Either way, that, along with the brags from the ex-employee about still having access to the company's machines after termination, speaks to his character. It seems pretty clear, taking all the evidence into account, that it was unwise to give him a high level of access to government data.
If they want us to use it to evaluate his character, some hint would be needed. Was it a legitimate trade secret, or was it trivial and only an excuse to fire him. Companies claiming everything under the sun is a "trade secret" is nothing new - Microsoft famously claimed their extensions to Kerberos were a trade secret, despite releasing their spec to everyone, guarded only by a clickthrough license: https://slashdot.org/story/00/05/02/158204/kerberos-pacs-and...
But if they say what we like to hear, corporations turn into saints incapable of even slightly bending the truth.
> Either way, that, along with the brags from the ex-employee about still having access to the company's machines after termination, speaks to his character.
They neglected to change passwords, and yet "I never exploited it because it's just not me." were his words. Yeah, what vile character.
Again, bragging you have access after being terminated is bad regardless of whether you exploited the access.
To me these are the sort of details that could prevent you from passing a security clearance process, although I am not highly knowledgeable about the process beyond talking to people who have (and they weren't forthcoming).
I don't share your reverence for corporate secrets. To you, the exceptions are the secrets it is ok to share. To me, the exceptions are the secrets it is ok for corporations to keep. And corporations have certainly not earned the benefit of the doubt that I would assume, despite their willful silence, that these were legitimate.
We're racing to a corporate dystopia, and this is the reason why.
> A spokesperson for the Arizona-based hosting and data-security firm said Thursday: “I can confirm that Edward Coristine's brief contract was terminated after the conclusion of an internal investigation into the leaking of proprietary company information that coincided with his tenure.”
> Afterward, Coristine wrote that he’d retained access to the cybersecurity company’s computers, though he said he hadn’t taken advantage of it.