Recession Pushes More Workers To Steal Data 280
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."
How convenient (Score:5, Insightful)
Cyber-Ark just happens to have a product that helps prevent this.
ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
"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)
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.
On Society, and Sociopathy (Score:5, Insightful)
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,
You can't steal *published* data (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't steal music (except by stuffing CDs down your pants at the store) because the data is published (not to mention broadcast). Confidential information, on the other hand, can be "stolen" because, while you're still merely copying the data, you're stealing the secret.
Survey was of white-collar crooks (Score:5, Insightful)
The survey asked banksters and Wall Street fraud artists: FTFA:
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:On Loyalty (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Causality error (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On Society, and Sociopathy (Score:4, Insightful)
More concisely - a fish rots from the head down.
The New Ethics in America (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
Re:poor security practices strike again (Score:3, Insightful)
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 me like shit. It really is an innovate corporate policy in this day and age.
Re:The New Ethics in America (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:On Loyalty (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Information just wants to be free (Score:2, Insightful)
me too - in fact, the artificial non-posting of salaries, bonus, and other information leads to distortions in the marketplace.
Which, in other words means that dotgain hates capitalism ... (grin)
Define Sensitive Data? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:The New Ethics in America (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:On Loyalty (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The New Ethics in America (Score:2, Insightful)
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 tends to increase the odds of gene survival/propogation. How the fuck do you think we got this far?
What information taken? (Score:1, Insightful)
Would be interesting to see what information they consider corporate data. I'm guessing with a statistic that high it is more phone numbers of friends in the business you might call to find your next job. That is way different that downloading the companies source code to share with your next employer. A survey geared to sell the companies software is likely skewed with leading questions.
Re:Information just wants to be free (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. For any capitalist system to function properly, all market participants must have full and equal access to all information.
This includes labor.
No, this isn't Karl Marx's ideas - this is Adam Smith, the inventor of Capitalism.
Downmodding me won't change the fact that free and widely distributed information makes the market function better, as does all inputs, both good (GDP) and bad (pollution, etc, which aren't measured in our system).
Re:You can't steal *published* data (Score:3, Insightful)
Whereas when you do deprive someone the ability to sell something (and post about in on Slashdot) you're not stealing. Aren't double standards fun?
I see how this works. Let's say you have an apple cart and are selling apples. I come along with my own apple cart and start selling apples. I am therefore stealing your apples. That explains so many attitudes in business.
Re:I'm gonna be rich! (Score:3, Insightful)
Better an afternoon in discovery where everyone on both sides is nice and polite, than a day or two in court, having one side trying to discredit you, or worse, trying to shift at least a part of the blame to you. It's the same as donating blood or doing jury duty - it's all part and parcel of doing your share to make sure the system is a bit fairer and a bit nicer.
1. What ever happened to "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"?
2. If you were the one being betrayed, wouldn't you hope that not everyone would "look the other way"? If a woman's being raped, are you just going to "look the other way" because the guy might have a gun, or he might come after you while awaiting trial? this is one time when "slippery slope" does apply.
3. What sort of example is that to set for your kids? How will it affect how they can trust your advice, if they know your ethics are so questionable? Won't they justifiably call you a hypocrite if you do the "Do as I say, not as I do" thing?
4. Why would I worry about the ex-employee? He's a proven dishonest scum-bucket not worthy of trust. Anyone who would trust him over me has bigger problems. Besides, what's he going to do?
5. It's the right thing to do.
Re:The New Ethics in America (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The New Ethics in America (Score:3, Insightful)
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 within human morality, it operates in market morality. It feels immoral for individuals to operate that way, but it is imperative for corporations (mandated to make a profit in order to exist) to do so.
So, rather "they all deserve to pay," I think @reporter outlines a reality of choices within the realm of market "only profit is good and nothing else matters much."
Applying human moral rules to non-human entities driven by very different rules of success with zero loyalty to humanity is a recipe for disaster.
Re:The New Ethics in America (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The New Ethics in America (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The New Ethics in America (Score:3, Insightful)
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... but you're just a small cog in a corporate machine. A collection of skills to be auctioned off to the lowest bidder when it comes time to be replaced.
Not that I'm bitter or anything...
You are projecting you lazy SOB. (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of us like to work for reasons beyond simple money.
Perhaps you made the wrong job choice, my sympathies.
It's never to late to find something you like to do (accepting financial reality.)
Who knows: If you like it you might even be good at it?
Or perhaps you are just fucking lazy.
I would go stir crazy without something useful to do.
If I were independently wealthy I would have to construct a job like activity to keep me busy. Perhaps 'making a small fortune in auto racing'? Bet I would work _more and harder_ doing that.
That said I prefer to spend my time 'solving technical puzzles/problems, usually with computers', not playing office politics with a bunch of morons.
Re:The New Ethics in America (Score:3, Insightful)
... 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 responsibility" bullshit is the last resort of the right-wing to try to justify the disgrace that the "free-market, no regulation" fundamentalism brought on all of us. A society where you should always be on your toes because you can't trust anybody is dysfunctional. And it's an obligation of the democratically elected officials (under scrutiny of the society) to regulate in order to prevent the chain of trust to break.