Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
Of course ultimately the buck stops with the Labour Party. But what you don't seem to understand is that in the difference between Labour being careless vs a hired legitimate IT company not doing their job properly - is a difference in what action should be taken. I.e if the latter is true, I think that firing the Party Secretary is a bit severe.
If the latter scenario IS true, who do you think should be held accountable in the Labour Party and what should happen to them?
|
No I do ... I know because thats the industry I work in. Especially IT and moreso IT security, for a large company (nz standards anyway ~600 users).
If the IT company was not doing their job, then they hired a shit company or the requirements were badly defined or managed. This would have been found through some BASIC analysis ... fucking up apache settings on Indexes is fucking nub shit. Shit even just a search on google would have pointed out how fail this was.
Further to that (could have read the whole post rather than me repeating it), an independant review of "Externally hosted" kit is fairly normal for something as "critical" as this appears to be (user data especially!), its not hard ... or expensive and would have avoided/mitigated a lot of this.
So based on your daft logic, how exactly does failure to check critical work, or failure to define the service parameters to a contracted service indicate the ability to run a country?
Can't manage a single website ... but wants to manage the country. Solid logic there. Ahhh no.
(FYI I don't vote or support labour/national/anyone in case you are curious about my political agenda here .... this is basic fucking up at management/IT level of the extreme basics.)
My guess is in a "gun related crime" you blame the gun for killing someone. Bout right?