Target topples CEO in latest data breach domino The CEO of Target is the latest casualty of the big-box retailer's disastrous holiday data breach. The company said that chief exec Gregg Steinhafel would be leaving the company after 35 years,vacating both the CEO and president roles as well as his seat as chairman of the company's board of directors. Steinhafel had overseen …
German feldmarschalls not surrendering?
By all accounts given he's apparently a pro homophobe in his spare time I doubt he'll be much mourned.. I'm certainly not going to grieve.
Interesting that there's laws in virtually every country against discrimination and yet people can openly ignore them and set the actual hiring and LGBT policies of companies, police forces & governments.
Human rights - your chances of survival may vary (not applicable in the Southern States)
Soooo, are you saying homosexuals breached Target's security, or was it the homophobes? The last I had read it was their refrigeration contractor who unwittingly opened a door for the intruders. My sources didn't get into the sexual preferences or their, apparently, regional biases. Hats off to you for having your ear so close to the ground in the world of information systems security!
There are no laws (with teeth) that protect employees of ANY denomination in the USA. We have what is called "employment at will" in almost all states in the USA. You will be old and grey before any "law" will really "protect" you from discrimination.
You can say it was because you were LGBT, but "they" will say you were fired (or not hired) for some other reason. This is one reason why you keep politics and other "preferences" and any mention of them out of the workplace. Keep your mouth shut and your nose to the grindstone. Act as conservative as you can. Don't even THINK of trying to use your workplace as a sounding board for your ideals.
Face it, if they don't like the color of your spots you are shit out of luck. This has been a fact forever. If you can't understand, try and work in the Arts. They might be more appreciative.
As far as sacrificing the CEO because of stupidity, the ENTIRE IT department should be LONG GONE before you even look at the CEO. This is soley sacrifical, makes no sense at all. Just like Mozilla's CEO to me
I don't really know if I should downvote or upvote you...
I agree with everything but the last paragraph. Why would the ENTIRE IT be sacrificed? I am sure it is always budgetary constraints that keeps IT from deploying top of the line security.
You can say it was because you were LGBT, but "they" will say you were fired (or not hired) for some other reason.
So what?
Having a job at company X is not a birthright, even if this idiotic and self-defeating idea has grown on some people.
It's called 'at will employment'. If we had 'employment at will' we really could say people without jobs were lazy couldn't we.
I'll grant you their are some real cocksuckers who turn their personal biases on employees. It's shit. Fired several of them in my time. There are also some employees who turn their personalities on employers, that's pure shit too. Fired my fair share of those sorts as well.
It's also pure shit for anyone to be commenting on employment situations (possibly) involving bias if they aren't directly involved. See, people really like to hop on bandwagons and rally the troops, but they rarely want to know what's actually occurring. They aren't interested in details, or happenstance or anything else, they just want to see someone hanged. Fuck 'em if it's not right, it sends a message.
But the people on the bandwagon of the minute always miss the real message. You know what that message is? It's that those people on the bandwagon will turn on you in a heartbeat. They're not looking for some weird 'justice' they're looking for blood. They are masturbating with the blood and tears of others. It's pretty fucked up. Is that who you are?
Carrying on, if you've got spots of any kind and working for me yours getting them checked out before you come back to work. If some fucked up fear of vaccinations causes someone to bring nasty shit to work and it harms my staff's newborns I'll be angry.
And lastly, if you came into my domain with that chip on your shoulder you would be out of a job and out of this field until you got your smarmy little attitude sorted out. You can be righteously angry at something or some set of circumstances all you want. Have a little party and burn whatever on effigy, I give not one single fuck. But you make things personal in the workplace and finding employment in the arts will be far, far better than you deserve.
If it's at the will of the employer then its' "Employment at will" IE you are employed at the sole will of the employer. If I were writing a doctoral thesis where semantics really matter, I might change the wording. Except I was responding in a forum, to a specific person (not you) about what they percieve to be an affront to their LGBT sensibilities because it sounds to me like they talk too much, are obviously gay and probably have their "partner" and their lifestyle all over their "wastebook" pages and thus did not get a job at Target. IE the employer did not like the color of the potential employee's "spots". I advised the person to try and find employment where they might get a better reception (the Arts) and what they could do to be less obvious. Hardly a chip, hardly rallying the troops.
BTW, I am completely vaccinated not that it's any business of yours.
I was NOT making anything personal about ANYTHING and remember, YOU are the one making the suppositions and using the threats and epithets, not me. I fail to understand how my post was "angry" or "personal". Yours was for sure!
One thing I find ridiculous is how many people get downvoted for simply having an opinon and in many cases stating the "truth" as it is applied by others.
Too many people on the defensive here
"As far as sacrificing the CEO because of stupidity, the ENTIRE IT department should be LONG GONE before you even look at the CEO."
"The supermarket employed a team of security specialists in Bangalore tasked with monitoring its computers around the clock. Any problems were supposed to be reported to Target’s security operations centre in Minneapolis, Minnesota." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/14/target_failed_to_act_on_security_alerts/
We can blame the IT Dept to not scrutinize more in depth the work made in Bangalore but, what if the Dept its under resourced, paid badly and full of juniors because of the offshore brilliant idea of the CFO/CIO...
Who contracted the Security Specialists? I will bet it wasnt the CEO, perhaps the CFO/CIO but then if the IT department ignored the warnings.....they might be part of the problem. In fact they might BE the problem. Ever hear of an "inside job"?
In the business world, it is often customary for the lower paid workers to be fired before the CEO resigns. Even if they had nothing to do with it.
If I were Target, everyone responsible for ANY aspect of this problem would be gone, if not for anything but surety that ALL the people "responsible" were no longer able to be to blamed. Then the CEO has the option to resign.
BTW Don Jefe, all I was attempting to say was the truth as I have seen it in practice of nearly 27 years in business. If you want to read things into what I advised the LGBT person, go ahead. Seems your vitriol knows no bounds. The truth hurts doesn't it?
"The supermarket employed a team of security specialists in Bangalore tasked with monitoring its computers around the clock. Any problems were supposed to be reported to Target’s security operations centre in Minneapolis, Minnesota." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/14/target_failed_to_act_on_security_alerts/
We can blame the IT Dept to not scrutinize more in depth the work made in Bangalore...
Or we could read the original source, which that Reg article links to:
On Saturday, Nov. 30, the hackers had set their traps and had just one thing to do before starting the attack: plan the data’s escape route. As they uploaded exfiltration malware to move stolen credit card numbers—first to staging points spread around the U.S. to cover their tracks, then into their computers in Russia—FireEye spotted them. Bangalore got an alert and flagged the security team in Minneapolis.
According to BusinessWeek, the Bangalore team did exactly what they were supposed to do.
People pointed this out in the comments to the Reg story you quoted. Leyden should have made this aspect clearer in his version, rather than feeding the anti-offshoring jingoist rabble.
Sorry to inject some facts into your mud-slinging. Carry on.
I dont care... they (the entire IT Department) are still responsible for preventing this kind of hack in the first place and I don't care who you want to blame (justify). If you are underpaid, find another job don't blame your pay for deliberately ignoring a hack attack.
The CEO got technically fired (resigned), the CFO is now the CEO. Who did you want to balme now?
As far as sacrificing the CEO because of stupidity, the ENTIRE IT department should be LONG GONE before you even look at the CEO.
Sorry, but I must strenuously disagree with you!!!
The casualties must be in the executive ranks only
<rant>
Those are the assholes who instituted policies and procedures that allowed the breach in the first place.
IT would not have flagrantly violated an order from the CIO to isolate the POS network from the rest of the company if one existed!
Thus it would be fair to assume such a directive never made its way out of the mouth of the senior executives.
This is quite likely because
1) it never occurred to them, or
2) because they were out on another cost cutting mission
to fund higher executive bonuses.
</rant>
No, the IT department ignored the warings and are the ones who handled the hacked info and the computers it was stored on. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE! THEY should all be sacked. Who cares about "directives" when something like that was happening? Even GOD could personally tell me to ignore the hack and I would not be able to.
I really know nothing of the guy. For all I know he shoots whales on the weekend and eats cute kittens for lunch. But the article (last two paragaphs) indicate he's doing this voluntarily without say it. If he were being booted, he wouldn't be staying around as an "advisor". Perhaps this is good thing, he takes the heat and leaves on his own. Makes him a stand up guy and all that and looks good for his next gig. Or... it's all office politics.
I wonder how much of this has to do with the IT breach at all... or if he was looking for an exit.
Target has some problems. They basically have had easy growth for decades because there were more cities in the US where they could open new stores. Now they have saturated the US market. Their international efforts in Canada and Europe have not gone well. They also have the problem, like almost every other business in the world, that Amazon is coming to get them. Last year their top line revenues went down for the first time in a long time.
He put Beth Jacob in charge of IT and she had no IT background. She is a marketing/sales person.
How could she do the job? (of course she could not)
The new CIO has 40 years of IT, I think they have learned their lesson.
In the end its the CEOs job to ensure he has the right staff and he didn't do his job.
Can you blame the CEO when they hire from within? Inhuman Resources brings the candidates for hire, NOT the CEO. She had been there for years and the company process was well known. It's no different than a typical Simon Travaglia story (which are based somewhat on reality and the Peter Principle in the IT world) Let's face it, the boss doesn't need to know IT if surrounded by those who do!
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
