Peter,

It is true you did not say that scanning proves anything, but you did use
FedEx as an example. All FedEx, UPS et al do is scan your parcel at every
point.

Here is an example of what UPS offer:

3:05 P.M.    SYDNEY, AU           IMPORT SCAN  Apr 20, 2005
6:58 A.M.    ONTARIO, CA, US      PKG DELAY-ADD'L SECURITY CHECK BY GOV'T
12:43 A.M.   LOUISVILLE, KY, US   ARRIVAL SCAN Apr 19, 2005
9:38 P.M.    AUSTIN, TX, US       DEPARTURE SCAN
9:19 P.M.    AUSTIN, TX, US       ARRIVAL SCAN
8:57 P.M.    AUSTIN, TX, US       DEPARTURE SCAN
8:27 P.M.    AUSTIN, TX, US       ORIGIN SCAN
6:32 P.M.    US                   BILLING INFORMATION RECEIVED

I am not sure if they actually scan the parcel as they load it on the
plane, but at any point they could scan the parcel and then do something
completely different with it.

But the point is that they don't. I got this parcel because UPS did not
lose it. Scanning played its part in the process but it was followed up
with a commitment to handle the parcel with due care.

Now as for the parcel itself, I did not even check to see if it was
addressed to me before I opened it.

I was expecting a parcel, one came so I opened it.

Had I have been on vacation and received the wrong parcel someone else
still would have signed for it, and it would have sat on my desk until I
returned.

My point here is that the process relies in the end on the contents of the
box, not the box or the address or the barcode of the box.

If the Time/Warner tapes turn up in 2 months time when another customer
finds them amongst their own tapes, what will IM do?

I can't see them putting out a press release saying "Hey look we found them
over at our other customer. Everybody stop looking".

Gerard



On Tue, 3 May 2005 19:14:21 -0400, Peter Kurilecz
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On 5/3/05, Gerard Nicol <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Peter,
>>
>> You can scan all you want it does not necessarily prove anything.
>
>I agree. did I say that scanning proves anything?
>
>> You have to scan against something, and have a process to follow to
quickly
>> correct anomalies.
>
>again I agree. When I cited FedEx/UPS I knew that they scanned against
>something and that they have a process that one can follow. I guess I
>wasn't explicit enough in describing my example
>
>
>> The first step of the process needs to be the vendor knowing what you
give
>> them in the first place.
>
>I am giving them an object they don' t need to know what is in the
>package. the package can be like Russian nesting dolls a package
>within a package.
>
>>
>> Tracking boxes is not the answer because the box won't fit in your tape
>> drive.
>
>sorry but you are tracking boxes because the tapes are in a box. you
>don' t track the tapes until they arrive in the vendor's facility. I
>ASSUME that the shipping container is securely locked and that the
>vendor is not scanning each and every tape in the box UNLESS that is
>part  of the PROCESS.
>
>besides who said anything about putting a box in a tape drive? I sure
didn't.
>
>> Using a commercial data security provider should be viewed as a
partnership
>> rather than simply a service. There are things that you as a customer can
>> do to reduce the chances of tape loss within this partnership.
>
>of course there. And one of those things I as a customer should be
>doing is testing and auditing the vendor's processes to make sure that
>they are doing what they say they are doing. Secondly I don't want the
>vendor to tell me that I should be encrypting my data. Encryption is
>part of a business decision. Is the encryption cost prohibitive? If
>yes then I accept the risk associated with the sending unencrypted
>data. As the BoA woman noted in her testimony before the Senate
>Banking Committee the tapes were pretty useless UNLESS you knew the
>correct order in which to load the tapes and you had the software
>required for that and to read the data.
>
>In the case of Time Warner the tapes were picked up but the were not
>known to be missing until the truck returned to facility 18 stops
>after pick up. I as the customer would want to know the entire minute
>process
>
>>
>> Some things to consider:
>>
>> (1) Give your provider an electronic copy of your inventory.
>
>an inventory of what? the data on the tapes or an inventory of the
>tapes? all the vendor needs to know IMHO is the number of tapes to
>pickup and the associated barcodes.
>
>> (2) If possible organize parking for the driver.
>
>no comment. but does the vendor have two folks on the truck or just
>the driver. Armored cars have 3 folks one remains with the truck at
>all times.
>
>> (3) Make sure the tapes are ready when the driver arrives.
>
>once again no comment, part of the process.
>
>> (4) Process returned tapes as soon as they come back.
>
>by process do you mean verify what you are receiving?
>
>
>Now tell me what the vendor should be doing to regain my trust after
>losing my tapes. Will the vendor reimburse me for having to contact
>all customers that there information has been lost? What part will the
>vendor play in this notification effort?
>
>
>--
>Peter Kurilecz
>Richmond, Va
>
>List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
>Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance