RSA, the security division of EMC, has confirmed plans to restructure its business, a move than means an unspecified number of long-term staffers will be shown the door. Details are scarce, for now, but RSA said that it plans to make new hires that will more than offset job losses by start of 2014. It wrote in an email: While …
Good Riddance !
This entity called "RSA Security" obviously doesn't know anything about real security. Rather, they epitomize the corruption which will bring down the entire western civilization in a few years, if we don't stop the rot right now.
Strong statement ? Then read this and judge for yourself:
The faster RSA "security" is wiped off the face of earth, the better it is.
Re: Good Riddance !
Really, Lockheed Martin itself is another factor in the downfall of "western civilization" along with the cancer of liberal presidents and their caring gender-equality sidekicks. Does its F-35 even fly?
F*CK THEM ALL.
Re: Good Riddance !
There are others in the same gig that just haven't been exposed for their compromises, yet. Simply because they are not a public company, and because they just do not care for anything other than $$$.
Why do you not care that all your source are belong to us.......'eh, company @ 39.467558,-76.237439
Hand your keys to the NSA
I would expect RSA to have a tough road ahead due to the general issue of the NSA making all things American untrustworthy.
Hmm, sounds to me like RSA suffered a big loss in business following the NSA revelations. There is not much point in installing a broken safe is there?
RSA just announced "do not use our default Crypto!"
All versions of RSA BSAFE Toolkits, including all versions of Crypto-C ME, Micro Edition Suite, Crypto-J, Cert-J, SSL-J, Crypto-C, Cert-C, SSL-C; and all versions of RSA Data Protection Manager (DPM) server and clients are affected….
Nobody expects the NSA subversion… but it does sound like some EMC/RSA employees should be retired - are the pwned ones going tho'?
Let's just call it what it is. Due to unemployment laws, they cannot just get rid of the workers and then hire lower cost replacements to do the same job. So, they get rid of the higher placed employees, restructure and have new lower cost employees doing the "new" job.
I'm not sure where you live, but I can fire any of my staff for any reason as long as it isn't for race, religion, creed, gender, or age. I can fire them for refusing to take a pay cut, their choice in politicians or the color of their eyes. I would never do such things, but there's no legal reason for me not to.
I really wouldn't want to live where you live...
Re: @Don Jefe
Most States in the US are "at will employment" States. That means you can let an employee go at any time without giving them a reason for their termination. If you do so, you cannot call it a "firing", otherwise you will be in a heap of legal trouble as firing has to be for cause. You have to call it a lay-off. The legal distinction is huge, as a laid-off employee is entitled to collect unemployment benefits, whereas an employee who is fired (or quits) is not. An employers unemployment insurance premiums are dependent on the employers history of ex-employees collecting unemployment benefits, so there is an incentive for an employer to classify terminations accurately. Having said that, most large companies in "at will" employment States never fire anyone, they just lay problematic employees off same as they do redundant employees as it's basically impossible for a laid off employee to sue.
Re: @Don Jefe
The 'with cause' clause varies wildly between States as well. Where our main office is located, terminating someone 'without cause' may result in an unemployment benefits hearing where, depending on the outcome, I might be on the hook for increased unemployment insurance payments, but as long as I don't state the reason for their firing as being for one of the few prohibited reasons the (ex)employee has no legal recourse. Even if they did press ahead with a suit, 99.9% of judges won't hear those cases and as a result most capable lawyers won't take them.
Insubordination is a really common out for employers too. It is considered a zero tolerance, zero recourse offense that also does not qualify the employee for unemployment benefits or post employment insurance extension. Got a smart mouth employee with a bad attitude or one who can't show up on time or doesn't follow stated policy (disrupting company culture, personal appearance or hygiene, dress code, refrigerator use rules): Insubordination. You don't even have to state specifics to the unemployment office. Just "Insubordination, refusal to comply with stated policy", and you're golden. So you write company policy in an incredibly vague and Byzantine way (there are law specialists just for that), give them a copy and have them sign a policy receipt and acceptance form and that's all sorted.
All that being said, those laws always lean toward the employer because they are supposed to be there to keep wholly undesirable bad hires from terrorizing your business internally. But far, far, too many companies use them to be complete assholes. The US view that law can't be abused, only misapplied, allows dishonest or immoral moose dicks to treat staff like poorly paid indentured servants. It really sucks and with small/small medium sized companies word generally gets out and their business suffers (and hopefully dies). With larger companies though it can be a part of the culture and it is really, really shitty.
Re: @Don Jefe
>word generally gets out and their business suffers (and hopefully dies). With larger companies though it can be a part of the culture
Word gets around on the big one too which is why the dominant semiconductor company whose first letter starts with an I has to pay such big bucks to get talent. They prefer the H1B wage slaves any way so they don't really care.
The article days "Big Data can improve security strategy, an approach that provides a more natural fit between RSA and its owner, storage giant EMC."
Pray tell, what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Approaching security with a 'big data' strategy improves it? Approaching 'big data' with a security strategy improves it? It sound like 100% corporate gobbledygook snatched verbatim from press talking points. Oh...
"...what the fuck is that supposed to mean?"
It's encrypted. When you decrypt the string Big Data can improve security strategy you get the string Sell your shares now.
- Microsoft 'showers gold' on anti-Google Cyanogen and its Android alternative
- We take bots down, but they get up again – you're never going to keep them down
- Google's latest letdown: Simply not enough billions since October
- Citrix: Hmmm, profit down 30%? Right. 900 HEADS WILL ROLL
- HP: We're gonna book $1bn worth of Server 2003 sales THIS WEEK