“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
“The Mariners; Big Data Experiment,” The Wall Street Journal, March 27, 2018 A14. Data leads to moving a star player from shortstop to the outfield.
Maybe not a big Information Governance or Compliance piece. But interesting use of information.
News alert: Countries have different laws.
“Malaysia Aims at ‘Fake News,'” The Wall Street Journal, March 27, 2018 A6. In the run-up to national elections, new law proposed to impose a prison sentence of up to 10 years for spreading fake news.
As information governance, this has some interesting elements. News that hasn’t been approved by Malaysian authorities will be considered “false.” What controls does your country or company put on the sharing of information? Are they enforced? Effective?
This law may also apply to “media organizations” outside Malaysia in certain circumstances. But “the government wouldn’t suppress opposing views.” Well, that makes us comfortable.
Information is often more valuable if you get it or use it faster than someone else.
“Ultrafast Opens to the Masses,” The Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2018 B5. A high-frequency trading platform using open coding is made available to the muggles.
Is it fair to use software to trade faster than someone else? Apparently. Can you make money by doing that? Perhaps.
What happens when you have information, but don’t use it?
“‘I Know He’s Going to Explode,'” The Wall Street Journal, February 24, 2018 A1. The FBI and the Sheriff’s Department had received multiple notices in advance about the shooter at the school in Parkland who killed 17. And failed to act.
Does your company have adequate processes for identifying important information, and acting on it? Does important information get to the right people at the right time?
What’s that worth? Who pays the price when you get it wrong?
Filed under Access, Accuracy, Board, Communications, Controls, Corporation, Data quality, Directors, Duty, Duty of Care, Employees, Governance, Information, Internal controls, Oversight, Oversight, Protect assets, Protect information assets, To report, Value, Vendors
The news media has an obligation to verify its reports. Is YouTube “news media”?
“YouTube Mistakenly Promoted False Video,” The Wall Street Journal, February 22, 2018 A4. YouTube apologizes and removes video suggesting an alleged witness to the Parkland shootings was an actor and not a student.
Is YouTube merely a carrier of content provided by others or does it’s role in curating content make it liable if the curating yields misleading results? Does YouTube have the protections available to The New York Times? Should it? Who decides?