Utah RFP / Data Breach Question...
- Thread starter akah2o
- Start date
LAST EDITED ON Feb-29-16 AT 11:51AM (MST)[p]When you talk about a data breach, how about the fact that RMEF has well over 200,000 members with most probably renewing their membership by credit card each year, as compared to the teenie weenie SFW operation. That one where SFW got a huge score over RMEF in the RFP bidding was an absolute farce that topped this entire debacle!
llamapacker
Moderator
- Messages
- 1,071
A better comparison relates to how they would handle the tag sale / transactions at the Expo.
RMEF proposed to use the same organization out of Fallon, NV, that the state uses for their tag draws each year. In other words, they proposed to use the state's current vendor.
SFW uses Grey Sky Consulting, a one man operation out of Bountiful, Utah. This is the same person they have used to conduct the draw at previous expos, and I have no particular concern with this individual. (I have met him, seems like a nice enough guy for a computer geek.) However, this is a one man show operating out of his house. It is not his main business, and with only one person involved, security and impartiality can easily be questioned. How this operation could score higher than the DWR's own license contractor speaks volumes.
Either this was part of the "fix" in the RFP process, or we should all be very worried about data security when we purchase our regular tags from the DWR.
Bill
RMEF proposed to use the same organization out of Fallon, NV, that the state uses for their tag draws each year. In other words, they proposed to use the state's current vendor.
SFW uses Grey Sky Consulting, a one man operation out of Bountiful, Utah. This is the same person they have used to conduct the draw at previous expos, and I have no particular concern with this individual. (I have met him, seems like a nice enough guy for a computer geek.) However, this is a one man show operating out of his house. It is not his main business, and with only one person involved, security and impartiality can easily be questioned. How this operation could score higher than the DWR's own license contractor speaks volumes.
Either this was part of the "fix" in the RFP process, or we should all be very worried about data security when we purchase our regular tags from the DWR.
Bill
llamapacker
Moderator
- Messages
- 1,071
One more point.
While SFW / Grey Sky Consulting did specify with some detail what steps they would take to secure these transactions, the contract does not REQUIRE or VERIFY that they actually DO take these steps. In other words, just promises, with no mechanism to confirm those steps are taken.
Kind of like the rest of the SFW proposal. "Trust us, we will use the money for conservation".
Without an audit and full disclosure, it is nothing more than words.
At least with the state's own contractor, you have some assurance they will follow the same protocols already approved and put in place by the state. (For better or worse.)
Bill
While SFW / Grey Sky Consulting did specify with some detail what steps they would take to secure these transactions, the contract does not REQUIRE or VERIFY that they actually DO take these steps. In other words, just promises, with no mechanism to confirm those steps are taken.
Kind of like the rest of the SFW proposal. "Trust us, we will use the money for conservation".
Without an audit and full disclosure, it is nothing more than words.
At least with the state's own contractor, you have some assurance they will follow the same protocols already approved and put in place by the state. (For better or worse.)
Bill
desertpointbrian
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,347
Thanks for the info wow that is unbelievable. Just some more proof this whole thing is dirty
Thanks Bill! With that explanation of a one man show doing the drawing operation it would be much easier to set something up so a Heather Farr could draw a tag. Very interesting and just another question as to whether the draw itself is even totally on the up and up!
