Computacenter IT guy let girlfriend into Deutsche Bank server rooms, says fired whistleblower A now-former manager at Computacenter claims he was unfairly fired after alerting management that a colleague was repeatedly giving his girlfriend unauthorized access to Deutsche Bank's server rooms. Computacenter is a globe-spanning British IT services provider that, in the USA, operates computers systems for Deutsche Bank at …
In all seriousness, if the DB security people were watching an unidentified stranger gaining physical access to their servers and took no action, their reaction is to be expected - major arse covering exercise.
I remember telling clients that their security policies should require people to ensure that strangers were challenged by a trained security guard. DB security failed abysmally.
I wonder if any data has been compromised or money 'gone astray'.
(Let's face it, we all know who should be sacked.)
I remember working for ComputaCenter pimped out to a large UK building society (now bank) and to gain access to the server room you needed high level sign off, relinquish mobile devices at the gate and were tracked via CCTV constantly, my work sheet was for Hall B, I accidentally turned right at a junction for Hall A as my mind was elsewhere only to get a correction over the tanoy, that's how seriously they took it, and that was over two decades back, DB should be in the dock for this one.
re: Her rack:
One of the UK national papers today had a front page item: 'Do women prefer 'six pack abs' or hair?' with images of a toned bald man and a 'plump' but beautifully coiffed man.
(My suspicion is they prefer a man who treats them with respect, but hey-ho, I am willing to learn.)
It is perhaps more of an indictment of our society as a whole, than a statement against Deutsche Bank, but my experience has always been that the most ethically challenged among us will generally gravitate toward places where large piles of cash accumulate. Poorly guarded piles, even more so. As such, this report seems somewhat par for the course. Jaded? Yes. I am.
"But suing for $20 million is insanity. If I were on a jury the fact he thought he deserved that much would make me less likely to find in his favor at all."
Here I was thinking USD 20 million was no where enough to firstly compensate the plaintiff for the utterly inexcusable egregious acts of his employers which in less felonocratic jurisdictions would attract serious criminal charges.
If he were awarded USD 1 million in compensatory damages and USD 500 million in punitive damages there might be an incentive for the culpable parties to refrain from such behaviour in future.
It's not insanity at all. Not one bit. Not in the US.
Once he gets embroiled in this, he basically has to retire or go independent - he's unemployable in that field. Everyone will praise him, pat him on the back and run far, far away. And even as an independent he can get snubbed. Even if he gets the whole sum - which he won't - lawyers will eat a good chunk of it.
So in the best scenario - he'll end up pretty much unemployable - in the same field, city, area, region - with a lump sum. This lump sum has to cover for pretty much the rest of his life, with healthcare costs, out of pocket medical insurance (if available at all) and so on.
Or, he can move somewhere else, which is a life altering event big time, involving personal and financial costs at many levels.
They don't mention his age, but if he was doing say $150k/yr and he's thirty, with an expectation of 2% raise per year (it's usually more, but let's aim for that) and a retirement age of 67, you get this:
n=67−30=37 years
Salary at 67=150,000×(1.02)exponent37
His expected yearly salaries will be
| Year | Salary (\$) |
| ---- | ----------- |
| 1 | 150,000.00 |
| ......
| 10 | 179,263.89 |
| ......
| 37 | 305,983.10 |
Total sum earned over 37 years: $8,105,138.18
Note that should he actually work, he'll very likely be saving money towards health insurance, pension plans and whatnot. With a lump sum, those will add up.
So asking 20 mil is nowhere near insanity in similar cases.
This was exactly my thought - the guy is unemployable, unfairly or otherwise.
I’ve seen all sorts of things over my career that I think could probably be whistle-worthy, (corruption mainly, jobs for mate’s companies etc without due diligence) that I wouldn’t dare flag, for precisely this reason. A) it would carry on, B) I’d find myself quietly out of work.
Having said that, my other thought was “this doesn’t smell right… I wonder what the other characters in this play would have to say about it”
...I wonder what the other characters in this play would have to say about it
Very much ditto on that one.
I'm not giving any credit to any bank (hey, the opposite is also often true :-P), but I wouldn't expect them to have incompetent lawyers. And if this case is as it's presented, it's as clear cut as it gets, and no corporate legal would have allowed it.
It is. I was nearly gutted at a company for simply calling a manager out on a scheduling problem, when he let his two ball game watching buddies off on a weekend shift which left me and two completely new people on duty. I wound up being transferred to a different part if the company, with my manager saying he managed to save my job IF I agreed to the transfer. Got me out of there and wound up being a decent gig for a short time.
But, I learned right then to ignore trouble brewing at work. I din see nuffin was my motto going forward, and it's served me well in the corporate world ever since. Not reporting nefarious doings has cost the various companies I've worked for some fairly significant amounts of money, but fuckem as long as my job continued unaffected.
Then the money ISN'T punitive damages it is compensatory. They are compensating for his reduction in future earning ability.
Punitive damages are what they say, they have nothing to do with the actual economic harm the plaintiff suffered, it is money the defendant is forced to cough up over and above the damages required to compensate the plaintiff/victim to punish them - to deter future such acts by them and others like them.
There's zero reason why the plaintiff should collect those punitive damages. Society (via the legal system) is punishing him. Why shouldn't society reap the benefits instead of one individual who is (assuming the compensatory damages are properly awarded) already being made whole for his injury?
That's a dangerous slope, letting the government (society's representative) keep punitive damages. That very quickly leads to finding for the plaintiff 1 dollar, punitive damages the entire value of the company. One need only look at how civil forfeiture evolved to see how it would work. The companies would never win, no matter how flimsy the case against them, but the punitive damages would be ruinous.
By all means, if someone is egregiously violating the law I'm all for throwing the book at them and pumping up the punitive damages.
But the injured party should only be compensated for their injuries. If I had my way punitive damages would be donated to a charity of the injured party's choosing, subject to a judge's approval (so you can't donate to your own fake charity like Trump did before his charity was closed down as the result of a lawsuit)
You shouldn't be able to hit the jackpot just because a company or person with deep pockets does you wrong. Punish the responsible parties, don't enrich the injured parties beyond their actual losses.
That's not true at all. There are a LOT of people who would hire someone for whistleblowing against others not following the security policy of the workplace. I would 100% hire someone with that history over someone without that history if they were roughly equal otherwise. Heck, even if this guy looked a bit less capable than the other candidates I'd consider his ethical record to give him a leg up. Why wouldn't I want someone who would call out something improper and quite possibly illegal going on with someone working for me?
What do you figure makes him unemployable? The fact that if you google him you see a case where he sued his former employer? I suppose companies that don't get any further than reading the headlines in the google search will scratch him off the list, but any company with a shred of ethics who dug into the details would never cross him off their list and like me might move him up.
...beyond their actual losses...
Actual losses are fairly easy to calculate.
If this guy has two brain cells to rub together, he'll have a whole list of interviews and refusals to present as proof of his unemployability in the field.
Banks keep a list of unemployable candidates, if the Wells Fargo scandal is any indication.
No, it’s not insanity. There was a serious breach of Deutsche Bank security. The breach could cost them an awful lot more than 20 million. Any sane person would stop the breach instantly (not let her in the server room), investigate, and give the man a medal.
These people here did the opposite. They not only refused to do anything about the breach, but fired him. The punishment should be so high that everyone involved in this gets fired.
Yes, sacking the whistle blower is absolutely begging for the Streisand Effect. Worse, such a case can also not be suppressed by 'media management' as it becomes part of very public Court records.
I'd say 'morons', but that was already clear from their actions in the full knowledge that cameras were rolling..
As a former Computacenter employee, I'm surprised to not see their name always in the news in relation to security matters. They operate a rather 'pals-based' model that ensures that it is all about back-scratching, who you know, and who is conducting 'friendships' with whom - rather than adherence to policy, procedure or best practise.
Of course, it works very well (for that level of management) because no one calls it out. Those lower employees who do, are 'let go'...
Still, it must be a tight ship.
If I were a judge, and the company said the footage in question were lost, I'd state that I am calling a recess until tomorrow. Tomorrow I expect to do one of two things, see the footage that is allegedly lost or rule for plaintiff for triple damages. Oh, and bailiff, please draw up an arrest warrant for the CEO of (Corp) for destroying evidence in a court case, to be served tomorrow. While you're at it, make sure there's some room downstairs in case I need to lock a few people up for contempt of court due to some missing evidence. Court dismissed, and I had better see every one of you in here tomorrow. Either bring that footage or bring a toothbrush.
If successful the lawyer will probably get about $8 million and their client $12 million. Possibly a little more each as the total value of the claim is $23 million. All we know about this case so far is what the lawyer is claiming in the law suit filing, so I'm inclined to take it with a grain of salt. The true events are likely to be somewhat different.
The could be an extra “ouchie” if this was a card processing centre. Their compliance would be shot and their ability to process card transactions would be suspect if not completely lost for a period of time. The financial fines could also be painful (think Equifax breach) and that would be before the SEC decides to kick them in the shines a few times.
And let’s not even get in to the impact if this DC handles European data as well. The GDPR impact would also open them to the EU giving them a firm kicking.
Off for some popcorn. This should be an interesting show.
"Whoooooo wanna rock with Jenny?"
I mean, for someone like DB to allow something like this to happen when they're handling customers and clients that require an insane level of commercial confidentiality...and given DB has a tonne of information under lock and key regarding their relationships with problematic clients (*cough* Epstein *cough*) you'd think they'd be a little more competant. Why does anyone still trust their capital with these freaks?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
