61–63 of 63 posts
Every time I read articles like these, I get dissapointed about the state of the internet. The only thing you know that is likely to be true is that someone got fired from Amazon, and thats it. You don't know if they are telling the truth. You don't know if they were in the right. You don't know if Amazon was fixing the problem, and they decided to be an asshole and go over their bosses because they felt that not eno…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What reasons are there to give Amazon benefit of doubt?
What reasons are there to believe that someone who‘s in the middle of a lawsuit with their former employer will tell the truth? For what I know this „leak“ might be part of their strategy to win the lawsuit.
The lawsuit is literally about how Amazon's infosec employees have been fired in retaliation after repeatedly alerting leadership to vulnerabilities.
Also keep in mind that Amazon's spokespersons stated that the allegations were inaccurate and dated, not wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So 3 employees involved with security and not 1 employee. Also, they were pushed out AFTER alerting about security issues. How much credibility do you put in such testimonies though? Especially if everyone is a "anonymous source", you can basically invent just about anything and publish it and pretend for it to be a genuine article without any fact under the hood.
How much credibility do you put in Amazon's?
A corporation is composed of people who are paid to do a specific job, with an interest in keeping said job by making decisions and doing tasks towards a central goal, a corporation generally behaves vastly more rationally for any given scenario. Furthermore, the particular structure of the corporation which determines the actions directly affects the corporation survival, where historically poorly structured corporations that end up with scandals tend to last a very short time.
So with Amazon, considering it has survived for quite some time, and additionally with all the optics it has on it from any political entity or person trying to score popular points by being "anti-big-corporation", Id argue that this decision to fire was likely made after much collaboration with higher level execs and legal involved, well understanding what the consequences would be, including attention at reviewing their privacy compliance.