Isn't America a great place?

There was an article in today's Wall Street journal that shows the interesting differences in opinion between IT management and corporate CEOs. The IT managers are fed up with insecure software that costs companies fortunes (ATT spends $1 million per month to patch) to maintain (Microsoft Windows being the obvious target) and desire changes to the laws that would change the liability to software vendors. CEOs on the other hand are suggesting reducing the liability exposure of technology users (so they don't have the buck passed to their companies) rather than increasing the liability of software vendors. So I hear that IT managers don't want the costs in their budgets and CEOs are more concerned about getting sued by customers and vendors. Isn't the obvious answer to stop purchasing that flawed software and buy something more secure? Within the same article I see an unexpected benefit of Sarbanes-Oxley, that is how it is raising the security expectations of compliant companies.

Now that may be changing because of tough new accountability and privacy rules, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley financial-reporting standards, federal health-information regulations and California laws protecting customer data. Corporations are telling technology suppliers that if flawed software makes customers liable under these rules, suppliers should be, too.

Others like Adam Shostack on Emergent Chaos think SOX is detrimental to corporations.

There is a glimmer of hope for Thomas Barnett's vision of the civilized world coming together for its common good - in yesterday's WSJ:

Mr. Helmer is the informal leader of a small band of British, Polish and Czech conservatives in the European Parliament who look to the American conservative movement for inspiration.

The addition last year of 10 mostly pro-American countries to the EU -- many from the former Soviet bloc -- has lent some legitimacy to Mr. Helmer's mission...

But in his desire to shake up the European way of thinking, Mr. Helmer has found allies among some of the new Polish and Czech members of the Parliament, who remain scarred by communism and militant about standing up to international thugs and dictators.

The newcomers share with the ... Britons an intense opposition to a European constitutional treaty. It would help foster a "United States of Europe," they say, that would challenge American dominance -- and shrink from the Bush doctrine of spreading freedom and democracy.

Michal Kaminski, a 32-year-old member from Poland, chose to praise Mr. Bush in his first speech last June before the 732-member chamber. He was booed. "It didn't bother me," Mr. Kaminski says. "I grew up under communist occupation. There were only two leaders that helped my country at that time: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher."

A Czech member of the pro-Bush faction, Jan Zahradil -- who may be his country's foreign minister if his party wins the 2006 elections -- says he supports Mr. Bush because "any weakening of the United States means a de facto threat for the whole world, especially Europe."

Speaking of threats, that dear valedictorian from a Virginian high school who plotted to murder our President, Abu Ali... turns out this was no ordinary high school but one of many Saudi funded (US based) private madrasas-like high schools that teach hatred for Jews and Christians. We don't seem to be hearing much about poor Ali's background, can't a US schooled terrorist get a break?

But we face plenty of threats from people who work around us. Another WSJ article described the growing problem of identity theft often taking place in hospital rooms - often victimizing terminally ill patients. They don't need their money or identity anymore, do they?

Hospital patients are vulnerable in part because they are unlikely to detect anything amiss. Some may never leave the hospital. A team of alleged identity thieves arrested in 2003 in New Jersey were targeting the terminally ill, according to police.

Identity-theft experts recommend that patients and loved ones protest any visible use of Social Security numbers, such as on wristbands or unguarded charts. At the very least, patients may be able to darken a couple of numbers. Patients should refuse to answer aloud any verbal request for those numbers when they might be overheard.

I will follow up with a post on spyware soon - one of the less understood threats that will probably blossom into a real epidemic this year.

People are upset by the changing economy, outsourcing, foreign affairs and even the weather (equated with climate). But it isn't a time to despair as we are going through enormous changes and most of us don't like change. But should we go back to living in the 16th century - embroiled in wars and overcome by diseases such that we expect that many of our children wouldn't survive to adulthood? Our history is that of human resourcefulness and ingenuity striving to provide a better world for our children. The forces of change around us allow us to grow and improve our condition. It's also painful and not without risk. Expect criticism and resistance as some want to turn back the clock (perhaps to a time when we built cars without caring about competition and we could wrap ourselves in our own luxury and keep our eyes tightly closed), but as Tom Barnett likes to advocate - let us build 'a future worth creating'.

Let's stop expecting the government to take care of us. They need to have a limited role in our lives as our founders understood. We don't look back to the days of the founders - we should build on the success that they found in creating this country where the rights of the individual are preeminent. We must remember to be humble and respectful as not everything is as it seems.

Comments

[Adam Shostack]

To be clear, while I think SOX is detrimental to companies, I think the larger damage is societal. The increased risks to executives are out of proportion to the benefits that we get from them, which will make it less likely that people will build good companies. I'll define good companies as those that deliver a service that people are willing to pay for, while having relatively few externalities. Because people are willing to pay for the goods or services, we know the company creates value. So fewer companies being created means less utility in the world.

[Stuart]

@Adam
Help me understand your rationale.
How is society being damaged by SOX?
It seems that the aim and effect of these regulations is to protect the investor (both private like my IRA and proxied through institutions like CalPERS) by forcing more transparency.

Good companies are rewarded by free markets because customers are going to seek what they want for the price they want (a driving motivation with LEAN manufacturing/thinking). CEOs (and all else) that deliver waste are driven out.

How is is that we are getting fewer companies? It seems there is a continuing fount of new small businesses and large corporations are evolving into less centralized/more federated forms. It seems that some examples like Toyota (growing) and Mitsubishi (dying) or Chrysler/Daimler (merging) illustrate benefit for the consumer.