Slashdot Mirror
Recession Pushes More Workers To Steal Data
An anonymous reader writes to share the findings of a recent transatlantic survey which suggests that the recession is pushing workers to be a little bit more accommodating when it comes to sharing, viewing, or stealing sensitive information from the company they work(ed) for. "Pilfering data has become endemic in our culture as 85% of people admit they know it's illegal to download corporate information from their employer but almost half couldn't stop themselves taking it with them with the majority admitting it could be useful in the future! [...] The survey entitled 'the global recession and its effect on work ethics,' carried out for a second year by Cyber-Ark – found that almost half of the respondents 48% admit that if they were fired tomorrow they would take company information with them and 39% of people would download company/competitive information if they got wind that their job was at risk. Additionally a quarter of workers said that the recession has meant that they feel less loyal towards their employer."
Unless I make enough money to retire debt free, no deal.
Most people will get caught and lose their jobs for tiny amounts of money and poor future job prospects
Once my company's competitor learns I know how much Bob from accounting or Joanne from HR make, I'm sure they will shower me with Andrew Jackson's business cards.
And then I woke up :)
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Cyber-Ark just happens to have a product that helps prevent this.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Speaking of professional ethics, who wants to bet that a survey sponsored by Cyber-Ark uses leading questions to produce results which bolster their business?
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
"Additionally a quarter of workers said that the recession has meant that they feel less loyal towards their employer."
I'd be happy to show some loyalty to my employer if they would but return the favor. Instead I'm treated as a simple expense on the accountant's balance sheets; one that's easily gotten rid of. The people who make the decisions are much too far removed from the people who make the product. Hell, I feel more loyalty to my favorite baseball team than I do to the corporation I work for.
surprise anyone? I mean come on in this recession anyone will do anything to have a competitive edge at getting the next 6 months worth of work. I don't hesitate to say that this trend started long before the recession and will probably continue long after its end. I know (End what's that)
Indeed. When execs are getting $10 mil bonus packages for burning a company to the ground, when the upper echelons are gutting pension plans by reneging on past promises and contracts and then turn around and pocket the savings for themselves, it should come as no surprise in the least that those of us further down the corporate ladder are taking a similarly opportunistic approach.
Social mammals tend to emulate the alpha individuals of their groups. The alphas, by dint of successfully establishing themselves as alphas, are viewed as successful -- "well, they're doing something right for themselves, guess it'd be smart for me to do the same." When sociopaths lead our companies, the employees themselves will, generally speaking, start behaving more sociopathically. It's basic survival.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
You can't steal music (except by stuffing CDs down your pants at the store) because the data is published (not to mention broadcast). Confidential information, on the other hand, can be "stolen" because, while you're still merely copying the data, you're stealing the secret.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Because I'm sure the people working IT would have different statistics, given that we generally have ALOT more access to ALOT more information. I can read people's emails, I can look up every work order, I can view everyone's hard drives, browser history, heck, anything leaving the company network gets some log by the proxy.
I'm sure IT guys could find alot more valuable information, and as such, might be more willing to sell it.
The survey asked banksters and Wall Street fraud artists: FTFA:
We already know that Wall Street and Canary Wharf are full of crooks. I suspect that among that bunch, the 41% is low - the other 59% probably lied.
Looking at your Slashdot name, that post takes on a bit of an ominous tone. Is "gave my notice" some kind of euphemism?
I'm sure that some people do try to profit from illicitly obtained information from their past employers; I've heard a few stories here and there about people getting busted. But there is simply no way that 50% of everyone in the workforce is doing this for a few simple reasons:
1. Risk - I think everyone is aware that the damage to your career and professional reputation would be catastrophic if you were caught, not to mention the legal ramifications.
2. Ethics - Yes, people do have them. Maybe not everyone is the pinnacle of ethical behavior, but that doesn't mean every other person you see at the office is just waiting to mug you and steal your wallet in the parking lot.
3. Nothing to steal - The majority of employees just don't have access to proprietary information that is actually of value outside the company. Sure, I could tell a future employer about my company's HR policies or give them an org chart. That might be very slightly useful, but certainly isn't going to get me hired or land me millions. I could also give them all of the company's internally developed code, but it would be of little use without all of the institutional knowledge, expertise and essentially the entire original company to go along with it.
4. Employers are liable as well - Take the case of the people who tried to sell some of Coke's trade secrets to Pepsi. They were refused, and Pepsi informed the police. They know that they would be liable for the illegal behavior as well, and want no part of it. Now not every employer operates above board, but it's a risky game to try to sell information to someone who may not even want to buy it.
So in summary: bullshit.
If the data is so sensitive, you'd think that a company would bother to change the passwords periodically so employees that have been let go can't get back into the system. However, security doesn't seem to be a terribly high priority so companies shouldn't be surprised when things like this actually happen.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
"Causality error" in that they've mistaken the (observed) effect as a "cause". The fact is, the "global recession" has merely revealed a decline in workers' "ethics" that was already there and which had been forming for at least the past several decades. Despite what the talking heads (in both media and the government) are saying, this "economic downturn" is nowhere near as bad as the "Great Depression"; this according to the many "oldsters" I am in frequent conversation with -- my own parents included -- who actually lived through the period rather than merely learning about it from the history books -- and their recollections do not include such a widespread deterioration in the "morals" (their word -- read "ethics") of the population (and yes there were notable exceptions, some accounts of which are a little scary even to modern ears, but by and large people -- at least in this part of the country -- still left their doors unlocked at night; I triple-locked my doors almost religiously during even the much lauded "economic boom time" of just a few years ago!!) Poverty does not cause crime any more than crime causes poverty (including but not by any means limited to the "victims" of Mr. Madoff -- their poverty was caused by a mixture of greed and stupidity.)
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Once your employer displays their intentions to sacrifice you for a fistful of dollars, you may feel that sacrificing their interest is also an option.
If the market is an ideal system, regulated by pure greed, then profit = good. Corporations have no morals, just greed.
In such an environment, what's wrong with an employee to seek the most profit from the employing corporation? As long as the employee turns positive cashflow post fines and prosecution fees everything should be fine. Even if the corporation goes bankrupt as a result; as long as the perpetrator's balance sheet is OK, collateral damage does not matter.
Right?
So you think I should be able to find your payroll records and criminal history on Google too, or is it a one-way street?
Humans still decent at survival! News at 11.
To answer that question, we should understand the theft in the total context of labor ethics. The current economic recession differs from the previous recession (during the dotcom bust) in 2 important ways. One difference is that it was caused by a failure of the banking system, which had placed financial bets on bad mortgages.
A second difference is that the "normal" lag between declining gross-domestic product (GDP) and rising unemployment was very short. In all previous recessions, the lag was at least 6 months. During this recession, the lag was much shorter. Once the typical employer saw declining orders for products or services, he immediately fired workers. This high-speed termination of workers was once the hallmark of the Silicon-Valley employer's mentality but has now spread to the rest of the nation.
The national unemployment rate exceeds 10 percent. In some states, the rate exceeds 12%.
By contrast, Japanese companies (for cultural reasons) and European companies (for both cultural reasons and legal reasons) make every effort to avoid firing workers during an economic recession. Although Americans once laughed at Europeans for favoring kinder, gentler labor policies that "hindered" economic growth, the Europeans now have the last laugh: the unemployment rate in America now exceeds the rate in several European countries.
The Americans favor a Darwinian system of employment: survival of the fittest. If you are "weak" and if you do not have the right political connections (e. g., being the beer-drinking buddy of the department head), then you will be fired. If you lose your home, your family, and commit suicide, then the Darwinian system gives only 1 reply: "Too bad, loser!"
In this context, we should not judge the morality of stealing sensitive data from your previous employer. If he fired you in response to the recession, then you should do whatever you need to do to survive. You should live by Darwinian rules. You do whatever you need to do and whenever you need to do "it".
Why would anyone want to risk hiring someone who demonstrates that they're crooked?
I won't even name my previous employer until the NDA has expired. As for passwords, etc., I do my best to forget them the minute I walk out, after handing them over. I don't even want to be tempted, and it's a small world. It's nice to be called back a year later because they know that, no matter whether you left on good or bad terms, you can still be trusted.
"If you're going to steal for me, what's to stop you from stealing from me?"
"If you're going to lie for me, what's to stop you from lying to me?"
"If you're going to screw someone else over, why should I trust you?"
"Would you do it for a million bucks? Yes? How about a dollar? What do you mean, 'What kind of a person do you think I am?' We already established that with your first answer!"
Trust is easy to lose - and once gone, you can end up like Kurt Greenbaum the "social media director" who is now a pariah because he violated people's trust by revealing a posters' identity and then gloating about it in his column. Don't leave mad - just leave. Life is too short.
manufacturing processes, marketing material, suppliers. etc etc.
Deleted
I'm reminded of what I once heard a lady say on the subject of dating married men: "If he'll do it to them he'll eventually do it to you." In your case: any company who'll hire someone based on what they can illegally/immorally bring to the table will treat them like the crap they are when what they brought to the table is used up.
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
When push comes to shove survival of the fittest rules all. When it comes down to the wire of being able to support yourself and provide for your family, morality is far less a consideration than providing is. Simply put, like it or not, morality is in the eye of the beholder and nature doesn't give a rat's ass how you FEEL about anything.
Company's that don't treat their employees like valued assets will discover it is the very foundation of their business which will turn on them when they need them most. The old-boys-club (or woman's club nowadays) can fall to ruin under the pressure of a survivalist-economy just as quickly as they can layoff a $30k worker in HR rather than cut $100k+ executive pay or bonuses by 1% in order to help keep that worker and their company strong.
No loyalty or sense of community = no loyalty or care of the communities well being.
I am Jack's smirking revenge.
me too - in fact, the artificial non-posting of salaries, bonus, and other information leads to distortions in the marketplace.
Which, in other words means that dotgain hates capitalism ... (grin)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Depending on how you ask the question, you'll get a different answer. Sensitive data range from a simple copy of the internal phone list, to a valuable dump of the client database. For programmers, I bet 95% would keep copies of minor programs they wrote believing they will be of use for them at a later job. Created on company time and therefore company owned perhaps, but that automatically mean any harm has been done.
The original article was lots of hype and scare tactics. What were they trying to sell again?
1. Are you going to pay them back the money they gave you in exchange for creating it?
2. Are you that poor a developer that a year later you can't think of a better way to implement something, that doesn't involve misappropriated the code that belongs to them, because they PAID for it?
3. Are you that poor a developer that you're basically a one-trick pony, and can't work on anything other than that one product?
4. Do you have the guts to put your name on it here and now?
Your mother would be ashamed of you.
Exactly right. Regardless of your own personal ethics, any company that hires you because you're bringing confidential information to them isn't going to be a trustworthy place that values you as an employee.
If you really want to hurt them, make a copy of all this confidential information. Then find a job with a nice company that seems to value you. Now that your economic position is secure, you can have revenge: make sure your fingerprints aren't on this information, and anonymously mail it to some of your old company's competitor(s) (make sure it's not the same company you're now working for). You won't gain anything personally but revenge, but at least you'll be relatively safe (make sure it can't be traced back to you) and can screw them over.
I just got fired today for false accusations that I broke an NDA with my ex-employer.
Just got back from the lawyers office. I don't have much chance of getting the job back, even if I wanted it, but I'm preparing legal action if they ever lie to future employers that I broke their NDA, because I in fact, did not. Yes, I can prove that.
FTFY, assuming you're serious.
$ make available
You call bullshit, but this survey is about how desperate and scared people are.
1. Risk - In the industry I work in, even before the Recession, theft of data has always been a huge issue. No, theft of data is no big deal at your local 7-11, but at businesses with regular customers, it could be a simple matter for a salesrep to snatch it's customer roll and sneak off, start their own company, and take these customers with them. the survey talked to 600 people in Canary Wharf London and Wall Street New York. That happens there all the time too. Risk is not the same across all industries, and we aren't talking about the coke formula, we are talking about orders, customers, item lists, stuff more basic than a super secret soft drink formula.
2. Canary Wharf, Wall Street... nuff said about ethics there. In general, I disagree in that, particularly in the states, that a majority of people are that loyal to their employer. I'm loyal to my employer because they pay me well, and because if I did come up with an idea to steal data, I'd completely botch it since I'm horrible at intrigue, deceit, lying, and anything else you'd need to pull off illicit behavior. However, I hold no huge ideal that I should be loyal to them just because it's the right thing to do. They haven't exactly been 100% loyal to me. And if there is even a sniff that I might be laid off, I'm not thinking of my company, I'm thinking about me and where my next mortgage payment is coming from. Layoffs are still rampant in the US, and layoffs do NOT garner loyalty. My company has had layoffs.
3. nothing to steal - your answer thinks of only one industry, software. I work in software and software is protected by patents and copyright in the states, so it's hard to steal because lawyers catch you and sue you. However, as I've stated, in my industry, our customers worry about data security all the time. Customer roles, item lists, pricing, all these things give you a competitive advantage if you can find out what they are. Pricing in business to business transactions is all over the place, it's not one price for all like in retail. Find out what you are selling to which customers for what prices, then find a way to beat those prices and quietly steal those customers away... and you have a disaster. You could start investigating who is stealing them, but by the time you find out you've lost a lot of business and it's not economically beneficial to try to sue the guy for damages in general. You might get something back but you don't want to do that at all, because lawyer fees are a pain and the return on investment isn't like it is at large software or soft drink companies. You can't patent a price list.
4. Employers are liable as well - see legal liability under #3. Also, a lot of these salesreps just go off and found their own companies and take their customers with them, so the company and person taking the liability are one and the same, meaning no more additional liability than before, and the same amount of risk. What's even worse is that if you lay a salesrep off, you can't steal his brain. If he just remembers this information in his head, it's not illegal. You just have to hope to provide better value or try to scare them with a noncompete clause, which these days can be broken easily.
The US is at 10% unemployment, and businesses to this day do whatever they can to maintain large executive bonuses while staying in the black, and while Wall Street continues to suck the money from them. Money is trickling up, not down, and people feel cheated out of jobs and homes. If they feel cheated, you damn well better believe the employees will cheat back if they think they can get away with it. The employers who did not do everything they could possibly think of to be loyal to their employees will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
In retrospect, payroll records was a bad example on my part, and I kind of agree with your comment.
Would be interesting to see what information they consider corporate data. I'm guessing with a statistic that high it is more phone numbers of friends in the business you might call to find your next job. That is way different that downloading the companies source code to share with your next employer. A survey geared to sell the companies software is likely skewed with leading questions.
Exactly. For any capitalist system to function properly, all market participants must have full and equal access to all information.
This includes labor.
No, this isn't Karl Marx's ideas - this is Adam Smith, the inventor of Capitalism.
Downmodding me won't change the fact that free and widely distributed information makes the market function better, as does all inputs, both good (GDP) and bad (pollution, etc, which aren't measured in our system).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
So in the end, it's all about your ego being bruised ... ask anyone, you'll be the bigger person if you can just walk away from it. I know, when you feel they've ripped you a new one and left you bleeding on the sidewalk, that's hard to do, but it's not worth it.
Two men were walking along. Their religion forbade them from having any physical contact with women not their wives.
They came to a stream, and there was a woman there, who was too small and delicate to get across on her one.
One man silently picked her up and carried her across.
The other one watched in equally silent disapproval.
Later that day, the first man, noticing the scowl still on his friends' face, said "Friend, what is wrong?"
The second man said "You picked up that woman and carried her across the stream."
"Yes, but I put her down hours ago. Why are you still carrying her around?"
You have enough carrying your own burdens.
If you work "hard and smart" you should not have trouble finding a job. The market is very strange right now. You have to remember that the majority of people in any field are under-competent. It's this majority of workers who are having trouble finding alternate employment. In contrast, I've spoken with many old colleagues and friends over the past year who are BEGGING me to help them find qualified workers. The most recent instance was at my previous employer, who terminated their head network engineer for various reasons, and they are actually unable to fill his position now. Not because there is nobody looking for work, but because all the BEST people are already employed.
I hate to break it, but if you're looking for work and can't find it, it means you aren't that good. Now, by violating your employer's trust, you are both a poor employee as well as one who can't be trusted. That will get you NOWHERE in the future.
Seriously? Why do they expect that line level workers shouldn't act like crooks when it's standard practice for executives? Step back from this article title and realize that crooked executives caused the recession and it makes perfect sense.
"E Pluribus Unix"
Where do I hire you?
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
When a music/video piracy article pops up here it seems like somebody always points out that copyright infringement isn't theft. Nobody is being deprived of something, blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, you know the arguments.
It seems like there's no stealing or theft involved here either; it's just a copy and nobody is being deprived of anything. Don't recall anybody pointing that out before in this context.
Case A) Copying bits, but it's not theft it's copyright infringement.
Case B) Copying bits, but it *is* theft.
It would seem that there might be a distinction, and I'm curious where people draw the line.
Kanuckistan, otherwise known as Montreal, Quebec, Canada, eh :-)
The funny thing is, if you act decently, you soon find yourself surrounded by people who act the same way. If someone finds themselves surrounded by people they wouldn't trust with the deposit on an empty soda pop bottle, they might want to look in the mirror. If you find yourself surrounded by people you can trust, its probably because they feel they can trust you too.
That must make interviews rather awkward.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Some of us like to work for reasons beyond simple money.
Perhaps you made the wrong job choice, my sympathies.
It's never to late to find something you like to do (accepting financial reality.)
Who knows: If you like it you might even be good at it?
Or perhaps you are just fucking lazy.
I would go stir crazy without something useful to do.
If I were independently wealthy I would have to construct a job like activity to keep me busy. Perhaps 'making a small fortune in auto racing'? Bet I would work _more and harder_ doing that.
That said I prefer to spend my time 'solving technical puzzles/problems, usually with computers', not playing office politics with a bunch of morons.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Yes, it does. However, I feel it's the right thing to do - this way, there's no temptation to share things inappropriately.
It's the same thing as when I was on jury duty. I was supposed to hand in the notification sheet at the beginning of the murder trial, but I told my employer I would only be handing it in after it was all over, to avoid the possibility of anyone searching for news about it and either accidentally saying something I wasn't supposed to hear about the case, or bugging me about details. It's not just about "respecting the law" - it's about respecting the other 11 jurors, the rights of the defendant, the judge, and the general public who both fund the courts and expected us to do our duty.
Kurt Greenbaum tried to say that he didn't out the anonymous poster - he only gave the employer the IP of the user and the time the comment was posted. We all know how bogus that sounds, but some people might actually buy that lame excuse. As director of social media for the Post-Dispatch, he certainly thought it would work. It didn't. Similarly, I'm not supposed to divulge either the code of the servers we developed and ran, or any proprietary business information. People are innately curious, so not identifying the employer by name is the easiest way to avoid problems. Nobody can ask - "Hey, you used to work for XYZ - we know they can do this - how did you handle it there?" Do you say, in which case you're an untrustworthy jerk, or do you refuse, in which case you just look like a jerk?
I've got people who I've worked with who won't hesitate to give me a great personal AND professional reference. Or anyone wanting to know where I'm at can always read my random postings and journal entries. Or they can ask my freak collection if they want to see an opposing viewpoint. After all, this IS the Internet, and you should assume they can do that sort of thing :-)
Very interesting, thanks for that.
In some other thread here on /. that I ran across earlier today, someone else had posted this link, which I found very interesting as well:
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/Introduction_links.pdf
That's just the intro, but if you find it holds your attention, the full article / online book is available from the parent directory.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Nicely put. :-P
Though I'm repeating myself from elsewhere in this thread, some other poster in a completely different Slashdot thread linked through to this introduction to a serious study of authoritarianism -- not so much as a governmental style, but rather as a social and emotional construct. Since we're talking about rotting from the head down, it might make sense to look at the head... :) If the intro linked here holds your interest, the whole online book is available from the parent directory.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Your NDA forbids mentioning where you work? That's absurd.
It's the same thing as when I was on jury duty. I was supposed to hand in the notification sheet at the beginning of the murder trial, but I told my employer I would only be handing it in after it was all over, to avoid the possibility of anyone searching for news about it and either accidentally saying something I wasn't supposed to hear about the case, or bugging me about details
You're a grade A moron or a troll. Jury tampering is a felony and your coworkers aren't children.
People are innately curious, so not identifying the employer by name is the easiest way to avoid problems. Nobody can ask - "Hey, you used to work for XYZ - we know they can do this - how did you handle it there?" Do you say, in which case you're an untrustworthy jerk, or do you refuse, in which case you just look like a jerk?
You use your judgement: either the question is a standard practice thing or trade secret, and the difference should be clear. I'll gladly talk about how my last job ran its dev process/org, but I won't tell you how they arrange things in the warehouse or what their transaction volume is.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
I was also thinking about computer programs. Which programmer will not save some source code examples?
"If you're going to steal for me, what's to stop you from stealing from me?"
"If you're going to lie for me, what's to stop you from lying to me?"
"If you're going to screw someone else over, why should I trust you?"
And yet the people "at the top" - in business, in government, in organized crime, everywhere - play these same games with each other, and have played these games with each other for centuries. Somehow, the whole thing still "works" and they manage to stay "on top". How do they pull that off? How do they keep the house of cards from falling when every one of them knows that every other one of them would turn on them if the moment was right? It doesn't sound like it would be possible to keep an organization going in an environment like that, but somehow they do it.
There are projects that I've worked on that I cannot talk about in anything but the most general terms (or risk breaching the Official Secrets Act, which could land me in jail). Yes, it does make interviews awkward, or even writing my mini-CV for my employer's consulting team to use on bids (in a "meet the team" sort of way), but it's the way it has to be.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Every job you take is an "entry-level job" for the job above it. I know, it should be obvious, but a lot of people seem to be missing it in this duscussion.
Or they can surround themselves with people that don't have that ethos.
I remember at one job, after regular hours, one of the owners said something that sticks with me. The place always had lots of cash on hand, lots of easily-stolen and easily-fenced stock, and there were occasionally some problems with someone being "light-fingered." He said "That's what's good about everyone in your family. We can leave you with thousands in cash sitting out in the open, and an hour later, we don't even have to check it."
Perhaps it's because we grew up poor; when you're a big family and you don't have much, you learn to share rather than "mine mine mine!"
A second-rate person surrounds themselves with third-rate people. A first-rate person surrounds themselves with first-rate people. And if they aren't first-rate, they'll teach them how to become first-rate, by example. That's how to lead, that's how I treat my co-workers, and that's how I expect to be treated in return.
Sometimes, I end up being disappointed (to put it mildly) but at least I can sleep at night.
I don't think the choice to steal or not to steal is caused by the recession. At a job I once worked, it became very clear to me that, "It is tremendously harder to walk in integrity than to grab for what isn't yours." I walked the difficult - the VERY difficult walk. I grew stronger by making that choice. I am glad - VERY glad, I did not compromise. Quote above is mine. I am Susan Lois Metler Henry and you may quote me.
Giving the name of the place where I work, plus the nature of my work (server code, etc) would be enough to reveal at least some of the information that's under NDA, such as the technology behind how they handle the volume of requests on low-end hardware.
They're human. They're curious. They asked. So did a few other people. My response was uniform - "I can't discuss it, and if you ask me again, I have a phone number in my pocket that I'm to call, and within minutes you'll be hauled off, spend the night in the pokey, and have a not-so-nice talk with the nice judge before court starts the next day. I hope you have a spare pair of clean underwear with you, because you'll need it. So please, change the topic."
I didn't want to take a chance of overhearing something, even accidentally. Earlier this year two jurors were hauled before a judge in the same court for speculating about whether it was possible to stand on a truck bumper. The rules are very clear - no discussion of the case except among jurors in the deliberation room and only after hearing all the evidence. Backed up with 2 year jail sentences. Also, up here we don't allow jurors to ever discuss the deliberation process, what went on in reaching the verdict, who voted what, etc. Everything that went on in that room during deliberations stays in that room, forever. The only exceptions provided in law are for psychological counseling, and only AFTER the court approves and under the courts' supervision, related to the stress of the trial, or for an inquiry into juror misdeeds.
That's one reason why our courts aren't media-driven circuses.
Here's a story that might help:
3 truck drivers were applying for a job.
They were each asked the same question - "You're on a tricky narrow road on the side of a mountain. How far to the edge can you maneuver the truck?"
Driver #1: "I can get it to within inches of the edge, no problem."
Driver #2 "I can beat that! Since they're dualies (two tires on each side of the axle) I can get the outside tire to hang over the edge in a pinch!"
Driver #3: "As far away as possible. I'd rather scrap the mirror on the other side."
Or, closer to home: 'Work on a live server if necessary, but not necessarily on a live server."