“In Reversal, NIH to Allow Doctors to Speak to Investigators,” The Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2019. The National Institutes of Health (a government body) was refusing to allow two senior doctors to speak to safety investigators from another federal government body.
How can one government agency think it has the power to prevent its employees from talking to federal investigators from another agency? What were they trying to hide?
Governance. Information. Compliance.
“Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones and Others as ‘Dangerous’,” The Wall Street Journal, May 3, 2019. Facebook bans selected individuals from the platform.
If a government did this, there would be problems. But is it okay for a private party with nearly monopoly power in a bit of social mediaverse? How will these people be able to communicate to their audiences?
Those who are big fans of Freedom of Speech might reconcile themselves to the fact that writing something down isn’t speech. And those who are fans of Freedom of the Press may feel this isn’t “the Press.” Others may think it’s time to amend our Founding Documents to reflect some of the new technologies. And the private/public distinction.
Should we allow a private party to make these calls? Is the alternative chaos?
Governance (Facebook decides what it will and won’t allow). Information.
Filed under Theme One: Information, Theme Two: Governance
“Elon Musk: Judge Approves Deal Spelling Out Oversight of Tesla CEO’s Tweets,” The Wall Street Journal, May 1, 2019. After a long-running feud with the SEC, Tesla now has agreed to control it’s CEO’s tweets.
Interesting interplay of old rules (First Amendment, Securities Exchange Act, etc.) and new technologies (Twitter).
Governance and Information and Compliance.
NSA doesn’t collect information on US citizens, right?
“NSA Reports 75% Increase in Unmasking U.S. Identities Under Foreign Surveillance Law in 2018,” The Wall Street Journal, May 1, 2019. Nearly 17,000 US persons (citizens and companies) had their data intercepted AND their identities disclosed last year.
How secure are your communications? Are you communicating with someone who’s communications are being monitored? How do you know?
How do you protect your information? Is there privacy in the US?
Governance (the warrant requirement in the Constitution). Information. Security. Privacy. I guess it’s about time to add Privacy to the list.
Who do you share information with? Do they protect it as well as you would?
“U.S. Would Rethink Intelligence Ties if Allies Use Huawei Technology,” The Wall Street Journal, April 30, 2019. US says it may not share intelligence data with countries who use equipment that the US deems insecure.
How do you deal with your business partners?
Governance. Security. Information. I figure so much of Information Governance relates to Security, it needed its own theme.
“Parents Can’t Monitor Autistic Son with GPS Tracker at School, Nevada Ruling Says,” The Wall Street Journal, April 29, 2019. School rules that autistic student can’t wear a tracking device capable of recording conversations. This was after a teacher was arrested for beating him.
One can understand why the school doesn’t want parents to be able to listen in to what goes on at school. One can understand why a child’s parents might want to. But do other students have a right, enforceable by the school, not to be recorded? Couldn’t the school video-record the activity in a classroom, for educational or security reasons?
Governance. Information.
Filed under Theme One: Information, Theme Two: Governance
If you have information, do you need to share it?
“Boeing Didn’t Advise Airlines, FAA That It Shut Off Warning System,” The Wall Street Journal, April 29, 2019. Boeing failed to advise that it had disconnected a safety warning in its 737 MAX jets.
When do you have a duty to tell your customers something?
Governance and Information. And certainly non-Use.
“Chiefs Receiver Tyreek Hill Faces Renewed Domestic-Abuse Probe After Disturbing Audio Recording,” The Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2019. Troubling comment on recording.
Who recorded this conversation, and why didn’t the police and the prosecutors pay more attention to it?
Certainly, Information, but of what value, evidentiary or otherwise? Are there rules against recording this? Is there a process (Governance) for the police to review such recordings? And for the prosecutor to review it? How should the team and the league react to unproven allegations? Is this non-compliance with a league rule?
What are the rules (and who makes and enforces them) that apply to the release of the names of people who are accused, but not convicted, of sex abuse? Certainly, this is Information. But what if the accusations are later disproven? Is all Information equal?
Filed under Theme One: Information, Theme Two: Governance
“Ford Discloses Justice Department Probe Into Vehicle Emission Certifications,” The Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2019. Criminal investigation.
The government relies on industry to provide accurate (and truthful) information about their products’ performance in certain tests. One or more members of the industry fakes information. The government finds out. Fines and criminal charges follow. Rinse and repeat.
Information (test results); Compliance (cheating on tests); Governance (fines and other enforcement, investigations).
infogovnuggets 