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."

17 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. How convenient by winkydink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cyber-Ark just happens to have a product that helps prevent this.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:How convenient by tool462 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, they do until they fire one of their employees ;)

  2. ethics by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The survey entitled 'the global recession and its effect on work ethics,' carried out for a second year by Cyber-Ark

    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.
  3. On Loyalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:On Loyalty by Renraku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The article has nothing to do with loyalty. If my company wants to lay me off, they're welcome to do so, but I'm still expected to remain within the bounds of the law. I might think poorly of them or get skittish the next time a lay-off spree happens in some future company, but I certainly wouldn't turn molehills into mountains by risking jail time.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    2. Re:On Loyalty by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you feel that the company is treating you bad now... Imagine if they found out that you stole data from them, and used it against them... We had an employee do that. He is now bankrupt, and in essence lost everything. And we don't feel bad about it. Oddly enough if you leave your job on good terms even if they lay you off. Chances are they will at least give you a decent reference. Vs. a Yes he worked here and that is all I am gonna say.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  4. On Society, and Sociopathy by zooblethorpe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  5. You can't steal *published* data by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  6. Survey was of white-collar crooks by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The survey asked banksters and Wall Street fraud artists: FTFA:

    Carried out amongst 600 office workers in Canary Wharf London and Wall Street New York

    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.

    1. Re:Survey was of white-collar crooks by tool462 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And specifically, if they're talking about business folks, as opposed to the IT guys, for example, then "stealing information" may include things like taking your client rolodex with you. While this is still ethically questionable, I don't think it's illegal. If it is, it at least has tacit approval by the entire industry with how pervasive it is.

  7. Scary... by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looking at your Slashdot name, that post takes on a bit of an ominous tone. Is "gave my notice" some kind of euphemism?

  8. Yeah right by ximenes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. The New Ethics in America by reporter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This theft of sensitive data by terminated employees is an act of survival. Is it morally right?

    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".

    1. Re:The New Ethics in America by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In this context, we should not judge the morality of stealing sensitive data from your previous employer

      Since when do two wrongs make a right? Did everyone who didn't get laid off | fired | whatever do you wrong? Do they deserve to pay the consequences if you screw over your previous employer and it results in even more job losses?

      Your attitude is childish, greedy, and thoughtless. Or did you not have any friends working there, so in your mind "they all deserve to pay?"

      Employers don't seek out recessions so they can fire people.

    2. Re:The New Ethics in America by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just a quick point:

      but it is imperative for corporations (mandated to make a profit in order to exist) to do so.

      Sure, most* have to make a profit long-term in order to exist, but this sounds dangerously similar to "they have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder profits" - which is the basest of lies, because like any big lie, it's been told so many times that people actually believe it.

      Of course, when challenged, they can't find the appropriate statute (there is none) so they just go around waving their hands ...

      * (there are plenty of corporations whose mandate is definitely not to make a profit. Some are philanthropic in nature, some are purposefully tax shelters, some are NGOs, some are professional corporations charged with overseeing their members to make sure they adhere to standards, etc.)

    3. Re:The New Ethics in America by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't give me the two wrongs don't equal a right, crap. What about what goes around, comes around? I think that in Darwinian system such as ours, all is fair. After all, AIG, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs fucked us, the little guy. If you want to go the philosophical route, A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye motherfuckers!

      ... and they had the complicity of over 20 million greedy Americans, who believed that it was okay to lie on mortgage applications, or be willfully blind to obvious problems, or ignored the experiences from the previous housing bubbles and the warnings from people like me by mindlessly chanting "this time it's different", or who profited from the hype in other ways, or whose cases now clog the courts, or whose recklessness helped cause the meltdown that is costing other people their jobs, or who treated their homes as ATMs, or who rang up huge credit card debts for no rational reason.

      The bubble couldn't have happened without their willful participation. The banks couldn't have done it without your neighbours help. So, yes indeed, what goes around has come around. Your neighbours helped f*ck you over. They were the crucial element without which the housing bubble could not have happened.

      And why not apply it to the international level. The US and Great Britain were the two countries that fueled the housing bubble - so, as you so vulgarly put it - "A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye motherfuckers!" - we're glad to hear you'll forfeit your assets to compensate the other countries for the damage you two did to the global economy.

      Or you could stop being so childish and realize that two wrongs don't make a right.

  10. Re:I owe my employer absolutely nothing by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why would anyone want to risk hiring someone who demonstrates that they're crooked?

    I've gathered up the passwords to the products we make and have been using them as part of my pitch to the competition

    ...

    I am going to take anything and everything with me that will help me succeed with the competition

    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.