| If you take issue with someone's argument, it's customary to point out the specific flaws and explain why you disagree. Simply slinging ad hominems and calling the argument ridiculous doesn't cut it. An example of how to respond: >> 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. |