Customer data security is our highest priori- ha ha ha whatever, suckers I would like it to be known that mine is bigger than yours. And yours is bigger than everyone else's. Only losers waste their time with small. We do big. The IT industry is notably keen on letting us know that everything they do is big, especially when it comes to data security breaches. Cyber-attacks on individuals are never …
Also, all scientific research is potentially going to lead to free energy or a cure for the common cold, and a design patent on rounded corners is as important as the invention of photography or the Diesel engine. We've turned into a culture in which everybody has to shout louder than anyone else to be heard, everything has to be exaggerated, and at the same time nobody must admit responsibility for anything. Or perhaps we were always like that and it took the Internet to tell us.
"Or perhaps we were always like that and it took the Internet to tell us."
There is phrase I once heard, during an course about agile, that your company product(s) will reflect your internal structure. So if there is no clear organisational structure, or infighting, it will show up in the usability and focus of your application.
In which case, the Internet is just one great big representation of humanity. A seething mess. :)
"Or perhaps we were always like that and it took the Internet to tell us."
Probably true. For example, historians have to spend a lot of effort weeding out exaggerations from historical sources. Pretty much part of the job description.
And then there are/were regimes where one-upmanship is part of the culture. Like late & lamented Soviet Union, where pretty much everything had to be bigger and better than in the "rotten capitalist wasteland". If it could not be achieved, it had to be at least spinned as such. Of course not everybody was a true believer. Political jokes like "Soviet microchips are largest in the world!" were quite abundant, despite the potential to get into serious trouble for telling them.
I remember some of that.
Had the honour to visit GDR in the summer of 1989. Was a 'last chance to see' moment as it turned out. Soviet Union was already crumbling, but Honecker regime seemed to be quite stable at the moment. Mere months later it imploded very quickly.
As for propaganda - it wasn't very different from the contemporary Soviet propaganda. So we ignored it. We were much more interested in the daily life, which was very nice and orderly compared to most of the USSR. Also did a lot of sightseeing trips around the countryside. Driving a Trabant.
Here's a nice collection of GDR propaganda examples translated to English:
research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/gdrmain.htm
I deeply believe consumerism is the root of nowadays explosion of selfishness. We are told for decades on newspapers, radio and TV that we should buy because 'having' will satisfy our ego:
we are worth it, we can indulge ourselves, we have the right, the duty to buy that thing that will make us happy for at least 4 secondes... , or speaking like Mr. Dabbs, we have to satisfy ourselves to reach the egotic orgasm, because pleasure is the most important thing in life, isn't it?
This message deeply influenced our culture: now selfishness is the norm, thinking bigger than oneself is being a communist punk, and Donald-not-the-duck Trump is going be President.
Woo-hoo.
"I deeply believe consumerism is the root of nowadays explosion of selfishness."
Allow me to disagree a little bit. Selfishness is deeply embedded into the human nature. People are usually (with exceptions of course) just as selfish as they can afford and get away with.
Several things have changed from the times of yore. Living standards have greatly improved, meaning there are more resources available, getting them does not need that much struggle, wit and cooperation as before. There are legal and economical frameworks to provide a safety net for the socially challenged - they too have rights, y'know. There is an army of workers to take care of our daily necessities, workers that seem to be always there to serve our whims, just like servants of old.
These changes mean that it has become much easier to live a selfish life. It's not a privilege of the rich anymore. Of course there is that cultural side you mentioned - that selfish life is actually encouraged throughout the society. But I wouldn't say that consumerism is the only root cause.
The UFO video isn't playing for me.
Anyway, if you're going to have SHADO IT, you are going to need SHADO Security. Which, if you recall, is where, in the event of a security breach or even a potential security breach, anyone not in the direct employ of the company is either killed or memory wiped.
I don't know why the video isn't playing - normally YouTube makes it clear when a video doesn't want to be embedded (rather than letting you embed it but not let you play it).
You can watch it here.
Check this out.
Not to mention the 1960ies... check this out. No, it's not Star Trek.
> check this out
Rodenberry must have watched this.
The rampant germanization of the universe by personnel previously manning Panzers, but now a bit more corpulent and starting to resemble bureaucrats sure has its charms! But why are they all the time talking in Combat Language?
Go Perry Rhodan etc.
Unfortunately, company law usually means that, as Dabbsy so rightly points out, making a profit is the highest priority. It has to be. It is the duty of the Directors to maximise returns for the shareholders, unless the company articles state otherwise. Of course they could argue that crap data security is likely to minimise the return for the shareholders in the long term as the company goes titsup, so spending money on secure IT now is actually improving future returns, but it's not such an obvious argument as saying 'outsource IT to N.Korea and we can increase the divi this year by 17.5%'
Given that T May is on the side of the common people against the vested interests and the elites (ROFL until sides split and innards pour out all over the carpet) perhaps we'll see some alterations in Company law that will actually make customer data protection a specific duty for directors.
You mean it isn't?
I don't think directors are personally liable, though there are plans to make them personally liable in the case, for example, where a company makes spam phone calls and then declares insolvency to avoid the ensuing fine.
Directors can be held personally liable in Health and Safety cases, but it's very difficult to make it stick.
A better plan would be to fine the shareholders - can't see that happening.
"Unfortunately, company law usually means that, as Dabbsy so rightly points out, making a profit is the highest priority"
I think I have traced this myth back to an 1888 Irish law suit in which the directors of a company were diverting money to things outside the scope of the company Articles.
There are numerous company laws, but the important one is that directors must not allow a company to trade while insolvent. This is not the same as making, or maximising, profit. Profit is a partly theoretical matter, and if it comes at the expense of cashflow, the company can go bust while profitable on paper. Companies like Twitter also demonstrate the error in the original statement; a company may decide not to make a profit for several reasons beyond being a not-for-profit corporation; these include improving cashflow, (BlackBerry did this for some time) long term investment, restructuring, and short term expansion.
Basically if the shareholders are happy and the company is not heading for short term insolvency, that's it.
The problem in the UK has always been short term thinking except in a few companies with strategies and vision like RR.
"The problem in the UK has always been short term thinking except in a few companies with strategies and vision like RR."
There's a case for banning quarterly statements. Maybe even requiring annual statements to report the previous two or even five years lumped together. That would encourage longer term thinking.
The problem in the UK has always been short term thinking except in a few companies with strategies and vision like RR.
It's not just limited to the UK. It's been that way in the US for way too many decades. I think almost every corporation puts short-term profits first over long-term goals.
The problem in the UK has always been short term thinking except in a few companies with strategies and vision like RR.
Seems to me this started (or maybe just got a lot worse) in the 80's with the rise of performance-related pay. If the conditions for getting a bonus are sufficiently badly thought out, it can mean that the management strategy for maximising bonus can be contrary to the best interests of the company. This would be particularly true if you don't expect to be with the company for long.
"Profit is the highest priority" is the reason the video doesn't play in the article, Google want their money.
No wonder Metrotube continuously has to update its app on my phone - to keep up with Google trying to ensure ads are present.
Personally, if the ad can't be skipped in short order, I skip the lot; it's just a cat falling off a sofa after all.
I skip the lot; it's just a cat falling off a sofa after all.
I am directed by our felive overlords to emphasise that cats *never* fall off sofas. Even if the video evidence appears to suggest that they do - it's just that you are watching it wrong and taking it out of context.
A bit like inconvenient video evidence that politicians have been parsimonious with verity.
It is the duty of the Directors to maximise returns for the shareholders...
Yes, they do always fall back on that statement. But let's look a little deeper. Long term returns, or short term? Best for the company to treat its employees well, thereby reducing turnover and minimizing hiring/training expense (not to mention, a loyal workforce, willing to put in an extra bit of effort)? Produce a higher quality product to increase the corporate reputation, and thereby make its brand a preferred one, perhaps with buyers willing to pay a premium for it, or slowly decrease the quality, have it made overseas and then finally, when the customers have caught on, liquidate the company and sell the brand to a Chinese manufacturer?
Whenever I hear the phrase "maximize shareholder value", I know the beancounters are in charge, and the company is not long for this world.
"It is the duty of the Directors to maximise returns for the shareholders, unless the company articles state otherwise."
Actually the duties of the Directors are:
1) Keep the law.
2) Supervise the "boss" to ensure what ever goals are decided are aimed for.
The Shareholders and originally the articles of incorporation decide the goals, the priority. There is no inherent obligation to short term bottom line or immediate or long term profit. Often too much of a focus purely on profit today is the mark of speculators and asset strippers, not responsible directors. Yes, a business must make profit, that's not always best to have as MAIN priority. Growth or survival can be more important sometimes.
Given the article also implies that the PAYE system contained credit card info, I suspect the story has been exaggerated somewhat. Why would an employer pay you through your credit card?
Having said that, the message is basically that liability switches from customer to bank from the moment the bank is made aware, not before, which is somewhat correct. Any loss prior to that you'd be taking up with the person who lost your data.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
