Category Archives: New Implications

Separating fact from opinion

The polls leading up to the election were wrong.  What do you do it you can’t or don’t get accurate information?

“Media Face Backlash for Getting It Wrong,” The Wall Street Journal, November 10, 2016 B1.  Media acknowledges “oversights” in run-up to Trump’s election victory.

Does this reduce the value (or cost) of future election polls?  Why did so many polls get it so wrong, and so consistently?  Is there a fundamental disconnect?  Was there some other bias in the polling methods or analysis?

What is an exit poll worth today, versus last week?  What can the polls that did get it right charge the next time?  Should future polls have much larger margins of error?

Leave a comment

Filed under Accuracy, Analytics, Business Case, Collect, Communicate, Data quality, Definition, Information, Management, New Implications, Reliance, Use, Value

Who owns it?

Who owns your information?

“FCC Moves To Tighten Marketing Of Data,” The Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2016 A3.  Finally, consumers get some limited privacy protection.  Internet providers need to secure the customers’ ok before marketing their consumers’ sensitive information like search history.

Leaving aside that a customer’s right to privacy is somewhat shadowy and ill-defined, created as it was (sort of) by the Supreme Court, and that the FCC doesn’t have the charter to protect privacy, per se, this seems like a step in the right direction.  But are we just going to get another click-through we don’t read?

But nice to know that we have some rights with respect to our data.

Leave a comment

Filed under Access, Analytics, Business Case, Controls, Corporation, Definition, Duty, Governance, Information, New Implications, Ownership, Third parties, Uncategorized

Three for all

What do you do when you have information that identifies a high-crime area, but to take action on that information may be viewed as racist? How can you use the information?  “Vegas Pits Data vs. Crime,” The Wall Street Journal, October 4, 2016 A3.

Better to state what your assumption were when answering questions from Congress, who may not understand the difference between operating profit and profit. Clarity of communications is key.  “Mylan Is Asked for More EpiPen Data,” The Wall Street Journal, October 4, 2016 B3.

Will blockchain provide information security?  Sort of like encryption.  Is this the next new information governance technology?  How will ediscovery work, where security is based on a long chain with a lot of math?  “J.P. Morgan’s Blockchain Project,” The Wall Street Journal, October 4, 2016 C1.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analytics, Board, Business Case, Collect, Communications, Controls, Corporation, Data quality, Directors, Duty, Governance, Information, Interconnections, Internal controls, IT, Management, New Implications, Operations, Risk, Security, Third parties, Use, Use, Value

Using information

On-line v. in-store shoppers have different expectations when shopping for food.

“What Wal-Mart Knows About Online Food Shoppers,” The Wall Street Journal, October 3, 2016 R4.  Wal-Mart is best-in-class on using information on the logistics side.  $10 billion a year in IT spend.  How do they use algorithms to improve your on-line food shopping experience.  Does this draw more people to their stores?  IT adding real value.

How do you use information?  As well as Wal-Mart?

Leave a comment

Filed under Analytics, Culture, Governance, Information, Interconnections, IT, New Implications, Uncategorized, Value

Person of Interest

Life imitates art.  There’s a dark side to the Internet of Things.  In a story that resembles “Person of Interest,” a TV show, hackers are accessing security cameras belonging to others.  “Hackers Hijack Video Cameras,” The Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2016 B1.

Over a million video cameras and DVRs were compromised in an attack that slammed a French web hosting provider and the website of Brian Krebs, a US security guy who posted a lot following the Target credit card breach a few years ago. Hacks were possible largely due to the poor initial security, poor passwords, and the failure to update the operating software.

Do businesses appreciate the risks of devices connected to the internet?  Consumers certainly don’t.  All that convenience comes with hidden costs.

Leave a comment

Filed under Access, Business Case, Controls, Interconnections, Internal controls, IT, New Implications, Privacy, Risk, Security

Settle?

What alternative(s) does a company charged with criminal activity have?  Don’t they have to settle?

“Takata Ramps Up Settlement Talks,” The Wall Street Journal, September 29, 2016 B1.  Air bag manufacturer facing possible wire fraud charges based on “misleading statements and concealed information.”  Here, the company is alleged to have hidden information about the fact that their product kills people.

You’re the prosecutor.  Why should you settle without putting a bunch of people in jail and getting massive fines?  Beyond the cost of product recall and the $70 million fine already.  Apart from the savings in trail costs, and factoring in the chance of losing such a case, shouldn’t the amount of fines be just short of confiscatory?  Does the Yates memo actually mean anything?  Should senior execs get jailed?  Should their compensation be clawed back?  If not, why not?  VW’s diesel claims didn’t kill people (immediately).  Wells Fargo’s CEO didn’t really hurt anyone.

Leave a comment

Filed under Accuracy, Board, Business Case, Compliance, Compliance, Compliance, Compliance Verification, Controls, Corporation, Directors, Duty, Duty of Care, Employees, Governance, Information, Internal controls, Management, New Implications, Oversight, Oversight, Risk, Value

Finally

So often, when corporations do something wrong, it’s the shareholders who pay.  The shareholder pay the fines for corporate misconduct.  While sometimes management gets moved out, seldom do they pay a financial penalty to the shareholders, who have been injured by the failure of management to prevent the wrongdoing.

So it was gratifying to see the story on page 1.  “Wells Claws Back CEO Pay,” The Wall Street Journal, September 28, 2016 A1.  The CEO of Wells Fargo forfeited $41 million in compensation, after the bank paid a $185 million fine for the illegal creation of unauthorized client accounts.

Now, there’s a business case with legs.

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Case, Compliance, Directors, Duty, Employees, Governance, New Implications, Oversight, Risk

Let the little heads roll

A VW engineer plead guilty in the emissions scandal. “VW Engineer Admits Diesel Scam,” The Wall Street Journal, September 10, 2016, A1.

What about his manager?  Who else should be charged?  The shareholders lost billions – why shouldn’t negligent managers pay damages to the shareholders?  What about the Board?  Who else knew or should have known, and who failed to report?  What was the culture that allowed this?

The engineer continues to cooperate with the US government, so maybe more heads will roll, both here and abroad.  The Yates memo doesn’t mean anything if only the corporation (i.e., the shareholders) and the lowly engineer bear the cost of the breaches of duty.

Leave a comment

Filed under Board, Business Case, Compliance, Compliance, Compliance, Compliance Verification, Controls, Culture, Culture, Directors, Duty, Duty of Care, Employees, Governance, Internal controls, Management, New Implications, Oversight, Oversight, Protect assets, Risk

Size/efficiency continuum

Why is a small country so far ahead of the US in e-governance?

“Yelp, Google Hold Pointers to Fix Governments,” The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2016 B1. Comparison of the approach of governments of different sizes to technology changes.  Boston Mayor does better than the feds.

Can big government handle technology well?  Does government delight its customers?  Will technology revolutionize government before government revolutionizes technology?

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Case, Collect, Governance, Information, IT, Management, New Implications, Oversight, Use, Value

The 5% rule

“Twitter Bars Intelligence Agencies From Using Analytics Service,” The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2016 A1.

Twitter prohibits third parties from selling Twitter’s data to the government for “surveillance purposes.”  Dataminr (5% owned by Twitter) analyzes the entire Twitter feed on a real-time basis and sends out alerts.  Dataminr informs US intelligence agencies that it will no longer sell (give? provide?) the government access.

Points:

  • Twitter owns your Tweets.
  • Twitter monetizes its ownership of your information.
  • There’s value in mining the Twitter feed for breaking issues.
  • Twitter restricts the ability of its vendors to resell Twitter’s information.
  • Twitter recognized that giving the government access to this information might not be viewed favorably by Twitter’s users.

What’s the over/under bet on how long Twitter is allowed to deny this to the intelligence community?

Leave a comment

Filed under Access, Analytics, Business Case, Controls, Duty, Governance, Information, New Implications, Ownership, Risk, Third parties, Value