Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lightspeed
Thanks for those arbitrary definitions.
|
Thanks for not being intellectually dishonest in at least one post in the Politics sub-forum.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
I see, it's Labour's MPs that are responsible for this rather than the IT security dude. Cool, glad my original question is answered.
|
Who Built/secured the website?
Some moron.
Who hired the IT Security Dude? ("Moron")
Labour.
Labour --> Moron.
When shit hits the fan .. the IT guy fucked up sure .. but the management made it possible for him to fuck up, eg should have been told "SECURE THIS SHIT AS TIGHT AS A FROGS ASS", run on its on framework etc etc all the "Good things". Facts are IT do what they are told or defined to do (see the numerous "customer asked for X but wanted Y" posts by a number of peeps on here).
If I fucked up, I fucked up .. but my company is the one thats in the shit ... not me, they hired and defined what the requirements are. Not the other way around.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
This is from the NBR
note: I have no idea the degree of authority this Lawyers opinion holds.
|
Thats fine .. but hows that going to go with Google?
They were after all publishing those details on the largest search engine to date...... those cads! Take it to em labour! .. Prrrp .. FAIL.