Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?

Subject: Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?
From: John G <john -at- garisons -dot- com>
To: Robert Fekete <fekete77 -dot- robert -at- gmail -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:16:41 -0400

I may be a little late to this thread, but my initial reaction was to call
it "two-minds" agreement. That, to me, doesn't connote any degree of access
or privileges, just that two people agree on a common response or solution
to something.

Maybe the documentation around missile launches would have a term that you
could use ... IIRC it took at least two people working in tandem to launch
an ICBM.

My 2Â,

JG

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 4:02 AM, Robert Fekete <fekete77 -dot- robert -at- gmail -dot- com>
wrote:

> 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 vwritert -at- gmail -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
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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


References:
Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?: From: Robert Fekete

Previous by Author: Re: Acrobat Pro versus Acrobat Standard?
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