Because securing employee social security numbers and bank account numbers is an evil nefarious act, and we should hope some brave freedom fighter comes along and liberates said information and sells it to such white knights as the Russian mob.
Can you tell me how reduced? What percentage of data theft by insiders is by whistle blowers, and what percentage is by employees out to screw employers or profit by selling sensitive information?
My gut tells me the latter far outweighs the former, but clearly you must have some notion as you say that being a good organization will seriously reduce your risk.
I can't quite sort out why I have been modded troll. The issue of data leaks is a big issue, even for organizations that do good (again, however you define that. I agree that Snowden was morally right to do what he did, but try to imagine a situation in which an employee nicking your data is doing it to blackmail you or sell to a competitor?
Not every person stealing your data is some glorious warrior of freedom. Most are, well, to put it bluntly, just plain criminals, and as with any kind of theft, frequently those best placed to steal your data for nefarious ends are your own employees.
Yes, well, perhaps in La-la Land. Here, in reality, no matter how good your organization may be (for whatever definition of "good" you choose to use), you may still end up with bad employees. The question of securing your data shouldn't be about good or evil, or any particular moral judgment, but simply about how to make sure you're critical and confidential data doesn't end up being ripped off.
"Can i bring my reader to their store and walk out with an ebook loaded?"
I don't really disagree with what you've said, but I have no idea why you would want to go to a specific place to get an ebook. That's a use case I don't understand. Why would that be good?
True...absent monopoly interference.
That's a business decision by one business (who happens to be going out of business). So, yeah, not the same.
Two words; hot grits.
Yes, but if you can sufficiently undermine him personally, it becomes a lot easier to undermine what he has to say. People happily shoot the messenger all the time.
like Socrates, he will be forced to drink the hemlock tea.
If slavery was going to end in the South, why were the Southern states so keen to make sure a large ratio of future states bring formed out of the Western expansion would b slave states?
The slave states didn't want just accommodation, they wanted to expand and further entrench slavery.
I might ask the same of the Christian.
Well, if it's anything other than the Gospel as written, and let's not kid ourselves--there is a vast swath of people labeling themselves Christian whose doctrine is sheer hooey--then those purported Christians are going to be Crush-tians.
I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere.