Skip to main content

Cisco System's ex-CIA man to hunt down employee's leaks

Cisco vice president Mike Quinn, a former CIA operations man, has vowed to hunt down the employee who leaked an email over an overpriced quote of switches for California State University’s to blogger Brad Reese.

That angry email from Mr Quinn, which was supposed to confidential, was also leaked to the same blogger.

From Wired.com,


 But for Quinn, it was an egregious violation of company policy.

He dashed off an angry e-mail — cc:ing “all” — to the leaker-in-chief saying that he — or she — “disrespected everyone else at Cisco” and should resign immediately. “Cisco puts the groceries on your table every two weeks, not Brad Reese or other Slander Sheet Journalists,” he added.

“Now I know you do not have it in you to stand up and admit what you did, so I will now make you my ‘hobby,’” Quinn said. “Ask around you will find out that I like to work on my hobbies.”

The original leaked email highlighted how Cisco lost out to Alcatel-Lucent for the California State University deal because the networking giant charged US$100million more than Alcatel-Lucent.

The rule of thumb is that when you are angry, it would be best to count to 10. Paul McNamara at Network World has great advice on why those at the top should not send angry email.

Wrote Paul,


"Angry interoffice email is almost always a bad idea fraught with risk, but that inherent risk fairly screams - 'Don't hit send!' - when the purpose of your rant is to scold an unknown employee who leaked a memo to a blogger. I mean this unknown employee, who has already demonstrated a willingness to air company laundry, is certain to receive your rant; that's the point. And he's almost certain to pass it along.

"So you might as well post the angry email on your own Facebook page and cut out the middleman.

"Unless, of course, passing it along is exactly what a former CIA operations officer would want his target to do."

Cisco also send a confidential email explaining the alleged overcharging, but that email was also leaked.

Not a good day for Cisco Security.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why is Ramly Burger banned in Singapore?

Yahoo Singapore ran an article of the Ramly Burger by highlighting that it is ban in Singapore.

Yet, the writer from Makansutra failed to address the most important issue of why the Ramly meat patty is banned in Singapore.

A search online easily did highlight that the famous Malaysian meat patty is banned by the AVA but didn't go into details.

Wrote Arlina Arshad for The Straits Times in January 2004,

"But the importing of beef and beef products from Malaysia is not permitted, said theAgri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA).

Selling and supplying them without a permit is also an offence, and offenders can befined as much as $50,000 or jailed two years, or both, said the AVA."

In May of the same year, another article highlighted that a man was even charged in court for "smuggling" the Ramly burger in 2004.


"The AVA said that meat products processed in Malaysian food factories which it had notapproved were banned here.Suzali was yesterday jailed for four month…

Social Media 101: How To Be The Most Hated Person In Singapore Instantly

It is amazing how we are quick to forget that a single wrong comment on social media can make one the most hated person in Singapore.

Back in 2012, we had Amy Cheong. Her comments on Facebook about a Malay wedding under her HDB void deck resulted in an online CSI that cost her her job.

Fast forward to 2017 and we have Thomas Chua Poh Heng and whose name will forever live in Internet infamy.



Thomas reposted a video of the funeral of a Traffic Policeman who died while on duty. Thomas then commented that his death was well deserve as Thomas was once given a traffic ticket by the same Traffic Policeman.

Even the Home Minister for Singapore, who is responsible for the Police Force, was offended by Thomas' statement.



The screenshot showed that post was marked global by the Globe image next to the Singapore tag which could hint that this post was meant for all to see. As such, the argument of a "private"post does not hold any weight here.

Just as expected, after this post was s…

Those Who Gamble Online Have Poorest Control - NCG Survey In 2012

Singapore will soon exempt local operators, Singapore Pools and Turf Club, from online gambling ban and the sites will be ready in November 2016.

Ministry of Home Affairs explained that a complete ban on remote gambling drives demand and activities underground, and may create larger incentives for criminal syndicates to target Singapore."

Yet in a 2012 survey by the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCG) found that those who gamble online have the poorest control.

 Source: https://app.msf.gov.sg/Portals/0/Summary/research/EDGD/Gambling%20participation%20survey%202011.pdf
For those who indulged in online gambling, 30.4% said they gambled for a longer period than they planned to, 33.3% gambled with more money than they planned and 29.2% gambled more frequently they planned to. 
Will launching the online gambling sites be like opening a Pandora Box that will create more issues in the future?