There is no significant difference between the job they described, and a law enforcement innocent images related job.
With the exception that the law enforcement job you at least get to hope you can catch the A-hole who took the horrible image to begin with.
Mod parent as insightful. I also take notes not as a way to remember the meeting, but as a way to organize my thoughts about what should be said next.
Its a lot easier than just blurting out a tourette's like stream of consciousness. And less disconcerting to my managers and peers.
In the computer world, we're all taught to only install firmware updates if there is a real problem because a large percentage of firmware updates actually brick the hardware or cause other unforeseen bugs.
In the computer security world, we craft effigies of people like you and burn them for not installing the patch that causes the security failure. Lets see if I can follow the logic:
1)The patch that prevents me from dying might break my car.
2)My car is under warranty.
3)My dealer will install the patch, and therefore accept liability for breaking my car.
a) Not accept the patch, and risk DYING.
b) Let the dealer install the patch, understanding that he must fix the car that he breaks while doing the warranty repair work, and accept the consequences, up to and including the dealer providing a new car for breaking my car.
Can anyone help me to understand the argument against installing the update?
When you don't know what to do put a bunch of people in a aroom that might be responsible, come up with a scenario, and ask the question, "Who does what?"
A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth