BigCo: I am OK with spending thousands of dollars to prevent someone from embezzling hundreds. Me: I mean, you're presuming I stop at thousands. BigCo: Kind of indifferent to that actually.https://twitter.com/r00k/status/1202683149307789313 …
-
-
I had a customer once ask me to confirm that tarsnap encrypted data before uploading it. This is why they were using Tarsnap, and *they had already audited the source code*, but "email from vendor confirming" was still a checkbox requirement.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There's something about these call-and-response objection prediction tweets. More effective than "for example, you can have all vendors fill out a security questionnaire to satisfy external stakeholders." Does anyone know why?
-
I don't know why, but I know Jehovah's Witnesses have been using a similar format to good effect in their texts for a while. "Good effect? Jehovah's Witnesses are relatively few!" And yet, you know who they are, and probably at least one of the idiosyncrasies of their beliefs.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Kind of like completing “our vendor registration process”. We do none of that. Not. Even. Once.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
My go to reason is identifying who paid the bill. "It's on a corporate card" only goes so far when someone quits, and suddenly a vital service starts 403'ing 1 month later. Procurement organization needs (some) process.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I thought it was about litigation, sue them if they didn't stick to what they said
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.