On Mar 1, 3:40 pm, Viktor Klang <viktor.kl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Robert Casto <casto.rob...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sure there's always a need for security, but the solution for most of it is > cultural, not technical. >
Thus for a large organisation it becomes a training issue and a cost that senior management will not want to incur. My experience of large companies (dare I say especially American) is that any cost that does not contribute directly to the short-term bottom line is minimised or, if possible, avoided. My chief dislike, and my primary reason for returning to freelance work, was that the companies I worked for would not invest in their employees because usually there was no immediate benefit but there was a cost, and the discussion stopped there. Sorry, bit of a thread hijack. In summary, unlocking costs more than keeping things locked down - at least it looks that way to senior management and they won't take the time to dig deep enough to see if that is really true. Personally I think there is a good case for having different network zones with different levels of lockdown - trusted senior developers could have more unfettered access than new juniors, sales team would have different access capabilities to development, who have difference access capabilities to first line support, and so on. But that takes time and costs more... sigh. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
