ChrisCinelli

So you do not have need of innovation?

Usually a company with software need to develop new features, reengineering to reduce infrastructure costs and improving performance bottlenecks, maintenance, etc. Do not you have that in your company? And if you do, who is leading those initiatives?

Did you use this for due diligence to verify that the data reported by the entrepreneur in the pitch was good or you were looking at some companies in a specific space and checking the company that has more orders?

What changed in you 30s?

Sure, "good person" may sound generic. But he is still a good person trying to do the right things. To me it sounds like the board is afraid of being sued and needs to clearly appoint a scapegoat.

Well, they must have believed that leaving Sam as CEO was a bigger risk for the company (or the members of the board) than having him leaving in the spot. The board may have had their hand twisted.

Well, they must have believed that leaving Sam as CEO was a bigger risk for the company than having him leaving. Or the board had their hand twisted. What is easier the case?

I suppose there is a need of a trusted 3rd entity that runs the service.

Otherwise anybody could run the service and pretend that anybody else signed any documents they want at any time they wanted.

I am not familiar with DocuSign internal but it looks like people are identified by their email. So only if you can click the link received in their email, it can be them.

I guess a problem with DocuSign is still that anybody can sign up for a new email and pretend to be anybody they want.

If it is RED blood, it is a vein that breaks when the your stool passes. Most likely hemorrhoids.

The problem is when you have BLACK blood in the stool. That may be an internal bleeding.

I am not clear how "all the points you brought forward also apply to the manufacturer firmware"

Regulation seldom proves to be the ultimate remedy.

The true catalyst for change lies in cultivating informed consumers who wield their purchasing power to support manufacturers committed to security.

If a law has to be put in place, ensure that every marketing advertisement and article concerning a device explicitly states the duration for which it will receive regular updates.

Openwrt is not the best example. Community sucks, some routers are full of bugs and the security is not great either.

In general even if I like open devices and having the option to use my own software, this is not a solution for most of the consumers.

It is not a solution even for the enthusiast that know how to flash their own firmware. Because even if they may do it a few times initially, eventually they stop doing it.

You need a system that can update automatically even when you are busy in another project.

Making "x years of security updates" mandatory is likely to end up in a warning disclaimer every time you turn on the TV after x years: "This device does not receive any more security updates. You may be at risk."

That will either make a large part of consumers paranoid or annoyed. So they will replace a TV that is in perfectly working conditions with a new TV.

Samsung, LG and the consumerist economy would love that!

Very curious! Source?