I do fully admit that I haven't been keeping up to date on their latest changes, so that may be true. But IMO, 6 months isn't nearly enough time to forgive the major fuckups that they've been doing
They fired basically every executive and the new CEO has been building the c suite from a fresh start. He’s made a bunch of good moves so far and seems like a mensch.
What in the world are you talking about? As soon as he found out about the 2016 breach, he ran an investigation, found that the chief of security was responsible, fired him, and then came forward to the press about it.
Really? You’re aware that people have had their information compromised, including driver’s licenses, and you do an “internal investigation” for months before notifying them?
No, you patch the hole and let them know, not wait until you have a scapegoat for better PR.
Aug 30 is more like "job start date", not "you're aware that people had their info compromised".
This convo sounds like when folks were jokingly asking Dara the week after he started the job if he had fixed all the problems in the company, made it profitable and ready for IPO yet.
Considering that the timeframe in question would be probationary period for a normal person in a normal job and that the guy was jumping into what was effectively a burning transcontinental train wreck, I'd say getting an investigation completed and disclosed within a few months of his job start date is actually pretty commendable. By comparison, it took like half a year for people to see anything come out of the Holden report, and timeframes for resolution for some historically big scandals in other companies have taken far longer (e.g. the Equifax one is still making news with bigger and bigger impact estimate corrections).
Also, I find it curious that you think Joe Sullivan was made a scapegoat out of convenience, since there isn't a single news article about him complaining of being fired unjustly. You'd think news orgs would be all over such a story.
The point isn't that he was outed as only a scapegoat. The point is why you'd spend time waiting to see who you should fire before letting your victims know.
It's not like Dara walked into a whiteboard in the CEO office that said "list of 2016 suckers lol" and then sat on it twiddling his thumbs for a month. My understanding of the incident is that it had been covered up by Sullivan and TK. In my mind, an investigation is precisely for figuring out what the hell happened, who was affected and to what extent.
I don't know the specific details of this investigation in particular, but for the Holden one, it involved a lot of one-on-one interviews with various employees to try to reconstruct the stories of each harassment claim so that an appropriate punishment/course of action could be determined for each case. If this investigation was conducted in a similar manner, it wouldn't surprise me that finding out the blame would occur in tandem with discovering the extent of the breach.
