261–270 of 463 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
That was not AT ALL what was implied and you know it. I too am shocked at the level of federal access that was afforded to these non-Americans that clearly also hold a disdain for the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> just please don't make me come in to the office. But how do you pick up the stuff from your desk? I once lost a nice pair of headphones this way.
Meh. Don't leave anything at work. Forgo the convenience and carry your things on your commute. Use a bag. If there's "too much stuff", that's a sign to pare back what you "need" at work.
Many humans like to decorate their desks, keep personal stuff there. It's normal.
No, employees that can wipe 96 databases are a security risk, even when they're employed. But of course it's easier to go the inhumane route of cutting everything off at employment end rather than fix it properly
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at it from Europe, this definitely also happens. It depends on the situation. I know of ppl who were kept bcs the parting was in good faith (which was less a firing and more an agreement that parting is in everyone's interest), but I also know of ppl who had their access revoked before firing bcs it wasn't. The latter had unilateral system access as well, which added to it. It's not about humane or inhumane,…
> It's part of the reason why Europe is falling behind on everything. I read a news article that Orange Telecom in France was being sued by a woman they had on payroll for the last 20 years doing nothing, because due to a medical condition she suffered, she became unable to do her job, and since they couldn't fire her due to France unions and labor laws, nor did they have any available job that could fit her current…
They couldn't find anything for her to do? Hard to believe, but if there's a reason not to fire her then then pay her the money she's owed and stop demanding she show up. Making someone come in with no tasks assigned is fun for a week and quickly turns into punishment detail. Putting someone on punishment detail because you're not allowed to fire them is Bad.
Unless she was allowed to stay home, in which case I take most of that back and it falls on her to go outside and find something to do. I can't find any articles with enough detail. But I'm still skeptical they actually couldn't find a job for her to do. It was 'just' paralysis on one side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't trust your people so much, why to hire them in a first place? Looking at it from Europe - it is such a weird inhumane practice. Someone decided your position is redundant. Okay, shit happens, economic downturn, etc. Then you have extra 3-6 months of work to pass your knowledge, train replacement and document everything.
Looking at it from Europe, this definitely also happens. It depends on the situation. I know of ppl who were kept bcs the parting was in good faith (which was less a firing and more an agreement that parting is in everyone's interest), but I also know of ppl who had their access revoked before firing bcs it wasn't. The latter had unilateral system access as well, which added to it. It's not about humane or inhumane,…
The increased growth in USA the last decade have largely been created by means that one day will be quite costly for you (debt).
The USA under MAGA is falling apart. EU and others are actively minimizing risk by selecting non-US IT providers. EU and others are actively selecting non-US defence aystems.
I say that it is very positive to protect your citizens. Russia (sending their citizens en masse to a certain death on the front lines) and USA have more in common politically than USA and EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Terminating access and rotating passwords (if needed) while the person is in the meeting but has not yet found out they are being let go has been SOP for at least the last 20 years
Amateurs. My employer does mass layoffs by terminating access to everything except their email account at 3am, and then sending an email to the victim saying “you were let go at 3am”. Managers get to figure out who’s left on their team by pinging everyone when they learn about it at work.
They even send the “you’re being fired” email to their personal email they have on file. Didn’t even schedule a meeting.
How did they get access to 5k passwords? Are they being sent/stored in cleartext? This is the most baffling part of the article for me. The second part I'm unclear about is how you could pass SOC2 when you aren't terminating account access simultaneously with the employment termination.
First of all, it is viral, and it is almost never adopted based on its own technical merit.
Second, it has lots of levels. The first level is “we wrote down a plan explaining how we’re going to secure stuff”.
The second level is when you start implementation or maybe tracking or something.
The key thing is that first level: When your SOC2 dept says you have to do something idiotic for SOC2 compliance, it is because someone at your company invented the idiocy, and should be fired. However, you still need to follow their dumb plan because that’s the process.
In this case, the “how do we fire people” process, and “how do we prevent one llm from dropping 96 prod DBs in a single session” very well could have had answers in the plan, the plan could have been implemented, and therefore the company is still soc2 compliant, and this is exactly what a working soc2 process is supposed to look like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how this leaks out the fact that the DHS is running production databases on operating systems that are months away from end of extended support. Windows Server has 5 years of mainstream support, 5 years of extended support, and then an extra 3 years paid Extended Security Updates (ESU) support. For 2012 and 2012 R2 that ends in October 2026. The three years of ESU exists only for organisations like government…
> The three years of ESU exists only for organisations like government departments that would rather pay Microsoft millions of dollars for patches than pay a competitive wage and hire competent IT staff that can complete upgrade projects on time. I'm not going to say the wages are fine but the issue is likely not to be the competence of the IT staff, but rather the overbearing IT management processes the U.S. Federal…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can understand wanting to be perceived as being on “the right team” but that comment is so silly that it undermines credibility. To put it otherwise, could you imagine a scenario where I had a labor, arbitrage opportunity that involved a higher paying job in Shanghai, China and that I had lived there for a few years to do that. Let’s also say that I was found guilty of some similar crime. Would you call me a good o…
It was a silly comment. It was meant to be. As opposed to...