A Non-Verbal Response from a Professional Politician

Recommendations

Info

Is the Password Dead? Online Identity Authentication in the Modern Day Password Vault: If passwords are still necessary to use on certain accounts, it is advisable to store these passwords in a secure location. Password vault services such as LastPass, KeePass, and 1Password allow users to store their passwords securely, only requiring a single password to access the database. Oftentimes, these vaults require 2FA to access passwords. Using a password alone as a method for online identity authentication is inadequate in the modern age. Bottom Line: Using a password alone as a method for online identity authentication is inadequate in the modern age. The retail industry must work to adopt new methods for authentication that meet the security standards necessary to ensure the protection of valuable consumer data. 1 Kemp, Tom. "Despite Privacy Concerns, It's Time to Kill the Password." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 18 July 2014. Web. 07 Aug. 2015. 2 Solove, Daniel, and Woodrow Hartzog. "Should the FTC Kill the Password? The Case for Better Authentication." Rep. no. 14 PVLR 1353. Privacy and Security Law Report, 27 July 2015. Web. 7 Aug. 2015. 3 "TeleSign Consumer Account Security Report - TeleSign." TeleSign. N.p., June 2015. Web. 07 Aug. 2015. 4 Cobb, Michael. "Online Authentication Methods: Personal Information Cards and Web SSO." ComputerWeekly. N.p., June 2011. Web. 07 Aug. 2015. For Assistance or questions, feel free to contact: Rhett Asher Director of Business Development CONTROLTEK 95 Dermody Street Cranford, NJ 07016 Phone: 908-603-0885 e-mail: Rhett.Asher@controltekusa.com VIDEO INTERVIEWING TIPS Make sure to check out all of IAI’s Interviewing Tips! This month, Wayne Hoover, CFI reveals the “5 Types of Lies.” Which ones have you heard? Check it Out! Click Here. “When you have exhausted all possibilities, remember this: you haven’t.” Thomas Edison QUOTE OF THE QUARTER CFInsider Q1 - 2016 8
LEGAL ASPECTS Corporate Miranda Warnings- Upjohn v. United States 449 US 383 (1981) Interestingly, there has been a corporate warning for employees interviewed by attorneys investigating incidents within companies since the Upjohn case was decided in 1981. This case largely focuses on the scope of the attorney-client privilege in a business as it determines the facts surrounding alleged misconduct. Upjohn Company manufactures and sells pharmaceuticals in the United States and around the globe. In 1976 independent auditors discovered what may have been illegal payments to government officials in a foreign subsidiary of Upjohn. Upjohn elected to conduct an internal investigation into these payments to determine whether or not they were paid to secure government business and thus were in essence a bribe. As part of the investigation attorneys for the Upjohn Company prepared a questionnaire to be sent to key personnel in the foreign subsidiaries. The questionnaire was accompanied by a letter signed by the chairman of the board that indicated possible illegal payments to foreign officials had been made by subsidiaries of Upjohn. The letter also said that the organization needed full information regarding any such payments to determine the nature and magnitude of them. The questionnaire then went on to seek detailed information about the payments. The employees were also instructed that this was a highly confidential matter not to be discussed outside the company. In addition, Upjohn’s general counsel and outside counsel interviewed the people who filled out the questionnaire and 33 other Upjohn employees. At the conclusion of the in-house investigation Upjohn submitted a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission which disclosed the questionable payments. The Internal Revenue Service was also notified of the investigation and they initiated an independent investigation of the situation. As part of the preliminary information provided Upjohn gave the IRS lists of all the Upjohn employees interviewed and the names of the employees who filled out questionnaires. The IRS issued a summons requiring Upjohn to produce “The record should include but not be limited to written questionnaires sent to managers of the Upjohn company’s foreign affiliates, and memorandums or notes of the interviews conducted in the United States and abroad with officers and employees of the Upjohn Company and its subsidiaries.” Upjohn refused to supply the IRS requested information in this paragraph believing that they were protected <strong>from</strong> disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or where the work product of the organization’s attorneys was done in anticipation of litigation. In internal investigation being investigated by a corporation’s lawyers there is a potential conflict of interest should they attempt to represent both an employee and the Corporation. From this litigation became what is now known as the Upjohn warning. In internal investigation being investigated by a corporation’s lawyers there is a potential conflict of interest should they attempt to represent both an employee and the Corporation. The Upjohn warning is an explanation that the lawyer represents the Corporation and not the individual employee. The implication of this is that the can be somewhat problematic for the employee. Since the privilege is between the company and the attorney any statements made by an employee are not privileged between the attorney and employee. But rather the privilege is controlled by the company and may be released to third parties without the consent of the employee or even his or her knowledge. For example, the company could provide the employee’s statements to law enforcement or regulatory bodies potentially opening the individual to criminal or civil actions. Company lawyers investigating improprieties should document the Upjohn warnings either documenting them in their notes or using a separate sheet listing the warnings that the employee signs. While the exact wording of the Upjohn warnings are not as specific as those detailed in the Miranda decision they should generally include the following. 1. The lawyer represents the company and not you the employee. 2. The company lawyers often gather information by speaking with the organization’s employees. This is done so that the lawyer can provide legal advice to their client; the company. The conversation between the lawyer and employee is protected by attorney client privilege. 3. The attorney-client privilege is between the company and the lawyer, not the employee. The privilege is controlled by the company which may decide to share any information it learns <strong>from</strong> the employee with third parties without the employee’s permission or prior notice. Continued on page 10 CFInsider Q1 - 2016 9
Page 1 and 2: A publication from the Internationa
Page 3 and 4: A Non-Verbal Response from a Profes
Page 5 and 6: Bridging the Generational Gap in Lo
Page 7: CYBER CORNER CYBER CORNER By Rhett
Page 11 and 12: CFInsider Q1 - 2016 11
Page 13 and 14: CFI Spotlight Interview in terms of
Page 15 and 16: Rationalization of the Quarter The
Page 17 and 18: Abstract: New Study On Sleep Depriv
Page 19 and 20: Interviewers, Investigators and Ass
Page 21 and 22: NEW CFIs CFIs RECERTIFIED IAI NEW M
Page 23 and 24: Thank You and We Need You! We thank
Page 25: LETTER FROM THE EDITOR As we reach

A Non-Verbal Response from a Professional Politician

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?