Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?

Subject: Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?
From: Robert Fekete <fekete77 -dot- robert -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:30:46 +0200

Thanks a lot for your help and ideas. Unfortunately, we really need a way
to name the type of the authorization, because this is a prominent feature
of the product, and heavily used in marketing communication as well.

@Paul: I absolutely understand your point, no offense taken.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Sweet, Gregory (HEALTH) <
gregory -dot- sweet -at- health -dot- ny -dot- gov> wrote:

> We've required a two person process for some of our systems for years and
> have never heard it referred to as "4-eyes". But do you really need to
> name the type of authorization at all?
>
> Our documents do not. We list the roles necessary to complete a task and
> then describe how each role completes their portion.
>
> E.g., "This survey requires a data reporter and a data reviewer to submit
> data to the department. The data submitter will collect the data and enter
> it into the survey. The data reviewer will review data entered by the
> submitter and submit the data to the department. The data reporter and the
> data reviewer must not be the same person."
>
> It helps that our UI presents appropriate elements to each user type. For
> example in the data reporting example above a reporter will only see a save
> button, while a reviewer/submitter will see a "Submit to DOH" button.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: techwr-l-bounces+gregory -dot- sweet=health -dot- ny -dot- gov -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> > [mailto:techwr-l-bounces+gregory -dot- sweet=health -dot- ny -dot- gov -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com]
> > On Behalf Of Robert Fekete
> > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 4:02 AM
> > To: TECHWR-L
> > Subject: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have a problem with a term in our product documentation (and the UI as
> > well), and I'd like to ask for your collective wisdom.
> >
> > In line with the four-eyes principle, our product can require an
> authorizer to
> > approve (and possibly review) the actions of a user. Currently, this is
> dubbed
> > four-eyes authorization. The problem is that the "4-eyes" term is
> derogatory
> > and should be changed. Possible candidates we found and are commonly
> > used are "dual control" and "two-person rule", but these are not as
> accurate,
> > because in every definition I could find (for example,
> > http://www.theserverside.com/report/Integration-of-User-Control-
> > Mechanisms-into-Secure-Critical-Applications
> > ), they refer to two users who have the same privileges to perform an
> action,
> > but can only do so together. In our setup, this is not the case, one of
> the
> > users is who performs the action, and the other approves that.
> >
> > If any of you works in an IT security or finance-related field, have you
> > encountered a problem with four-eyes before? (And how did you solve it?)
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your ideas in advance.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Robert Fekete
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Learn more about Adobe Technical Communication Suite (2015 Release) |
> > http://bit.ly/1FR7zNW
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as gregory -dot- sweet -at- health -dot- ny -dot- gov -dot-
> >
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> >
> >
> > Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
> > http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources
> > and info.
> >
> > Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our
> online
> > magazine at http://techwhirl.com
> >
> > Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public
> email
> > archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Learn more about Adobe Technical Communication Suite (2015 Release) | http://bit.ly/1FR7zNW

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives


Follow-Ups:

References:
Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?: From: Robert Fekete
RE: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?: From: Sweet, Gregory (HEALTH)

Previous by Author: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?
Next by Author: Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?
Previous by Thread: RE: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?
Next by Thread: Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads