Never compromise the integrity of Big Data in the GRC reporting.
Every time there is a corporate scandal, there are 2 standard responses.
1. Management was unaware of the malpractice and our compliance and
2. Ethic standards are amongst the most stringent in the business.
Other variations start with an apology for the error and senior management and the board reiterates that the incident does not reflect on the culture nor the heritage of our business philosophy. The chairman often adds: We will strive to continue to uphold the highest standards and maintain a best-in-class approach to the best practices in the industry.
Is the statement good enough? Can GRC structure avoid scandals?
Let’s review what went wrong at Bloomberg’s and on lessons learnt on how to correct it from happening again.
It started when Goldman Sachs had complained that Bloomberg news reporters were using information gleaned from the Bloomberg Terminal to further their reporting.
Like all other Bloomberg employees, our reporters, upon hiring, enter into a confidentiality agreement that strictly prohibits them from discussing non-public Bloomberg documents and proprietary information about the company and its clients in their reporting.
Since then it's become clear that this was not an isolated incident, and that it's been going on for quite a while.
The appearance of impropriety can be as damaging to a reputation as doing something improper.
While disclosing errors of judgment may be embarrassing, every company is accountable for its disclosures. The sooner the lapses are reported; the sooner there is nothing more to say.
As part of the company's transparency disclosers, report who has and who does not have access to any data considered proprietary.
Reporters had access to a user's login history and when a login was created. Second, they could see high-level types of user functions on an aggregated basis, with no ability to look into specific security information. This is akin to being able to see how many times someone used Microsoft Word vs. Excel. And, finally, they could see information about help desk inquiries.
Why did reporters have access to this in the first place? The recent complaints go to practices that are almost as old as Bloomberg News. Since the 1990s, some reporters have used the terminal to obtain, as the Washington Post reported, "mundane" facts such as log-on information. There was good reason for this, as our reporters used to go to clients in the early days of the company and ask them what topics they wanted to see covered. Understanding how clients used the terminal was more important then. We still do that today, which is why we have feedback tabs on our news-related terminal functions. Equally important is our commitment to transparency, which is why "The Bloomberg Way" is a public document.
As we’ve grown, and as data privacy has become a central concern to our clients, we should go above and beyond in protecting data, especially when we have even the appearance of impropriety. And that's why we've made these recent changes to what reporters can access.
This leads to a second point lost in much of this weekend’s conversation: The protection of important customer data has been essential at Bloomberg since our founding more than 30 years ago.
At no time did reporters have access to trading, portfolio, monitor, blotter or other related systems. Nor did they have access to clients’ messages to one another. They couldn’t see the stories that clients were reading or the securities clients might be looking at.
Source:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-13/holding-ourselves-accountable.html
