A prodrome is an early warning sign of a disease or crisis, normally viewed after the fact.

Consider privacy laws, a bigger thing outside the US.  They may prevent the sharing of information with a third party.  What if what the third party doesn’t share turns out to be fairly important?

“Canada Privacy Law Curbed Intelligence Effort,” Wall Street Journal, October 25-26, 2014 A9. The guy who killed a Canadian soldier with his car earlier this week was on the Canadian watch list following attempts to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State fighting.  But Canada didn’t share that information with the US authorities.

In this case, no harm, no foul.  But might there be another case where a person on the Canadian watch list enters the US and does harm?  Would people in the US view that as a proper protection of that person’s privacy?  Would Canadians?

What impacts do the privacy restrictions on information sharing have outside their jurisdiction?  Do other controls, in place to protect against enumerated hazards, raise their own risks?

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Case, Communications, Controls, Data quality, Information, Internal controls, Privacy, Risk, Third parties, Use, Value

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s