If company politics won't allow it, there are several possible reasons why which I can come up with:

>Possible Good Reasons

>They don't want to divert resources from guaranteed useful development to fix the possibility of a hack

>No one has got around to it yet and they're just hoping nothing goes wrong in the meantime

>No one has the expertise or has had enough time with the code to know that a problem exists at all

>Possible Bad Reasons

>Higher ups or peers want to implement and take credit for having implemented security fixes themselves. You doing it, specifically, would hurt their resume

>Personal data exposure is intentional and someone's either looking through it or wants to, for whatever reason.

So it seems like it's either a question of how priorities have historically worked out, or how your peers and managers get their jollies.

The former is easy to deal with: Find three similar companies (or bigger if you can't find similar) who had data breaches, tell someone in your company with the ability to alter priorities (probably your manager) how much money they lost from it (shuttered being the 'number' you really want to say, it's dramatic but tickles the brain in all the right ways), and hope they agree that you can fix that.

Alternatively, and even better, before even speaking with him, spend 20% of your work time implementing what would be a working solution to the security flaw(s) allowing a data breach before even making your pitch.

Selling a manager on

>"Hey, I have this thing that I built that would make the whole company much more secure, it won't cost you any more development time then I already spent since it's ready, and blocking holes similar to this probably will save the company from bad press and something like 5 million dollars down the road, based on similar breaches to the ones it stops."

Is a lot easier than selling them on the current alternative it seems like you're giving them:

>"Hey, we have an abstract problem that will probably bite us later. I think it's morally wrong, but I have no idea how long it will take to fix because I haven't tried yet, I have no proof that this problem will impact our bottom line, and I don't necessarily care enough to fix it myself. Despite all this, would you do us all a favor and make fixing it, rather than making new, sellable features, a priority?

Which is most of the real politics at work. The first speech is selling a ready-made and immediate resume boost to your manager with the literal words he would actually use, which I've never seen rejected, the latter is asking THEM to make the resource commitment of unknown time to fix the holes and, in doing so, when he could instead tell you to build features, to stick his own neck out for security's sake. It's not company politics that's the problem here in this case; it's that your manager knows better than to follow whims.

Give him fodder to stick his neck out, or do it for him, and you're more likely to succeed.

In the other case, where it's because someone else wants to fix it instead of you or data breachability being a problem is intentional, you'll meet pushback the whole way if you try, although you still can if you don't mind the potential fallout. Take comfort in the first case that at least someone cares, and that in the second case that CS hiring is still enough of a hot market that you'll probably be able to find somewhere else to work.