Comment Re:Laugh-worthy (Score 1) 138
If he simply inspected their systems, fixed any holes he knew about, provided no information to the bank about what he had done except a note to say "your system is now more secure" that might be okay.
That assumes that the existing client staff wouldn't have a clue about how to compare the systems baselines before his security changes with the state of the systems after. The diffferences between the two states would contain the "secret".
When someone who formerly dealt with highly classified information in government writes a book, the usual deal is that the book's contents get vetted by ${security_agency} before publication. It's a lot more difficult to do that type of thing if the guy is using that information to secure a client's systems.
So I can understand the concern here.
We (the US) would be better off providing such folks with golden parachutes to avoid having to tell them not to try to profit from what they learned on the job, after they leave.