|
|
|
|
|
|
by huggyface
5267 days ago
|
|
|
With all due respect, both of your responses have been completely obnoxious. You seem to be taking some unmerited grizzled vet position that might sell to children, but here it reads like a junior developer talking tough. See, we actually sell software as a service. Data security
for our clients isn't marketing, it is the absolutely lifeblood of the company (just as it is a critical principal for this industry). 37signals knows that it was a foolish oversight to casually comment on content trawling, which is a good sign. Your ridiculous arguments in their favor do no one any good. |
|
|
>> See, we actually sell software as a service.
Great, I sell software as a service too. This is an irrelevant fact that doesn't make you or I any more or less correct.
>> Data security for our clients isn't marketing, it is the absolutely lifeblood of the company
"Data security" is a vague term that has as many different definitions as there are people to talk about it. Your mistake is in assuming that your definition (in which seeing a file name in a log is unethical behavior and/or a security breach) is the one and only correct definition. Many many web developers disagree with your definition.
Secondly, security is marketing. You yourself have said, and I quote: "Even if you do casually trawl the data of your users, for the love of all things unholy don't talk about it." So not only do you recognize the importance of data security itself, but you recognize that even the appearance of data security (or lack thereof) can affect a company's bottom-line. From there, it should be easy to understand how companies use the appearance of security as a marketing technique.
>> 37signals knows that it was a foolish oversight to casually comment on content trawling
It seems to me that they've repeatedly defended their decision on both their blog and in this thread, and haven't removed the reference from their post. You're on your own, here.