IT Projects: Expert Witness, CIO, In-House Counsel & Litigation Forum

The Death of Deep Throat and the Crisis of Journalism

How about someone taking on the re-telling of Deep Throat's story, now that there are people telling more of the facts, not just feeding the grist mill of sensationalized journalism?  Any ideas about candidates who could do the story justice?  I vote for Oliver Stone to put it on film!  And for Adam Sandler and Will Farrel for the roles of Woodward and Bernstein. 

Marlene

Previously posted December 22, 2008

By George Friedman

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081222_death_deep_throat_and_crisis_journalism

Mark Felt died last week at the age of 95. For those who don’t recognize that name, Felt was the “Deep Throat” of Watergate fame.  It was Felt who provided Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post with a flow of leaks about what had happened, how it happened and where to look for further corroboration on the break-in, the cover-up, and the financing of wrongdoing in the Nixon administration. Woodward and Bernstein’s exposé of Watergate has been seen as a high point of journalism, and their unwillingness to reveal Felt’s identity until he revealed it himself three years ago has been seen as symbolic of the moral rectitude demanded of journalists.

In reality, the revelation of who Felt was raised serious questions about the accomplishments of Woodward and Bernstein, the actual price we all pay for journalistic ethics, and how for many years we did not know a critical dimension of the Watergate crisis. At a time when newspapers are in financial crisis and journalism is facing serious existential issues, Watergate always has been held up as a symbol of what journalism means for a democracy, revealing truths that others were unwilling to uncover and grapple with. There is truth to this vision of journalism, but there is also a deep ambiguity, all built around Felt’s role. This is therefore not an excursion into ancient history, but a consideration of two things. The first is how journalists become tools of various factions in political disputes. The second is the relationship between security and intelligence organizations and governments in a Democratic society.

CIO strategy: 10 qualities of IT greatness

December 29th, 2008

Posted by Michael Krigsman @ 9:53 am

Categories: IT issues, CIO issues

Tags: CIO, Information Technology, Successful IT Group, Paul M. Ingevaldson, Strategy...

Successful IT groups are resilient, flexible, and highly responsive to organizational business needs. For many CIOs, this goal appears elusive and completely disconnected from the daily grind of servers, users, downtime, and help desks. Despite the difficulty, CIO success depends on connecting the chaotic, often crisis-driven, IT environment to high-level strategic and business priorities that matter to the broader organization.Linking a tactical IT culture rooted in reaction and response to broader strategic goals is a worthy, if difficult, challenge, which requires understanding the areas of intersection between IT and the business. Despite the obstacles, IT must cross this bridge without disrupting its own operational ability to deliver projects on-time and within budget while still achieving planned scope. To be sure, this balancing act requires careful and delicate choreography!

Digital Natives in Our Midst

WHO ARE YOUR KEY USERS? DIGITAL NATIVES OR DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS? AND HOW SHOULD THAT AFFECT YOUR SYSTEM DESIGN, USER INTERFACES, SOFTWARE SELECTION PROCESS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA? your training? your hiring?   warren

ORIGINALLY POSTED MON, JUN 16, 2008 13:22 EDThttp://advice.cio.com/abbie_lundberg/digital_natives_in_our_midst

POSTED BY: Abbie Lundberg in Soapbox TOPIC: Enterprise Management BLOG: Difference Engine CURRENT RATING:  COMMENT: 1

If there’s anyone under 30 working in your company, you’ve got Digital Natives. Marc Prensky coined this term in 2001, in a paper titled, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” His starting point: “today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach.” Things need to change, and they need to change fast. Since 2001, many of those students have graduated, and they’re working for you.

Digital natives grew up immersed in technology, according to Prensky, while digital immigrants adopted the new technology later in life. Why does this matter? “As Digital Immigrants learn to adapt to their environment,” Prensky writes, “they always retain, to some degree, their ‘accent,’ that is, their foot in the past..... Our Digital Immigrant instructors... are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.”

Would you sign off on this audit? What’s a going concern in this business climate?

The suggestion here is for audit companies to re-connect with their real core value.  Perhaps the wording should be "to find what's been missing ...their real core  value."              Marlene

Previously posted by Brian Sommer December 17th, 2008

http://blogs.zdnet.com/sommer/?p=267

Are Audited Financial Statements of Value Anymore?

Auditors will surely do a lot of head scratching in the coming months as they decide which of their clients’ books are prepared as:
- going concerns
- breakup basis
- going concern but with an expression of doubt as to the firm’s future

I’ve looked at the last audited statement for Bear Stearns and the audit was essentially unqualified and yet Bear Stearns failed. I don’t have time to examine the annual reports for Circuit City, General Motors, Tweeter, Wachovia, Citi, Mervyns and many other firms that have struggled in 2008 but I bet a number of them had audits that were prepared on a going concern basis.

This question is at the heart of some concern as to the role of auditors. Are auditors really taking a close look at all of the forces that are impacting the viability of a firm or are they concerned mostly with the historical financial statements? The latter is acceptable if an accountant is making no judgment call re: the immediate viability of a firm. But, if employees, shareholders and other constituents are relying on auditors to perform a thorough assessment of a firm’s situation, then auditors must do more.

Specifically, auditors should and must opine on the following:

- Audit clients that buy, sell, trade or originate ‘opaque’ financial instruments (e.g., collateralized debt obligations of sub-prime mortgages) are by their nature trying to hide the true nature of the product they are selling. Logically, one cannot render an opinion on the viability of a business that sells opaque products as one cannot understand the risks, liabilities or future obligations these products may manifest.

Google falls from list of most trusted companies for privacy

Wonder what affect the changes being made by Yahoo to remove data after 90 days will have on this list next year?  One would assume that others will follow Yahoo's actions.  Interesting --- Yahoo as leader and innovator----hmmmm.              Marlene

Previously appeared December 16, 2008
Author: Preston Gralla
http://blogs.computerworld.com/google_falls_from_list_of_most_trusted_companies_for_privacy

Privacy groups have long worried about Google's privacy policies --- and now it appears that consumers have followed suit. Google has dropped off the list of the most trusted companies when it comes to privacy protection. The Ponemon Institute and TRUSTe surveyed 6,486 consumers about which companies they felt were most trustworthy and protected their private information. They recently published the list of the top 20.

Last year, Google clocked in at number 10. Today, it's not even on the list. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has long worried about the massive amounts of data that Google has about people, and how that data might be used. EPIC, for example, testified that Google should not have been allowed to purchase the advertising firm DoubleClick because of privacy concerns.

Microsoft isn't on the list, either. In a story in the San Francisco Chronicle about the survey, a spokesperson for the Ponemon Institute said "Google (and Microsoft) suffer from big company syndrome. People figure that if you're big and collecting data, there must be an issue."

That doesn't really explain Google's dropping off the list, though. After all, the company that took the number one spot is American Express, for the second year in a row. American Express isn't exactly a mom-and-pop operation. eBay (number 2), IBM (number 3), and Amazon (number 4), aren't corner-store sized either.

The issue is that Google, by its very nature, collects more information about people than any other company, and people are uneasy about the way that information might be used. Google has a long way to go to clean up its privacy policies.

Other high-tech companies on the list include Hewlett-Packard (number 6), Apple (number 8), WebMD (number 13), Yahoo (number 14), Facebook (number 15), AOL (number 16), and Dell and eLoan (tied for number 20)

Yahoo to scrub personal data after three months

Wonder if this move was a result of the recent executive changes?  Would be interesting to know whose idea this was. The new policy is to begin implementation next month, and  will gradually include all of the company's services by mid-2010, according to a Dec 18th follow-up article by Jessica Guynn of the LA Times.                              Marlene

The move could pressure rivals Google and Microsoft to do the same

Previously appeared December 17, 2008
By Jeremy Kirk

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=11&articleId=9123700&intsrc=hm_topic

December 17, 2008 (IDG News Service)   Yahoo Inc said Wednesday it will anonymize most of the data it collects about people's Web searches after three months, a move that could put further pressure on competitors Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp.to do the same because of privacy concerns. Yahoo, which previously kept the data for 13 months, will now retain it for the least amount of time compared to its rivals.

Google said in September that it would anonymize data after nine months, down from 18 months. Microsoft keeps data for 18 months, although it said earlier this month it would reduce the period to six months if its rivals did the same.

A European Union group has recommended that search engines discard data after six months. The recommendation has been endorsed by data protection officials from the 27 countries in the European Union. Countries could eventually choose to enforce the recommendation, which will be discussed further next year.

Privacy campaigners have expressed concerns that Web users could potentially be identified on the basis of search terms and other data. An IP address can identify a person's ISP as well as their approximate geographic location. It also has been shown that a person can be identified on the basis of search terms they've entered.

Google called off Yahoo deal as DOJ closed in

For what reason might Google and Yahoo have waited right up to the last minute?  Was someone holding out for better terms, which would have made it worthwhile to go ahead, even faced with a long, drawn out legal wrangle with the government?  Will the whole story ever surface?    Let us know if you have any ideas about how this played out.                          Marlene

Previously appeared on Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Posted by Heather Havenstein 

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9122498&intsrc=hm_list

(Computerworld)  Google Inc. called off its proposed search advertising deal with Yahoo Inc. just three hours before the U.S. Department of Justice was to file an antitrust complaint on Nov. 5 aimed at blocking it, according to the lawyer that the government hired to pursue the case.

In an interview with the legal blog AMLaw Daily published Dec. 2, Sandford Litvack -- the attorney who would have been the lead counsel on the antitrust case -- said that Google and Yahoo decided to abandon the proposed deal shortly after DOJ officials informed them of the agency's plans to file the antitrust complaint.

Shortly after the deal -- which would have had Yahoo running Google advertisements alongside its own search results -- was announced in June, Google and Yahoo came under fire from large advertiser groups, which charged that the arrangement would diminish competition and raise online advertising prices.

And an antitrust think tank said the partnership could end up as a "black hole that swallows up Yahoo," thus justifying an antitrust investigation.

Five reasons to kill IT projects

If I had input into this survey, I probably would have picked #4 for 1st place on the list.  In what other order might you have imagined this list to appear?   Marlene  

Previously appeared November 26, 2008

Author:a guest post from Michael Krigsman of TechRepublic’s sister site ZDNet

A recent study highlighted the top five reasons IT experts who killed a project gave for terminating projects prior to completion. Check out the five reasons.

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-manager/?p=643&tag=nl.e053

 A survey of IT experts revealed 43 percent of their organizations had recently killed an IT project. The study, conducted by ISACA, an independent IT governance group, highlighted the top 5 reasons these organizations named for terminating projects prior to completion. Here’s the list, with my commentary on each issue:

1. Business needs changed: 30%

There are many conditions and situations where a business legitimately changes its requirements after starting a project. If the project no longer provides meaningful value, then it’s best to stop throwing good money after bad.

On the other hand, some organizations deliberately obscure a flawed project requirements process by claiming business needs evolved. Obviously, that’s unhealthy and a true sign of failure.

2. Did not deliver as promised: 23%

This is a typical expectation-setting problem: promise anything to get funding and worry about the consequences later. Shortsighted managers don’t realize that funding is less important than delivering substantive value. Failure is inevitable when managers don’t clearly identify and deliver business value.

In some cases, the project really did provide value, which the organization did not recognize due to communication problems. I recently blogged about one CIO seeking a publicist presumably to address this issue:

Many organizations take a CIO for granted when his IT department consistently delivers the goods without fanfare and attention; sadly, this human failing is all too common. In that case, PR might be a great idea, especially if the CIO isn’t a great communicator. Of course, the CIO should improve his communication skills, but that’s another story.

Tech CEOs: Will they step up in a downturn?

This article seems to be for companies in the higher echelons of the industry, who are still able to use acquisition as a means to improve their business.  What about the companies struggling to maintain their own business - and not end up as an acquisition if they really are looking to remain independent?  Any examples come to mind to any of you out there?

Marlene

Previously appeared on December 2nd, 2008
Posted by Larry Dignan

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=11032&tag=nl.e019

Technology CEOs worth their paychecks are going to use this economic downturn to revamp business models and position for the so-called post recession era. It sounds rather obvious, but why don’t all CEOs follow this playbook?

We’ve heard the mantra repeatedly: Reload in a downturn. And a report from Forrester the latest to repeat the downturn playbook. Forrester Research analyst Navi Radjou argues that technology CEOs need to implement a five-point innovation program in 2009. Some CEOs–IBM’s Sam Palmisano and Cisco’s John Chambers–get it, but most are too mired in restructuring efforts to notice the opportunities. Radjou notes that Palmisano acquired PriceWaterhouseCoopers in 2002 to bet big on services. The bet has paid off.

Radjou writes:
For tech CEOs, the coming 2009 to 2011 period is going to be repeat of the recessionary 2000 to 2002 years. Constrained by shareholders’ short-term demands, tactically minded tech CEOs will focus on cutting costs or driving incremental product and service innovations. But forward thinking, bold tech CEOs will emulate what IBM’s Sam Palmisano did in 2002: They will choose to invest in their firms’ long-term success. By 2012, when the global economy fully recovers from the prolonged recession, these visionary CEOs will dine out on their success, as their firms are handsomely rewarded by both Wall Street and their customers, leaving competitors in the dust.

Google's Invisibility Cloak

Surprise, surprise!  Google has secrets, and tricks up its sleeve, and is plying them with the intention to obfuscate and protect their business and insider information, keeping it hidden away from the competition.  To coin an old, well worn comment -----  DUH!                    Marlene

Previously appeared on 12.05.08

http://www.forbes.com/enterprisetech/2008/12/05/google-operating-system-tech-enter-cx_ew_1205google.html?partner=contextstory

Forbes.com Posted by Elizabeth Woyke

A percentage of Google traffic is stripped of identifying information. Why? Google likes to portray itself as a company that does everything in the open. But it appears that at least some of its employees are harboring a secret.

Web researcher Net Applications recently discovered that between 11% to 30% of traffic streaming out of Google's Mountain View, Calif., office is stripped clean of the usual identifying information that accompanies such traffic. That begs the question: What secret is it that Google doesn't want the rest of the Web to know?

The finding, first reported in InternetNews.com, quickly sparked online chatter about a Windows challenger in the works. "I'd be shocked if Google wasn't developing its own operating system," says Vince Vizzacarro, Net Applications' executive vice president of marketing. "They clearly want to ride online services without using Microsoft."

The Aliso Viejo, Calif.-based firm made the discovery after adding a new feature to its analytics software that pinpoints the source of Internet traffic down to a specific company. The technology, which tracks various trends in Internet usage by analyzing traffic to more than 40,000 Web sites around the world, can also detect a computer's browser, IP address, referring search engine or search term, default language and screen resolution.

The new data showed that a percentage of Internet users in Google's offices (principally based in the company's Mountain View headquarters) are using an operating system that essentially shields itself from detection by stripping traffic of identifying information.

Think tank panel recommends that feds make major cybersecurity changes

Commission calls for new regulations on businesses, shift of responsibility from DHS
Previously appeared on December 8, 2008
Posted By Grant Gross http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=Government&articleId=9122903&taxonomyId=13&pageNumber=1

(IDG News Service) The U.S. government should overhaul its approach to cybersecurity by imposing sweeping new regulations on businesses and creating a centralized cybersecurity office in the White House, an outside group of experts recommended today. The White House office is needed because the Department of Homeland Security isn't equipped to protect the federal government against cyberattacks, according to a report issued by a cybersecurity commission that was set up last year by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Many members of the Commission on Cyber Security for the 44th Presidency "felt that leaving any cyber function at DHS would doom that function to failure," according to the report. The 96-page report — which was presaged in September when some commission members testified at a congressional hearing — also calls for new government regulations focused on protecting computer networks in the U.S. Many of those regulations would focus on refining government efforts to protect its own cyber infrastructure, but regulations on private industry are needed as well, the report said.

In addition, the report rejected the market-driven approach to cybersecurity advanced by President Bush. "The strategy essentially abandoned cyber defense to ad hoc market forces," the report said. "In no other area of national security do we depend on private, voluntary efforts. We believe that cyberspace cannot be secured without regulation."

Microsoft signs major deal with Dell for Live Search

Wonder which came first - the chicken or the Qu Li?  Methinks that Dell felt they would be in good hands if Microsoft informed them during negotiations that former Yahoo Search guru would be heading up the Search deal.  If the execs at Dell had the inside word on Microsoft's hiring of Qu Li, they kept it close to the vest - no leaks from their camp.  Wonder who else is on Microsoft chief Steve Ballmer's 2008 Xmas shopping list????          Marlene

Previously appeared December 5th, 2008
Posted by Mary Jo Foley
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1753

Microsoft and Dell have signed a deal via which Dell will be shipping new PCs with the Live Search toolbar preinstalled, according to sources familiar with the arrangement between the two companies.

Microsoft officials declined to comment on the alleged deal, as did Dell officials. Officials with both companies said they would not comment on “rumors and speculation.”

I wouldn’t put this in the speculation category, myself. My sources say that Microsoft has offered Dell sweet enough terms to entice the PC maker to replace its search-preload deal with Google with a comparable offering from Microsoft.

Well, the tech world has re-invented the game of "musical chairs" --- and in this case, the chair as a symbol does not come close to describing what's at stake here.  Any predictions about other moves that might be in the near future?               Marlene

Boomtown/D: All Things Digital

Posted by Kara Swisher

Previously appeared December 4, 2008

http://kara.allthingsd.com/20081204/microsoft-confirms-qi-lu-hired-as-digital-chief-mcandrews-out/

Former Yahoo tech star Qi Lu (pictured here)  is poised to take on the big job of being Microsoft’s top digital executive, according to several sources inside and outside the company.

The appointment could be announced by Microsoft as early as next Monday. A variety of details is still being ironed out, though, including whether the well-regarded techie Lu will be “paired” with another executive at Microsoft (MSFT) with more general business experience. While Lu has managed large teams while at Yahoo (YHOO) and also huge projects, he does not have advertising sales and media experience that will be a big part of his purview at Microsoft.

In that job, he will be the boss of three strong digital execs at the software giant: Satya Nadella, the SVP who heads engineering for Microsoft’s search, portal and advertising platform group; Yusuf Mehdi, whose online services portfolio includes marketing, online audience business development and product management for MSN and the search properties; and Brian McAndrews, the SVP for the advertiser and publisher solutions group.

That executive partner could be some higher-ranking Microsoft exec or even CEO Steve Ballmer himself.

Elevating McAndrews is also a possibility, as he has also wanted the digital chief job and could decide to leave after not getting it. (He also would not be a bad choice for Yahoo’s new CEO.) McAndrews was the CEO of aQuantive, an ad company bought by Microsoft for $6 billion last year.

Senate introduces IT failures bill: No wiggle room

Wouldn't that be something if the government IT projects end up being better monitored than those in private industry. Imagine IT project managers, etc. having to account for the efficacy of the project if it shows a 20 % variation from original baseline estimates????                        Marlene

Previously appeared November 13th, 2008
Posted by Michael Krigsman
http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=1142&tag=rbxccnbzd1

The Senate introduced a bill establishing guidelines for transparency and reporting on troubled IT projects. The bill defines specific exception thresholds for measuring critical and large government IT projects. Projects exceeding these thresholds will be evaluated for remediation and possible termination. Here’s how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) described the bill, which is called the “2008 Information Technology Investment Oversight Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act” (S. 3384):

S. 3384 would amend federal law regarding the oversight of project planning for information technology (IT) systems. The legislation would require chief information officers to identify critical IT projects and would subject each IT project to additional reporting, planning, and monitoring requirements, including corrective actions for projects that fail to meet applicable standards. S. 3384 also would establish an IT Strike Force (a group of information technology experts) overseen by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to respond to problems with individual IT projects.

NextGov added:

The Act would force agencies to think more deeply when establishing cost, schedule and performance baselines for major IT investments. Agencies would be held accountable for their initial projections; if a project varied more than 20 percent from the original baseline estimates according to the standards of earned value management, the chief information officer would be required to notify

If a project varied more than 40 percent from the original baseline, then OMB would have to determine if there were other ways to meet the objectives, or if the agency should pull the plug on the project altogether.

How do new private browsing capabilities affect forensics?

Would love to hear from you forensic experts out there on what you think about this article.

Marlene

Previously appeared on November 12, 2008

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=654&tag=nl.e019

Author:Tom Olzak

Chrome has it. IE8 and Firefox 3.1 have it. So what does it mean to forensics investigators? I’m talking about private browsing–the ability to visit sites, conduct research, or participate in illegal/unethical activities without leaving tell-tale signs behind.

Recent interest in this capability, sparked by privacy enhancements touted by Mozilla, Google, and Microsoft, prompted me to take a closer look at what this might mean to my forensics investigations. As usual, the impact on reconstructing questionable behavior depends on the browser used and the skills of both the problem employee and the investigator.

The need for private browsing

Some common reasons given for private browsing include:

• Researching a medical condition

• Shopping from a home PC for a surprise gift or vacation

• Planning a surprise birthday party

However, most family members aren’t going to know how to get around methods already provided by browsers—deleting cookies, cache content, and other session information written to disk. So these are rather weak arguments for stronger browsing privacy.

IT security education continues to evolve

Previously appeared November 17, 2008

Posted by Dr. Gene Spafford

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=Security&articleId=9120622&taxonomyId=17&pageNumber=2

November 17, 2008 (CSO) The majority of programs at colleges and universities around the country are certainly doing a good job of training people to go into positions in IT. In fact, we have a greater demand among employers for students than we have students to fill positions. That said, there are some areas where we lack students who graduate with the right amount of expertise and focus. IT security and cyber forensics are areas where we have a critical need for workers in the field.

Computer science has been undergoing a transition over the last few years in academia. We've gone from teaching fundamentals for construction and systems to focusing more on all the places where computing can make a difference. The transition has been more to concepts at higher levels, with languages and graphics and network computation, than we saw five years ago. Before, computer science was focused more on program solutions around individual host computers and only some distributed computation. Now we are seeing more and more with large scale networks, cloud computing,Google apps, just to name a few. The field is shifting in that direction.

The security implications of these things are not known, or are being dismissed. The companies pushing these solutions are more interested in the business case than in the possible negatives. For instance, there are some interesting issues related to privacy of information that is stored and calculated remotely -- companies that have access to that data may be able to use it in marketing, which means more profit for them. They aren't motivated to find new ways to protect it.