• realitista@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    That’s a pity. I work for a large US software company and after the war began, we made a decision to close all operations inside Russia.

    We gave our employees in Russia a choice, they could either stay in Russia and get a pretty nice severance package, or they could move out of Russia and get a pretty nice repatriation package to the country of their choosing. Many went to expensive places like Sweden and got their packages converted to local pay with many months extra pay for moving expenses.

    We didn’t fire any Russians living outside of Russia, of course. Assuming everyone from a country is a spy is pretty silly.

    • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I don’t think they assume everyone is a spy. I think it’s that they aren’t confident in their ability to weed them out. Still seems extreme but really depends on the confidentiality of their work.

      • cmhe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        Still silly, if they aren’t confident to weed out Russian spies with Russian nationality, they are even less confident to weed out Russian spies with other nationalities. I would think that most undercover Russian spies don’t have Russian nationality, because that is an obvious attribute, which is easy for a government secret agency to change.

        There really is nothing better than background checks, and privilege separation for this kind of stuff.

        • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Yeah understandable, and I agree. They might have been in the process of getting a contract with a gov or similar large client that had a nationality requirement as part of the requirements too. I’m not trying to defend them though, just probing at other potential reasons for their move that may not be entirely visible from what they seem on the surface.

  • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    The article is too short to draw any conclusion but in that framing from an affected party it sounds shitty. I feel like we only see the ending to a long story, like a mole hunt in their ranks or whatever. The quoted guy supposes they did so because company’s workers may have an access to documents of their clients and I’d call that bullshit for, like, how it even works and why would anyone allow it?