That made me giggle!!

Regardless you knew it was possible so why did you argue?

Actually, don't take their word, take the submitter of the article posted a few months ago on /. I searched but there are so many topic including Tesla. It was an article talking about the rapid charging stations (30 minute charge time if I recall) and in that same article there was a statement from someone (not sure who) that Tesla would rather focus it's effort on charging stations due to the complexity in create an exchange network.

I also just spoke to my co-worker and he said that this information came directly from the dealers (months ago). He also mentioned that as a customer they get lots of inside information about the car and the car company's plans (information I'm sure is available to all). Being that Tesla owners tend to be enthusiast, I would take their word over a commenter on /. that doesn't own a Tesla.

According to my co-worker, the reason why charging stations are probably going to pop up before swap stations (where I live), is that the space requirements for batteries is hard to accommodate for many gas stations. In addition there needs to be a distribution system which handles the delivery and recovery of batteries. The other option is to have the gas stations themselves recharge the batteries but this isn't ideal for a few reasons:
1. The gas station will have to invest into chargers which will be obsolete before they are paid for
2. Extra staff required which means you either need volume or you need to charge the customer for the extra cost of storage, charging and labor. The $5.00 charge is now starting to look like $40 / charge.
3. You are relying on a minimum wage employee to take care of very expensive batteries
4. You are asking the gas station to get certified to carry large quantities of these batteries which in those quantities is considered to be a hazard

That's an acceptable statement for small corporations but for large enterprises or corporations with outsource IT, its necessary to have security auditing as you cannot completely trust all your staff (Especially the ones you do not control). People change over the course of their employment. Some staff that may have been trust worthy may develop a sense of entitlement and power. This isn't always obvious to the naked eye. This is why one keeps live tabs on security changes. There is plenty of solutions out there to do this and all this secured from the admins themselves.

The same way call centers monitor their calls (as a deterrent for bad behavior), IT should monitor their staff's activity ESPECIALLY as the security access level.

If that's the case then you aren't setup properly for security audits. There are ways to control this and to be notified LIVE or said changes.

Because they get direct communication with their dealers. If you owned a Tesla you would understand how close a relationship they keep with their customers. Lots of communication via mail and many yearly appointments at the shop for maintenance. I work with 1 Tesla owner and player hockey with 2 others. I hear the same story from all 3.

I keep being told by Tesla owners that this idea was dropped.

3 minutes for a swap is reasonable since it isn't worst than the current process (except for the fact that an employee is now needed for the process)

And then fired because of security audits recorded it. That's what security audits are for.

There are legitimate requests made via email that can be problematic for the individuals. Please don't dilute the legitimacy email because a few odd emails go offside.

FYI. By default only the user can view/edit his emails on Exchange UNLESS the IT grants himself permission. This is why large corporations perform security auditing to see if their own admins are granting themselves access to restricted data.

With the amount of data moving in/out of Sony daily, I doubt it would be noticeable. If done right nobody would see this happening at all

As for admin password policies and picking the right people... it's all rubbish. You can never pick the right people. You can only pick the least at risk people if that's even your choice as a CIO. Sometimes the worst person to give admin passwords to are the leaders, yet if they come to you asking for it you'll hand it over.

The fact is that until you get targeted by an elite group of hackers (don't know if this is the case here), you won't know if your systems are secure enough.

Correction: You didn't get the joke.

You didn't get the job. JEEZ!

Yeah. I don't think they meant to say that because it's not the coding, it's the information that brings power.

It's a funny way to think because you could apply that same logic to any other crime. Murder, rape and theft should all be legal too since it's for people to protect themselves... What's wrong with everybody right?

Hacking isn't illegal as long as you don't infiltrate systems you aren't authorized to. There are firms that specialize in system break & entry and they use hackers to do it. They do this to help secure systems.

In addition, if you read how they were hacked you would understand that it was mostly user mistakes and not system security flaws. (Although the information was obtained from a previous break in when the systems were lax)

Fact is, if you leave you car running in front of the store and someone takes it, it's still theft and the offender will go to prison for it. This regardless of how stupid it was to leave the car running in front of the store.

I don't disagree but turning a blind eye is also being careless.

In this particular case they should have gone forward. It would have been curious to see how many people didn't go see the movie out of fear for the worst.