https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/06/29/linux-distro-hacked-on-github-all-code-considered-compromised/.
-
@kelly said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Gentoo code on Github has "been totally pwned": https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/06/29/linux-distro-hacked-on-github-all-code-considered-compromised/.
Someone wasn't using 2FA...
-
@kelly said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Gentoo code on Github has "been totally pwned": https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/06/29/linux-distro-hacked-on-github-all-code-considered-compromised/.
Wow, oh wow. I know there are die-hard Gentoo people out there. I was never one of them.
-
Linux Mint 19 "Tara" Released
Cinnamon
https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3597 -
@black3dynamite Downloaded from UW in less than 1 min. Installing now as a vm
-
@kelly said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Agentless Linux vulnerability scanner looks interesting: https://n0where.net/linux-vulnerability-scanner-vuls.
I'm going to have to look at this. Agentless would be much more convenient than Wazuh.
-
PowerPoint for Mac version 16.14.1 has weird issues with objects, where items such as a dotted line will get blown up and printed massively or images will print blurrily.
The resolution as of now is to downgrade to 16.13.1 which is from May.
-
@travisdh1 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@kelly said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Agentless Linux vulnerability scanner looks interesting: https://n0where.net/linux-vulnerability-scanner-vuls.
I'm going to have to look at this. Agentless would be much more convenient than Wazuh.
ssl failure. . . . means I'm not going there.
-
@dustinb3403 Cert expired 0.5 hours ago
-
@momurda said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@dustinb3403 Cert expired 0.5 hours ago
Still unacceptable.
-
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2018/07/google-linux-foundation-platinum-member
“Open source is an essential part of Google’s culture…”
It would be nice to have a native google backup and sync app for Linux.
