"It’s pretty much impossible to validate that you are meeting the terms of your contract re: security policy if you’re doing that. You almost certainly were if you were providing SOC services to a big telco."
That second sentence seems to be only interpretable as:
You almost certainly were meeting the terms of your contract re: security policy if you were providing SOC services to a big telco.
However it also says it's impossible to validate - so if it is impossible to validate that you were meeting the terms of your contract re: security policy, it must mean you weren't meeting the terms of your contract because such a contract will require validation.
Comments
Don't you mean they almost certainly weren't? It's hard to understand the rest otherwise.
No, gp is speaking from the point of view of those who set up the security measure.
Once you start poking holes into the security it's hard to assure you only did it for a good cause or with good intentions (whatever that means).
I still don't get it:
The original:
"It’s pretty much impossible to validate that you are meeting the terms of your contract re: security policy if you’re doing that. You almost certainly were if you were providing SOC services to a big telco."
That second sentence seems to be only interpretable as:
You almost certainly were meeting the terms of your contract re: security policy if you were providing SOC services to a big telco.
However it also says it's impossible to validate - so if it is impossible to validate that you were meeting the terms of your contract re: security policy, it must mean you weren't meeting the terms of your contract because such a contract will require validation.
But I guess I should let it go.