AOL CTO Shown the Door

BrewerDude writes "Reuters is reporting that AOL Chief Technical Officer Maureen Govern has resigned from the company. Is this an appropriate penalty for releasing 20 million keyword search results, or is it too harsh, or not harsh enough? What do the slashdot readers think is the appropriate outcome of this fiasco?"

well, considering other reasons

[yagu]

From the summary: Is this an appropriate penalty for releasing 20 million keyword search results, or is it too harsh, or not harsh enough? ...

Well, considering that others are shown to the door for working 20+ years, garnering good reviews, and creeping within a chip shot of expensive pension payoffs, it's probably reasonable to show this guy the door.

Probably the biggest crime, and one we'll never be in on, is how golden a parachute this guy jumped with.

Sexistdot

[Quiet_Desperation]

Why are so many posters referring to "Maureen Govern" as "he"?

Absolutely

[bgardella]

During my first IT job, the CTO resigned when a server crashed and 2 weeks worth of orders and return information was lost. Tape backup procedures failed. Not sure if she was pushed out or if she voluntarily fell on her sword, but I felt then as I do now that it was the right thing to do. If you are the head of a department that fails to do their job in some egregious way, you should bear full responsibility and pay accordingly. Too many execs find ways to point blame below them. In my case, she could have easily fired the dweeb managing the backup tapes. He's the one who screwed up, right? Maybe he even lied about keeping up to date. This was 1995. Have I seen anything like it since? Nope.

Re:Where's the connections...

[Enoxice]

Was there people between the supervisor and the CTO who should've gotten the sack?

Are you suggesting they should've just burned down the whole division and started from scratch? The person that released the data (for obvious reasons), the direct supervisor (for not catching the error before it made it out, and the CTO (for not catching wind of it and stopping it). Personally, I want to think it was overkill to can the CTO, as well, but whatever AOL thinks they need to do to save face. It's their call.

Re:well, considering other reasons

[Dhalka226]

Where in the grandparent post did you see any judgment about anything OTHER than her looks? Her "worth" was never mentioned.

If we can't judge peoples' looks by their looks, well, that's going to be a bit problematic.

Re:Apropriate?

[cowboy76Spain]

Given the publicity this error has had (and its repercussions), the next CTO should have already learnt from the mistake. If he/she hadn't, I think AOL should select another CTO because, no matter your skills, common sense is still needed.

And if I even get to a job that someone has left vacant, one of my firsts worries will be asking what happened to the previous guys.

Re:He should have been fired.

[DirePickle]

You are not elligible for unemployment if you are fired. There is a difference between that and a layoff, which you are elligible with.

Re:CTO seems to be the wrong person.

[rm69990]

Really? Please point out which law, and more specifically, which paragraphs and sections of that law that state that when you utilize another entity's servers for personal gain (to find information), they are not allowed to retain the data. I'll be waiting...

Re:Find that in the Constitution, bright boy.

[rm69990]

I went ahead and looked at some case law myself, and none of it supports your position.

According to The Supreme Court in Katz vs. United States http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=case&court=us&vol=389&page=353 [findlaw.com]

"That Amendment protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion, but its protections go further, and often have nothing to do with privacy at all. Other provisions of the Constitution protect personal privacy from other forms of governmental invasion. But the protection of a person's general right to privacy - his right to be let alone by other people is, like the protection of his property and of his very life, left largely to the law of the individual States."

In other words, the 4th Amendment does NOT apply to any entity other than the Government and does not protect a person's general right to privacy.

The ruling goes on to say:

"What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection."