'We'll hire hackers' to solve cyber skills crisis say over half of UK firms
"Come into my parlour says the spider to the fly".
Who believes they don't understand what and where they have opened into, becomes fearful, will confuse allaying fear with true solutions - and lead themselves further into entanglement. When fear leads decision making, reputation and false investments can be protected against regaining integrity of functionality. Integrity is everything or rather, loss of integrity loses everything.
There are many reasons for presenting oneself as if one knew - it's what one wants the other to believe about one's self to 'get' or keep the job, charge the fee. I have heard that traders knew the Crash was inevitably coming if not the exact timing - but never reported that because a 'bullish' take on the market was required.
Integrity of systems cannot be divorced from integrity of self and relations - but ingenious thinking can disguise this as solutions that in effect compound the problem in more complex packages.
Hackers can mean anything - the ability to hack is not in itself malign intent though it may indicate a distrust and disregard for imposed authoritative systems, often in exploring the way thinks work - because they can.
The extension of value - not just money - to an individual, for their willingness to join a team includes the tangible experience of participating in such a team. If the 'culture' is merely corporate 'incentive' then there is no value extended apart from incentives and therefore no loyalty either way - only mechanism of separate and competing self-interest albeit in temporary alliance or compliance.
As the integrity of the Internet breaks down or is revealed to be breached or subverted to private agenda, does it not reflect the dis-integrity of the human consciousness that marketed it? Does the evolution of an idea inevitably persist and consolidate its predicate?
To put it another way, is the corruption of the international financial and economic system built in and thus inevitably resulting in a globalism determined by a very few - or less - because that model does not 'share power'?
Or is it the insinuation and infiltration of an integrity by a divisive appeal to a private agenda?
General thinking is that private agenda = reality, and war is the real world. But that is hard for most people to live with themselves with, and so it is dressed and presented and served in cultured settings. But it is obvious that whatever rules are agreed - they are never wholly agreed and are broken or subverted - not least my those who influence the making of rules!
The concentrations of wealth and power persist a disintegrity of cultural norm, to guarantee that the 'system' will be redesigned to serve those who own and drive it and disregard or abuse those that struggle within it .
Systems cannot replace integrity - but they can reflect it.