Google employees boo company at drag show that was nearly cancelled amid religious employee protest
More Videos
Published
2 years agoon
By
admin
Google tried to distance itself from a pre-planned drag show featuring longtime performer “Peaches Christ” in San Francisco but employees still attended. Some of them booed their employer for what they viewed as a caving to pressure of an internal religion-led protest.
Jennifer Elias
A drag show originally meant to celebrate the end of Pride month turned into a rallying cry for corporate allyship as dozens of Google employees attended, some of whom booed their employer.
“I don’t usually usually talk about this sort of thing,” began longtime San Francisco-based drag performer Joshua Grannell, as he opened his a multi-performer drag show Tuesday evening from a small stage at a bar in the Castro neighborhood.
“Folks who work at Google put this together and we did this last year and it was fabulous and it was fun and we had a good time,” he continued. “And this year, a group of Christians at Google signed a petition to take this event from their employees because they thought it was upsetting, offensive, controversial.”
“Boo!” yelled dozens of attendees, including several Google employees wearing company “Pride” T-shirts.
Grannell, whose drag performer name is “Peaches Christ” was a planned performer at a drag show sponsored and promoted by Google to close out Pride month. However, as CNBC previously reported, the company removed its affiliation and instead encouraged employees away from the drag show to a new event at its offices. The move came as several hundred employees signed a petition opposing the drag performance, claiming it was offensive to their Christian religion and that they’d complained to human resources.
The company said the event hadn’t gone through the proper approval process but didn’t comment on the petition.
Attendees and Grannell said they viewed the change as a buckling to pressure of the Christian employees’ petition and complaints.
“I was called all sorts of things,” Grannell said on stage, referring to the petition. “Boo!” more attendees yelled. “We support you!” one employee yelled from the crowd.
Watch a video from the show here.
Both employees and Grannell told CNBC they were disappointed in the company for backtracking, adding that the company held a similar event last year without any problems.
Attendees described Grannell as an “icon” and “an institution” in the gay community.
“I’ve been a performer for nearly 30 years in San Francisco, and I employ hundreds of people, performers and artists across the city,” Grannell told CNBC.
“This thing that happened with Google, unfortunately for this event, is actually indicative of a huge groundswell of hatred across the country using drag queens and trans people a scapegoats,” he told the crowd Tuesday, which garnered more boos and yelling.
Drag shows have been a target of religious and conservative organizations and politicians leading up to the 2024 presidential election. That includes a flurry of legislative proposals backed by GOP governors attempting to limit drag events.
Corporations have also faced backlash for Pride-related marketing. Bud Light came into the crosshairs after it struck a partnership with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney, while North Face received backlash for an ad featuring drag queen Pattie Gonia. Target and Kohl’s have been criticized for Pride-themed clothing.
Joshua Grannell, who goes by the stage name “Peaches Christ,”addressed Google’s decision to distance itself from the pre-planned drag show.
Jennifer Elias
Following Grannell’s opening monologue, he repeated the reason for the event was to celebrate Pride and then proceeded to introduce the performers on a small stage toward the back of the venue, which held rainbow-colored lights.
The first performer sang in a sequenced Marilyn Monroe-style red dress to Diana Ross’ upbeat “The Boss.” The next performer dawned a large, multi-color coat who danced to Gloria Gaynor’s “I will survive.”
A few others followed, with their own unique acts. Some were comedic musical skits, others featured dancing and lip syncing.
“For me, it’s real bummer to see this happen but I also think it needs to be called out,” Grannell told CNBC after the show, referring to Google’s decision to distance itself from the planned event. “If you’re going to put a rainbow flag on stuff and march in the queer Pride parade but not support your queer employees and not take a stand against anti-queer sentiment, even in the name of religion, then you’re not a real ally.”
Drag performer acted out a comedic skit about her love of cats while lip synching “Crazy” by Patsy Cline. The skit garnered laughs from the audience.
Grannell said the stakes for a lot of drag performers are high, as some of them have come to rely on corporate sponsorship. “We’ve now created a culture where corporations’ allyship includes paying performers and paying queer people to celebrate Pride month. Google sets a standard for a lot of companies in the industry and in San Francisco,” he added.
Attendees and employees alike danced, cheered and took turns walking dollar bills to the stage throughout the nearly two-hour event.
“You have some work to do, Googlers,” Grannell told the crowd as he ended the show. “We’ve got to keep fighting and we will win—we’re on the right side of history.”
The crowd erupted in applause and cheers.
Google did not respond to a request for comment.
You may like
Technology
Google’s new AI model puts OpenAI, the great conundrum of this market, on shakier ground
Published
3 hours agoon
November 23, 2025By
admin
Almost every night, for almost a decade, I got a phone call between 7:00 and 7:01 p.m. ET. I didn’t have to look at the three letters on my phone screen to know who was ringing. It was the old man we called Pop, or more like “The Old Man of the Mountain,” as he called himself when we had our grandchildren. Sometimes I tired of the words, but I always took a breath before I hit hello, lest he hear the fatigue in my voice for something I know I would miss dearly one day. “Jamesy,” he would say, “the best one yet.” Always, “the best one yet.” If I have a regret, it’s that I never tape recorded it because I would like to play it between 7:00 and 7:01 p.m. now, every night. But I didn’t. So, call me intrigued, when I saw on my schedule that I would soon be interviewed by two gentlemen, Jack Crivici- Kramer and Nick Martell, on a podcast called “TBOY.” I knew these two as the people who started what I know to be Robinhood Snacks, something I still read midmorning, which is about 6:30 a.m. for the collective slackers I deal with. I had heard of some of their stuff since, but candidly, I didn’t pay close attention — or, at least, close enough attention until I knew I would be interviewed by them on “TBOY.” I have always felt kindred to anyone younger who loves the markets, so I figured this one, this interview, would be the one where they would have actually read my new book, “How to Make Money in Any Market,” and even realize that I was trying to radicalize the public into thinking they could pick a few stocks — five, to be sure — to go with the omnipresent index funds that we are required to take, along with our mumps, diphtheria, whooping cough, chicken pox and measles shots. At a time when so much is up for debate, I have a right to argue that you can buy stocks of companies that you can observe. You know, be curious about them, Google them, look at their websites and discover everything that, in many cases, granted them admission to the sainted S & P 500, an active fund that masks itself in passivity. The S & P shot gives you immunity from the downside, at least they claim. However, if the index is all you own, it sure cuts you off the upside, as I endlessly prove. The purveyors of conventional wisdom act as if nothing has happened that could make it easier to pick stocks since since they began their insistence on you checking your brain at the door of your savings — nothing like the web, the chatbots, the bountiful information we all know exists but our financial “betters” still ignore. So, out of deference to the creators of “TBOY,” I decided to do more than show up. I listened to old podcasts. And listened some more. And some more — right through the three hours of time I leave for quiet homework, even before Ragu and Toni get up. No, don’t buy Campbell’s because of those hounds. Rest in peace to my old dog, Nvidia. The TBOY podcast was delicious. Just crisp, funny, smart and on point. Just like young people really interested in the markets can give you. Just as young people want the information now, not in ancient and flat form, but in something that’s much harder and more creative with a staccato, machine-gun style of delivery. As I listened to some recent episodes, I heard one that was so spot on that I found myself thinking I should actually highlight some of their analysis on “Squawk on the Street” before I saw them. Oh, by the way, what does “TBOY” stand for? “The Best One Yet.” So, I knew it was right to be going on this show and, more important, I knew there could be no pride of authorship. The boys behind “TBOY” figured out the great conundrum facing this market, which is the existential nature of OpenAI. More specifically, they realized that OpenAI has pledged to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to beat Alphabet -owned Google with ChatGPT. But it can’t. And it won’t. OpenAI, they said, wants to be Google with comprehension, but we don’t need it because we have Google with Gemini. In other words, Google is already everything OpenAI aspires to be. Released on Tuesday, Google’s latest version of Gemini — its AI chatbot to rival ChatGPT — is remarkably capable, with enhanced reasoning capabilities. Additionally, Gemini 3 demonstrates that the scaling laws of AI are still intact, just as Nvidia’s Jensen Huang has for months insisted was the case in the face of some concern about the pace of improvement for AI models. Soon after the Morning Meeting, I went up to see Nick and Jack at their Nasdaq haunt. They were more than gracious and hilarious, frankly, as I thought they would be, as well as respectful beyond all belief, which I found somewhat embarrassing and totally charming. Before we could sit, I complimented them on their triumphant Google observation. As true students of the game of the book tour, though, they preferred to dive into my book. Right from the get-go, minutes after we were mic’d up, they began to press and press about index funds versus picking stocks. They had read the book well, knew it chapter after chapter, as I always hoped would be the case. It was a joy to have actually knowledgeable interlocutors in this, the final station upon my author’s promotional cross. Candidly and somewhat remorsefully, I thought for sure that during my press tour for the book, there would be actually someone who would challenge me, but you can’t challenge me if you haven’t read it. What can I say? It made me rapturous to actually talk about why you can pick stocks, the comparison to when I began to build a portfolio versus now, and how the index fund predators would never let anyone pick a stock, lest they pick the speculative names like Rigetti Computing , Oklo , Joby Aviation and others like it. I, on the other hand, am happy to “allow” readers to own index funds along with self-directed stocks. Why not? Thoughtful investors, armed with the newfound ease of the homework, might select one or two stocks among five that can be life-changing, like Nvidia was to so many of you. The hour flew by. I demanded more time. They thought I was jesting. I was just so damned happy that they got it — it being the revolution I was trying to start when I wrote this book, a rebellion against the index-fund orthodoxy that, at its core, is an insult to the intelligence of everyday people. But no, it was time to depart. I had to write my show and interview a CEO before that. Plus, this was all transpiring on the day the market had a hideous about-face, with none other than Nvidia leading the way into the abyss of an island reversal, up to down in one horrendous session. When I got back, I thought I should write a segment covering what I thought about TBOY and their thesis of OpenAI being beaten by the revitalized of Google. Then I realized, there was not enough time. And it would be way too linear. The fact is, the biggest crisis this market has — the one that may be TWOY — is the hubris of the individual behind ChatGPT, Sam Altman. This supercilious man believes that if he spends enough money that he doesn’t currently have, he can challenge Google in the biggest vertical in the world, information, and that his knowledge factory will top the one in Mountain View, California. We, the users of Gemini 3, now know it will be a tough climb. OpenAI appears so far behind this new Gemini that Altman may have to pivot and go after the verticals of the other hyperscalers: social media or retail and perhaps even enterprise software. There’s only one problem with a potential pivot. No, make that three. First, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has already decided to spend any challenger to death regardless of what it will do to his stock. Social media, with all of those targeted ad dollars, will always be Meta’s turf. Zuckerberg has the firepower to be sure that’s the case. Second, Amazon is always going to win in retail, it’s only real competitor being Walmart . The new initiative toward same-day grocery delivery only widens its moat to defend against challengers. Plus, cloud unit Amazon Web Services, back in growth mode , spins off enough cash to make going against Amazon’s cyber-stores a fool’s errand. Which leaves one other place to go: the enterprise. In the “Oedipus Rex” of our time, Altman may have no choice but to challenge Microsoft at its own game. The 27% stake that Microsoft has in Altman’s entity might not matter to the man who will eventually recognize how cornered he is. Sure, there are other routes for OpenAI. Altman can buy Reddit, a terrific idea if only to block others from that amazing advertising vehicle and its trove of audience-generated content that is great to train models on. The best of Hobson’s choice: Altman could write a check to Apple to make ChatGPT the pre-loaded AI model on its operating systems. The check will have to be a big one as Gemini is the presumed choice. Sadly, at least for the market, I think he will attack every hyperscaler, given his Alex Karp-like ego. Karp is the longtime CEO and co-founder of Palantir . So what happens if Altman does? No single company has that kind of money needed to attack all comers. I think we got a glimpse of what could occur when we got the gaffe of all tech gaffes: OpenAI CFO Sarah Friar uttering the word “backstop” at a Wall Street Journal conference in early November. The quick denouement: Altman spends so much that perhaps a teetering OpenAI becomes a national champion with government-backed loans, the presumption being that President Donald Trump can’t let it fail. A failure this proportion could set back our whole bulwark against the Chinese in an AI race rife with national security concerns. In that situation, everyone makes out well and the market actually soars. I’ll take it. Or, Microsoft, sensing OpenAI’s peril, knows that the true value of OpenAI is now much lower than anyone thinks, so Microsoft crams its child down and buys it for several hundred billion, a totally satisfactory answer even if it means that Nvidia has one less customer. The market is reassured that the spend was all worth it and everything resumes the upward climb. Another possibility: The market stops allowing Oracle to build new data centers and cuts off OpenAI’s credit, with no one coming to its rescue. In that scenario the worry would be awful: wave after wave of companies producing shortfalls as everything is over-built. That is the Thursday scenario, the one that produced that painful Nvidia reversal after its spectacular earnings report the prior evening. I think the repudiation occurred because of a version of what I just traced out. Part of that version included an April 2000 nightmare, that fateful middle of the month tech estrangement when the money poured out of that group and headed to safety stocks like Johnson & Johnson , Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble , hence our recent buy of the latter because it had been the only one left behind. (Memo to second-guessers: Exiting Johnson & Johnson and Google were huge misses of mine, and I know that well. I just waited for them to come down and they never did). Now we are in a benign period, not that we weren’t when November began and we were told by the calendar investors that we would have a tremendous month. There are plenty of people who still think that we are still in “The Year Of Magical Investing.” These believers will continue to think that’s where we are until the money is taken away, which is what will happen. There are others who are willing to skate past the denouement to where April 2000 resides. There are others who think that they can sell all of the tech giants, except Alphabet and Apple, not a terrible hedge. In the end, though, if things play out as the “TBOY” hosts suggest, we do have to go through some turmoil as OpenAI flails and we wait for the positive – or negative — theses play out. Either way, know this: Alphabet has won in the most logical of battles. Let’s hope that Altman knows Trump and it all works out, as it did with Intel , in the end. (Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust is long META, AMZN, NVDA, AAPL and PG. See here for a full list of the stocks.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
Technology
Americans are holding onto devices longer than ever and it’s costing economy
Published
7 hours agoon
November 23, 2025By
admin
If you are holding onto your aging printer or cracked smartphone longer than you had planned, you are not alone.
Heather Mitchell, 69, retired and living in Tucson, Arizona, is content with her phone even though it is old by smartphone standards.
“My Samsung Galaxy A71 is six-years-old. It’s hanging in there surprisingly well for a jalopy. I’ve had issues with it, and still do, but they are minor,” said Mitchell. “I love Samsung phones, but can not afford a new one right now. A new phone would be a luxury.”
The average American now holds onto their smartphone for 29 months, according to a recent survey by Reviews.org, and that cycle is getting longer. The average was around 22 months in 2016.
While squeezing as much life out of your device as possible may save money in the short run, especially amid widespread fears about the strength of the consumer and job market, it might cost the economy in the long run, especially when device hoarding occurs at the level of corporations.
Research released by the Federal Reserve last month concludes that each additional year companies delay upgrading equipment results in a productivity decline of about one-third of a percent, with investment patterns accounting for approximately 55% of productivity gaps between advanced economies. The good news: businesses in the U.S. are generally quicker to reinvest in replacing aging equipment. The Federal Reserve report shows that if European productivity had matched U.S. investment patterns starting in 2000, the productivity gap between the U.S and European economic heavyweights would have been reduced by 29 percent for the U.K., 35 percent for France, and 101% for Germany.
Experts agree lost productivity and inefficiency are the unintended consequences of people and businesses clinging to aging technology.
“Think about how much internet speeds have changed in the past decade or more. In the 2010s, 100MB speeds were considered high speed and very good. A short 10 years later and we’re operating at 1GB speeds, which is roughly 10 times faster,” said Cassandra Cummings, CEO of New Jersey-based electronics design company Thomas Instrumentation. Operating at higher GB speeds requires different electronic hardware, and a lot of the older technology can’t handle it.
“Those devices were engineered when no one could fathom speeds that much faster would be mainstream,” Cummings said.
That can be a drain on nationwide networks as well.
“Both the cellular and internet infrastructure has to operate to be backwards compatible in order to support the older, slower devices. Networks often have to throttle back their speeds in order to accommodate the slowest device,” Cummings said. “Often entire sections of networks or company internal networks are running slower than they would if all devices were up to the newer standards,” she added.
Cummings doesn’t deny that staying up to date with new devices and hardware is expensive.
“Many companies, especially small businesses, and individual people can’t afford to constantly upgrade to the latest and greatest devices,” she said.
To ease the transition to new technologies, she says there should be designs that are repairable or modular rather than the constant purge and replace cycles. “So perhaps future devices can have a partial upgrade in say ethernet communications rather than forcing someone to purchase an entirely new computer or device,” Cummings said. “I’m not a fan of the throw-away culture we have these days. It may help the economy to spend more and force upgrades, but does it really help people who are already struggling to pay bills?” she said.
Indeed, entrepreneurs in the device resale market see the longer-lived tech as a success story that can be improved upon. Steven Athwal, CEO of the UK-based The Big Phone Store — which specializes in refurbished phones — says devices longevity is not the problem. “The issue is the lag. Businesses and individuals are trying to squeeze modern workloads out of old hardware, heavy processing, rendering, generation, and admin, and that creates a productivity drag. Things like slow processors, outdated software, and degraded batteries on older tech waste energy and morale,” Athwal said.
He adds that when people hold onto their phones or laptops for five or six years, the repair and refurbishment market becomes an active part of the economy. But right now, in both European, American, and global markets, too much of that happens in the shadows.
“It’s unregulated, underreported, and underutilized. If governments and big tech supported refurbishment properly, aging devices could become part of a sustainable circular economy,” Athwal said, improving the second-hand cycle by extending software support, improving access to parts, and treating repair as infrastructure.
“That’s how you disable constant replacement. No need to constantly push upgrades, which financially strains both small and large businesses alike,” Athwal said.
Still, some device manufacturers have found ways to entice consumers to ditch their older phones for newer ones. For instance, Apple just had one of its most successful new launches with the iPhone 17, and artificial intelligence could be a game-changer.
Najiba Benabess, dean of the business school at Neumann University, says rising prices and sustainability concerns are among reasons “America’s gadgets are aging out,” but the market should be focused on slowing productivity, increasing repair and maintenance expenses, and limited access to software updates and efficiency gains.
“Small businesses, in particular, lose valuable hours each year due to lagging systems, creating what economists call a ‘productivity drag,'” Benabess said. On a national scale, this translates to billions of dollars in lost output and reduced innovation. “While keeping devices longer may seem financially or environmentally responsible, the hidden cost is a quieter erosion of economic dynamism and competitiveness,” she added.
Most people still want the newest and most up-to-date phones and tablets, according to Jason Kornweiss, senior vice president of advisory services at Diversified, a global technology solutions provider, but research does show a widening gap between businesses and individuals when it comes to aging devices.
“Corporations with hundreds or thousands of people are not investing at the same rate,” Kornweiss said, adding that technology is changing so fast IT departments can’t keep up with the pace and that bloated corporations need to vet the newest technology, which takes time, and by the time they do the vetting, something new has arrived anyway. The result: businesses with increasingly long-in-the-tooth technology.
“Businesses establish shelf-life that is multi-year. Employees look at replacing devices within an organization as too tedious and people cringe when the IT department comes with a new device,” Kornweiss said, even when it is a meaningful upgrade, he added.
The price to the organization is then paid in lack of productivity, inability to multitask and innovate, and needless, additional hours of work that stack up. Workplace research conducted by Diversified last year found that 24% of employees work late or overtime due to aging technology issues, while 88% of employees report that inadequate workplace technology stifles innovation. Kornweiss says he doesn’t expect there’s been any improvement in those numbers over the past year.
There’s a disconnect between the numbers and behavior. Many workers report that aging devices stifle productivity, but like a favorite pair of shoes or an old sweater, they don’t want to give them up to learn the intricacies of a new device (which they’ll learn and then have to replace with another). Familiarity can trump productivity for many workers. But the result of that IT clinginess is felt in the bottom line.
“Productivity is hampered and it all has a tangible impact on the economics,” Kornweiss said.
The biggest commodity a worker has is time, he says, and older devices gobble that up. Bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policies can be a savior for businesses slow to upgrade, with individuals using their own more functional devices easily able to integrate into most workplace systems these days, Kornweiss said. Another option for companies that don’t want to buy a bunch of quickly dated devices is to lease.
Kornweiss sees a future where technology continues to advance at warp speed and companies will continue to have trouble keeping up. And individuals like Heather Mitchell will continue to hang on to their devices.
“I tend to hang onto my phone until I have no choice in the matter. In 26 years, this is only my fifth phone,” Mitchell said.
Technology
More companies are shifting workers to passwordless authentication
Published
7 hours agoon
November 23, 2025By
admin
It’s safe to say that no one is crazy about passwords. For chief information security officers, there’s the nightmare of employees leaving lists of passwords on their desks or putting them on Post-it notes on their computers. For workers, there’s the inconvenience of having to enter multiple passwords to gain access to various devices and resources.
Passwordless authentication technology is designed to address these issues, and use of these tools is on the rise. A recent survey of 200 CISOs by Wakefield Research, sponsored by security vendor Portnox, showed that a significant majority (92%) of the security leaders said their organizations had implemented or were planning to implement passwordless authentication. That’s up from 70% in 2024. CISOs cited improved employee productivity and enhanced user experience as the top benefits.
Passwordless authentication verifies user identity without the need for traditional passwords, through alternative methods such as hardware tokens, biometrics, or mobile push notifications. It offers potential benefits such as enhanced security and improved user experience.
Training services provider Universal Technical Institute has begun using a passwordless platform from Microsoft, “and as we expand adoption, the benefits show up quickly, with fewer password resets, fewer service desk tickets, and a faster start to the day,” said Adrienne DeTray, senior vice president and CIO at the company.
“The bigger impact is cultural,” DeTray said. “It shows that we’re serious about making technology feel lighter and more human again. Over the years, we’ve added so many systems and logins that the weight of technology has become part of the work. This is one of those steps that helps remove that administrative drag and makes the ecosystem feel more seamless and connected.”
It’s not just about security, DeTray said, but user experience as well. “Every password reset or lockout slows people down and chips away at their focus,” she said. “Passwordless takes that friction out of the day and gives people time back. It’s part of designing a connected ecosystem where security and usability work hand in hand.”
MFA losing status as ‘gold standard’ cybersecurity
R Systems International, a provider of digital product engineering services, is in the midst of a phased migration to a passwordless environment, said CTO Srikara Rao. “For us, this isn’t about chasing a trend, it’s a direct response to the fact that our previous gold standard, multi-factor authentication, is showing its age,” Rao said. “The threat landscape has evolved past what traditional MFA can handle.”
R Systems’ decision to make the move is driven by both security and business enablement factors. “Credential-based attacks remain the top threat vector, with a significant rise in phishing attempts and several near-miss incidents underscoring the urgency to act,” Rao said. “We want to promote solutions within our organization that are phishing resistant.”
On the operational side, password resets have become quite expensive, Rao said. Resets can be costly due to direct labor expenses and significant indirect costs such as lost employee productivity and IT resource drain. Research firm Forrester estimates that a single password reset can cost $70, and this can add up quickly for large enterprises.
In addition, it’s critical that the company adhere to compliance requirements such as PCI 4.0, which mandates that users reauthenticate everything they restart or access. “Passwordless authentication will make it seamless,” Rao said. “And finally, as we compete for top tech and cybersecurity talent, being a passwordless enterprise signals that we’re a forward-thinking, security-first organization.”
Bring-your-own-device policies are a factor
Health-care services provider Diversus Health is also moving to passwordless authentication, using the technology in the form of certificate-based network access control.
“Due to recently adopting a bring-your-own-device policy, our internal annual HIPAA compliance audit detected lack of network access control as one of our high-risk threats,” said Neil Ford, IT security administrator. “So, we began looking into solutions that could be used to mitigate the threat.”
Diversus Health earlier this year deployed a system from Portnox that uses certificate-based authentication to verify the identity of devices. “We deploy the certificate through a cloud-based endpoint management solution, so verification with Portnox is transparent to staff,” Ford said.
The solution has effectively mitigated the threat of unknown devices connecting to the company’s network and being able to access internal resources, Ford said.
One of the keys to a successful adoption of passwordless authentication is to effectively communicate the security change with staffers. “Employees are overcoming decades of password muscle memory and addressing legitimate user anxiety about ‘what if I lose my device?’ is critical,” Rao said. “We learned quickly that we had to sell the ‘why’ to our employees.”
Enterprises need to frame passwordless authentication not as another security mandate, but as a direct benefit to employees through less frustration, faster logins, and the elimination of password resets, Rao said. Before making the shift, R Systems ran small, interactive training sessions to get people comfortable with access tools such as fingerprint identification on their phones.
“I cannot stress enough the importance of organizations providing user education,” Rao. “It’s a significant difference between a successful deployment and a shelfware investment.”
R Systems passwordless strategy isn’t tied to a single vendor, but built on FIDO2 and WebAuthn open standards, “giving us flexibility to choose the right tool for each risk profile,” Rao said. “Privileged users such as administrators, developers, and executives use FIDO2 hardware security keys, while the broader workforce relies on passkeys integrated with device biometrics like Windows Hello and Face ID.”
The company is still evaluating the results of the transition to passwordless authentication and working to ensure that it works best for everyone.
“We’ve seen our employee experience improve dramatically, with faster logins and a significant reduction in password-related help desk tickets,” Rao said. “Most importantly, passwordless authentication has become a cornerstone of our zero-trust architecture, giving us a stronger, high-assurance identity layer that enables secure access regardless of user or device location.”
Trending
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024
