Human Dialogue: "Decision Advantage"​ of a Trusted Digital Globe...

How will you innovate with your front line team this month and this year to enable more accurate and resourceful “TrustDecisions”?

The ability to make business decisions in a standardized process simultaneously wrapped around our own human intelligence is the real advantage.

A true “Decision Advantage” in a world of constantly changing conditions and data environments is one of the greatest challenges within our global Leadership Management.

Creating innovation around decision making may sound like a lofty goal. It is, and yet for your particular team or organization, it certainly is within reach.

How might your team utilize a process and method for making more rapid and effective “TrustDecisions” across your global enterprise?

While these words are being written by a human-being now and not an Ai such as C h a t G P T, our future lives will encompass a continuous process to gain a digital assets advantage.

“But we will not function successfully if the war for control of those assets is lost. The battlefield, however, is the one on which trust is to be gained or lost—trust in the information we use, trust in the infrastructures that support us, and trust in the decisions we make in a digital world.” Achieving Digital Trust - Jeffrey Ritter

A process that is focused on digital truth will require our continuous application of “Operational Risk Management” combined with our global data governance collaboration.

• Have you this week in the United States tried to unsubscribe from an e-mail list and did not find a digital link at the bottom of your e-mail to accomplish this?
• Have you this week scheduled a 45 min Digital Zoom meeting and found yourself at min 44 without a decision?
• Have you this week been taking depositions in California regarding the use of videos on your platform that are covered by Section 230?

"From the Board Room to our modern day asymmetric battlefield, achieving digital trust will open eyes. It will provide us with a reference model that management and software architects have been seeking for decades.

The survival of the Internet as we know it, is currently at stake. Leadership shall provide a look into the transparency of «Trust Decisions» and how ensuring digital truth will shape our global governance for decades to come."

Innovation with making accurate and resourceful “TrustDecisions” will go far beyond technology or Zeros and Ones.

Our future will require so much more that will not be digital.

Think Human Dialogue.

It will require more “TrustDecisions” that are in person, Face-to-Face, Eye-to-Eye and finalized with a hand shake…

Onward!

Organizational Integrity: Leadership of Risk…

As a leader in your organization, how long have you truly demonstrated the actions you desire for those who are following you?

Countless times each day, leaders in the global race to the finish line, ignore or disavow the rules or policies they enforce for their own team.

What are you demonstrating in your organization today and this week to build “Organizational Integrity”?

How are your own behaviors in the midst of your team, showing and reinforcing the actions that will build and activate a model of “Organizational Integrity”?

integrity
noun

in· teg· ri· ty | \ in-ˈte-grə-tē

Definition of integrity

1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
2 : an unimpaired condition : soundness
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness

Why have you made the decisions that you are more privileged than the others on your team?

Is it your personal sense of ego or power as a figure of authority, that makes you feel as if the activities and rules for you, do not apply or are different than for those who are on the front lines?

They are not.  In the midst of a legal deposition or worse, the leader who is charged, explains their own behaviors.  This is now beyond the point of no return.

Even when you are behind closed doors of the “Board Room” or the “Ready Room,” are you demonstrating the same behavior and adherence to the processes, that you wish upon all those you are leading?

Leadership of your “Executive” Team or a “Squad of Specialists” in the field, requires people who truly “Walk-the-Talk” and adhere to the same standards or rules set forth for the entire organizational operations.

You already are known as a “Leader” in your area of expertise.

Yet are you known as a leader with “Integrity,” that truly demonstrates this in the middle of your operations each day?

Cyber Risk: Human Factors vs. Automation...

Operational Risk Management (ORM) is a growing multi-faceted mosaic comprised of people, processes, systems and external events. The risks to the enterprise are increasing at a dynamic speed and trajectory that requires the use of automated tools.

This is where risk to the enterprise may actually expand as executives and operational management rely on software to provide information assurance. The design and architecture of software needs a human-based fail-safe. It requires a human interface that allows and simultaneously requires human intervention. Has too much automation contributed to our increased levels of vulnerability?

Fortunately, the software designs have allowed for these opportunities and for a human-factor to ask "What if" questions. Those questions that may arise after an automated alert from the system tells us that something is outside the baseline parameters set for the system, the sensor or the alarm.

Now we go back to Operational Risk and the nature of thinking from a security and safety perspective. What is the continued reliance on automated systems doing to the human capital who have been charged with the over all "Standard of Care" for the enterprise?

We believe that they may have lost the ability to ask the right questions, at the right moment and with the correct contextual understanding.

What is the truth? Is it true? What evidence do we have that this is true? How do you know that the evidence is not spoiled or compromised? If we know the truth, then what do we do next? Is the software really telling us the truth?

The security and the safety of the enterprise is counting on you. And more importantly, the enterprise is asking you to question the software. The "rule-sets" that you have chosen as a result of the programmers and architects decisions can no longer be trusted.

Is our system learning? In what capacity is the system learning in context with the human interaction for judgement, intuition and ethical emotions? Are you with us? The next generation of "Cyber Security" Innovators are now at the edge of significant new breakthroughs and solutions.

"Active Defense" has been and is a controversial topic du jour, yet the next few years will be a new age of understanding, cultural bifurcations and significant global collaboration.

Our entire platform of digital trust is at stake and the conversation has finally made its way to the nation state policy levels.

Operational Risk Management (ORM) will remain a key factor in decision points for the enterprise, the consumer and the operators of critical infrastructure across the globe.

Lets work on keeping the human factor in the loop as automation continues to give us a false sense of security and safety...

OPS Risk: Military Lesson for Wall Street...

 "There is no avoiding the realities of the information age.  Its effects manifest differently in different sectors, but the drivers of speed and interdependence will impact us all.  Organizations that continue to use 20th-century tools in today's complex environment do so at their own peril."  Stanley A. McChrystal

Historically, privacy was almost implicit, because it was hard to find and gather information. But in the digital world, whether it's digital cameras or satellites or just what you click on, we need to have more explicit rules - not just for governments but for private companies.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/bill_gates_626047?src=t_privacy

Almost ten years ago, Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark W. Graper, the 354th Fighter Wing commander at EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE Alaska, quoted the essence of Operational Risk Management.

Corporate Executives and mid-level management should have this made into a poster for their office and hanging in every hallway:

"Summer is just around the corner, and many of us are planning for our favorite warm weather activities - fishing, hunting, hiking, motorcycling, camping and more. All of our summer plans can be fun if we keep in mind the basics of operational risk management: Accept risk when benefits outweigh the cost; accept no unnecessary risk; anticipate and manage risk by planning; make risk decisions at the right level; assess and mitigate risk. Stated more simply, have a (prudent) plan, have a backup plan and have a Wingman."

Whether you are focused on the safety and security of your personnel, the integrity and confidentiality of your information or the continuity of your business operations, consider this.

Effective "Operational Risk Management" will improve your organizations resilience factor.

The brilliance of Brig. Gen. Graper's emphasis on this subject away from the flight line or "The Office" is his understanding, that most of us will become more complacent the minute we hit the parking lot.

You see, OPS Risk is not just something being advocated in the Wall Street workplace. It should be just as pervasive at home or in our own leisure activities. Whether you are climbing "Denali" or entertaining friends around the backyard pool, you have to be continuously in OPS Risk mode, or it could bring harm to life, limb or your own reputation.

Operational Risk includes the risk of litigation and there is one item you can be certain that is a threat to your corporate integrity. Employees, partners and suppliers to your organization:

What most organizations the size and complexity of Facebook under estimate, are the speed of change and the socially "connected" market economy. The blur of business combined with the "Holistic Blindness" of what privacy risks are a threat today or this week, can bring an enterprise to it's knees and then to it's ultimate demise.

"Facebook Inc. (FB - Get Report) and the Federal Trade Commission currently are negotiating details of a settlement related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the Washington Post reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

The penalty imposed by the FTC likely would be a multi-billion dollar fine, which would easily be the largest fine ever issued to a tech company by the FTC. In 2012, Alphabet Inc.'s (GOOGL - Get Report) Google was fined $22.5 million by the agency for user privacy offenses.

The two sides are still negotiating the amount of the fine. If no agreement is reached, the FTC could take the issue to court, according to the Washington Post.

Facebook's privacy issues date back to 2012. Facebook settled a case with the FTC in August 2012, when the two parties reached an agreement that "Facebook must obtain consumers' consent before sharing their information beyond established privacy settings," according to a press release from the FTC published at the time the deal was made.

Facebook's privacy issues continued last March when news broke that Cambridge Analytica, a political research company, had harvested user data beyond what was acceptable. It later became evident that Facebook likely was aware of Cambridge's actions on the platform"
Whether it's collecting user data to sell to your supply chain or keeping your F-22 Raptor in the air to defeat hostiles, OPS Risk is the differentiator. Your survival depends on it...

Davos 2019: A War on Trust...

As the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting comes to a close in Switzerland, "Trust Decisions" are on our mind.

"The corporate, political and cultural elite gathered in Davos are expressing worries about a disturbing trend: The erosion of public trust in institutions and companies.

World Economic Forum attendees said the lack of faith in everything from governments to social media platforms is hampering innovation and contributing to widening inequality."

 Why?

Over five years ago the new rules for business and the Net were in plain sight.  Articulated in a way that most business owners, CEO's of global enterprises and even our politicians could understand.

Yet at this years Annual Meeting, trust is becoming a buzzword in the panel discussions and around the dinner tables in Davos.  How might the institutions attending the World Economic Forum, strive to build a planet where "Achieving Digital Trust," is the basis for starting a business or at ground zero of creating a new product?

In 2015, Jeffrey Ritter published his book:

"In reading this book, you will explore and acquire an entirely new portfolio of tools and strategies to help shift the momentum of that war. As in any combat or battle, to succeed, it is essential for you to understand what is at stake. What we are facing is more than a war to control information. It is a war on our ability to trust information. Yes, a war on trust." Achieving Digital Trust by Jeffrey Ritter

To presume the trustworthiness of information is now a continuous question. GDPR and other forward leaning regulations are beginning to shape the way we design our systems.

So what?

How will those citizens and consumers that are devouring information from that electronic photography and RF device in the palm of their hand, think differently in the next few years?

How will the designers and engineers of Samsung, Apple, IBM, Amazon, Google, Facebook and others architect their new software and solutions with trust embedded in all that they produce?

When will our citizens understand that not selling your data, does not actually mean that your data has not been given away for free?

The future of our institutions, governments, products and relationships must be built on trust.  As you sit across the table from your editor, your CEO, your elected official or your senior software engineer you must ask the question, how will we achieve digital trust?

What if there was a Green, Yellow, or Red banner across the top of the display screen, as a quick identifier whether the information being delivered and displayed was in compliance with the new "World Digital Trust Standard"?

Yet we know that "Green Padlocks" in front of our URL and the "Privacy Essentials" grade in the top of our browser, just isn't enough.  Especially when we know that there are U.S. DHS Emergency Directives such as 19-01 in place:

"In coordination with government and industry partners, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is tracking a series of incidents1 involving Domain Name System (DNS) infrastructure tampering." 

Jeffrey Ritter is correct.  It is a war on our ability to trust information.  Do you understand what is at stake in your nation state?  Your organization?  Your household?  Yes, a "War on Trust"...

Startup Strategy: Opportunity of Digital Trust in a New Era...

The startup ecosystem of new ideas for SaaS platforms or mission based digital solutions are becoming evermore robust, in our growing economy.  As a result, Operational Risk professionals are more in demand to help new co-founders adapt to the legal, compliance and consumer transparency requirements, that will soon descend upon them.

It makes sense, that when you are starting a new company you first are focused on the product/mission and who the intended market or user will be.  Yet soon after this is defined and the "Go-to-Market" strategy is in place, there is a tremendous amount of Operational Risk design and implementation of internal capabilities, that will be required.  In just Social Media, here is just one example:

"As social networks continue to mature, they increasingly take on roles they may not have anticipated. Moderating graphic imagery and hate speech, working to address trolling and harassment, and dealing with dissemination of fake news puts companies like Facebook and Twitter in powerful societal positions. Now, Facebook has acknowledged yet another challenge: Keeping your data safe from surveillance. That’s harder than it may sound. When you post something publicly on a social network, anyone can view it—including law enforcement or federal agencies."

Since the dawn of the Internet, new startup companies have been developing algorithms and bots to scour the vast landscape of "data oceans" for relevant content.  As public Internet tools, databases and consumer-oriented web sites were developed for even Blogs (Blogger.com) such as this one, other companies were figuring out how to capture the data content in their searchable systems.

Years later, startups developed ways to develop the API as a new product-set, so that other companies could embed and utilize a set of data or capability and have it more integrated with a new set of functionality or service mission.  What is one company in this category focused on Twitter?  Gnip.com:

"PowerTrack provides customers with the ability to filter a data source’s full firehose, and only receive the data that they or their customers are interested in. This is accomplished by applying Gnip’s PowerTrack filtering language to match Tweets based on a wide variety of attributes, including user attributes, geo-location, language, and many others. Using PowerTrack rules to filter a data source ensures that customers receive all of the data, and only the data they need for your app."

So what?

If you are a startup company that is planning on a pledge to your customers to "Keeping your data safe from surveillance," just as the juggernaut Facebook is also currently doing, you have a tremendous amount of work and new processes/systems to get in place.  You are embarking not only on the steep growth curve of adding new customers and revenue; you are simultaneously under the mandate to help achieve a higher level of "Digital Trust" with those same customers.

Developing the policy alone is only the start.  Here is how Twitter is addressing it:

"To be clear: We prohibit developers using the Public APIs and Gnip data products from allowing law enforcement — or any other entity — to use Twitter data for surveillance purposes. Period. The fact that our Public APIs and Gnip data products provide information that people choose to share publicly does not change our policies in this area. And if developers violate our policies, we will take appropriate action, which can include suspension and termination of access to Twitter’s Public APIs and data products."

How Facebook and Twitter and Snapchat or LinkedIn and all of the hundreds of Social Media companies will scale up enforcement, is now the big question.  Maybe they have the deep pockets and resources to build and operate their "Digital Trust" business unit.  What about the new startup with only 6 or 7 figures in the bank from a seed or even "A" round of funding?

The policy implications and new federal laws being drafted in the United States and the European Union may be good indicators of where the future requirements will be defined for a new startup.  In the EU this week, the G20 finance ministers are converging on the topic of "Cyber Crime" soon after a recent indictment:

"Two intelligence agents from Russia, another G20 member, with masterminding the 2014 theft of 500 million Yahoo accounts. The indictment was the first time U.S. authorities have criminally charged Russian spies for cyber offences including for computer fraud, economic espionage, theft of trade secrets, and wire fraud."

How will the new startup who is focused on addressing transparency, privacy, and surveillance now "Enable Digital Trust of  Global Enterprises."  Here is a glimpse from the latest PwC CEO Survey:

"Yet, if forfeiting people’s trust is a sure-fire route to failure, earning their trust is the single biggest enabler of success. As an example, the progression from assisted to augmented to autonomous intelligence depends on how much consumers and regulators trust machines to operate on their own. That, in turn, depends on whether those who create the machines have the right risk and governance structures, the means to verify and validate their claims independently and the mechanisms to engage effectively with stakeholders."

"In short, trust is an opportunity, not just a risk. Many CEOs recognise as much: 64% think the way their firm manages data will be a differentiating factor in future. These CEOs know that prioritising the human experience in a virtual world entails treating customers with integrity."

Welcome to the new era of achieving Digital Trust...

Higher Purpose: A Mission of Trust...

As you walk into that next meeting with another co-worker or even a colleague for a coffee catch-up, pause and reflect.  Think about how you could (1) make this encounter not only productive and (2) simultaneously enhance the relationship of trust.

All too often we are focused on getting something of value from the meeting.  We are blinded by the purpose of the meeting or have preconceived ideas on how the time together will be of value, or a waste of time.  Now think differently.

A true professional in any business, unit, agency or organization is there to "Build Trust".  The day-to-day or hour-to-hour interactions you have with others is vital.  A true professional in any domain, industry or vocation, can aspire to a higher purpose than the normal roles of a stated job description.

One thing is certain when it comes to meeting with other people and the value or outcomes obtained, trust is a major factor in the future outcomes of the relationship.  Have you ever wondered why certain people you meet, take so long to trust you?  How are you going to accomplish your intended purpose working with this superior or subordinate if they don't trust you?  What about that new client or business partner?

At the most fundamental level, the trust gurus and authors have been writing about a spectrum of trust for eons:

Zero Trust >>>>>Trust Exists >>>>>Implicit Trust

From ground zero of your first encounters with another person, your goal is to move towards a point on the spectrum where "Trust Exists".  Then your goal is to keep moving to the right and towards a place of "Implicit Trust".  This is when you don't even think about it anymore.  How many people do you know where this is the case, even within your own family?

So what?

As an Operational Risk professional, velocity is everything.  Yet you already know that uncontrolled velocity alone can be fatal.  The risk factors associated with business, government or the manufacturing process of a highly engineered electronic component are always present.  Always changing.  Creating new obstacles or new harm.  In our current state, 24x7x365 pervasively connected society, the trust factors are even more important and vital to moving towards "Implicit Trust".

Here are a few examples in the news this past year, where Operational Risk Management (ORM) was a factor:

Samsung Galaxy Note 7

On 2 September 2016, Samsung suspended sales of the Galaxy Note 7 and announced an informal recall, after it was found that a manufacturing defect in the phones' batteries had caused some of them to generate excessive heat, resulting in fires and explosions. A formal U.S. recall was announced on 15 September 2016.

Yahoo

When Yahoo said on Thursday that data from at least 500 million user accounts had been hacked, it wasn't just admitting to a huge failing in data security -- it was admitting to the biggest hack the world has ever seen.

Until Thursday, the previous largest known hack was the 2008 breach that hit almost 360 million MySpace accounts, according to a ranking by the "Have I been pwned" website. Like the Yahoo breach, the hack was only publicly disclosed this year after data was offered on a hacker forum.

National Healthcare Fraud

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell announced today an unprecedented nationwide sweep led by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force in 36 federal districts, resulting in criminal and civil charges against 301 individuals, including 61 doctors, nurses and other licensed medical professionals, for their alleged participation in health care fraud schemes involving approximately $900 million in false billings.

National Security Agency

A federal contractor suspected in the leak of powerful National Security Agency hacking tools has been arrested and charged with stealing classified information from the U.S. government, according to court records and U.S. officials familiar with the case.

In each one of these few example cases, relationships between people started with a meeting encounter.  Over time, the product, service or personal relationship outcomes involved a failure of people, processes, systems or external events.  The core components of Operational Risk Management (ORM).

Raising the level of trust across personal, business or government encounters is only possible, with effective "TrustDecisions".  The Decisions to Trust another person, product or service have several elements.  These are vital for the mission to grow towards "Implicit Trust" and simultaneously with the safety and security necessary to reduce the risk of failure.

The Mission

The mission as a co-founder of a new startup or the CEO of a Global 500 is to ensure the survival of the organization. We all know the failure rate for new companies. Just ask Dun & Bradstreet for the statistics or even your local Venture Capitalist who is celebrating failures these days. So beyond just the survival of the organization, is the imperative to establish a cultural and operating environment where people feel encouraged, creative and unencumbered to fulfill their job requirements and goals.

The Take Away

Operational Risks are inherent in any new or established business endeavor. The earlier the Operational Risk Management (ORM) design begins in the trusted relationship evolution, the more resilient you will ultimately become. The framework of the system-of-systems, the look and feel of the cultural environment and the end state visions are all at stake. Take the time and include the expertise to work on the "TrustDecisions" foundation of your enterprise.

Ensure the survivability of the new products or service solutions, that are so valuable to our economy and our nation.  Embrace Operational Risk Management early in your relationships and allow it's presence while it preserves all that you have worked for and dreamed of...

2017: Navigating to Digital Trust...

Looking into the 2016 Operational Risk Management (ORM) rear view mirror, you may be asking yourself several questions.  How many significant losses have occurred this past year, from the failed people, processes, systems or external events in your organization?

You could be asking your team why you have yet to become the target of our adversaries also known as COZYBEAR, APT28 or APT29, CloudDuke, or even Energetic Bear.  If you don't know who these are, then you probably already are "owned" by this adversary.  It may finally be a priority, to become a participant in the "Automated Indicator Sharing" (AIS) initiative.

Where are you navigating to in 2017?

As we look across the vast landscape of our rapidly changing business and government domains, there is no turning back.  There is no ability to retreat or to acquiesce, in a world so full of continuous Operational Risk.

There is no certainty.  There is no true assurance.  There is only the ability to solve problems faster than your adversary or competition.  Some may call this resilience.

Therefore, the direction you take will forever shape your continued exposure to risks and your strategy for opportunities, that you do have control over.  It is a choice and the questions by the Board of Directors, the Plaintiff Bar or the U.S. Attorney, are not going to be the most difficult ones to answer.

In 2017, any major influential organization will be getting more transparent.  The metrics and the formulas (think mathematical algorithms) for counting and creating wealth will be further disclosed, the rules will change faster and more transparently.  Buyers and Sellers of digital content and intelligence, will increase their levels of "Digital Trust".

How will these parties, partners and participants in a vast and exponentially expanding ocean of digital rules become more trustworthy?  They will begin to better understand the DNA of their respective TrustDecisions.

The constituents of organizations, countries and ICT (Information, Communications & Technology) entities will finally realize that transparency of the rules is a vital step to trustworthiness.  Better understanding the "Rules for Composing Rules" is a place to start.  Jeffrey Ritter is the visionary on this topic:

To be part of the disruption, any business must look in two directions—toward the companies that supply digital information to them, and toward the companies with whom their own digital assets are shared. To succeed in creating wealth, and enriching the trust that exists throughout a company’s ecosystem, companies must evaluate how they can be more transparent with their information suppliers, and what levels of transparency to demand from those companies who are outbound recipients. What are the right metrics to show how data or content (like videos) are performing? How will the reporting occur? Are the economic exchanges properly balanced by the value of the data being shared?

The negotiations have been in progress for days, months and years.  The question remains; where are you navigating to in 2017 and beyond?  What resources will you require to get you to your planned destination?  How will you adapt along the way, as the environment you are operating in changes?

To survive the journey to your intended destination in 2017, will require bold new thinking.  It will be necessary to make many sacrifices along the way, to your intended destination.  On the ground, or in a virtual domain.  The solution-sets that you utilize, will require new entities (change agents) to be even more effective in solving problems that arise.

These new entities (human and digital), that will solve problems more efficiently and effectively with you, are ready now.  So what will you do next to adopt, embrace, espouse, endure, tolerate, and even endure the journey ahead?

May your exploration and travels in 2017 produce the intended outcomes.  We wish you a productive and Happy New Year!

Sprint: Accelerating into the Unknown...

"If you want to go fast, go alone.  If you want to go far, go together"...

  --African Proverb

When you or your organization makes the decision to trust a market, a client, a solution and a model for business; there has already been an adaptive process.  The Operational Risks that you take as an entrepreneur, a designer, a software developer, a financier and the delivery mechanism are continuously changing.  People, Process, Systems and External Events.

You started this project to solve a large problem.  A big issue in a market or with an industry.  The "World's Most Innovative Companies" have been following a proven formula for decades.  What is their secret Intellectual Property?

In the R & D sections of the Defense Industrial Base or the Information, Communications and Technology (ICT) sector, the lights are never turned off.  The competitive world we live in requires that the proven process runs, finishes and repeats.  Then it is replicated across business units, departments and subsidiaries in other countries.

What if you are now testing new ideas to save lives or reduce potential harm to a small team or even the public at large.  What if you will be introducing your solution to a highly regulated market with a long process for government approvals?  What if the current bureaucratic overhead to accelerate your ideas prevents you from achieving the trust you require with your beneficiaries?  Answer:  You pivot to this 5 Step Process:

• Map
• Sketch
• Decide
• Prototype
• Test

Five simple steps accomplished over the course of five days may seem easy.  It isn't.  The process for solving big problems and getting to a place where a financier is going to fund your project, is really difficult.  It requires perseverance and an insatiable desire to achieve outcomes that you and your team know can work.  That will improve the odds of survival.  Here is just one example, of a Map for a "Universal Communication Service" device problem-set:

TrustDecisions | Digital Reasoning | All Rights Reserved.

When you start the process with the Strategy, Voice of the Beneficiary, Subject Matter Experts and pieces of previous efforts by creating a "Map",  your overall risk factors start to become more apparent.  By stimulating the visual elements of the human brains capacity for creative inspiration, you begin to see all the possibilities and also the challenges ahead.

Next, you start with the target beneficiaries perspective, by starting with the end (outcomes) in mind.  A "Backwards from Perfect" process or variation that seeks to understand and answers the question, Will the beneficiaries of the solution, trust our expertise?  Will they utilize this solution?

The human imagination is endless.  Rarely does it flourish when you want it to.  So be careful to plan for the fact, that the best ideas and new breakthrough thinking will not happen in the same room with all of the stakeholders, looking at a Map or a Sketch.  It just might happen as one of the participants is in the shower on Day 3, or taking an evening walk after dinner, with a colleague on Day 4.

So what?

The questions asked and process delivered, is vital to any organization who is solving big problems.  Solving problems are only finally accomplished, when the beneficiary says so.  When the market accepts the solution or the human using the tool achieves enough trust in it, to use it again and again.  When the point in time arrives that the solution is verified and desired by enough people, then perhaps the problem has been sufficiently solved.

Until the next human decides to improve on it.  Or the next human believes there is a better way.  Or the environment that the solution was designed for, changes dramatically.  Now it may be time to get back into that room down the hall, with all the White Boards, Post-it Notes, Markers, Timers and some Healthy Snacks.

What does the unknown future look like?  At dawn, just early enough to know it is time to move forward faster than your opposition...

Begin Morning Nautical Twilight

The start of that period where, in good conditions and in the absence of other illumination, enough light is available to identify the general outlines of ground objects and conduct limited military operations. Light intensification devices are still effective and may have enhanced capabilities. At this time, the sun is 12 degrees below the eastern horizon. Also called BMNT...

Scrutiny: The Noun Missing From Your Culture...

The culture of your business or organization will continue to be the root cause of many of your most substantial successes.  Simultaneously, it will be one of the most significant factors in your potential downfall as a company.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals at Wells Fargo and Booz Allen Hamilton, are still dissecting all of the evidence of their respective events.

"Managing Risk to Ensure Intelligence Advantage" is a theme that you may not have heard before, unless you are in the Intelligence Community.  There is one key principle that is worth emphasizing again at this point in time:

Ensure all work is subject to scrutiny.  Require conflict of interest-free peer review for all programs, projects and strategies.

This principle, that shall become pervasive across the culture of the organization, is imperative for several reasons.  The first is, that a culture really is a manifestation of the people and the behaviors that are normal in the organization.  The second is, that the culture shall strive to be a true mosaic of the best thinking and ideas from all the key stakeholders in the enterprise.  Not just one or two people from the top or a singular department.

Putting scrutiny to your work by others to review, is the beginning of new found discovery and transparency insight.  It is the foundation for building a more trusted operating environment, with as little bias as you can possibly have in a culture.  When an organization spins of out of control and becomes the latest case study on an Operational Risk failure event, you must learn from it.  Wells Fargo is just one recent example:

Some consumers may be shying away from Wells Fargo after learning that employees used customers’ information to open sham accounts, according to new figures reported by the bank.

The nation’s largest retail bank beat expectations when it reported more than $5.6 billion in profit for the past three months. But the bank’s earnings report also hinted that the Wells Fargo may have some trouble convincing people to open new accounts in the wake of the scandal.

The number of checking accounts the bank opened in September fell by 25 percent from the same time last year, the company reported Friday. Credit card applications filed during the month dropped by 20 percent from a year ago. And the number of visits customers had with branch bankers also fell by 10 percent from last year.  Washington Post

Whether you are in the international banking and finance business, the defense industrial base or any other set of critical infrastructure institutions that public citizens are counting on, there is no room for a runaway culture.  Consider this definition:

scrutiny

noun, plural scrutinies.

1. a searching examination or investigation; minute inquiry.

2. surveillance; close and continuous watching or guarding.

3. a close and searching look.

You see, the integrity and longevity of your "Trust Decisions" begins with the sharing of relevant information.  Sharing that information with your most trusted and significant partners is the start. The beginning of a dialogue with people in your culture who continuously review the information, the new strategy. This begins the ongoing process. It is now time for others to look at your idea, your strategy, your policy rule, from their perspective. From their knowledge-base. To scrutinize it. To analyze it. To make sense of it for them and those affected by it.

The truth is, you don't have all the understanding and you don't have all of the ecosystem knowledge. You don't have the entire data set, to know if the specific work you have been doing is sound and correct. That the new work you have designed, is culturally and morally acceptable. That the outcomes of your project will produce the results imagined. That the strategy and the work, is the right thing to do at this point in time.

So how do you change? It begins with your next management meeting and beyond. If you are the leader, the manager, the director, the Vice-President or the CxO start now. Ask for scrutiny on your proposed strategy. Gain new insight and understanding. Ask for feedback and changes to make it better. Your power in the culture and its impact is your greatest weakness. Your people will follow you, unless you challenge them to think differently...

Vigilance: The Casualty of the Truth...

On the other end of a planned cyber threat are the motives and plans by a person.  Sometimes that person puts into play the use of a "Bot" to carry out many of their planned steps in their scheme.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals have been classifying these cybercriminals for a decade or more yet even now in 2016 they are getting more formal profiles:

BAE Systems, the London-based, multinational security company, recently released profiles of “six prominent types of cybercriminals” and detailed how they could hurt companies around the globe, officials say.

Threat intelligence experts at BAE Systems have compiled a list, “The Unusual Suspects,” that has been created from “research that uncovers the motivations and methods of the most common types of cybercriminals,” according to BAE. “The intention of the campaign is to help enterprises understand the various enemies they face so they can better defend against cyberattacks.” BAE Systems officials have profiled six cybercriminal types:

• The Mule – naive opportunists that may not even realize they work for criminal gangs to launder money;
• The Professional – career criminals who work 9-to-5 in the digital shadows;
• The Nation State Actor – individuals who work directly or indirectly for their government to steal sensitive information and disrupt enemies’ capabilities;
• The Activist – motivated to change the world via questionable means;
• The Getaway – the youthful teenager who can escape a custodial sentence due to their age;
• And The Insider – disillusioned, blackmailed or even over-helpful employees operating from within the walls of their own company.

These individuals and groups have caused billions of dollars in losses and caused significant harm to millions of people and organizations.  Now what?

It will be many more years to come, before the laws catch-up to the technology and those who use the vector of the Internet to carry out their crimes against humanity.  Law enforcement has their hands continually tied by the laws and the geographic challenges of a global epidemic.  Governments and politicians are in constant battle over the privacy vs. security philosophy and all the legal issues.

While the wheels of Parliament, or the U.S. Congress slowly turn and the mechanisms for law enforcement become more robust for evidence collection, investigations and prosecutions, there are significant strategies of resilience that we must focus our respective vigilance.  It is not anything new per se, just a renewed emphasis and a new commitment to redesigning our digital environments.  We can do better.

For now, what if we just pick one cybercriminal type to focus on.  The "Insider".

The "Insider" is most likely in almost every formal organization today, working diligently to mask and perpetuate their goals until they are revealed.  It is your "Duty of Care" to continuously deter, detect, defend and document within your enterprise.  The "Insider" could be anyone and so how can the organization work ever more so vigilantly?

It begins at the core of the business and the culture that surrounds those principles within your company, your team or your relationship with suppliers.  The environment you build and sustain shall have the transparency and the elements necessary to sustain a culture where the "Insider" is incapable of operating.  Where the culture itself, makes the environment impossible for the "Insider" to operate without disclosure.

We would encourage Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals to incorporate new found strategies, new management tools and a renewed effort to extinguish the "Insider" threat across the globe.  The best way we can do this today, is to work on the culture and to establish the foundations for future "Trust Decisions" within the enterprise.  The root of changing the culture and achieving the desired future environment, begins with every single decision to trust.

The journey ahead will be long and full of new found challenges.  The vision of the future and the outcomes received will soon be more apparent.  Now the real work begins to start the journey with your own organization, with each person and understanding the environment and culture you seek.  And remember:

"In war, truth is the first casualty."

Aeschylus
Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC - 456 BC)

Rugged DevOps: Reengineering for our Next Generation...

The reengineering of the Internet is now underway for our next generation beyond the millennials.  The unification of corporate software development and information security teams are experiencing a deja vu and reminiscent of scenes from the 1993 movie "Groundhog Day."  Operational Risk Management (ORM) is hopeful that we are having a new resurgence of software vulnerability management thinking.  Why?

"A weather man is reluctantly sent to cover a story about a weather forecasting "rat" (as he calls it). This is his fourth year on the story, and he makes no effort to hide his frustration. On awaking the 'following' day he discovers that it's Groundhog Day again, and again, and again. First he uses this to his advantage, then comes the realization that he is doomed to spend the rest of eternity in the same place, seeing the same people do the same thing EVERY day."  --Groundhog Day

We are seeing the reunification of 1990's Software Quality Assurance (SQA) thinking, combined with the rigor of new 21st century rapid software development disciplines.  It is called "Rugged DevOps."  Application development life cycles are getting shorter these days.  That is because modern day software development life cycles are taking a more component-based approach, with the reuse of standardized software capabilities.  This makes sense, as long as the use of software quality assurance tools and services are not abandoned and new tools and processes are embraced.

Welcome to "Rugged DevOps."  This Forrester report, "The Seven Habits of Rugged DevOps" will give you more context:

Habit 1: Increase Trust And Transparency Between Dev, Sec, And Ops

Habit 2: Understand The Probability And Impact Of Specific Risks

Habit 3: Discard Detailed Security Road Maps In Favor Of Incremental Improvements

Habit 4: Use The Continuous Delivery Pipeline To Incrementally Improve Security Practices

Habit 5: Standardize Third-Party Software And Then Keep Current

Habit 6: Govern With Automated Audit Trails

Habit 7: Test Preparedness With Security Games

"Enabling Digital Trust of Global Enterprises" in the next decade will require software development organizations to embrace security and risk professionals simultaneously, on a more consistent and non-adversarial basis:

DevOps practices can only increase speed and quality up to a point without security and risk (S&R) pros' expertise. Old application security practices hinder speedy releases, and security vulnerabilities represent defects that can leave a company open to cyberattacks. But DevOps practitioners can leap forward with both increased speed and quality by including S&R pros in DevOps feedback loops and including security practices in the automated life cycle. These new practices are called rugged DevOps. This report presents the seven main principles of rugged DevOps so I&O pros and developers can break down barriers with S&R pros and achieve faster releases with stronger application security.

Chief Information Officers (CIO), Chief Privacy Officers (CPO), Chief Legal Officers (CLO), Chief Operating Officers (COO), Chief Security Officers (CSO) and maybe the Chief Executive Officers (CEO) are now paying more attention to these issues.

Here are 9.5 million more reasons why:

In 2007, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California against Facebook on behalf of 3.6 million users of Facebook concerning its “Beacon” program. KamberLaw represented the plaintiffs in this action and Cooley LLP represented Facebook. This suit was settled in 2009 and was granted final approval by the Hon. Richard Seeborg in March 2010. As part of the settlement, the parties created the Foundation (the Digital Trust Foundation) “the purpose of which shall be to fund projects and initiatives that promote the cause of online privacy, safety, and security.” The case settled for $9.5 million, with the Foundation receiving approximately $6.7 million after attorney’s fees, payments to plaintiffs, and administrative costs. There were four objectors to the settlement, two of whom appealed the approval to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently the Supreme Court. But ultimately, in November 2013, the appeals were rejected and the Foundation was funded. The Foundation will distribute more than $6 million and will close its doors once all of the grants have been distributed and completed.

The corporate Board of Directors conversations about the topic of "Digital Trust" is now ongoing and the subject of new business units.  Security vs. Privacy has been a recent media frenzy between some of our technology companies and the U.S. government.  Your elected officials in the U.S. House of Representatives are also on the hot seat now, to produce new relevant legislation.  The courts are adding more privacy and data breach cases to the docket each week.  The "Digital Equilibrium Project" is being established and will hopefully include an international set of stakeholders.

Authoring the rules that everyone understands and everyone can agree on, sets the stage or playing field for the environment of competition to engage with some sense of civility.  Rules will be broken in plain sight and the referee (law enforcement, judges, courts, juries) will impose a penalty, while potentially millions of people watch live.  Is it a penalty kick or just a loss of down?

Think global.  Think at the speed of light.  Think about the trust of e-commerce transactions where millions of people rely on our computing machines every waking minute of the day.  Where Zettabytes of data are in use.  The rules on the "Digital Playing Field" are vital to our future social and economic well being.

"Rugged DevOps" is another and necessary component of a safe, private and secure Internet ecosystem.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals are evermore concerned, with the root cause of our current Privacy vs. (soon to be "And") Security headlines.  Digital Trust is hard to achieve and yet easy to forfeit.  It is time for us to begin "Reengineering for our Next Generation".

Trusted Enterprise: Digital Science in Business...

Digital Trust has been a cornerstone for any serious organization in our 21st century era.  The foundation for an Operational Risk Management (ORM) design, begins with the engineering science of a sound and endurable platform for "Enabling Digital Trust of Global Enterprises."
The Accenture Technology Vision 2016 verifies "Digital Trust" as one of five major trends:

As every digital advancement creates a new vector for risk, trust becomes the cornerstone of the digital economy. Without trust, digital businesses cannot use and share the data that underpins their operations. To gain the trust of individuals, ecosystems, and regulators in the digital economy, businesses must possess strong security and ethics at each stage of the customer journey. And new products and services must be ethical- and secure-by-design. Businesses that get this right will enjoy such high levels of trust that their customers will look to them as guides for the digital future.  Source:  Accenture Technology Vision 2016

The concept of data ethics as a significant component of establishing "Digital Trust" is vital.  When you introduce the concept of ethics to the dialogue on software engineering in the global enterprise, there are several key considerations.  Adding the moral governance of actions taken as a result of insights derived from the analysis of information, is also a valid vector in the design of trustworthiness for modern digital applications.  Yet this means nothing, without first understanding how humans make their decisions to trust.  How effective the entire ecosystem of "Digital Trust" becomes will always come back to the root.  Digital Ground zero.

Ground zero for "Digital Trust" is the actual "Trust Decision" itself.  The science of the "Trust Decision" elements and process has been the focus of researchers and academic study for years.  In order for us to truly understand how to achieve digital trust in business, we must first grasp the science and evidence of the core elements and root of our "TrustDecisions."  Does "Achieving Digital Trust" in the enterprise ensure that, as a business you are "Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care"?   Not necessarily.

The two concepts are mutually exclusive, yet they still have affinity for each other.  Accenture's Technology Vision, provides the enterprise with sound reasoning about how to create a path towards improving digital trust, especially as it pertains to the reputation benefits associated with the "Brand."  Adding the element of ethics, drives the consumer thinking that the business has addressed privacy requirements in terms of the legal rules and usability factors.

Incorporating the conversation in the Board Room about data ethics (collection and use) or how as an enterprise you must design-in legal controls in order to alleviate liability, requires something new.  It requires all interested parties to go back to the root.  How does the human make a decision to trust?  How does a computer make a decision to trust another computer?

The people sitting around the Board Room table are thinking about creating more wealth.  They are not asking themselves, how do computers trust other computers?  In our digital age where decisions are being made as a result of the execution of zeros and ones at light speed, someone has to be designing the trust architecture with the right people in the enterprise.  The question is now at hand, who is that person or business unit?

The answer is going to be different in each business or organization.  What is the maturity of the particular digital ecosystem and how vast is the landscape for the computing assets?  One fact that must be acknowledged early on, is that it probably does not entirely exist today.  The ideal unit of people and systems that are necessary to achieve digital trust, are currently spread out across the typical silos of a business architecture.  IT, Marketing, Legal, Info Security, Privacy perhaps.  However, the dedicated and funded "Digital Trust" team, task force or department, has yet to be established.  So what?

Continue to operate as you are.  Without the advantage of truly understanding the elements of "Trust Decisions" and how this is relevant to "Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care."  A trustworthy computing division, may have existed in the past at your organization, yet initially with another focused mission,  "Cyber Crime" intervention.  You see, the idea of trust and why it is so vital to the success of the information technology industry is not new.  Smart malware researchers and software engineers understood this at the dawn of the Internet.  So why is this any different?

Trustworthy computing in the 90's is not the same as the application of "Trust Decisions" in the year 2016 and beyond.   Especially today, with the speed of cloud computing adoption and the outsourcing of core data transactions across borders.  The international implications of privacy laws and the routing and storing of data outside of your native country, is now in play.  Negotiations by a Nation State to bypass traditional use of mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) is the new normal:

If U.S. and British negotiators have their way, MI5, the British domestic security service, could one day go directly to American companies such as Facebook or Google with a wiretap order for the online chats of British suspects in a counter­terrorism investigation.

The transatlantic allies have quietly begun negotiations this month on an agreement that would enable the British government to serve wiretap orders directly on U.S. communication firms for live intercepts in criminal and national security investigations involving its own citizens. Britain would also be able to serve orders to obtain stored data, such as emails.  Source:  Washington Post

The requirements have changed.  The next era of "Achieving Digital Trust" requires so much more.  It now requires standing up and providing substantial resources to the "TrustDecisions" Unit within the enterprise.  What does this mean to the future of the Trusted Enterprise?

It means that the Chief Information Officer (CIO), Chief Privacy Officer (CPO), General Counsel and Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) will be using data and Digital Science to design a new architecture for the Trusted Enterprise.  They will deliver it to the desk of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) very soon.

Duty of Care: Board of Directors OPS Risk...

The Board Rooms across America are in full tilt mode working hard on risk oversight. The Chairman of the Board (COB), is wrestling with divergent personalities and competing agendas as the organization races towards its next phase of growth.

Operational Risks are being presented from all facets of the business and the Board of Directors has a fiduciary responsibility to address them, without creating new risk in the process. Leadership is in short supply and collaboration among the entire board is dwindling. In terms of Operational Risk Management (ORM), what risk is the most dangerous to the enterprise at this point in time?

The risk that the Chairman of Board has lost their ability to forge trust and a favorable relationship with the Directors themselves becomes a significant threat. The trust and the relationship that a Chairman has with the Board of Directors is paramount. When this is no longer present, and the "Independent Directors" realize they can no longer trust the performance of the Chairman, significant risk factors begin to quickly evolve that puts the entire organization into a vulnerable state.

Once the Independent Directors see and hear or feel that the Chairman has lost credibility and respect from the Board, then it is time to act. The jeopardy of the organization is at stake and each day or week that goes by without action to change leadership, will increase the long term risk to the brand, confidence in the entire leadership and finally the people charged with making the organization compliant with all legal and ethical policies. A failure in people is an Operational Risk that far too often becomes overlooked or just plain ignored, due to the power base that may exist by the Chairman's role.

The Board of Directors are charged with the duties that involve the governance, regulatory, compliance, legal and ethical components of the organization. When any one of these starts to fail, then the faith in the entire leadership of the organization becomes a question mark. How many times do we hear the story that brought down the leaders with the words "Failure to Act"? Today and in the future, “serving on a Board of Directors means living in a fishbowl” according to Chief Justice Myron Steele of the Supreme Court of Delaware:

Once a difficult situation arises with the potential for litigation and its accompanying damage to the company’s reputation, the media will descend on the company, and directors must show 1) that they had a plan in place to deal with such situations in accordance with their oversight or compliance duties, 2) that the plan was reasonable and adequate, and 3) that the plan was followed. It is worth noting here some of the recent trends in corporation litigation. Two major categories of corporate litigation that a director might face include the traditional class actions based on breach of fiduciary duty, and derivative actions which are filed on behalf of the corporation due to wrong doing on the part of the board, either for its actions that resulted in a loss or its failure to act which also resulted in a loss through missed opportunity.

One of the major trends going on these days is to keep the Chairman separate from the CEO or President of the organization. The benefits are great especially if you have a CEO who will allow their ego to accept the other person as an ally and not competition:

In the public company arena, more and more companies are separating the Chairman of the Board position from the CEO. It turns out that this trend has benefits for earlier stage companies too. We believe that all CEOs – regardless of their experience – benefit from having a lead director on the board. In general, it has been our experience that boards (and the board meetings) work better when there is a Chairman in charge other then the CEO.

This strategy in overall Board Governance is a sound one. As a result of the "The Duty of Care" by the Board of Directors, at some stage it may require that the Chairman recommend to the Board that a CEO resign or be fired from running the day to day operations of the organization.

The Board of Directors and their behavior within the Board Room and in the functions outside in public are at stake. The governance of the Board of Directors begins with the Chairman but ends with each individual on the Board itself. If the Independent Board Director remains silent on any legal duty of the Board, they are putting all in jeopardy of a failure of the Duty of Care:

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law which the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals with no current direct relationship (familial or contractual or otherwise), but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law (meaning case law).

It is the Chairman of Board who has the responsibility to keep the Independent Directors informed and aware of any persons behavior or actions that could put the entire board at risk. And even more importantly, it is the duty of each Independent Director to insure that they are constantly monitoring for any possible failure of the Duty of Care to their organization and their fellow Board Directors.

Privacy Engineering: Mobile Standards for Digital Trust...

The landscape for software engineering standards within corporate organizations, is now on the radar of Operational Risk Management (ORM) experts.  What are the privacy and security related engineering design standards, that are being utilized at JP Morgan Chase, Citibank or Paypal for mobile App development?

Effective and standardized "Privacy Engineering" of mobile applications at organizations in Critical Infrastructure sectors such as Finance and Banking is just one example.  It is soon to be a greater focus of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and other U.S. regulators.  Why?

"Trust Decisions" are being made by consumers each day, as millions of of mobile banking customers download an application to their Android or iOS smart phones.  The consumer then has immediate exposure to the quality of the software engineering, by the UX/design and developer of the software App.  The standards being utilized by each organization for designing and engineering those Apps with privacy and security, may vary by who developed the application and for what particular operating system.

So what?  U.S. financial institutions software engineering departments and other highly regulated industries will be a continued and concentrated focus by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  Standards for privacy software engineering and disclosure of the rules will become even more of a critical factor.  Why?

As a result, to act within the time constraints of deadlines, the presence of fiercer competition, and the looming threat of higher lost-opportunity costs, you have no choice—you must presume the trustworthiness of the information you acquire to make decisions. Deciding now requires you to acquire the information you need from the most accessible source, with zero time to ask the important questions: “Where did this information come from? Who put this report together? Has the data been confirmed to be accurate? Who actually authored the analysis? Does this bank statement reflect all of our deposits?”

Answering these types of questions is inherent to how we make good decisions. You seek information that serves as fuel for your decision. You work hard to validate that the information can be trusted. You calculate toward your decision, constantly evaluating whether the information holds up its reliability. But in today’s 24/7/365, wired decision-making landscape, there is no time to ask those questions. Those controlling the information you need understand that pressure and require you to presume their digital information is trustworthy and reliable for making your decisions. Thus, to gain control of digital information is to succeed in imposing an enormous handicap—removing your ability to challenge its trustworthiness by asking the right questions.  Source:  Achieving Digital Trust by Jeffrey Ritter.

Is it possible to redesign mobile banking Apps, so that all Android or iOS software engineers must adhere to privacy and security engineering standards of practice?  The human-based "Trust Decisions" about whether to trust an application with personal identifiable information (PII) is currently buried in legal disclosures.  The privacy disclosures are written by lawyers, all different and in most cases never read, by the consumer prior to downloading the App.  Opt-in or Opt-out?

The future of mobile App Privacy and Security Trust engineering for consumers will be in the hands of government regulators soon and in concert with other laws associated with information security, such as the GLBA Safeguards Rule.  "Cyber Trust" indicators or other vital warning systems may be in the works.  Buyer Beware is the theme.

For years consumers have been looking at FDA Nutrition Labels and other Federal oriented tools, to provide more visible and rapidly effective disclosure.  Since the human being is making "Trust Decisions" on whether to download a software application to their computing device, they also may desire a method to quickly ascertain if the App is "Trustworthy."

Can they trust the application according to their particular appetite for risk?  What information will be shared with 3rd parties?  How will your information be used and collected while you are using or not using the application?  Here is one example of how a future warning "Privacy Label" may look before a consumer is permitted to download an application to their computing device.

What does the consumer experience today?  As one example, currently when you visit the App Store on an iOS mobile device such as the iPad, and then search for "Chase", the top choice is an App named Chase Mobile.  When you click on the "Get" button, it changes to "Install".  When you click on "Install" it prompts you to Sign In to iTunes Store.  Once you sign-in, the Chase Mobile App downloads to your device, the button then changes to "Open."

When you open the Chase Mobile App, it opens the first screen to "Log On".  There is a small "Privacy" button in the top left corner of the screen, however there is not an easy to understand Privacy Label that is visible before you actually "Log On" to Chase.  In the case of selecting the Privacy button in the upper left corner, it then reveals dozens of pages of legal documents explaining online privacy policy and U.S. consumer privacy notices.  There is however one easier to view grid, under the privacy notice that is helpful in understanding whether Chase shares personal information and whether as a consumer, you can limit this sharing.

The Critical Infrastructure sectors of the U.S. economy, that has a daily interface with consumers through mobile software Apps are now on notice.  Chief Legal Counsels, Chief Information Officers, Chief Privacy Officers and Software Engineering personnel, must address the reality of human behavior and how "Trust Decisions" impact legal risk and the ultimate perception of the corporate brand.

Beware of the Cowboy: Risk Driven by Fear...

Beware of the cowboy.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) spans the hazards on the flight deck on the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) or behind enemy lines or even to employee behavior on the front lines of the private sector on Wall Street:

"The recent conviction of Michael Coscia in the Federal District Court in Chicago in the first prosecution for “spoofing” provides more clarity to high-frequency trading firms about how they can operate. The message is to tread carefully when a strategy depends on using orders that will be quickly canceled because the government may claim they are an effort to manipulate the market by fooling others into trading.

Spoofing was made illegal in the Dodd-Frank Act, which prohibits “bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution.”

Believe it when we say that people who try to be cowboys in your organization are operating without regard to risk. Now multiply the number of cowboys by the number of people that they surround on their team, who think that this is the way to operate. It doesn't take long to find out that these are the root causes of many of the operational risks in your organization. And it starts out with the basics even in the vast private sector beyond Wall Street:

• Revenue is not booked according to the rules. Products sit in the warehouse yet revenue ends up on the sales reps commission report because (s)he had a signed order.
• Assets are not valued correctly. Bank accounts are not validated to make sure they actually exist and accounts receivables are inflated.

These are just two of the many facets of occupational fraud that starts with a few cowboys who have little regard for managing risk and all the incentives to line their pockets with new found cash or bonuses.

From Leadership Lessons of the Navy SEALS

The Cowboy

"Neither of us knows if such a thing has ever been tolerated in modern commando teams. Yes, sometimes you need to charge forward. But, there are simply too many potential casualties and too much political currency resting on commando missions to entrust one to a cowboy. Authorization for an operation depends on the accurate calculation of operational risk. This requires an assessment of proven forces ability to perform a task. All this is contrary to the cowboy philosophy of depending on experimentation, pluck, and luck in order to succeed."

"The problem with being a cowboy is that your bosses won't employ you if they can't trust you, and they can't trust you if they don't know what you'll do. And then you're stuck with the reputation."
        --LT. CMDR. Jon Cannon

You might think that the reason is ego or just plain greed. However, the real motive may not be so clear. More than likely, the motive is fear. And that fear is something that grows until it gets to the point of creating harm, loss and destruction. You have to find the cowboys in your organization and you have to follow the mantra of quality gurus from years past, "Drive out Fear".

Safe Harbor: Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care...

"Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care" within the enterprise requires an astute and proactive legal framework.  Operational Risk Management becomes a key component of the legal framework in multiple junctions of technology, data science and privacy law.

U.S. National Security continues to be in the center of the legal jousting between the European Union and the United States.  Underlying the debate is the data flowing through the Internet from data centers in Europe owned by U.S. companies.

What are the implications of a change in the Rule of Law and the rules associated with the collection, storage and analysis of data by companies such as Facebook?  How will the future of Operational Risk decisions impact the safety and security of nation states?  Is "Safe Harbour" ready for legal reengineering and a new updated global data privacy architecture for the Internet of Things (IoT).

III –  Conclusion 237. In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court should answer the questions referred by the High Court as follows:

Article 28 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, read in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of a decision adopted by the European Commission on the basis of Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46 does not have the effect of preventing a national supervisory authority from investigating a complaint alleging that a third country does not ensure an adequate level of protection of the personal data transferred and, where appropriate, from suspending the transfer of that data.

Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the Department of Commerce of the United States of America is invalid.

  Chief Privacy Officers and General Counsel within the ranks of Amazon, Google and Facebook are on a proactive mission quest.  How to keep business models fueled by advertising from erosion of data flows from outside the U.S. if precluded and if, all data from the EU must stay within the EU.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) will be tracking the data privacy legal frameworks across the globe and the continuous changes that will be necessary to stay in compliance with U.S. laws.  Henry Farrell sums this up nicely in his WP analysis:

Thus, if the court rules as expected, the U.S. has to choose between two unattractive options. The first is to refuse to make any concessions on surveillance, hence endangering the business models of big and influential U.S. e-commerce firms, and making life much harder for other big corporations that e.g. have to transfer personnel files across borders. The second is to make real concessions to the EU on spying, moving away from indiscriminate surveillance to a system that would provide real protections for European citizens.

We are on the edge of many years of new business process reengineering (BPR), but this time it is not about the demise of proprietary client / server architectures and the addition of Internet Protocols.  The new data privacy BPR is now just underway and it has all to do with creating the sound contractual negotiations of digital devices across borders.  More importantly, the trusted business assurance questions being asked by Operational Risk Officers and the building of digital trust as data and rules are executed at the speed of light.

Achieving Digital Trust delivers to business executives, IT strategists, and innovation leaders something remarkable-a complete tool-kit of new strategies and resources that will change how they make decisions that matter, and how to build digital assets that can be trusted. 

As you pick up your mobile device to access Messenger, or Wickr, the rule of law is being put in motion in nanoseconds.  When you type the message to your colleague in Ireland or Germany from Detroit, your data is being processed across data centers in multiple countries.  Machines executing business rules with other machines.  Are the rules correct?  Are they all legal?

"Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care" in the next decade will be one of our most interesting challenges.  The Safe Harbor of our way of life may go beyond the simple integrity and assurance that the message simply gets delivered.