> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:51:59 EDT, The Security Community said: >>> If it bothers you *that* much, why don't you drop Calum and/or the ITWorld >>> editorial staff a note about it? >> >> The comment is at the bottom of the page. >> >> Calum has been inducted into the 70 Percenters Hall of Shame. >> >> see http://70percenters.googlepages.com/ > > I can guarantee that neither Calum nor the ITWorld editorial staff will > see it there. Actually contacting *them* will probably work better - most > journalists *do* appreciate it when they get factual corrections. > > On the other hand, it's going to be very hard to fight the "70% are insiders" > meme until you find a way to debunk this survey: > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369302,00.html > > Survey: One in 3 Information Tech Professionals Snoops on Other Employees > > "Do you trust your company's friendly information-technology personnel not to > read your e-mail? Maybe you shouldn't. > > A survey of IT professionals > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369302,00.html> revealed that one in > three admitted reading other people's messages, checking out salary details > and going over board-meeting minutes, according to Reuters. > > Nearly half - 47 percent - said they'd accessed information that wasn't > directly relevant to their jobs." > > That's an awful lot of insiders to help pump up that 70%. If that mail > that 1 in 3 was snooping on was ECPA-protected, that's gonna drive up the > incidents a *LOT*, and all of them count as "insider".
The original number is from some research in the 70s. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
