Originally posted by Justine Jade:
Companies who outsource only sees the advantage of saving more money. They forget about security of their data that could destroy their business. I guess when news like these becomes rampant, this will help the jobs come back.
Recent Harris Interactive surveys reveal that most customers still do not trust companies to handle their personal information responsibly. Reflecting consumer mistrust, several governmental regulations have emerged to legislate security and build consumer trust.
The laws are complex, demanding stiff fines and jail time for offending executives. This article, therefore, gives an overview of the regulations and describes the challenges and opportunities facing storage and IT managers.
Enacted by the U.S. Federal government in 1999, this act applies only to financial institutions. It covers security for customer private information.
Requires: Administrative, technical and physical safeguards to protect customer information; privacy notices and opt-out provisions; vigilance against future threats; responsibility for outsourced security solutions.
Implications: Increased storage volume and secure backup storage, increased network and storage security; data encryption at source; company-wide policies, risk assessments and reports.
California Senate Bill 1386
"1386" went into effect in July 2003 and applies to companies doing business in California and all companies holding personal information of California residents. A customer can bring civil suit for damages.
Requires: Disclosure of any security breach in which unencrypted personal information might have been acquired by an unauthorized person; procedures to identify and contact persons affected; due diligence in protecting customer information from unauthorized access. There is no definition of the level of encryption.
Implications: Data encryption at source and throughout data lifecycle; network and storage security layers; zoning.
Enacted by the US Federal Government in 2002 in response to corporate financial scandals, this act applies to all publicly held companies in the U.S. that have more than $75 million equity market capitalization and that report quarterly to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It covers financial reporting, auditing practices and associated document retention. Holding CEOs and CFOs directly responsible, this act has a major effect on U.S. corporations and already sent one executive to jail. This act does not directly regulate consumer privacy, but it has important Storage and IT implications. Requires: Save all documentation used for financial reports and audits; save transactions and meeting minutes; retain data for 5 years; locate and recover documents in a few days.
Implications: Increased storage volume; indexed document retrieval from primary and backup media; Write-Once-Read-Many (WORM) storage; disaster recovery including geographically isolated synchronized storage.
Page 2: SEC Rule 17a, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act
wasn't creation of an extra 22 million jobs in the US alone mentioned somewhere
Only last week two Colorado lawmakers, Deanne Hanna and Terry Phillips introduced bills to prevent state contracts being awarded to firms who get their job done from other countries. Hanna�s bill, SB 170, was killed by a Colorado Senate panel, thanks to Republicans, who opposed the bill.
This trend of legislations trying to ban outsourcing and off shoring has been around for quite some time now. Senator John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who has to date won Democratic primaries and caucuses in 12 out of 14 states, has said that American firms that ship jobs to other countries are traitors.
Kerry denounced the administration of President George W. Bush for "rewarding Benedict Arnold CEOs who move profits and jobs overseas," referring to an American revolutionary who joined the British colonists during the war for independence. Kerry had introduced a bill in November that would require call centers to identify their physical locations, and Congress approved a measure in an appropriations bill last month that would ban overseas outsourcing for a limited range of government service contracts.
As the sluggish economic recovery is compounded with minimal job growth, lawmakers are attempting to clamp down on job flight in response to growing public anger at jobs that are moving overseas.
Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:
but then I realised that the same fraud could just as likely happen here.