Your analogy implies that the stealing of data is equal to the termination of employment.
I'm not sure I was making an analogy, nor how you arrived at that. My comment was that people tend to to respond in kind to the treatment they perceive
they have received. This perception doesn't have to be based on reality. It just has to be what's real for them: "If I think you're going to hurt me, then I am justified in planning to hurt you back." Is this news to anybody?
Re firings: Disgruntled employees are a far bigger threat to a company than a terminated
one. It's never the people you get rid of that cause the biggest headaches. It's the ones that are angry but stick around that do the worst damage. Take a look at former FBI agent Robert Hansen.
The "slant" and "self-serving" I was referring to lies in the choice of wording - saying "admitted to" rather "planned on" or "threatened to." By saying 'admitted,' it implies something has already happened, which in turn ups the sense of risk.
The point I was trying to make is that any dissatisfied employee has the potential to hurt a business. But increased security measures and risk awareness do not get to the root causes of the problem. Nor will they solve it.
Interestingly, bad customer service is usually the biggest single source of financial loss to a company. A company doesn't just lose sales revenue when a customer walks away. It also loses the sunk costs in acquiring and its expenditures for marketing to that customer. And even more seriously, its reputation in the marketplace takes a hit.
Will someone use this article as an excuse to fire all their employees?
Well, if you fired all your employees you wouldn't really have a company anymore, so I'm not sure anybody could seriously consider doing that. (Of course if they did it would definitely reduce the security risks...oh wait...they fired the security guards too!)