State Unemployment Rates September 2016 shows a mixed picture of the US Job Market
State Unemployment Rates – The September 2016 data shows a mixed picture with five (5) states that have unemployment levels over 6%. In addition 3 of those states have a rate that is higher this September versus September of last year. Those stages are Alaska (6.9% versus 6.6%); Oklahoma (6.7% versus 6.5%); and, Minnesota (6.4% versus 6.0%).
On the plus side – States with the Lowest Unemployment — Full Employment States
Several states have very low unemployment rates. In July there were 13 states that we considered high unemployment states in August that picture has changed and now there are only 12 full employment states.
Of the 12 full employment in September four (4) had higher unemployment rates that the same month last year: Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.
What does all this mean? First, the data shows that the recovery is tepid at best for most of the individual states. Second, the recovery is spotty in most of the rest of the country except for a few bright spots like New York. In New York, the unemployment rate has fallen significantly from the depths of the recession.
Unemployment Levels over 6% in 12 states Unemployment Levels over 6% in 12 states State Unemployment Levels Unemployment Levels by State — The National unemployment data provides a measure of the health...
New York Security Compliance – The State of New York announced a series of new rules strengthening cybersecurity requirements for financial firms. This is the latest in a series of announcement aimed at protecting clients, consumers and financial entities from the “ever-growing threat of cyber-attacks.
The Governor of New York said, “New York, the financial capital of the world, is leading the nation in taking decisive action to protect consumers and our financial system from … state-sponsored organizations, global terrorist networks, and other criminal enterprises.” Even if your firm isn’t directly subject to these new regulations, it’s safe to assume that this approach will be rapidly adopted by similar regulatory bodies domestically and around the world.
The current draft calls for the “encryption of all nonpublic information held or transmitted”, but because they tie it tightly to access control, acceptable usage policy, and data retention. Simple encryption won’t be enough to comply with the New York mandates.
To comply with New York Security Compliance mandates CFOs, CIOs, and CSOs, and firms should:
Implement more dynamic ways to protect data. Enterprises will need to deploy more dynamic forms of data protection that extend beyond their current systems. When the requirement for encryption and data-loss protection spans not just records and managed systems, but anywhere data can travel, traditional means of encryption and monitoring are scale able. Organizations will need to enforce granular limitations on access privileges, implement new audit systems to document data governance, and be able to remotely apply data disposition and destruction rules.
Tie access control and privilege management to identity. In a complex technology ecosystem, it’s no longer feasible to define access and privilege at the system, device, or perimeter. Identity is the one attribute that crosses on-premises, cloud, and un-managed services, and provides a consistent way to set, audit, and control access to confidential information. Ultimately, encryption, access controls, and data-in-use protections must persist independent of the kinds of data protected, where it’s stored, or how it’s shared.
Prioritize solutions to balance simplicity and security. Too often, risk and security teams have simply added new solutions to their portfolio in response to regulations and enforcement. Unfortunately, this has often created a complex, hard-to-navigate forest of tools, hurdles, and collaboration dead-ends for employees. The downside of that is it creates incentives for otherwise well-intentioned people to avoid following policy, increasing the risk of a material breach.
Make audit a primary concern. In the past, the requirement for an audit trail on data access was seen as an add-on. In the worst case, it was an afterthought, something built last as a reaction to risk and compliance needs. But, by thinking differently about this rich trove of data, you can improve your visibility into data use and your ability to identify dangerous behavior in advance. In many cases, you will be able to proactively stop data loss before it happens. With a strategy that protects data directly, by deploying identity-driven access controls and dynamic permissions, you can use the data from each user interaction to build a better picture of where data is traveling, and to whom.
Take a more dynamic approach to data protection. Adhere to mandates and be ready to tell any auditor about your enterprises ability to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of your enterprise’s information.
10 Security Assessment Questions 10 Security Assessment Questions Security Assessment Questions To stop a breach tomorrow, what does the enterprise need to differently today? Does the enterprise know if...
Wearable Device Security Concerns Wearable Device Security Concerns Wearable Device Security – Over 300,000,000 wearable devices are going to be deployed in the next several years Wearable Device Security –...
ISO 31000 Compliance – Risk Management ISO 31000 Compliance – Risk Management Cloud processing and outsourcing add external risks to a business’ operation. The International Standards Organization (ISO) has implemented a...
10 step security implementation 10 step security implementation 10 step security implementation process: Make security an executive directive – The driver for security needs to be at the CEO and...