Three front page stories, plus one missing one

Sections A, B, and C of the Wall Street Journal each had a front page story related to information.  And one was missing.

  1. “Traders Seek an Edge With High-Tech Snooping,” Wall Street Journal, December 19, 2013 A1 http://on.wsj.com/1c3vuf9

Not the NSA this time.  No, it’s people using technology to get a jump on public market information, which has real value and gives traders with access to the information an edge over those who don’t.  How can you protect (a) the information and (b) market integrity? Crop yields, electricity, and oil storage, among others.

2.   “Target Hit By Breach Of Credit Cards,” Wall Street Journal, December 19, 2013 B1 http://on.wsj.com/1beVXBX

Millions of customers who shopped at Target since Black Friday may have had their credit cards compromised.  How many millions?  Breach affected 40,000 card readers at stores.  You try and try to protect the information, but Willie Sutton was right (about banks, at the time) about what to target and why. Target was targeted.

3.    “Jury Votes to Convict SAC Manager,” Wall Street Journal, December 19, 2013 C1 http://on.wsj.com/1gIHs1s

Insider trading conviction for Michael Steinberg.  He allegedly got inside data from Dell and Nvidia and traded on it.

4.  Not in the Wall Street Journal headlines, but available online: “Ex-BP Engineer Found Guilty of Obstruction”.  http://on.wsj.com/IYGcci.

Kurt Mix deleted emails and texts that may have included information about BP’s response to the Gulf spill.  The government had other copies of this, but Mr. Mix (who I do not know – I left BP before the spill) nonetheless appears to have violated the letter of the obstruction statute (18 USC 1512).  I would think selective prosecution would be an issue, as the DOJ seldom prosecutes under this or the other obstruction section (18 USC 1519).  It would be a full time job.  As a cautionary tale, the Kurt Mix conviction is “bigger” for information governance than the Steinberg conviction, which is sort of the same old story.  A prosecution or conviction for deleting emails or texts without a showing of intent to obstruct (versus intent to delete) is hugely troubling.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Case, Business Continuity, Compliance, Controls, Definition, Governance, Information, Internal controls, IT, Legal, Operations, Ownership, Requirements, Risk, Security, Third parties, Use, Value

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s