| Why do the billion dollar companies just not get that people can see through double speak now. Let´s look at the double speak here, which intends to give a statement weight even though it has zero weight. On the left side original statement with zero weight, after the slash how the statement would have weight 1. We isolated Intro in a separate network segment and implemented a tight security perimeter across trust boundaries./ Doesn't say anything at all again 2. REDUCED exposure to third-party monitoring services and tracking/PREVENT exposure to third-party monitoring services and tracking 3. We also had iSEC Partners, a well-respected security consultancy, perform a line-by-line code review of the credential handling and mail parsing/insertion code./ That statement isn't saying anything at all 4. make sure identified vulnerabilities WERE ADDRESSED/ make sure there are NO vulnerabilities 5. we make sure we NEVER persist the mail contents to our systems in an unencrypted form. And once the user has retrieved the mail, the encrypted content is DELETED from our systems./ These two words have weight. 6. MINIMIZE exposure/REMOVE exposure 7. We WORKED TO HELP ENSURE/ We ENSURE Overall, Linked avoids using terminology that is actually a commitment except for 5. Fortunately, people picked up on double speak and Linkedin has managed to corrupt trust with its users further. Somebody should fire the person that think sthis kind of "clarification" gets back their user's trust. |