# Jane Frankland

Jane Frankland works in cybersecurity, speaking and writing about security leadership, risk, access governance and AI accountability. Their work also includes mentoring and creating opportunities for people entering the industry.

- Profile: https://b2binfluencer.marketing/creators/jane-frankland/
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/janefrankland
- LinkedIn followers: 56,469
- YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_iaBihl3WTYb4BhM5mkbgQ
- Topics: artificial-intelligence, leadership, cybersecurity
- Based on 12 dated posts, latest 2026-10-07

## Summary

Jane Frankland is most useful for executive-level cybersecurity keynote or moderated session on leadership, access governance and AI accountability.

- Best for: Security, identity-governance or GRC vendors targeting CISOs and security leaders.
- Not for: Developer-tooling vendors needing hands-on technical tutorials, code walkthroughs or demo sign-up campaigns.
- Check first: Ask for recent LinkedIn results and audience demographics, plus Instagram figures if used.

### Takeaways

- When an AI agent acts, someone still has to answer for it.
- The right access becomes the wrong access as organisations change.
- Periodic assurance is a poor match for systems that never stand still.

## Main ideas

- **When an AI agent acts, someone still has to answer for it**: Frankland argues that as AI agents gain permission to act at a speed people cannot realistically inspect decision by decision, received ideas about control, authority and accountability have to change with them. The question is put plainly: when an agent acts, who answers for it? The argument is made in a panel setting rather than as a solo claim. Frankland's co-panellists were Ejona Preci, Group CISO at LINDAL Group, and Daniel Maier-Johnson, CISO at Kuehne+Nagel International AG; their contributions belong to the panel, not to Frankland alone.
- **The right access becomes the wrong access as organisations change**: Access drifts into the wrong place through a series of ordinary decisions: someone changes roles, a team reorganises, a contractor stays longer than expected, or temporary access becomes permanent. Each decision seemed reasonable at the time. Frankland sets out the tension: too much access creates risk, but too much friction stops people doing their jobs. The practical test is whether governance is actually working.
- **Periodic assurance is a poor match for systems that never stand still**: Evidence that controls are working is usually gathered at intervals, while systems, suppliers, people, roles, access and AI permissions keep changing. Frankland argues that this gap opens up risk and calls for a more continuous, real-time view of controls and risk. Pravinder A., Security GRC Manager (VP) at Crown Agents Bank, described compliance as visibility: what you can see now that you could not see before, what you can evidence, and how to scale assurance and third-party oversight without simply adding people. The post carries an advertising label and appears in a paid-partnership format.
- **Talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not**: Access to the right room, people and experience at the right moment can change careers more than any judgement of ability. Frankland challenges the reasons people give for ruling themselves out — too old, too established in another career, the wrong background, started too late — and argues that careers are not always linear, and one question can restart them.
- **The value of an industry event is the conversations, not the stage**: Frankland argues the best events give something difficult to replicate behind a screen: new thinking, new relationships, and conversations that change how you look at a problem. In the recap of the Gartner summit, the described value was talking to CISOs about what they are wrestling with inside their organisations and to vendors about what they see across customers, plus closed-door roundtables where peers compare notes. Keynotes and analyst sessions were attended where possible and replays were relied on for the rest, so the preference for conversation is stated as a preference, not a dismissal of stage content. The same post invites early registration for next year, showing that events are both attended and promoted in this work.

## Work to read

- [Notes from the Gartner Security & Risk Management Summit, including a panel on accountability in the agentic AI era](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/janefrankland_i-came-away-from-gartner-last-week-with-pages-activity-7511092818057023490-VhF7)
- [A sponsored conversation with Vanta on point-in-time versus continuous assurance](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/janefrankland_ad-activity-7509286800935374848-oLEE)
- [What happened after an IN Security scholarship: Isabel Höhn](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/janefrankland_hey-you-stop-scrolling-heres-a-piece-of-activity-7511817421960167424-ctHV)
- [Nine years on from a Twitter exchange: Alisha Chambers](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/janefrankland_stop-scrolling-heres-some-good-news-for-activity-7512904510999121922-uGVT)
- [Access governance as a business issue: Okta webinar promotion](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/janefrankland_ad-activity-7511322602271977472-KPWQ)

## Brand relationships

- **Vanta** (sponsor)
- **Okta** (sponsor)
- **IN Security Movement** (owned_business)
- **Gartner** (mention)

## Partnerships

Frankland's posts show them taking on disclosed advertising work with cybersecurity vendors, mostly through sponsored LinkedIn posts promoting a vendor's product, webinar or event, often with Frankland's own written framing of the problem the vendor addresses. The clearest examples are posts marked #ad for Okta (an October 29 access governance webinar with Graham Cluley and Jen Vaccaro McParland) and Vanta (a three-day Gartner presence, an interview with a Vanta representative, a customer session, and an upcoming webinar with Jill Henriques). Both posts carry registration details and product-specific talking points, presenting the commercial material as an event invitation rather than a review. The other three posts (IN Security scholarship follow-ups and a Gartner Summit reflection) carry no advertising disclosure and read as Frankland's own commentary, suggesting the disclosed vendor work sits alongside their independent writing. These posts do not provide a sponsorship policy, rate card, audience specification or public partnership inquiry route; ask the creator for booking details and audience information.

## Alternatives

- Jacob Riff: This is the better choice when the vendor’s buyer is a startup founder or engineering lead preparing for a first SOC 2 audit, and the session needs to be a practical walkthrough rather than a leadership argument. Riff covers the process in actionable detail: roughly twenty policies, about 100 to 150 controls, an evidence routine such as photographing locked doors every two weeks, a penetration test, the difference between a Type I single-day report and a Type II three-to-six-month observation period, and the lead time before any attestation exists. The posts also name the hard objection directly — someone said what Riff’s company does is a complete waste of money, and the response concedes the point before answering it — a workable structure for a sponsored post in a contested category. For vendors selling compliance automation or evidence collection to teams without a security function, that procedural detail is closer to the buyer’s real question than an executive keynote.
- Michelle Edmondson: This is the better choice when the campaign should reach boards and security leaders on how security leaders are chosen and assessed, rather than how controls are operated. The posts focus on the hiring decision: executive search fits a specific mandate rather than ranking who is best; an outstanding CISO may be met and deliberately not put forward because the client needs something else; and an interview process can end up selecting the best interviewer rather than the best CIO. They also offer practical remedies: agree on assessment criteria before interviewing, write a rubric, and ask for evidence of decisions made when something went wrong and how resistance was handled. For a vendor whose message concerns a CISO’s standing with the board, or an event for leaders weighing their next move, this is a closer fit than an operational governance keynote.
- Steve Hunt: This is the better choice when the session needs to change how an individual security leader behaves in the executive room, and the vendor wants the audience to complete a diagnostic rather than listen to a talk. Jane Frankland’s posts depict the problem in concrete scenes — a CISO who commands fifty security professionals then waits for the fifth agenda item and three minutes — and attribute it to a credibility gap rather than a knowledge gap, after thirty years of watching budget and influence go elsewhere. They then offer a structured exercise: take a leadership snapshot, map the two or three people who can say yes, and view the approval pipeline from those people’s positions. For a vendor running a workshop on influence, budget and board communication for security leaders, that framing is closer to their needs than event-recap and panel-format material.

---
AI-assisted summary of public posts. Audience demographics are not available. Engagement appears only where we checked recent posts. Method: https://b2binfluencer.marketing/methodology/