IE, it's hard to have a professional relationship with an experienced engineer when I need to explain things like "never trust the client because a hacker will 0wn you with Curl."

I suspect that VW has someone who's been there a long time, who is a "lead," and just doesn't understand basic security concepts. Some newcomer challenged them, and it probably grew unprofessional. It speaks poorly of their management if they need to terminate someone in a situation like this.

We just don't know. (Can't read the article because of paywall.)

It's like divorce. I know many, many people who've been divorced. The story from one party is usually very, very different from the story from the other party. Who knows what the actual truth is.

A bit different from two ordinary individuals.

I think there is a bias a lot of people have towards believing the organization, because the idea that bad things happen to decent people is discomfiting.

I hate the phrase "just world fallacy", it's not a fallacy, but it's certainly unpleasant to contemplate misfortunes that could happen to you, or me.

Experience with corporate litigation will change your opinions on whether individuals or organizations are more to be trusted.

But your first sentence sounds to me like "I've been walked on by mosquitos far more than by elephants".

On average, the elephants you meet probably won't be in the mood to bite or step on you. On average.

I worked in Automotive for quite a while, and this wouldn’t surprise me. A lot of the roots of my company was mechanical engineering, and software at the time was very secondary. It was changing rapidly (and positively) over my last few years.

Many people for whom factual truth is anathema to their self-esteem.

Then leave. That's your only recourse.

Even if you think all the people around you are fuddy-duddies and "should know better" - that's no need to resort to tones of exasperation and condescension. You probably figured out pretty early on what the environment was like -- and for whatever reason, you made an adult decision to stay in that environment. When someone around you doesn't understand something -- just explain it to them with respect. And yes, patience. You're there to help, after all.

Or maybe you're not. In which case you should just leave.

Only if the culture over values conflict avoidance. By other management philosophies, it is preferable to encourage (healthy) conflict, which can include waves of emotionality which can be uncomfortable for many people. It's a business, not a therapy zone, so that seems like an occasionally appropriate tradeoff.

Yes, it can seem to sort of work for a while. But over time, not so well. Resulting in burnout, and the desire to seek greener pastures.

At a minimum, you are starting with a bunch of people who default to cheating and lying as a solution to problems. You can put in new barriers to it, but these people are skilled at beating barriers.

I say this as a cheater and a liar.

It also doesn't help that careers with companies are so short. I have no stake whatsoever in whether a company I work for succeeds long term or not. Just want a nice resume line really.

I really appreciate the honesty that can be obtained via anonymity. It might be interesting to have honest discussions with "bad" people, but most of them appear either not self-aware, or refuse to be honest about things.

I have worked for a company that had a data breach.

- If I said in the post mortem that I didn't report the issue as it was more work and I could not be bothered, people would be enraged, but beyond the yelling, I would probably survive in that role.

- If I said that I didn't report the issue as I wanted to seem like a hero when I fixed it (real thing my boss did from my days at another company), I would be fired.

- If I didn't report the issue due to not knowing the right channel, they criticize my lack of initiative, but it is understandable.

- If I did not report the issue due to not knowing about it, I am blameless.

You cannot admit to being a bad person without taking a lot of flack.

Ofttimes, I think the people most willing to self-label this way are those most aware and conflicted by their behavior.

In my experience the people I've seen self-label this way (in a non-anonymous way) do so because they think it reflects well upon them (it's 'cool', demonstrates intelligence or superiority, etc.). It is usually the limit of their self awareness and they are never outwardly conflicted. My inner arm-chair psychologist thinks it stems from varying combinations of insecurity and lack of empathy.

Seems like more of a British thing. They're also IMHO more willing to take an honest ribbing over screw-ups without getting all pissy. They take it and dish it out.

(In seriousness, that hypothetical PR statement is one of those sentences that makes you reflect on the power that messaging has. It also means that you can't trust a PR-driven image on the culture of a company!)