A Tesla employee is indicted for creating fake documents to cover up a fake-payment scheme. “Former Tesla Employee Is Indicted,” The Wall Street Journal, November 12, 2018 B5.
Companies have a lot of controls to prevent fraud by employees, and often these controls work. Why are there more such controls to prevent financial fraud than to prevent violations of other company procedures, such as those related to document creation, retention, and storage?
One wonders whether, in the aggregate, companies lose more money through poor document management and control than they lose through financial fraud. How would one conduct such a study?
Filed under Accuracy, Compliance, Compliance (General), Controls, Corporation, Directors, Duty, Duty of Care, Employees, Governance, Information, Internal controls, Oversight, Protect assets, Records Management, Security, Third parties, Value, Vendors
“Wall Street Analysts Are Selling More Data,” The Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2018 B11. Analysts are searching and make available a bunch of information on your information, including “social media sentiment … and geospatial mapping.” Think of it as expanded research reports.
Well, they are in the business of reviewing data and offering opinions (for a price). Is it much of a disintermediation for them to start selling the information directly? I guess there’s money in it. Or service.
Filed under Access, Analytics, Collect, Controls, Corporation, Duty, Information, IT, Management, Operations, Ownership, Security, Third parties, Use, Use, Value
“Wells Fargo Technology Under Scrutiny,” The Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2018 B11. Questions being raised about the technology the bank uses for cybersecurity and risk management.
Do you have the right technology to effectuate the controls you have placed around information? Will your regulators agree? If you are already on the regulator’s radar screen, will your controls measure up?
Filed under Controls, Corporation, Duty, Governance, Internal controls, IT, Oversight, Protect, Protect assets, Risk assessment, Security, Technology
“U.S. Charges Agents Of China Hacked Aviation Firms,” The Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2018 B4. Agents of the Chinese government indicted for trying to steal airline industry technology.
This is getting to be rather routine. One part of this is the value of Information, and the importance of information security. One part of this is Compliance, of course, as the US government is trying to protect the US information assets (although the company at issue probably had some responsibility for this as well, as well as their board of directors). And, of course, Governance, as the US government is prosecuting.
We all know the business case for cyber-security.
Filed under Access, Compliance, Compliance (General), Controls, Corporation, Duty, Duty of Care, Governance, Government, Information, Interconnections, Internal controls, IT, Oversight, Protect assets, Security, Third parties
“U.K. Plans to Introduce Digital Tax on Tech Firms,” The Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2018 A9. Rather than further regulating firms like Google and Facebook, the UK now tried to tax their locally generate revenue.
The lack of a universal taxing methodology may cause the big players some headaches. Compare the patchwork of privacy obligations if you operate in different countries (or states).
Look at this from two different views. First, how does a large multi-national comply with all the different laws around the world? Second, how does your company deal with the overlapping laws and your own corporate policies and procedures, which may apply differently to different parts of your company?
While one-size-fits-all makes sense at one level (if you’re on top of the Governance pyramid), does this process require a bit more granular differentiation (if you are on the bottom)?
“Facebook Draws U.K. Fine Over Sharing Data,” The Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2018 B4. Facebook fined half a million Pounds ($645,000) for allowing Cambridge Analytica for letting them see and use user data. This is separate and apart from any fines the EU may impose.
Part of the problem is that Facebook didn’t do enough (i.e., anything) after it found out about Cambridge Analytica having accessed the data.
So, some points to consider:
- Whose information was it?
- Whose (and how many) rules (EU, UK, US, other) apply to (i.e., govern) a data breach?
- Why didn’t FB do anything after learning of the problem? Did it not have a process for handling a vendor that accessed data inappropriately? Doesn’t Governance require you to have such a process? Does Compliance entail requiring your vendors to follow a process, and penalizing them when they don’t?
- The fine here won’t go to the UK residents whose privacy was invaded. Is this a fine or a tax? It certainly isn’t damages.
Filed under Access, Compliance, Compliance (General), Controls, Corporation, Duty, Duty of Care, Governance, Internal controls, IT, Oversight, Privacy, Protect assets, Security, Third parties, Vendors
“SEC Keeps Study On Speed-Bump Trading Under Wraps,” The Wall Street Journal, October 25, 2018 B11. SEC has done a study of controls that slow down high-frequency traders, but hasn’t released that publicly.
The SEC is in charge of protecting the stock trading system. As such, it watches over how quickly information moves within that ecosystem, and whether access is available to all at the same time. But the SEC refuses to release the unredacted text of a study that it did on the impact on “controls” that limit the ability of high-speed traders to take unfair advantage of their access to information.
Curious as to why (and what) the government doesn’t want us to know. Who oversees the government? (Hint: a free press is one of them).
Filed under Access, Accuracy, Controls, Data quality, Duty, Governance, Government, Information, Interconnections, IT, Oversight, Technology, Third parties, To report, Value