McBride got a new job with the university’s software development department immediately before the scandal broke. That should have been the end of it for him.
However, McBride’s new superiors received a “warning” from Henri Schasmin, an information security specialist from the rector’s office, just weeks after the scandal.
“I was told to be cautious of McBride. That here’s a man who’s willing to blow the whistle. And that we should not entrust him with secret and sensitive information,” the institute’s director Jaan Penjam said.
He added that it remained unclear what kind of sensitive information should be kept from McBride. It is the first time Penjam had such a conversation as no warnings have accompanied other employees.
A complaint with the inspectorate
The head of the software development institute does not plan to make a fuss over the incident or treat McBride differently. Penjam only said he would like to believe the IT security specialist came to warn him out of his own stupidity as opposed to being ordered to.
The covert attempt at influencing decisions left the institute baffled. Several employees sent multiple emails to the rector’s office and Schasmin, asking for the reason behind such warnings.
They only received bureaucratic and illegible replies, with a carbon copy sent to the university’s lawyer.