Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security IT

Recession Pushes More Workers To Steal Data 280

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the flexible-morality dept.
An anonymous reader writes to share the findings of a recent transatlantic survey which suggests that the recession is pushing workers to be a little bit more accommodating when it comes to sharing, viewing, or stealing sensitive information from the company they work(ed) for. "Pilfering data has become endemic in our culture as 85% of people admit they know it's illegal to download corporate information from their employer but almost half couldn't stop themselves taking it with them with the majority admitting it could be useful in the future! [...] The survey entitled 'the global recession and its effect on work ethics,' carried out for a second year by Cyber-Ark – found that almost half of the respondents 48% admit that if they were fired tomorrow they would take company information with them and 39% of people would download company/competitive information if they got wind that their job was at risk. Additionally a quarter of workers said that the recession has meant that they feel less loyal towards their employer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Recession Pushes More Workers To Steal Data

Comments Filter:
  • by alen (225700) on Monday November 23, 2009 @05:31PM (#30207204)

    Unless I make enough money to retire debt free, no deal.

    Most people will get caught and lose their jobs for tiny amounts of money and poor future job prospects

    • by reporter (666905) on Monday November 23, 2009 @06:02PM (#30207698) Homepage
      This theft of sensitive data by terminated employees is an act of survival. Is it morally right?

      To answer that question, we should understand the theft in the total context of labor ethics. The current economic recession differs from the previous recession (during the dotcom bust) in 2 important ways. One difference is that it was caused by a failure of the banking system, which had placed financial bets on bad mortgages.

      A second difference is that the "normal" lag between declining gross-domestic product (GDP) and rising unemployment was very short. In all previous recessions, the lag was at least 6 months. During this recession, the lag was much shorter. Once the typical employer saw declining orders for products or services, he immediately fired workers. This high-speed termination of workers was once the hallmark of the Silicon-Valley employer's mentality but has now spread to the rest of the nation.

      The national unemployment rate exceeds 10 percent. In some states, the rate exceeds 12%.

      By contrast, Japanese companies (for cultural reasons) and European companies (for both cultural reasons and legal reasons) make every effort to avoid firing workers during an economic recession. Although Americans once laughed at Europeans for favoring kinder, gentler labor policies that "hindered" economic growth, the Europeans now have the last laugh: the unemployment rate in America now exceeds the rate in several European countries.

      The Americans favor a Darwinian system of employment: survival of the fittest. If you are "weak" and if you do not have the right political connections (e. g., being the beer-drinking buddy of the department head), then you will be fired. If you lose your home, your family, and commit suicide, then the Darwinian system gives only 1 reply: "Too bad, loser!"

      In this context, we should not judge the morality of stealing sensitive data from your previous employer. If he fired you in response to the recession, then you should do whatever you need to do to survive. You should live by Darwinian rules. You do whatever you need to do and whenever you need to do "it".

      • by tomhudson (43916) <barbara.hudson@nOSpaM.barbara-hudson.com> on Monday November 23, 2009 @06:12PM (#30207824) Journal

        In this context, we should not judge the morality of stealing sensitive data from your previous employer

        Since when do two wrongs make a right? Did everyone who didn't get laid off | fired | whatever do you wrong? Do they deserve to pay the consequences if you screw over your previous employer and it results in even more job losses?

        Your attitude is childish, greedy, and thoughtless. Or did you not have any friends working there, so in your mind "they all deserve to pay?"

        Employers don't seek out recessions so they can fire people.

        • Employers don't seek out recessions so they can fire people.

          Hi, you must be new here.

          • And by "here" you mean "to life." Oh for the days when I was young, innocent and stupid and believed in good will toward men.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by supremebob (574732)

            Yeah... that guy has obviously never worked for a big technology firm like HP or IBM. They love using recessions as an excuse to do massive layoffs and outsourcing of work overseas, since it improves their profit margins and stock price by doing so.

            On the other hand, perhaps he's still new and still believes the spiel from HR. You know... the speech telling him what a valuable asset he is to the "team" before getting his 2% bonus for being a top performer and working harder than everyone else. Sorry, dude..

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by aaandre (526056)

          I think this is a discussion of wrong and right from the perspective of the market. The market, and corporations, speak only one language, the language of greed and profit. Profit = good, loss = bad. Anything that brings profit is good. Look at corporate behavior and you'll see that employees' lives, environmental costs, customer satisfaction (or survival -- tobacco or car industry) are only important when measured in profit.

          The choices @reporter describes are choices in a system that does not operate withi

          • by tomhudson (43916) <barbara.hudson@nOSpaM.barbara-hudson.com> on Monday November 23, 2009 @09:45PM (#30209626) Journal

            Just a quick point:

            but it is imperative for corporations (mandated to make a profit in order to exist) to do so.

            Sure, most* have to make a profit long-term in order to exist, but this sounds dangerously similar to "they have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder profits" - which is the basest of lies, because like any big lie, it's been told so many times that people actually believe it.

            Of course, when challenged, they can't find the appropriate statute (there is none) so they just go around waving their hands ...

            * (there are plenty of corporations whose mandate is definitely not to make a profit. Some are philanthropic in nature, some are purposefully tax shelters, some are NGOs, some are professional corporations charged with overseeing their members to make sure they adhere to standards, etc.)

        • by Tynin (634655)

          Employers don't seek out recessions so they can fire people.

          Too funny, my company told me point blank that recessions are used exactly for that purpose. Sure they don't go out of their way to cause a recession, but when one comes around they take advantage of it. Here they have been going over everyone's yearly reviews, and if you have been 'just' average or worse, look out. We've been axing bad employee's left and right. Some good employee's end up getting let go to, but by in large the head count of people who would just roam the building all day doing nothing, or

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DaMattster (977781)
          Don't give me the two wrongs don't equal a right, crap. What about what goes around, comes around? I think that in Darwinian system such as ours, all is fair. After all, AIG, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs fucked us, the little guy. If you want to go the philosophical route, A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye motherfuckers!
          • by tomhudson (43916) <barbara.hudson@nOSpaM.barbara-hudson.com> on Monday November 23, 2009 @10:05PM (#30209740) Journal

            Don't give me the two wrongs don't equal a right, crap. What about what goes around, comes around? I think that in Darwinian system such as ours, all is fair. After all, AIG, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs fucked us, the little guy. If you want to go the philosophical route, A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye motherfuckers!

            ... and they had the complicity of over 20 million greedy Americans, who believed that it was okay to lie on mortgage applications, or be willfully blind to obvious problems, or ignored the experiences from the previous housing bubbles and the warnings from people like me by mindlessly chanting "this time it's different", or who profited from the hype in other ways, or whose cases now clog the courts, or whose recklessness helped cause the meltdown that is costing other people their jobs, or who treated their homes as ATMs, or who rang up huge credit card debts for no rational reason.

            The bubble couldn't have happened without their willful participation. The banks couldn't have done it without your neighbours help. So, yes indeed, what goes around has come around. Your neighbours helped f*ck you over. They were the crucial element without which the housing bubble could not have happened.

            And why not apply it to the international level. The US and Great Britain were the two countries that fueled the housing bubble - so, as you so vulgarly put it - "A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye motherfuckers!" - we're glad to hear you'll forfeit your assets to compensate the other countries for the damage you two did to the global economy.

            Or you could stop being so childish and realize that two wrongs don't make a right.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by daem0n1x (748565)

              ... and they had the complicity of over 20 million greedy Americans, who believed that it was okay to lie on mortgage applications, or be willfully blind to obvious problems, or ignored the experiences from the previous housing bubbles and the warnings from people like me by mindlessly chanting "this time it's different", or who profited from the hype in other ways, or whose cases now clog the courts, or whose recklessness helped cause the meltdown that is costing other people their jobs, or who treated their homes as ATMs, or who rang up huge credit card debts for no rational reason.

              If I go to a doctor, then I'm consulting an expert that should know better than me about medicine. I don't have the obligation of having an MD diploma so, if I'm ill advised by him and get sick in consequence it's more his responsibility than mine!

              People that are oblivious to how the financial markets work were told by the absolute experts that they could make a loan and buy a house. What they fuck should they do? Now you want to blame them for trying to improve their lives???

              This "personal responsibi

        • by drsquare (530038)

          Since when do two wrongs make a right?

          When the second wrong undoes the damage of the first. If stealing that data stops your house being foreclosed due to redundancy, you have to do it. Your family is more important than corporate ethics. Especially when it's the corporation that fired you, to which you owe nothing.

          Your attitude is childish, greedy, and thoughtless. Or did you not have any friends working there, so in your mind "they all deserve to pay?"

          The corporate attitude is childish, greedy and thought

          • by tomhudson (43916)

            I don't buy it.

            If stealing that data stops your house being foreclosed due to redundancy, you have to do it. Your family is more important than corporate ethics

            That's just a rationalization for being a sleaze. Isn't giving your family a sense of ethics and pride and self-worth more important than keeping a house by being a crook? You might be able to get another house - and a home is where you hang your hat, whether it's a house or an apartment or anywhere else; you can't ever restore your childrens p

      • You should live by Darwinian rules.

        And why should Darwin get to make the rules?

      • by shentino (1139071)

        Stealing is stealing, and being in a hard spot, though a profound test of character (esp if your SO is laying it on thick for you to nick some stuff), does not excuse theft. If it WERE ok then it would be called "forced charity". Call a spade a spade. Duress by circumstance might get you pity, but it doesn't get you a pass.

        Worse yet, if you are caught stealing, that pretty much nixes any hope you have of collecting unemployment IIRC, since you'd be provoking your own dismissal with such a blatant violati

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by c6gunner (950153)

        Although Americans once laughed at Europeans for favoring kinder, gentler labor policies that "hindered" economic growth, the Europeans now have the last laugh: the unemployment rate in America now exceeds the rate in several European countries.

        lol

        In the same light ... the young kids in my neighbourhood used to laugh at the old folks, because of their inability to play baseball. Now the old folks have the last laugh, because one of the kids broke his leg.

        Seriously, WTF dude? Is that what you consider a logical train of thought?

        In this context, we should not judge the morality of stealing sensitive data from your previous employer. If he fired you in response to the recession, then you should do whatever you need to do to survive. You should live by Darwinian rules. You do whatever you need to do and whenever you need to do "it".

        There ARE no Darwinian rules. This is what theists/creationists often fail to understand, and why they come to such ridiculous conclusions. Evolution doesn't mean that everyone has to be a dick; in fact, co-operation ten

      • That, my friend, is an incredibly astute post! I could not agree more!
      • by yndrd1984 (730475)

        Although Americans once laughed at Europeans for favoring kinder, gentler labor policies that "hindered" economic growth, the Europeans now have the last laugh: the unemployment rate in America now exceeds the rate in several European countries.

        Yep, there may be a lesson there. On the other hand, if it takes a once-in-a-century recession to get the US unemployment rate up to European levels, that suggests that most of the time it's actually lower. Maybe there's a lesson in there as well.

  • Once my company's competitor learns I know how much Bob from accounting or Joanne from HR make, I'm sure they will shower me with Andrew Jackson's business cards.

    And then I woke up :)

    • Whoa! But what about the management's belief that "firewalls will protect our sensitive data!"? Surely you can't just walk out the door with data and not be caught red-handed by said firewalls!?! Say it ain't so, Bob & Joanne!

  • How convenient (Score:5, Insightful)

    by winkydink (650484) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Monday November 23, 2009 @05:33PM (#30207236) Homepage Journal

    Cyber-Ark just happens to have a product that helps prevent this.

    • by tool462 (677306) on Monday November 23, 2009 @06:02PM (#30207692)

      Well, they do until they fire one of their employees ;)

    • by GPLDAN (732269)
      The DLP market, Data-Loss Prevention, is a burgeoning and growing market.

      Trend Micro purchased Provilla to jumpstart their way to catching Symantec. Cisco's CSA Agent can act as a DLP device when paired with sniffers.


      DLP modules can be particularly nasty. They are, in effect, beneficial (to the company) rootkits. Often, the good ones like Leakproof (I have no affiliation with the product, it won SC magazine's product 5/5 Award - http://www.scmagazineus.com/trend-micro-leakproof/review/2632/ [scmagazineus.com]) can't be
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Clover_Kicker (20761)

        In this way, the same effects as regions and LPARs and mainframe access rights are re-achieved in the modern age with virtual desktops and VPN.

        A couple of jobs ago, one of the tasks was a monthly data update to a tool our users had, basicly download a certain file from the mainframe and do some tweaks before importing it into a GUI front-end.

        The first time I did it without help (i.e. logged into my own account), the next day I got a phone call asking why the hell I was looking at such-and-such business data, as an IT guy you have no need for that. Turns out my boss didn't sign the right form or something, got him on the phone and all was resolved.

        • The better question is why the hell did you have access to it in the first place if you "didn't need it". If it's something that an employee shouldn't be looking at, then it's really as much ITs fault as it is the employee's that the data was accessed. I mean, corporate espionage and disgruntled employees are nothing new. It's not like this recession is causing some amazing new problem that never existed before. There should already be systems in place to prevent this kind of thing.
  • ethics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord Ender (156273) on Monday November 23, 2009 @05:34PM (#30207240) Homepage

    The survey entitled 'the global recession and its effect on work ethics,' carried out for a second year by Cyber-Ark

    Speaking of professional ethics, who wants to bet that a survey sponsored by Cyber-Ark uses leading questions to produce results which bolster their business?

  • On Loyalty (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23, 2009 @05:35PM (#30207272)

    "Additionally a quarter of workers said that the recession has meant that they feel less loyal towards their employer."

    I'd be happy to show some loyalty to my employer if they would but return the favor. Instead I'm treated as a simple expense on the accountant's balance sheets; one that's easily gotten rid of. The people who make the decisions are much too far removed from the people who make the product. Hell, I feel more loyalty to my favorite baseball team than I do to the corporation I work for.

    • Re:On Loyalty (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Renraku (518261) on Monday November 23, 2009 @05:43PM (#30207394) Homepage

      The article has nothing to do with loyalty. If my company wants to lay me off, they're welcome to do so, but I'm still expected to remain within the bounds of the law. I might think poorly of them or get skittish the next time a lay-off spree happens in some future company, but I certainly wouldn't turn molehills into mountains by risking jail time.

      • but I certainly wouldn't turn molehills into mountains by risking jail time.

        The wall street bankers didn't go to jail. On the contrary, they were rewarded with your tax dollars. The real world plays hardball; maybe you should too.

        • That's not the real world, that's the politician's world. Unfortunately, there's a difference now.
      • by aaandre (526056)

        See, this is the difference between human thinking and corporative thinking. A corporation will remain within the bounds of the law, UNLESS it's more profitable to overstep them and paying the fines. Greed is the only moral codex of corporations.

    • by zooblethorpe (686757) on Monday November 23, 2009 @05:44PM (#30207412)

      Indeed. When execs are getting $10 mil bonus packages for burning a company to the ground, when the upper echelons are gutting pension plans by reneging on past promises and contracts and then turn around and pocket the savings for themselves, it should come as no surprise in the least that those of us further down the corporate ladder are taking a similarly opportunistic approach.

      Social mammals tend to emulate the alpha individuals of their groups. The alphas, by dint of successfully establishing themselves as alphas, are viewed as successful -- "well, they're doing something right for themselves, guess it'd be smart for me to do the same." When sociopaths lead our companies, the employees themselves will, generally speaking, start behaving more sociopathically. It's basic survival.

      Cheers,

      • by turing_m (1030530) on Monday November 23, 2009 @05:57PM (#30207622)

        Social mammals tend to emulate the alpha individuals of their groups. The alphas, by dint of successfully establishing themselves as alphas, are viewed as successful -- "well, they're doing something right for themselves, guess it'd be smart for me to do the same." When sociopaths lead our companies, the employees themselves will, generally speaking, start behaving more sociopathically. It's basic survival.

        More concisely - a fish rots from the head down.

    • Then why are you still working there? I got screwed over by my last employer of 7 years and it didn't take me that long to talk to a couple of suppliers that I knew didn't like the company and get them to connect me with other possible employers. A month later I gave my notice.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Amen to that! After showing my now former employer how I saved them approximately US$350,000 over the last two years by making some very simple & inexpensive changes, they handed me my 5 year milestone award & a layoff notice with nearly the same handshake. I really should have ripped that place off blind, but I didn't.

    • I used to be very logal to my employer.

      Then the recession happened. They cut extra spending, so no more free lunches. No more employee outings. Morale went down. Next came raises. Oooh, we can't afford to give you a cost of living increase. The people accepted it, but morale went down. After the lunches and the raises were gone, we were told to that about 1/8 of the people in the building would be laid off. Morale went down. Then the layoffs happened. Morale went down. Then after they laid peopl
      • I'm curious. What should the company have done, in your opinion? Operating at a deficit is usually not an option for most companies (unfortunately, governments seem to think it's the norm, heh).
        • I'm not saying what they did was wrong, just that morale suffered. I know it needed to be done. My company was actually quite responsible with everything.
    • Re:On Loyalty (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jellomizer (103300) on Monday November 23, 2009 @06:13PM (#30207848)

      If you feel that the company is treating you bad now... Imagine if they found out that you stole data from them, and used it against them... We had an employee do that. He is now bankrupt, and in essence lost everything. And we don't feel bad about it. Oddly enough if you leave your job on good terms even if they lay you off. Chances are they will at least give you a decent reference. Vs. a Yes he worked here and that is all I am gonna say.

  • Because I'm sure the people working IT would have different statistics, given that we generally have ALOT more access to ALOT more information. I can read people's emails, I can look up every work order, I can view everyone's hard drives, browser history, heck, anything leaving the company network gets some log by the proxy.

    I'm sure IT guys could find alot more valuable information, and as such, might be more willing to sell it.

    • by cenc (1310167)

      yea, those photos of the boss cross dressing and dancing with a male hooker are worth a mint.

      • by tomhudson (43916)

        yea, those photos of the boss cross dressing and dancing with a male hooker are worth a mint.

        People aren't afraid to own up to being blackmailed any more. Ask David Letterman - or better yet, ask the jerk who tried to cash the $2M check.

        This isn't 1950 any more. People don't care if you're gay, lesbian, bi, trans, or like to sit at home and compose haikus.

        • or like to sit at home and compose haikus.

          That was a problem in the 50's that could be blackmailed?

  • The survey asked banksters and Wall Street fraud artists: FTFA:

    Carried out amongst 600 office workers in Canary Wharf London and Wall Street New York

    We already know that Wall Street and Canary Wharf are full of crooks. I suspect that among that bunch, the 41% is low - the other 59% probably lied.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by NoYob (1630681)

      The survey asked banksters and Wall Street fraud artists: FTFA:

      Carried out amongst 600 office workers in Canary Wharf London and Wall Street New York

      We already know that Wall Street and Canary Wharf are full of crooks. I suspect that among that bunch, the 41% is low - the other 59% probably lied.

      Huh. That's the same stats for masturbation!

      I think I need to get a government grant for that - Obama is promoting science.

    • by tool462 (677306) on Monday November 23, 2009 @06:09PM (#30207782)

      And specifically, if they're talking about business folks, as opposed to the IT guys, for example, then "stealing information" may include things like taking your client rolodex with you. While this is still ethically questionable, I don't think it's illegal. If it is, it at least has tacit approval by the entire industry with how pervasive it is.

      • And specifically, if they're talking about business folks, as opposed to the IT guys, for example, then "stealing information" may include things like taking your client rolodex with you.

        As an IT guy, I wouldn't want my rolodex, I'd just want to take my electronic porn stash with me. That's what I'd be telling the nice HR lady during my exit interview. "Trust me on this one. You don't want me to leave this stuff for someone else to find. "

  • Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ximenes (10) on Monday November 23, 2009 @05:52PM (#30207554)

    I'm sure that some people do try to profit from illicitly obtained information from their past employers; I've heard a few stories here and there about people getting busted. But there is simply no way that 50% of everyone in the workforce is doing this for a few simple reasons:

    1. Risk - I think everyone is aware that the damage to your career and professional reputation would be catastrophic if you were caught, not to mention the legal ramifications.

    2. Ethics - Yes, people do have them. Maybe not everyone is the pinnacle of ethical behavior, but that doesn't mean every other person you see at the office is just waiting to mug you and steal your wallet in the parking lot.

    3. Nothing to steal - The majority of employees just don't have access to proprietary information that is actually of value outside the company. Sure, I could tell a future employer about my company's HR policies or give them an org chart. That might be very slightly useful, but certainly isn't going to get me hired or land me millions. I could also give them all of the company's internally developed code, but it would be of little use without all of the institutional knowledge, expertise and essentially the entire original company to go along with it.

    4. Employers are liable as well - Take the case of the people who tried to sell some of Coke's trade secrets to Pepsi. They were refused, and Pepsi informed the police. They know that they would be liable for the illegal behavior as well, and want no part of it. Now not every employer operates above board, but it's a risky game to try to sell information to someone who may not even want to buy it.

    So in summary: bullshit.

    • manufacturing processes, marketing material, suppliers. etc etc.
       

    • by RedBear (207369)

      To add to that, one of the most important things to remember:

      5. There is no way in hell that 50% of the employed population, even if you're just looking at the corporate office lackey population, are smart enough to even get the idea that they might benefit from copying some sort of corporate business information. Most people are just struggling to make it through every day while getting an acceptable level of work done to avoid getting fired. It is ludicrous to think that one out of every two employees has

    • You call bullshit, but this survey is about how desperate and scared people are.

      1. Risk - In the industry I work in, even before the Recession, theft of data has always been a huge issue. No, theft of data is no big deal at your local 7-11, but at businesses with regular customers, it could be a simple matter for a salesrep to snatch it's customer roll and sneak off, start their own company, and take these customers with them. the survey talked to 600 people in Canary Wharf London and Wall Street New York

  • What is cause for alarm is the 13% of savvy pilferers who would take access and password codes as, with this information, they can still get into the network once they’ve left the company and continue downloading information and accessing whatever they want or need.

    If the data is so sensitive, you'd think that a company would bother to change the passwords periodically so employees that have been let go can't get back into the system. However, security doesn't seem to be a terribly high priority so c

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cenc (1310167)

      Yea, what happened to the good old days when they would find out they let you go by the locks being changed on your office door or not being able to log in, or worse the security guard has a box of your stuff at the front desk?

      Personally, I do cut off all network access, email accounts, and so on with my own employees before informing them to hit the road, even if they are leaving under good terms. Fortunately, I have not had to fire many, because I generally don't treat them like shit and they don't treat

  • Causality error (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The_REAL_DZA (731082) on Monday November 23, 2009 @05:56PM (#30207604)
    "Causality error" in that they've mistaken the (observed) effect as a "cause". The fact is, the "global recession" has merely revealed a decline in workers' "ethics" that was already there and which had been forming for at least the past several decades. Despite what the talking heads (in both media and the government) are saying, this "economic downturn" is nowhere near as bad as the "Great Depression"; this according to the many "oldsters" I am in frequent conversation with -- my own parents included -- who actually lived through the period rather than merely learning about it from the history books -- and their recollections do not include such a widespread deterioration in the "morals" (their word -- read "ethics") of the population (and yes there were notable exceptions, some accounts of which are a little scary even to modern ears, but by and large people -- at least in this part of the country -- still left their doors unlocked at night; I triple-locked my doors almost religiously during even the much lauded "economic boom time" of just a few years ago!!) Poverty does not cause crime any more than crime causes poverty (including but not by any means limited to the "victims" of Mr. Madoff -- their poverty was caused by a mixture of greed and stupidity.)
  • Survival (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JM78 (1042206) on Monday November 23, 2009 @06:09PM (#30207788) Journal
    When push comes to shove survival of the fittest rules all. When it comes down to the wire of being able to support yourself and provide for your family, morality is far less a consideration than providing is. Simply put, like it or not, morality is in the eye of the beholder and nature doesn't give a rat's ass how you FEEL about anything.

    Company's that don't treat their employees like valued assets will discover it is the very foundation of their business which will turn on them when they need them most. The old-boys-club (or woman's club nowadays) can fall to ruin under the pressure of a survivalist-economy just as quickly as they can layoff a $30k worker in HR rather than cut $100k+ executive pay or bonuses by 1% in order to help keep that worker and their company strong.

    No loyalty or sense of community = no loyalty or care of the communities well being.
    • by Renraku (518261)

      You know, I'd say it's unethical to disclose private and legal information. I'd say it's ethical to disclose private and illegal information. It's also ethical to disclose immoral information along the lines of, "We're either going to have to take a 1% pay cut, or lay off 20 people." Perhaps if people start doing this, then we'll see the true face of companies.

  • by fluffy99 (870997) on Monday November 23, 2009 @06:37PM (#30208142)

    Depending on how you ask the question, you'll get a different answer. Sensitive data range from a simple copy of the internal phone list, to a valuable dump of the client database. For programmers, I bet 95% would keep copies of minor programs they wrote believing they will be of use for them at a later job. Created on company time and therefore company owned perhaps, but that automatically mean any harm has been done.

    The original article was lots of hype and scare tactics. What were they trying to sell again?

  • by dorath (939402)

    When a music/video piracy article pops up here it seems like somebody always points out that copyright infringement isn't theft. Nobody is being deprived of something, blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, you know the arguments.

    It seems like there's no stealing or theft involved here either; it's just a copy and nobody is being deprived of anything. Don't recall anybody pointing that out before in this context.

    Case A) Copying bits, but it's not theft it's copyright infringement.
    Case B) Copying bits, but it

    • by tftp (111690)

      It would seem that there might be a distinction, and I'm curious where people draw the line.

      I think the line is clearly visible:

      Case A (a CD): anyone can have a copy for $10-20. The IP owner's business is not in trouble because you bought (or even stole) a music CD. At worst they lost those $10-20 that you didn't pay.

      Case B (an IP): nobody can have a copy for any reasonable amount of money. The IP owner's business may be in trouble because the data was stolen, and many people may lose jobs if the bus

It appears that PL/I (and its dialects) is, or will be, the most widely used higher level language for systems programming. -- J. Sammet

Working...