Catching up (part 2)

More catching up, after a mid-summer’s nap.  Catching up (part 1) is here.

1. The mysterious case of the non-missing purse.
   Naomi Osaka Gets the Last Word,” The Wall Street Journal, September 9, 2018 (online).  Serena Williams complained mightily after she was warned, penalized a point, and then penalized a game in her dispute with the umpire.  She was also fined $17,000, although she still received more than $1 million for second place.  Ms. Williams alleged sexism.

   What does it say when a high-profile player gets penalized for several infractions, including calling the umpire a thief?  What does it say, to her and to others, when she doesn’t?  And from a Governance standpoint, why don’t the rules allow for the disqualification of a player for gross disrespect to the game?  Losing the $1 million+ purse would have been a more appropriate penalty.

2. Whose information/computer is it?“Lawsuit Tests Limits Of Bosses’ Snooping,” The Wall Street Journal, September 10, 2018 A3.  Company buys an employee a computer to work from home..Employee buys software to allow him to access his work account from his new computer at home.  Dispute arises, employee fired.  Three days later, company accesses not only computer at employee’s home, but also information contained on 2 attached hard drives.  Former employee sues.

   Would it matter if the employee had retained his former employer’s confidential information on (a) the computer or (b) the hard drives?  Who owns what?  Reminds me of my law school exams.

3. Did I resign or was I fired?
   “D.E. Shaw Faces a Fight Over Statement on Firing,” The Wall Street Journal, September 10, 2018 B1.  Partner of a large hedge fund, when given the option to retire at age 36, does so.  Fund later says partner was fired after an internal investigation.  Former partner files a complaint.

   What can you say publicly about firing someone?  Would it matter if the person was accused of sexual harassment, in violation of company policy?

4. When did the Board know?
   “CBS Board Was Warned Of Moonves Allegations,” The Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2018 A1.  Directors were told about a recent lawsuit alleging  sexual harassment by the now-former CEO  several decades ago, 6 months before the story broke.

   What did they know and when did they know it, and what, if anything did they do about it?  Investigation didn’t start for several months, after a NYT article.  Is that enough?

   In a similar vein, “Vatican to Address Allegations Of Abuses,” The Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2018 A7.  Despite knowledge of past sexual misconduct with seminarians, retired cardinal still made an adviser to the Pope.  (The retired cardinal has since resigned after allegations he had sexually abused a teenager years before.)  What does that say about how that institution is governed?  Can you hide this type of information?

5. Text message.
   “Top ’60 Minutes’ Producer Departs,” The Wall Street Journal, September 13, 2018 B1.  Producer who had been with CBS for 36 years, alleged to have sexually harassed  at least one employee; was fired over a text message that may have been viewed as threatening a reporter who was reporting on various harassment scandals.

   What was he fired for, the text or the sexual harassment?  To whom does it matter?  What was the culture at the top of CBS?  This guy was a direct report to the CEO, Mr. Moonves.

6. Is it live, or is it Memorex?
   “Facebook to Check Validity of Photos, Videos,” The Wall Street Journal, September 14, 2018 B5. This is part of an effort to limit Russian interference in US elections.

   It’s good to have some check on the accuracy of information.  Why isn’t Facebook’s effort more wide-spread?

7.  Bribes.
   “Amazon Investigates Suspected Staff Bribes,” The Wall Street Journal, September 17, 2018 A1.  Did Amazon employees offer to sell confidential data to independent merchants?

   Are these people accused of selling Amazon’s data or your data?  Don’t employees have a duty not to do thing like that?  There must be a company policy.  Not sure that Amazon appreciated its employees “borrowing” its business model.

8. Loose lips.
   “Tesla Is Subject Of DOJ Probe,” The Wall Street Journal, September 19, 2018 B1.  Did CEO’s tweet break the law?

   It has been suggested as  much, at the time of the tweet (August 7, 2018).  See Loose Lips, revisited.

9. Messenger.
   “Facebook Sought Users’ Financial Data for Years,” The Wall Street Journal, September 19, 2018 B1.  Facebook has been trying to get your financial information from your financial firm.  Some firms severely limited what Facebook could do with information transiting the Facebook Messenger servers.

   Whose information is that, anyway?  If your financial firm uses Messenger, the answer may surprise you.  If you use Facebook to communicate with your broker, shame on you both.  See also Gee, what could go wrong?

10. Whitewash.
    “Unrecovered Texts Muddy Probe,” The Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2018 A3. Investigators from a major law firm in Coach Meyer probe failed to look for deleted texts.  See also Caesar’s wife.

    What does it say about both your Governance and your Compliance when your investigators don’t collect basic forensic data?  And that the day after the probe was begun, a principal discussed how to delete old text messages?  Isn’t this a basic competence question?

11. Don’t be evil.
    “Apps Can Scan, Share Data From Gmail Accounts,” The Wall Street Journal, September 21, 2018 A4.  Google (one of whose tenets is “Don’t be evil”) lets other companies scan your Gmail account.

    There is no privacy.  You use their service for free and they get your information, to do with what they want.