I see your “More on Data Centralization” & Raise You One “Need to Conduct Business…”
Bejtlich continues to make excellent points regarding his view on centralizing data within an enterprise. He cites the increase in litigation regarding inadequate eDiscovery investment and the increasing pressures amassed from compliance.
All good points, but I’d like to bring the discussion back to the point I was trying to make initially and here’s the perfect perch from which to do it. Richard wrote:
ChristopherChristofer Hoff used the term "agile" several times in his good blog post. I think "agile" is going to be thrown out the window when corporate management is staring at $50,000 per day fines for not being able to produce relevant documents during ediscovery. When a company loses a multi-million dollar lawsuits because the judge issued an adverse inference jury instruction, I guarantee data will be centralized from then forward. "
…how about when a company loses the ability to efficiently and effectively conduct business because they spend so much money and time on "insurance policies" against which a balanced view of risk has not been applied? Oh, wait. That’s called "information security."
Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. Compliance. Ugh. Rinse, later, repeat.
I’m not taking what you’re proposing lightly, Richard, but the notion of agility, time to market, cost transformation and enhancing customer experience are being tossed out with the bathwater here.
Believe it or not, we have to actually have a sustainable business in order to "secure" it.
It’s fine to be advocating Google Gears and all these other Web 2.0
applications and systems. There’s one force in the universe that can
slap all that down, and that’s corporate lawyers. If you disagree, whom
do you think has a greater influence on the CEO: the CTO or the
corporate lawyer? When the lawyer is backed by stories of lost cases,
fines, and maybe jail time, what hope does a CTO with plans for
But going back to one of your own mantras, if you bake security into your processes and SDLC in the first place, then the CEO/CTO/CIO and legal counsel will already have assessed the position the company has and balance the risk scorecard to ensure that they have exercised the appropriate due care in the first place.
The uncertainty and horrors associated with the threat of punitive legal impacts have, are, and will always be there…and they will continue to be exploited by those in the security industry to buy more stuff and justify a paycheck.
Given the business we’re in, it’s not a surprise that the perspective presented is very, very siloed and focused on the potential "security" outcomes of what happens if we don’t start centralizing data now; everything looks like a nail when you’re a hammer.
However, you still didn’t address the other two critical points I made previously:
- The underlying technology associated with decentralization of data and applications is at complete odds with the "curl up in a fetal position and wait for the sky to fall" approach
- The only reason we have security in the first place is to ensure survivability and availability of service — and make sure that we stay in business. That isn’t really a technical issue at all, it’s a business one. I find it interesting that you referenced this issue as the CTO’s problem and not the CIO.
As to your last point, I’m convinced that GE — with the resources, money and time it has to bear on a problem — can centralize its data and resources…they can probably get cold fusion out of a tuna fish can and a blow pop, but for the rest of us on planet Earth, we’re going to have to struggle along trying to cram all the ‘agility’ and enablement we’ve just spent the last 10 years giving to users back into the compliance bottle.