[untog]

I agree with you. But.

It's not difficult to argue that we're in a new era of computing when a hacking attempt against your company's IT stack hacked is very likely, if you have any info of interest. So companies have two choices: secure and maintain their infrastructure more than they ever used to (= spending more than they ever used to), or transfer their infrastructure to companies that will do it for them.

I don't blame anyone who does the latter.

[JetSpiegel]

So, third parties may want your data, and the solution is throw in the towel and just give the data pre-emptively to third parties?

Gotcha.

[untog]

No. Illegitimate third parties, such as criminals, want your data. So you throw in the towel and give your data to legitimate third party companies that you have signed privacy and service contracts with. They're really not comparable.

[einrealist]

If you own the network, you can at least monitor access violations.

[001sky]

You may not have read many corporate IT legal policies lately.

[beachstartup]

guess what? not every company can afford or even convince the best, ereetest security professionals to work for them.

most companies can't even configure their printers correctly, how do you expect them to harden their public facing servers?

you live in hackerland, and not reality.

[einrealist]

This is a bad excuse. So a printer leaks information to the internet and that's why I should leak all information to Facebook? Try to convince an CIO with that.

[vehementi]

Exactly. Facebook is the one hacking you in the first place so they can get you to store your data with Facebook. Sterling analysis, sir!