So, you have a baby coming. You establish a baby registry online, and list the items/gifts you want to receive. And then the host of the registry accepts payments from vendors of baby products to add certain items to “your” list.
Is nothing sacred?
“New Parents Complain Amazon Baby-Registry Ads Are Deceptive,” The Wall Street Journal, November 29, 2018 (online). Amazon accepts money from major companies to put “sponsored ads” on your list; there’s a small gray box saying “Sponsored.” Nothing descriptive like, “Similar to things the mother-to-be actually wants.”
I guess you have to check to make sure that you check “your” list at least twice, to make sure that Amazon hasn’t made it theirs. No bait, just switch.
Where’s the FTC on this? Would you buy from a company that paid to advertise on someone else’s gift registry, without asking? Are they a bit scummy? These aren’t small-time companies; advertisers buying the ads include Kimberly-Clark and Johnson & Johnson. To sell baby products!
Next thing, they’ll be posting billboards on your roof and on your car. Without so much as a by-your-leave.
Filed under Accuracy, Compliance, Controls, Corporation, Culture, Data quality, Duty, Duty of Care, Governance, Information, Internal controls, Oversight, Ownership, Third parties, Value
One profit model that seems to be working well is selling stuff that doesn’t belong to you. Cuts your cost-of-goods-sold dramatically.
“Facebook Considered Charging for Access to User Data,” The Wall Street Journal, November 29, 2018 (online). Facebook considered charging people to access user data.
Now, I guess that’s marginally different than letting third parties see the “Facebook” user data (i.e., the data of the users of Facebook) for free, in order to develop apps or whatever. But isn’t it still the users’ information? Oh, and it might be somewhat contrary to what the CEO said to Congress about Facebook’s policy of never selling user data.
Filed under Access, Collect, Compliance, Controls, Corporation, Culture, Duty, Duty of Care, Governance, Information, Internal controls, Management, Oversight, Ownership, Ownership, Third parties, To report, Use, Value
You may not be old enough or nerdy enough to remember the Romulan cloaking device from the original Star Trek. But I do/am.
“Fake Signals and Illegal Flags: How North Korea Uses Clandestine Shipping to Fund Regime,” The Wall Street Journal, November 29, 2018 (online). How do shipments still arrive in and leave from North Korea, notwithstanding the various sanctions on the regime there? Apparently, it’s blue smoke and mirrors.
I raise this here for two reasons. First, in the North Korean story this is a bunch of information being generated that is deliberately false, and the compliance types struggle to deal with it in order to enforce the applicable rules. The enforcers use satellites and data analytics; the shippers use deception and semi-legal and illegal stratagems.
Second, what extremes might your employees go to to avoid being detected when they are doing something they know is wrong, and how well prepared are you to deal with it? Do you have the proper controls and investigative procedures? What should you look at to confirm that what you’re being told is true?
Filed under Collect, Compliance, Compliance, Compliance (General), Controls, Corporation, Data quality, Directors, Duty, Employees, Governance, Information, Internal controls, Management, Oversight, Policy, Supervision, Third parties, To report, Use
This blog tends to mention cases where senior executives get (or don’t get) punished for their alleged misdeeds. The spin is often that the seniors don’t get punished as hard as the worker bees.
But what happens when the CEO gets put in jail for his or her alleged misdeeds, which may have led to under-reporting in the company’s financials for the past five years?
“Carlos Ghosn’s Arrest Rocks Auto Empire,” The Wall Street Journal, November 21, 2018 (online). Nissan’s CEO jailed for allegedly under-reporting his earnings by several tens of millions of dollars.
How do you explain this to the worker bees? What’s the culture at the top? How did the Board not catch this? Were there not controls in place? Might the shareholders be a bit upset?
More a Governance and a Compliance issue, perhaps, although if one looks, one could find some information-related failures.
Filed under Board, Compliance, Compliance (General), Compliance Verification, Controls, Corporation, Culture, Culture, Data quality, Directors, Duty, Duty of Care, Governance, Internal controls, Oversight, Oversight
“Marriott Says Starwood Data Breach Affects Up to 500 Million People,” The Wall Street Journal, November 30, 2018 (online). Data breach potentially affecting passports and credit cards of as many as 500 million guests at Marriott’s Starwood properties, which were acquired in 2016. They knew about this in September, but reflects a breach that may go back to 2014.
So, two years after an acquisition, the target’s information security practices blow up in the acquiror’s face. What does that say about the acquiror’s duty to integrate the data practices and controls around information protection?
Does your M&A team think about information governance issues? Is that an identified risk, with an identified (and owned) action plan? Did the Board identify this as a risk? What the value of this information considered part of the transaction value? How was that reflected?
Filed under Board, Compliance, Compliance Verification, Controls, Corporation, Directors, Duty, Duty of Care, Governance, Information, Internal controls, IT, Management, Oversight, Protect, Protect assets, Protect information assets, Risk Assessment, Risk assessment, Security, Value
“Rebuke at Wells Shows Clash,” The Wall Street Journal, November 15, 2018 B1. Chief administrative officer (and former head of HR) at Wells placed on leave after the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency criticizes the oversight that she and the bank’s chief auditor provided.
If your company interacts with government regulators (and whose doesn’t?), is the government effectively a part of your governance structure? Or is government a separate component of Governance, whether that is Compliance Governance or Information Governance? Or just “Governance”?
And what does it say about communications when the government holds up a senior official for poor oversight? What about the board? Highly visible to the worker bees.
Filed under Board, Communications, Compliance, Compliance, Compliance (General), Controls, Corporation, Duty, Employees, Governance, Government, Internal controls, Management, Oversight, Oversight, Third parties, To report
“Boeing Withheld Data On Potential Hazards,” The Wall Street Journal, November 13, 2018 A1. Did Boeing fail to disclose potential problems with its new flight-control feature? Was that a factor in the Lion Air crash in Indonesia, killing 189 people?
Maybe this feature didn’t factor into the crash; we’ll have to wait for the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder. But if you know something and don’t tell other people who would like to know — well, that’s bad. Even if you didn’t want to confuse them by providing them too much information. Was it better “marketing” to tell their customers that they wouldn’t need as much training?
How do you decide how much information to provide your customers? Are there problems you don’t mention? Why?
Filed under Access, Accuracy, Communicate, Communications, Controls, Corporation, Data quality, Duty, Duty of Care, Governance, Information, Internal controls, Management, Risk assessment, Third parties