Apparently, keeping the identities of confidential informants secret poses some challenges. Are there information governance lessons to be learned?
“Inmates Targeting Informants,” The Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2017 A3. “[C]lose to 700 witnesses and informants believed to have cooperated with the government have been threatened, wounded or killed” over three years. One source of information: online court records that provide clues as to who cooperated with the prosecutors. Some inmates may be posting their sentencing files to establish their bona fides.
Hard to classify this in this blog. Does this pertain to
- the value of accurate and complete information
- the risk in making information widely available
- the government’s duty to protect informants
- the government’s duty to have a transparent criminal justice system
- a defendant’s right to confront his/her accusers
- the need for security and the difficulty in providing it
- the proactive value of disclosure
- the fact that information can be misused
- the difficulty in creating effective controls
Filed under Access, Accuracy, Communications, Compliance, Controls, Data quality, Duty, Duty of Care, Governance, Government, Information, Internal controls, Oversight, Privacy, Protect assets, Risk, Third parties, Value
How do you forecast what information the company will need twenty years from now, long after your retirement?
“First Job of Dismantling Nuclear Plants: Find a Russian Speaker,” The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2017 A1. Dismantling engineers encounter problems when trying to decontaminate and tear down an old nuclear facility. The engineering drawings are not necessarily accurate as-built diagrams, and a lot of the language is Russian.
An organization needs a lot of information. One area is “What information will we need when it’s time to dismantle this great thing we just built?” Is this information governance, records management, or knowledge management? Does it matter? Who owns this problem? This same problem came up in my prior life when looking at the information requirements to shut down and dismantle a North Sea oil platform – a lot of that information needs to be captured at the front end and during the life of the facility, and maintained until the facility is removed.
Gee, how important are computers to your company? Or, more importantly, the information they contain?
“Big Outage Dogs British Airways,” The Wall Street Journal, May 30, 2017 B3. A power surge apparently takes out BA’s entire IT system. No flights, no baggage, and no customer communications. This is partly a business continuity problem, and is a predictable hazard (I was working at Amoco in Chicago in the 90’s when a flood took out the email servers that were then in the basement- Ed.). But it also highlights how important access to information is to having your business run right. If you put all your eggs in one basket, watch that basket.
What happens when you have so much information that you can’t read it all? “U.K.’s MI5 Begins Internal Probe,” The Wall Street Journal, May 30, 2017 A9. Apparently, the suicide bomber in Manchester was on, and then off, the security service’s radar screen. He was one of 20,000 suspects, but not among the 3,000 most active ones.
Filed under Access, Accuracy, Business Continuity, Communications, Controls, Duty, Governance, Government, Information, Interconnections, IT, Operations, Oversight, Supervision, Third parties, Value
“FCC Won’t Move Against Colbert for Crude Remarks,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2017 A3. Remarks about Trump don’t draw a fine. The question remains, what will? What’s the impact of the regulator not even trying to enforce regulatory standards?
“Pakistan Investigates Social-Media Critics of Its Military,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2017 A8. Twenty-seven critics investigated for “unacceptable” comments criticizing and ridiculing the military and judiciary. The FCC wasn’t consulted.
2. “U.S. Sues Chrysler Over Emissions Tests,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2017 B1. Apparently VW wasn’t the only one seeking to game the emissions-testing process.
3. “Human Still Rule Machines in Insurance,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2017 B1. Despite the new sources of data, and the ability of computer programs to determine how much an individual insurance policy should cost, humans are still a necessary decision-maker.
4. “Target Settles Probe Into Its 2013 Hack,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2017 B3. Following the 2013 data breach, Target pays an additional $18.5 million to settle state charges.
5. “High-Ranking Chinese Regulator Faces Probe,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2017 B14. Assistant chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission fired for breaking the rules. Details not available.
Filed under Accuracy, Analytics, Compliance, Compliance, Controls, Corporation, Culture, Duty, Employees, Governance, Government, Information, Internal controls, Management, Managers, Oversight, Supervision, Value
Does your radar go wild when someone suggests delaying the report of information?
“Sunrun Sales Data Seen as Skewed,” The Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2017 B1. In the run-up to the company’s IPO, some managers were told by their managers to hold off on reporting a number of canceled contracts. Reporting this information would have reduced the sales numbers, as the canceled contracts were a large percentage of total orders.
What does it say about a culture where the bosses ask managers to do this type of thing? And no one says, “No”? Was no one bright enough to connect the dots? What else is suspect? Are employees clueless as to their common law duties to report wrong-doing or deviations from company processes?
Filed under Accuracy, Compliance, Compliance, Controls, Culture, Data quality, Duty, Employees, Governance, Internal controls, Management, Managers, Oversight, Supervision, To report
I was otherwise engaged last week and missed posting. Here are some catch-ups.
- Comey – reportedly, former FBI Director wrote memos to the file on his conversations with the President. Two points: just because you write something, doesn’t mean it’s true – that’s why you have hearsay rules and cross-examination. Doesn’t mean it’s not true, either. Also, interesting question in the area of obstruction of justice: if what was written was not 100% accurate, are there implications for the former Director under 18 USC §1519? “Trump Asked Comey to Drop Probe,” The Wall Street Journal, May 17, 2017 A1.
- “Tests Show More American Workers Using Drugs,” The Wall Street Journal, May 17, 2017 B1. Does your company have a drug policy that your employees are violating?
- “Putin Says Trump Divulged No Secrets,” The Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2017 A6.
- “Cover-Up Alleged In Probe Of Attack,” The Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2017 A7. Criminal complaint by Berlin filed against police investigators, alleging documents were altered.
- VW (the adventure continues) – The VW CEO and a few others (including Board members) are being investigated over whether they intentionally withheld information about the diesel emission testing scandal from investors. “Inquiry Targets Volkswagen CEO,” The Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2017 B1.
- “Uber Threatens to Ax Executive,” The Wall Street Journal, May 20, 2017 B3. Company threatens to fire executive (hired from Alphabet) if he doesn’t turn over documents. No Fifth Amendment protections against getting fired?
Filed under Accuracy, Board, Communications, Compliance, Compliance, Content, Controls, Corporation, Directors, Discovery, Duty, Employees, Governance, Government, Inform market, Inform shareholders, Internal controls, Investor relations, Oversight, Privacy, Protect assets, Protect information assets
Hearsay is information, too. Just goes to admissibility and, perhaps, weight.
“Paper Points to Pemex Bribe,” The Wall Street Journal, May 5, 2017 A7. Apparently, an Odebrecht employee testified that he was asked to bribe the person then the head of Pemex (Mexico’s state-owned oil company). Not clear who asked him. Odebrecht ( a large Brazilian contruction company) has admitted it paid a bunch of bribes in a bunch of countries, including Mexico. This according to a document filed in Brazil.
So, a document filed in court in one country alleges bribes to an official in another country. What’s the Mexican government to do? What’s the duty, and to whom?
Filed under Access, Accuracy, Compliance, Corporation, Culture, Data quality, Duty, Governance, Government, Interconnections, Oversight