Leadership

Survey says you can trust IT as far as you can throw it

Would you believe a poll of IT pros that says 88 percent would steal corporate data if laid off from a company?

Would you believe a poll of IT pros that says 88 percent would steal corporate data if laid off from a company?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently IT is filled with some larcenous, revengeful people. At least that's the conclusion you'd come to if you put much stock into a recent survey featured on PC World. According to that survey of 100 IT pros, 88 percent of IT administrators admitted they would take corporate secrets (like CEO passwords, the customer database, research and development plans, financial reports, merge and acquisition plans and the company's list of privileged passwords) if they were suddenly laid off. Eighty-eight percent. I just don't buy it.

At this point, you just have to step back and take a look at who conducted the survey that is being cited: Cyber-Ark Software, "the leader in securing and managing privileged identities and highly sensitive information." My first thought is that, yes, if I were a company specializing in security solutions, I might also choose as my marketing strategy striking fear in the hearts of the people who hold the corporate purse strings. I can't find any data that reveals who the survey respondents were. Were they inmates at the white collar crime division at Sing Sing? Card-carrying members of Future Felons of America?

Spin has long been a weapon used by companies looking to make a profit off a product. One of the sneakiest ways of doing this is for a company to conduct a survey and then use the "results" to bolster a need for its product. And eventually some media outlet will report it as news.

I could be wrong. Grand larceny could be the standard mind-set of IT pros the world over, but I doubt it.

Let's take our own poll and see what we find out.

About

Toni Bowers is Managing Editor of TechRepublic and is the award-winning blogger of the Career Management blog. She has edited newsletters, books, and web sites pertaining to software, IT career, and IT management issues.

76 comments
.Martin.
.Martin.

it is just me, but I was taught that stealing (of any kind) is wrong...

Nick.Fontana
Nick.Fontana

Another reason why you should think twice before going to just anyone for Data Recovery. I have seen companies keep clents/Corp Data in (unencrypted/unprotected) OPEN folders on Computers with active internet connections (imagine the works of 1 trojan or spyware on that computer), for any employee to go through and take home anything they wish. YREVOCER ATAD DTA (aka MOC.YNYREVOCERATAD ) They are one of the biggest Data Recovery scam artists out there... with BS referals and online "facts" and "testimonials" to say the least. If you sent them your drive and they told you they cant Recover it, it's BS... they just Under-Estimated your recovery and dont wanna do it because they're not gonna make a profit after they out-source it. I crown them the king of talking out of their @ $ $...

NotSoChiGuy
NotSoChiGuy

...while I believe this to be a valid area of concern, the fact that the poll was conducted by a firm (Cyber-Ark) with a vested financial stake in skewing the results in a particular manner renders this null and void for any other purpose than discussion. I'd no sooner accept these results than I would a poll conducted by Symantec that stated that computers running NAV were 10 times more secure than computers running no anti-virus software at all with similar patch levels. Like I said, though, I do recognize this as a valid concern for an enterprise; very similar to someone in finance skimming funds. Without the proper attention to data security/integrity, an organization can be left with the proverbial pants around the ankles should an employee abuse their access.

jck
jck

Any company that doesn't expect an IT Admin to be able to walk away with sensitive info is fooling themselves. Because IT is integrated into almost every facet of corporate organization, it's bound to happen. Have I ever walked away with any secrets? Hell yes. Have I ever used them at another job? Hell yes. Have I ever taken data away from a job? Yes, but not intentionally and never anything sensitive. Maybe like an example database i'd copied using a memorystick or something for Access. Have I ever taken code? Of course. Can't keep from it. It's in my head, and I'm gonna use my innovations for me wherever I go. Have I ever wrecked/havoced/turmoiled a former employer? ....I plead the 5th :^0

michaelsaltmarsh
michaelsaltmarsh

Honestly i have two points of view on this sort of thing. I have no interest in bringing harm to anyone, or stealing anything. However i am employed and am living comfortably. I think it is very easy for one to be acting very differently then how they say would act; because of scenario. If i were to be let go right now i would have enough money and time to find another job easily. If that were not the case you can bet you would not find me on the street. We live in a society of no fair deals, no true equality. Should one want to advance here, one must walk on the backs of those who do not desire to advance. Therefore i can honestly say that i wouldn't do very terrible things should i find myself in a very terrible situation. And for those who chose to lie to themselves about this truth enjoy your ignorance as long as you can and i hope you never find yourself in a terrible situation.

Arcturus909
Arcturus909

I am currently in a position where the users and executives (even the company president) trust me enough to give me unrestricted access to their systems. This makes for much easier troubleshooting of any problems they are experiencing. Why would I reward anyone who trusts me so implicitely by poking around in areas where it none of my business to poke? If the company turned around and suddenly treated me poorly or it was somehow revealed (by an outside source) that I was on the chopping block, I *STILL* wouldn't go poking around. My own integrity is that important to me. :)

tungstendiadem
tungstendiadem

Studies have shown, that by carefully applying statistical analysis and neglecting such things as population size and bias, one can fabricate statistics that are 98% guarantors of the authenticity of the enumerative content satisfaction of the engineered marketing activities.

revlarry
revlarry

My position was downsized/eliminated in 2007, at a company that I had worked at for 7+ years and was never that crazy about. I was surprised, shocked, and upset, and I did absolutely nothing malicious, and I'll tell you why. Had I done something like that, I wouldn't be getting revenge on anyone. I would only be hurting my former coworkers because they would be the ones to have to fix whatever trouble arose. That was my first job and it was very stressful, so much so that I almost felt that they were worse off than I, because of the amount of workload they would be left with having one less person. And since it was my first job, these former coworkers would be my only contacts for references anyway. Retaliation would only have made things worse for everyone, myself included, and would have been pretty immature. When you've been laid off and you're job seeking, it doesn't hurt to be able to tell an interviewer that the people who laid you off will still vouch for you as a professional and capable employee. Let's not forget if you're going to do something super-technical to try and clandestinely get back at an organization... chances are they can figure out that the mailroom file clerk didn't pull off something like that. At that point who wants to deal with possibly being sued, or arrested, or both, let alone forfeiting a hypothetical severance package?

thetruecelt
thetruecelt

I think it is absurd to say that 88 percent of IT pro???s would steal data. Where did they find the people to take this poll? Where were the majority of these people from? What were the parameters they used to sample the population? If there were only 100 people selected that is no where near the population needed to draw a substantial conclusion. These are just a few of the questions that should be raised. Statistics lie and I would like to think that the majority of us have some ethics. I mean how else can you justify handing IT personel priviledged information everyday. TRUST!

Photogenic Memory
Photogenic Memory

I'm just kidding here folks, LOL! However, what if it's your own data, hmmm? Perhaps it's stuff you generated over the years that's not considered company-property or even info about your own identity? I'm just grasping at straws and berries here, hehe.

david.shane
david.shane

However, I have reported my share of people for browsing inappropriate data. In the first hospital I worked in this was considered serious. I work for a different one now and the problem is not recognized. So I stopped reporting it as this only servers to hurt me.

casengs
casengs

you cant trust any body, opportunist are everywhere taking advantage of every situation

Zeppo9191
Zeppo9191

Regarding Cyber-Ark Software's poll, I hardly think 100 is a valid representation of the total population of those involved in the IT industry, and as stated in Toni's article, it's too easy to target your respondents so as to get the results you'd like to propagate. That being said, the poll here is skewed, too. I'm sure a large majority of IT workers would never dream of stealing data from or doing harm to an employer, but any article attached to a poll of similar subject matter would have an effect on the results, making them invalid, as well. Mind you, I'm not completely discounting these results (in fact, I'd be willing to bet that these results are far closer to the truth than those from Cyber-Ark Software's poll), but a valid poll would be done nationwide, with randomly selected participants, and with no lead-in of any kind, opinionated or otherwise. (This article is, after all, generated from Toni's opinion - and I completely agree with the points in her article.)

junsoft
junsoft

This survey is misleading. IT personnel are just like any other group of people. There could be a bad apple or two; but mostly they are trustworthy. Just think; almost all confidential data in the world today is handled by IT personnel.

jlodge
jlodge

If for any reason you answered yes to this survey: PLEASE LEAVE THE IT INDUSTRY NOW AND FIND A JOB WHERE THEY CAN WATCH YOU SO THAT YOU DON"T STEAL ANYTHING. 1. What you think may be "bad treatment" may be because they see YOU can't be trusted. 2. If you are working for such a sleazy company, why? Don't you have any standards, ethics or marketable skills to work at a legitimate place? 3. What the h@ll are you planning to do with the data? They may have a valid reason to fire you but you have absolutely no valid reason to take this data.

OldER Mycroft
OldER Mycroft

Therefore the title falls into the category of a double-negative. Ergo, 'IT' is trustworthy and wholesome. :)

jojinsc
jojinsc

It all depend up the mentality of people.Some people have tendency to take revenge in their blood.So they obviously take it,doesn't matter what they tell to make a good image infront of others.

shardeth-15902278
shardeth-15902278

89% no, 12% yes, maybe they just transposed their numbers. Or posed their question poorly ("Are you sure you don't not want to vote for Bush?"). (Wonder what the results for the survey regarding trust of Cyber-Ark would look like?)

mark.fullbrook
mark.fullbrook

My name is Mark Fullbrook and I am the UK Director of Cyber-ark and as such, was instrumental in the commissioning of this survey, the questions that were asked and the publications of the responses. I want to comment on your piece both from a factual perspective (i.e. Letting you know just what we asked and what the response was) but also from a comment perspective. First, lets talk about the conditions the survey were taken in, the respondents and the questions asked. The survey was conducted at Infosecurity Europe in London in April 2008. It was conducted by a team of independent researchers who were commissioned by Cyber-ark to ask a series of questions around Privileged access and the interaction of users WITH PRIVILEGED ACCESS with highly sensitive information. We had a total of 300 respondents (not 100 as commented on in your piece) and the results we recieved have been the subject of two press releases over the last few months. Of course, the main points that have been picked up by the "blogosphere" have been those points that have painted your average I.T Administrator in a bad light. The one you list here and another one which centered around the question "have you ever used your administrative privileges to access information that was NOT relevant to you role?" (we had 33% of respondees say that they had) The main point that seems to be highlighted as a demonstration that this survey is somehow not accurate is that we are a company that has a vested interest in selling solutions that allow Enterprises to control and monitor privileged access. To that, I say "GUILTY!" We do sell these types of solutions. Not only do we sell them, we sell a LOT of them. We are the clear market leaders. When the worlds biggest companies wanted to control privileged access, to be sure that those with the most control over their internal systems, were monitored just like the normal users in their environment, they turned to us. They trust us to point them in the right direction. So how does that mean that we would deliberately lie about the results of a survey? Surely, if the results of the survey were not to our satisfaction, we wouldnt publish at all? To counter our survey results, I see you have commissioned a survey yourself. I am happy for any independent company to go through the process we went through to identify some kind of issue with the results we have published, but to write the kind of piece you have (and I would say out of all the pieces I have read since we made the release I would say yours was one of the more partisan in its content) and then to ask for a fair poll is somewhat misguided, do you not agree? Cyber-ark did not identify itself at Infosec when the research team conducted the poll, it did not say what the poll was for nor offer any kind of incentive. We merely ensured that the respondee was someone with administration level privileges and then asked the set of questions. I am a firm believer that the majority of people are honest and truthful, I am also a firm believer that there are people out there who are not. We implement controls within our systems to ensure that those who are not can be identified both proactively and, if not proactively, then retrospectively. The majority of companies out there today have no way of controlling and auditing those users who log in as ADMIN or DBA or SYS etc, the type of user that has more technical knowledge of their environment than anyone else. There are some that do. Those companies have invested in technology such as ours. I hope that you will add my comments to those that are posted here. That those have posted in haste, based upon their OWN experiences, think back to those that they have worked with over the years. Can they say that they have never known anyone to take a company customer list with them to their next role? To inform a colleague of what another was earning? To gossip about something they had seen after logging in as local administator on a clients laptop? I suspect that not many will say they have never seen such a thing. I stand by the results of our poll and for those that want to. i invite you to come along to Infosecurity 2009 (in London) and ask to take the poll yourself. Many thanks for reading this rather long but important post. Mark Fullbrook

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

A survey of 100 of the literally millions of IT workers out there is hardly scientific, representative or meaningful in any way other than smearing an honorable occupation.

longhillobserver
longhillobserver

I have to agree with you Toni. There is nothing like a little self-serving research to boost sales. On the other hand, who knows who is responding to any polls that aren't academically generated and peer reviewed? I have to wonder which genius decided to publish that tripe and how much he got paid! On the other hand, really good research is hard to find. How many of the readers of this blog actually go to the trouble of reading the peer reviewed research for their information? I do, but that is only because I'm an academic (and the department chair insists that I don't make stuff up as I go along). As the professor of ethics in an MBA program at one of the top engineering schools in the country, I'm not surprised at the results though. I think I'll do a real study and see if I can come up with the same results, when I have the time. Adj. Prof. H.A. Kupferman Polytechnic Institute of New York University

jmgarvin
jmgarvin

Finance, HR, and the others are to be trusted? Bah....it's absolutely frustrating.

iconoclastic
iconoclastic

I was let go from a company in '04, but it was a "gentle" lay-off. They didn't really want me gone (they just couldn't keep paying me), and they gave me 5 more weeks to work and standard compensation. During that time I collected certain things that would be helpful in getting my next job, and performing when i got there. No licensed software or password lists, just documentation I'd written, utilities and configurations I had helped design and implement, and similar things. In retrospect, and in light of the rigorous Information Protection training we all receive at my current company, some of what I collected was probably inappropriate, despite my benign intentions. I wouldn't do it again, knowing what I know now.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

Since all your other posts include a link to one of their competitors, one you obviously work for. Go away, spammer.

ra2676
ra2676

Thank you so much for bringing a shred of honesty to this thread.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

Not the same possition, but similar. As the new guy, and because no one else wanted the task, I got to inventory all the computers we supported on a military base. It's just strange being granted unquestioned access to everything up to the base commander's office. Mind you, in addition to my honor, I had another motivation for behaving myself. The technical term is MP and they wouldn't have been nice if they had reason to come asking questions. ;) These days when I have unrestricted access to a machine or even the trust of it's owner to do basic repairs, I take that seriously.

ra2676
ra2676

Just because you do something unethical, doesn't mean you have to bring down all the routers or wipe the DB. Who would want to do something that extreme anyway.

thepraxislady
thepraxislady

...should not be on company servers or anywhere else that is not company related. Often when data is lost due to some technical or user error, users panic and demand recovery of their personal data. Dhuh, why is it stored there to begin with? If everyone used company data only, maybe the temptation to leverage data would not be as enticing to users and IT alike?

adkinsan
adkinsan

and therein lies the duality of human existence. "You can't trust anybody," yet you have to trust somebody, even if it's the bus driver, the folks who made your car, or some part of some government to some extent. Yes, opportunists are everywhere, but they aren't always out to get you (unless you are paranoid, in which case isn't it cool to be the center of attention?) If you have the chance to take corporate data and don't take it, you are doing better than the opportunists.

career
career

I couldn't agree more! If you answered anything other than no, please find another profession. That mindset is fruitless for you and often complicates life for those of us that have integrity and care about what we do.

fidlrjiffy
fidlrjiffy

You have a valid point in terms of marketing as well as a somewhat skewed point of view in my opinion. Gossip about something seen as an admin? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if something funny, dumb, and benign were seen. Something serious? I would be very surprised but also not surprised if there was some small percentage of IT people who did that. However, consider that as part of their job responsibilities IT support folk for HR knew salaries, benefits, you name it, which, in fact, is true in virtually every company to say nothing of also being true in every HR department that exists. The IT folk have a daily opportunity to share that information and they simply don't regardless of what your survey says. Do they have access to it, have they said, "guess what the CEO makes", probably a lot. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter except to annoy everyone so it's just not worth the bother. The other issue is that company data is mostly irrelevant and uninteresting whether we have access to it and shared it with our spouse or not. Finally, while in terms of what system admins have access to is one thing, company data is, of course, available to the very people in the business side of use the data. These folks are no more ethical than IT people. I suggest conducting the same poll among finance people.

ra2676
ra2676

I see the point your making. I myself know many people, not where I currently work, but one of the places I worked at formally where "unnecessary" access to user data was standard. From the TR post, and what I have read, there were 10% of people who said they would do something unethical if they were treated unfairly. I have yet to see these people speak up. I believe that's because the tone of the author of this article took. To me it seemed like if you were to use your access in a manor that was unethical, even once, and no matter to what degree, you would be considered a hardened criminal. Drug dealers / traffickers, prostitutes, pedophiles, murderers and such are criminals. So from the very beginning of this article, even before the anonymous poll, this association was established. Even than 10% of TR members said they would do something unethical if provoked, while 1% admitted that they are just malicious, or honest. The TR poll shouldn?t be taken seriously, because there was a standard presented prior to the polling. That?s like saying: Norton is bad, Norton uses too much resources and Avast is better. Norton over charges consumers and does not always detect malware... Survey Home PC Repair Technicians Would you recommend Norton Product? Would you recommend AVAST? The standard was already set that Norton is bad, when in all honesty; it sells and is not as terrible as the writer portrayed it to be. To move back to my point, this article introduced a moral standard, prior to the survey. That alone causes the survey to project information that may be biased and is congruent to the article writer?s views.

Tig2
Tig2

But I also see Toni's. The reality is that there will be those who agree with you and those who agree with her. My strong preference is to take this out of the "trust" space and consider that any time you lay out a result that looks like blame is being cast, you will invariably miss out on clearly sending your message. So let's consider the result from another viewpoint. There is no question that corporations have to have robust access controls and auditing tools in place. Given all of the compulsory regulations, these controls are vital to compliance efforts. In my opinion, that has little to do with whether you can trust your IT professionals and more to do with satisfying regulations. I hear you saying that Cyber-ark can provide that solution. Having been a nurse prior to pursuing a career in IT, I may take confidentiality in a different light than others. But I don't think that I am too different. In my career I have not run into a colleague gossiping about anything that was found on a computer that they were working on. That is, however, only my personal experience. That said, I PREFER that my employer have tools in place that will provide a second pair of eyes on what I do and access on any system. I consider those tools are there to protect me as the employee from false accusation. What I heard Toni objecting to was the use of fear as a marketing strategy. I agree with her on that. I believe that kind of approach only sets up resistance on the part of the IT workers that must implement and maintain the system. In addition, I think that the obvious positive impact to the overall security strategy would be a more compelling point than to raise the question of the ability of a company to trust it's employees. Results that I would be interested in would be around a discussion of what System Administrators are doing today without a tool like Cyber-ark and what benefit those same Admins see in the tool. I would be interested in understanding more fully how a tool like yours fits into my strategic security strategy. I am interested in understanding the final TCO of such a tool. Are there dishonest people in the world? Unfortunately as our evening newscasts suggest, the answer is yes. So let's consider that question asked and answered. Now I am interested in how I can best safeguard my company and employees from them.

shardeth-15902278
shardeth-15902278

What was the Standard deviation for your poll? (A Poll without one is meaningless). 300 still falls far short of sufficient to satisfy LLN. As such, I am somewhat doubtful that you have a meaningful Sigma value to attach to your result.

wanttocancel
wanttocancel

I've talked about things I've seen on clients computers but it was in the lines of "look how much porn that guy/gal had" or "that dude/dudette had some racist material on their computer" but nothing sensitive like salaries or vendor information. I wouldn't want to look at info like that because you don't know who's watching you nowadays. Plus, I have no need for it. Yes, there are distrustful people in the IT industry but that's true for other industries.

ronda.daniel
ronda.daniel

Forgive me if someone else has addressed this, but longhill... has hit at the heart of the matter. What 'exactly' was asked? I've taken my pst file (after proper deletion of appropriate files, of course) upon each move in order to maintain contact after leaving, personal folders, etc. That could put me in the 88% of thieves. The information contained in my pst is not what we would classify as corporate secrets, but the wording of the question could have led to an honest yes - when no secrets (an email address on a business card makes the address no longer a secret) were actually taken. Like the old 'survey says 9 out of 10 dentists prefer...' while 91 out of 100 dentists actually preferred the other brand, it was still honest to say 9 out of 10 dentists prefer... and we just don't know the true results.

jmgarvin
jmgarvin

I'm curious myself. I can't imagine this "study" isn't biased. Ten to one they used leading questions to arrive at the "correct" results.

zalewr
zalewr

Agree with you jm. There is as much (or as little) larceny in the hearts of IT as there is in any other area of a business. I would expect power hungry executives to need security walk them out the door before any of my team...

I_Borg
I_Borg

Though this stuff is considered company property you should always maintain a personal file of all of the work that you produce as a reference for your future work; why re-invent the wheel when you have a document from your previous company that you can use as a template...

Dr Dij
Dr Dij

you might take copies of flowcharts or documentation to show what you did at work. In any case this is NOT something that would be sold to anyone else or given to anyone else. You might flash a copy of flow chart or report sample at an interview. If the company included data of types that would not be sold to third parties, then this totally skewed the results on purpose such that the company wants to sell their software / service securing data.

thepaulmorris
thepaulmorris

I think that IT Security needs to be held to a level of responsibility as well. At my company if an employee is terminated all accounts, AD, E-mail, Remote Access, etc are immediately disabled, this includes badge access as well. So I don't think this is a "trust" issue as its more of a process issue. If a department head knows that this coming Friday he is going to fire his DBA, Joe Smith, he needs to make IT Security, Access Management, Security Ops all aware that this is going to happen on Friday and if possible provide them with a time or send an email 10 minutes prior to termination, so that all accounts are disabled before Joe Smith walks out of his boss's office. Hence stopping any chance of data being stolen dead in it's tracks. If the correct processes are in place then there should be no concerns about data loss.

seanferd
seanferd

They could easily be worded in such a way as to provoke a high positive response. Not an accusation, I just don't know what the questions were.

anne.powel
anne.powel

I'm in one of those "can-see-almost-everything" positions, and wouldn't think of actually looking unless the data's owner asks me to in order to solve a problem. I agree with Tigger Two that I am glad there are security measures in place, and that we have clearly written policies that most people understand. Doesn't mean that we can't use help, though!

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

I thought it might be worth adding this in again though mentioned in another forum. The Accounting profession has been solving this very issue since the first bean counter reported one less than was harvested. Is there anything more holy to a company than money? My highschool class covered GAP thoroughly.

circlestrafe999
circlestrafe999

>>the lines of "look how much porn that guy/gal had" or "that dude/dudette had some racist material on their computer" but nothing sensitive like salaries or vendor information>> I fail to see how talking about what was on, or what was allegedly on someone's computer, is ok because you deem it as 'unsensitive'. A possibly extreme example...someone doing a report or research on racism, (you've talked about 'racist material' on someone's system apparently), and your interpertation of that material leads you to judge them as racist. But at least you didn't look at their salary. Um, ok.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

If the company hired you to produce for them and didn't specifically say you could keep a copy for your portfolio then taking a copy along with you to the next company is not acceptable. This is a problem for developers who regularily build there own libraries and code snippets to reuse. Artists get screwed pretty hard by the music and other content companies also. Sys Admins that have there own toolkit of bash scripts or such, questionable there also; may have to rewrite the scripts if they where written for a company server. My own build scripts, I use the same aproach but write seporate scripts for each system to automate the install. There are areas that blur the lines but when it comes down to it, content you produce belongs to the company. The best aproach seems to be including it in the interfiew process to clarify those blury areas right from the start.

The Scummy One
The Scummy One

for layoffs usually there is a period before the leave date. In some cases the employee knows a few weeks in advance, in others a month or more. If they know they are leaving and still have access, how is IT Security going to stop them. All they could do is increase monitoring these peoples (if they monitored in the first place).

seanferd
seanferd

but did not mean to imply that you were also. Simply a comment indicating that I've seen the "report", but not any stats or methods, let alone the wording of original questions. For now, I'll assume that they clearly asked if the IT personnel would do something unethical, e.g., steal data. Again, I'm not making any accusations, but it is a bit problematic to take the word of the surveyor that his survey was unbiased. Would a biased person claim that their results were, in fact, biased? :) The methodology would speak for itself, if presented. Stats can be unintentionally biased as well, particularly if the work is simply a poll conducted by someone who does not know how to properly design a statistical study. Simply polling the attendees of one particular conference will skew results. At any rate, the TR poll is neither scientific, nor does it have proper sampling, either. (Nor was it "commissioned" :D ) Of course, the largest bias seems to have been introduced by the way the poll results were reported by news outlets. But a survey of 300 folks at Infosec conducted with who knows what methodology does not a valid study make. Again, nor does a multiple choice TR poll.

ra2676
ra2676

I was referring to the TR survey, not the one this article is about. After reading Toni's article, a question was asked. Something like "would you ever steal your employers data." Then there were three responses. Those responses were something like "No, I would never steal data", "Yes, if the employee treated me harshly", and "Yes, I would hack the system to bits." Well after choosing your answer, the statistics of how everyone voted came up. When I did, the results swayed heavily on the side of people being honest. Fine. The article Toni wrote basically slammed the original Surveyors, who did actually a more unbiased survey according to the posted response.

seanferd
seanferd

And they are perfectly valid things to go looking for, let alone simply detect and then mention.

Editor's Picks