From TFA: "Salesforce executives were first made aware of the project in a February meeting, and they had signed off on the project, according to one person with knowledge of the meeting."

They had executive signoff until half an hour prior to the talk, and they didn't see the text revoking permission until after the talk. I'm not sure what else they were supposed to have done.

And Alkove was there - physically present. He could've warned them off in person, and made sure they knew what was up. No one is going to care why he didn't.

Aware and signed off on the project and aware and signed off on the defcon presentation are two different things. I only know what I've read in this article and discussion on this, but I don't read "Salesforce executives were first made aware of the project in a February meeting" as meaning they had corporate sign off (they may have, but thats not what that sentence means)

I don't think the article makes sense. Firing someone on the spot for a talk that was approved would put the company at risk of legal action.

It sounds so extreme that either the exec is unusually unaware of the consequences of his action or there is more to the story.

Did you read the article? Your comment suggests you didn't.

I read the article.

Does the story they are presenting make sense to you? It doesn't to me!

All that's left is to assume there is more to the story than what is written.

Did you? They didn't explicitly say the company signed off on the talk/presentation, just the project.

Did you read the authoritarian spectre? Your deductions hint you didn't.

Seriously - the guy above you would support anyone in power and talk down to anyone not in it.