Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   HMMMM

   

   Bigguns, Mar 29th, 2004 @ 7:26am

   
   

   Sounds like the technology is ahead of the law here, its hard to say either way. Yes they should be held accountable if something happens, they should make sure there is the proper funding for IT security, and No they shouldn't the IT dept should be on top of this stuff. Its a grey area, for now. But somebody in that company should definatly be held accountable.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   incentive

   

   aNonMooseCowherd, Mar 29th, 2004 @ 7:32am

   
   

   As a practical matter I think it's safe to say that no one will go to jail for unintentional security lapses. However, the threat of fines may help make businesses take security seriously, which they have shown very little inclination to do on their own. Most businesses seem to take the attitude that installing an anti-virus package is the extent of their responsibility.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Mikester, Mar 29th, 2004 @ 12:33pm

   
   

   I'd love to meet the first company that says they are 100% impenetrable. Even Microsoft got hit by SQLslammer.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   security

   

   aNonMooseCowherd, Mar 29th, 2004 @ 10:03pm

   
   

   I'd love to meet the first company that says they are 100% impenetrable.

   Oh, that's too easy. Just don't use a computer, or if you do, don't connect it to any networks.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment