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
One unique aspect of information is that it can be stolen, yet remain in the owner’s possession. Apparently, medical facilities are required to report if your medical information is stolen, but not if it is merely kidnapped and held for ransom.
“Some Cyberattacks Go Unreported,” The Wall Street Journal, June 19, 20127 B3. Whether hospitals need to report a ransomware attack of their files as a data breach is a “gray area,” and the federal government doesn’t require such reports, even if the government knows about them. Some hospitals don’t report ransomware attacks, so these attacks are not in the HHS statistics.
So, patients don’t know when hospitals have weak security protection. What value, then, are the government statistics? Do they need a big asterisk?
Filed under Controls, Corporation, Data quality, Duty, Government, Information, Internal controls, IT, Legal, Requirements, Security, Third parties, To report, 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
If the Board asks how much the company paid for something, “I don’t know” isn’t a good answer. Neither is “We can’t track that today.”
“Algorithms Help Calpers Tally Fees,” The Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2017 B1. The question was how much the pension plan had paid private-equity managers in performance fees. It turns out the answer was $3.4 billion, over 25 years, with $490 million last year. Answer was derived using algorithms.
“It took five years to develop a new data collection system that requires private-equity managers to fill out various templates describing their various fees.”
How comforting – a self-graded exam for $3.4 billion in fees.
What’s information worth? How can you manage without it? How did they?
Filed under Access, Analytics, Board, Collect, Controls, Corporation, Data quality, Directors, Duty, Governance, Information, Internal controls, Management, Operations, Oversight, Oversight, Protect information assets, Third parties, Use, Use, Value, Vendors
Is the use of algorithms to set prices a subterfuge to facilitate price fixing?
“To Set Prices, Stores Turn To Algorithms,” The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2017 A1. Use of algorithms to establish prices for a wide range of products, from Staples to gas stations based on “big data.”
But what if everyone uses the same algorithm? Or if the algorithms are wrong or the data upon which they are based is wrong? Can anyone explain what they do and how they do it? The ultimate black box.
Filed under Analytics, Business Case, Collect, Compliance, Data quality, Governance, Information, IT, Management, New Implications, Operations, Oversight, Use, Use
Companies begin to move towards the use of quantum mechanics into practical application.
“A Quantum Leap for Computers Looms,” The Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2017 B4. Huge processing speed increases possible when processing and analyzing huge volumes of data.
You think you have ediscovery problems now, wait until the qubits disappear or mutate (sublimate?) to a different state.
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