“U.S. Broadcaster Under Scrutiny for Disseminating Autocratic Propaganda,” The Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2019. Is Radio Free Europe distributing misinformation and foreign propaganda? US authorities investigate.
Who controls the information that Radio Free Europe broadcasts? What does that say about our Governance/culture, where a broadcast to promote the virtues of a free press “spins” the news?
Filed under Theme One: Information, Theme Two: Governance
“How Challenges Over Robert Kraft Spa Video May Hamper Prosecutors’ Case,” The Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2019. Were video recordings in a massage parlor illegally made or illegally leaked?
Can prosecutors use information (video) that was allegedly improperly obtained?
Questions about how the warrant was obtained and whether the representations to the court were accurate/truthful. So, Governance (Constitution), Compliance (by the police), Information (video), and Use (non-use).
“Facebook Probe Found Major Shortcomings in Privacy Protection, Canada Privacy Watchdog Says,” The Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2019. Facebook defends against efforts to force it to comply with Canadian law.
Information (user data); Governance (Canadian privacy law); Compliance (suit to force compliance).
“A Small Town Takes a Stand: It Banned Gossip,” The Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2019. Philippine town sets a $10 fine for first offense.
Sounds like Information, Governance, and Compliance, all in one. Balancing freedom of speech v. slander?
“Facebook Sets Aside $3 Billion to Cover Expected FTC Fine,” The Wall Street Journal, April 25, 2019. Reserve to cover potential fine from privacy violations.
You tell the FTC that you won’t share user data without consent. And then you share it anyway. Oopsie.
So, Information (user data) shared without consent (Compliance) in violation of agreement with the FTC (Governance/Compliance). One question: is this fine (one quarter’s profit) sufficient to penalize this behavior by Facebook and deter similar violations by others?
“Brothers Involved in Smollett Case Sue His Attorneys for Defamation,” The Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2019. Smollett’s lawyers accused of defaming the two Nigerian brothers in news interviews.
Generally, you can’t sue a lawyer for an accusation he or she makes in court. But what he or she says to the news cameras is fair game. And the lawyer is probably acting as the client’s agent in making those statements, so the client has exposure for the attorney’s acts. But, for a change, the lawyers are the deep pockets.
So, clearly information. And Compliance (with libel/slander laws). And Governance, through the legal process.
“Online Lender Prosper Settles Probe Over Misleading Investors,” The Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2019. Company provided the wrong data to is investors. For two years.
The error resulted in the company overstating its earnings. Why do these errors never go the other way?
You invest in something, and rely on the company providing accurate information to measure your investment. They overstate their results by not including certain deductions. Then the suit for fraud.
Where is the failure in governance? The company? You?
“Risk Scores Assess Ties Between Genes and Obesity, Disease,” The Wall Street Journal, April 19, 2019. Using genetic data to predict risk of disease.
This is more about use of available information. Or the reuse of information collected for one purpose being used for another. Whose information is it? What are the controls on the use of this information?
“In SEC vs. Elon Musk, a Question of When Tweets Matter,” The Wall Street Journal, April 18, 2019. Dispute over meaning of settlement agreement with SEC.
What does “reasonably could contain” material information mean? Mr. Musk tweeted allegedly misleading tweets, and entered into a settlement with the SEC.
Lawyers apparently agreed to this language. Does a dispute over meaning implicate Information Governance, and Compliance? Mr. Musk has continuing legal exposure for future tweets.
Confusion in language is not a good thing. Precision is. Who governs the words you use in legal agreements?
“Texting Moves to the Workplace, as Do the Awkward Misfires. ‘I’m Here. I Luv U.’,” The Wall Street Journal, April 17, 2019. Problems when people use texts for both office and personal communications.
When people use the same communications channels for work and personal, do mistakes happen? Yes. What does it say when employees can’t or don’t keep these two channels of communication separate? Are they incapable of managing the technology?
Does this just look at it from the amusing side, when an employee accidentally tells her boss (and not her husband) of her love for him? What about sending your spouse confidential business information over a text? Do these stories help cement the message of separation?
Filed under Technology, Theme One: Information, Theme Two: Governance
infogovnuggets 