“China Censors Spark Uproar In Quashing Student Activist,” The Wall Street Journal, April 25, 2018 A7. Students make a request for open records from the Peking University about 20-year old rape allegations. The government rejects it. And then slams a student who circulated a letter telling her story through social media. And that story circulates.
It sure is hard to put the genie back in the bottle after information gets to the Internet. Are your controls adequate? How do you enforce them? Even if you have a command and control culture?
Filed under Access, Compliance, Controls, Duty, Governance, Government, Interconnections, Internal controls, IT, Oversight, Third parties, Who is in charge?
“CFPB May Restrict Complaint Database,” The Wall Street Journal, April 25, 2018 A5. Government may restrict public access to a database of consumer complaints that haven’t been verified by the government.
All information is not equally reliable. Does the government, by allowing people to post complaints, somehow vouch for the accuracy of those complaints? Is the government in the business of publishing complaints, versus government findings?
Sure, it would be nice to have a central clearing house of complaints. But is that the role of government?
“EPA Limits Data Used in New Rules,” The Wall Street Journal April 25, 2018 A4. Underlying studies must be made public and the findings must be reproducible before research will be used to justify new regulations.
Does the government need to allow you an opportunity to contest the “facts” upon which regulations are issued? Is it right for the US government to rely upon scientific studies that in turn rely on secret information in order to establish regulations? Do the government need to independently validate information before taking regulatory action? How can an opponent reasonably contest the wording and scope of a regulation if he/she can’t see the evidence? Or if the evidence doesn’t prove what the scientist says it proves?
Is this about information, or governance, or information governance? More than one?
Filed under Access, Accuracy, Controls, Data quality, Duty, Duty of Care, Governance, Government, Internal controls, Oversight, Third parties
“Europe’s New Consumer Privacy Law Gives Edge to Tech Giants,” The Wall Street Journal April 24, 2018 A1. The General Data Protection Regulation, which goes into effect next month, protects consumers but also gives Google and Facebook an advantage.
By wielding their power over advertisers and taking a strict interpretation of the law, Facebook and Google can make it really difficult for competitors to establish competing platforms.
Is this what the European regulators anticipated?
“Google’s Practices Threaten Privacy, Too,” The Wall Street Journal, April 23, 2018 B1. Google’s practices may expose more information related to you.
What is you information worth to you? What is it worth to someone else? Who profits? What controls are in place and how effective are they?
Do you read their policies? Do you care?
“Probe Focuses on Cellphone IDs,” The Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2018 B1. DOJ investigates.
Are phone companies (and a standard-setting company) conspiring to make it harder for you to keep your phone number if you change carriers? Or are they trying to make phones smaller?
Is your phone number information? If so, to whom does it belong? Is this just about whether you have to remove the SIM card to change carriers?
For years, securing access to information stored in Europe to support discovery for civil litigation in the US has been, to say the least, problematic. Changes are afoot, for criminal matters, anyway.
“EU Calls for Access To Foreign Servers,” The Wall Street Journal, April 18, 2018 A7. “National law enforcement” should be allowed access on tech companies’ servers in both the EU and the US “to speed cross-border criminal inquiries.”
So, it looks like those pesky privacy laws won’t slow down law enforcement. But weren’t those laws enacted in reaction to just such “national law enforcement inquiries”? Does this mean we don’t have to go through the Hague Convention processes?