- 5/31/2017 9:25:44 PM
Wow, thanks for the insight Broadway. Your story does illuminate what I suspected for years. The City of Los Angeles does very little for the residents outside of collecting parking and DMV fees.
We have had Leaders of departments ( the Sherifs Department comes to mind ) that are doing prision time for their decisions. One never gets the feeling that the city government is doing anything constructive and it shows by the daily chaos that is Los Angeles.
Not to do anything to somewhat mitigate the damage a major quake will cause is equivelent to "civil malpractice". The people entrusted to serve the public with respect to this and other issues are being paid very well for doing basically nothing but showing up each day.
Thanks for the information, I will be chewing on this for some time.
Good to see you back on the boards old friend.
- by Broadway0474, Blogger
- 5/30/2017 10:53:26 PM
louis, here's a somewhat unrelated but potentially illuminating story about LA. Years ago, I was a journalist doing a story about how the City of Angels managed its earthquake risk (which it has quite a bit of). For the most part, the city's risk management policy was the "Air Force One" insurance policy, meaning they didn't attempt at all for the most part to finance the risk; they were counting on the feds to swoop in after any big disaster and lavish relief and recover funds. I'm hoping the city's approach has matured since then, but that certainly gives a little insight into the motivations of certain governments.
- by tomsg, Data Doctor
- 5/30/2017 6:58:24 PM
@rbaz @tomsg I couldn't agree more. Management and proactive monitoring are keys to security and even then something can slip through before one has even learned of a new threat.
If companies think they are in the clear regarding security just because they have outsourced it, then they are in for a rude awakening. All they have really done is to spread some liability to their Cloud Provider. And if you don't read the fine print of the agreement even that might be at question.
So in the case of a breech, the company and the cloud provider most probably will still be exposed to a lawsuit.
- 5/30/2017 6:48:26 PM
@rbaz I agree. The infrastructure for the Cloud is not much different from holding data internally, except that it does not reside locally. It is certainly not inherently secure, that surly sounds like marketing gibberish.
- 5/30/2017 6:44:31 PM
@tomsg That is a good question, something I am researching at moment. The cost/benefits of hosting data internally versus outsourcing it. And so far it appears to depend on one's options because if one chooses the wrong vendor than it might cost more than handling your data on your own.
When it comes to security, I tend to believe security is enhanced if you leave it to others, however it depends on their skill set and dilgence as well. If those who manage security are not through then that could have been accomplished without outside assistance.
- 5/30/2017 6:35:55 PM
@Lisa Good point. It just seems like city agencies are extremely bad at sharing information but this "protectionism" is probably no worse than in any other segment of society.
I guess what really bothers me is our tax paying dollars are supporting this kind of behavior on the state government level and we should expect more for our dollars.