Ask HN: Why not give access to everything, to everyone in an an organization?
One of our board members has decided everyone on the board should have complete, unrestricted access to everything. From the combination to the lock on the little cabinet that houses the modem and gateway router and the passwords for those devices, to full-administrator privileges on all of our software “systems” (Google Workspace, Mailchimp, Square, Azure, etc.)
Another board member is now rallying with that board member so it is going to be an entire discussion point at our next board meeting.
Part of me wants to just go ahead and do it. Everyone can start sending newsletters through Mailchimp (we have just one person who coordinates them all now) and we won’t have any standards on formatting, frequency, etc. Everyone can setup new groups and users in Google Workspace and create shared drives like they are folders. Why not?
I want to explain that less access means less exposure to systems being compromised. It means not having the person who does a function different from yours digging into your projects randomly and deciding to “help.” It means you won’t end up locked out later because somebody else in a few years decides tightened security is needed and starts arbitrarily making decisions about that.
Are there any other good reasons I should give these particular board members why this is a bad idea? Or, is this just me being too overly protective of the work I’ve been doing for years?
Any feedback or questions are welcome.