One in Four UK Workers Maliciously Leaks Business Data Via Email, Study Says (betanews.com) 30
From a report: New research into insider threats reveals that 24 percent of UK employees have deliberately shared confidential business information outside their company. The study from privacy and risk management specialist Egress Software Technologies also shows that almost half (46 percent) of respondents say they have received a panicked email recall request, which is not surprising given more than a third (37 percent) say they don't always check emails before sending them. The survey of 2,000 UK workers who regularly use email as part of their jobs shows the biggest human factor in sending emails in error is listed as 'rushing' (68 percent). However alcohol also plays a part in eight percent of all wrongly sent emails -- where are these people working!? Autofill technology, meanwhile, caused almost half (42 percent) to select the wrong recipient in the list.
says the guy with something to sell (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, I'm sure the company who sells software to monitor email systems will agree, your email needs our software!
Lets make up some funny stats to sell it!
Re: (Score:3)
Neat and well groomed hair sets you apart from the crowd. That's what my barber says, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Might I interest you in same wax?
Ad (Score:5, Informative)
First, this is an ad, not a news article.
Secondly, there is nothing to suggest the use of the word "malicious". If I tell my grandma how much we charge a client, it's sharing confidential business information, but I'm not doing it to undercut my company, I'm doing it to impress her. I'm not even sure who I would maliciously share business information with if I wanted to, nobody would care enough to listen.
Re: (Score:1)
Let's see if it gets play in the news media anyway...
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I'll tell you why.
1) Employers in the UK and derivative countries treat their employees like shit.
2) Employees in the UK and derivative countries have far greater protection against being terminated (compared to the US), this leads people to not give a shit either, because their boss is a jerk.
3) My experience of employers in the US is they tend to look after and reward people who do well, bosses are not self appointed asshats, and as an employee its in your best interests to not f**kup, because you can be
Re: Ad (Score:1)
Your experience with the US is wrong. Bosses are self appointed asshats, good performers are not rewarded more than they are, and loyalty to employees does not exist.
Most people who can get away with it would be well advised to remember those things in deciding whether or not to screw over their employer for profit. However, nothing illegal. If an employee breaks the law relative to an employer they're screwed. The opposite is a joke--employers break the law and screw over employees constantly.
Re: (Score:2)
... and if you were up to shenanigans would you do it via something that leaves a trace and that the BOFH is probably snooping on?
Entire "article" is retarded.
I kind of like it (Score:1)
People really should feel OK about some degree of retributive dissemination of confidential corporate documents.
It means that as the company has a gun to your head - do as you're told or you're fired - you have a gun to theirs - treat me properly or I'll cut you.
Of course it still has to be worth the legal consequences, but that too is good because it stops you from screwing over the company for petty grievances.
Maliciously? (Score:3)
Not sure if that's the right word for this.
Maliciously = with intent to do harm
Intentionally? Yes.
Misrepresentation (Score:1)
They're conflating deliberate with malicious, when the two aren't necessarily the same.
Deliberate !== Malicious (Score:2)
24% workers could be fired (Score:2)
alcohol - where are these people working!? (Score:2)
These people are adults, and so they work in an adult company. Not a kindergarten that happens to pay the children for the work they do, mollycoddled by the state and their employer.
If someone wants to have a pint at lunch time, and is fit to do their job in the afternoon, then why shouldn't they be able to do so? If they go on to send the Paradise Papers out in the mail that afternoon, then they'll be dealt with for that act - if they were 'under the influence' and "the drink made them do it" then they sho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)