Attacking - or even appearing to attack - national brands is totally counterproductive. They’re all but guaranteed government bailouts. And it’s very hard to argue against.
Saying that JLR should’ve had better cybersecurity misses the point of being attacked by a hostile state. If a cruise missile were used it’d be silly to say JLR should’ve had underground factories or other protective measures.
Tata’s IT outsourcing decisions (to improve profits) are what led to the UK government having to step in to prevent job losses at scale in the supply chain. They didn’t procure cyber insurance due to internal failures. This is a partial cost of nationalization without any of the benefit, while Tata continues to own and control the enterprise.
China has many faults, but they do not make these mistakes more capitalistic and profit driven countries like the UK and the US do (“financialization until failure”).
I don't think that this is so much an outsourcing issue, as it is an incestuous relationship between JLR and a different part of the Tata empire.
JLR mgmt could've decided to outsource to Tata IT had they not been sister divisions of the same holding company, but arguments against doing so would've been easier to make.
Really, "operating a vehicle factory, and associated software and logistics systems" strikes me as a core competency of "being an automaker", and not one that should be handed off to separate entity not quite as committed to the enterprise.
exactly. Bailouts needs to have an equivalent equity loss for the investors (aka, gov't takes the equity equivalent to the bailout amount, in addition to any loan conditions like interest etc).
Saying that JLR should’ve had better cybersecurity misses the point of being attacked by a hostile state. If a cruise missile were used it’d be silly to say JLR should’ve had underground factories or other protective measures.