> Obviously the implementation was botched in this case
replyThe long wait times could easily have been fixed by staggering employee start times. You could even optimize it per building/floor. Sadly, a lot of bureaucrats lack the imagination to do simple stuff like this. (Anyone with a desperate need to have 9 am meetings would just have to suck it up)
> staggering employee start times
replyImmediately reminds me of Severance.
It also doesn’t describe any of the why the additional security measures were put in place. It sounds arbitrary, but could be an insurance or regulatory requirement that the acquiring company needed to meet. Similar for the login issue, it’s suboptimal but what constraints caused that solution to be put in place? And why wasn’t it fixed?
replySans context there’s not a lot to complain about here.
Card readers in elevators are theater though. You would need separate vestibules to actually secure entry via elevator. That’s why most buildings have those.
replyAre they? The goal isn't to draw a hard boundary it's to create layered defenses which increase the difficulty and reduce opportunity.
replyIf instead of open access you need to tailgate on a limited set of employees, that increases difficulty considerably and makes the opportunity much less common.
Real security analysis works this way: you don't assume you can build a wall which is never breached.