Group items tagged

hass associates review articles Think the Internet Leads to Growth? Think Again Remember the year 2000 in the months after the Y2K bug had been crushed, when all appeared smooth sailing in the global economy? When the miracle of finding information online was so novel that The Onion ran an article, "Area Man Consults Internet Whenever Possible?" It was a time of confident predictions of an ongoing economic and political renaissance powered by information technology. Jack Welch-then the lauded chief executive officer of General Electric (GE)-had suggested the Internet was "the single most important event in the U.S. economy since the Industrial Revolution." The Group of Eight highly industrialized nations-at that point still relevant-met in Okinawa in 2000 and declared, "IT is fast becoming a vital engine of growth for the world economy. … Enormous opportunities are there to be seized by us all." In a 2000 report, then-President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers suggested (PDF), "Many economists now posit that we are entering a new, digital economy that could inaugurate an unprecedented period of sustainable, rapid growth." It hasn't quite worked out that way. Indeed, if the last 10 years have demonstrated anything, it's that for all the impact of a technology like the Internet, thinking that any new innovation will set us on a course of high growth is almost certainly wrong. That's in part because many of the studies purporting to show a relationship between the Internet and economic growth relied on shoddy data and dubious assumptions. In 1999 the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland released a study that concluded (PDF), "… the fraction of a country's population that has access to the Internet is, at least, correlated with factors that help to explain average growth performance." It did so by demonstrating a positive relationship between the number of Internet users in a country in 1999 with gross domestic product g

The House of Representatives go for the second round of Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act as it passed legislation on Thursday. The newly granted powers are intended to stop computer security threats against a company's rights and property. But the definitions are broad and vague. The terms allow purposes such as guarding against "improper" information modification and ensuring "timely" access to information, functions that are not necessarily tied to attacks. Once handed over, the government is able to use this information for investigating crimes that are unrelated to the underlying security threat and, more broadly, for "national security" purposes, which is a poorly defined term that includes "threats to the United States, its people, property, or interests" and "any other matter bearing on United States national or homeland security." The bill's vague definitions like "cybersecurity purpose" and "cybersecurity system" also raise the frightening possibility of a company using aggressive countermeasures. If a company wants to combat a threat, it is empowered to use "cybersecurity systems" to identify and obtain "cyber threat information." But the bill does not define exactly how far a company can go, leaving it open to the possibility of abuse. The bill drew support from House Democrats, passing on a bipartisan vote of 288-127, although the White House repeated its veto threat on Tuesday if further civil liberties protections are not added. Some lawmakers and privacy activists worry that the legislation would allow the government to monitor citizens' private information and companies to misuse it. U.S. authorities have recently elevated the exposure to Internet hacks and theft of digital data to the list of top threats to national security and the economy. Though thousands of companies have long been losing data to hackers in China and elsewhere, the number of parties publicly admitting such loss has been

http://hassassociates-online.com/articles/2013/04/23/house-passes-cybersecurity-bill-as-privacy-concerns-linger/ The House of Representatives go for the second round of Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act as it passed legislation on Thursday. The newly granted powers are intended to stop computer security threats against a company's rights and property. But the definitions are broad and vague. The terms allow purposes such as guarding against "improper" information modification and ensuring "timely" access to information, functions that are not necessarily tied to attacks. Once handed over, the government is able to use this information for investigating crimes that are unrelated to the underlying security threat and, more broadly, for "national security" purposes, which is a poorly defined term that includes "threats to the United States, its people, property, or interests" and "any other matter bearing on United States national or homeland security." The bill's vague definitions like "cybersecurity purpose" and "cybersecurity system" also raise the frightening possibility of a company using aggressive countermeasures. If a company wants to combat a threat, it is empowered to use "cybersecurity systems" to identify and obtain "cyber threat information." But the bill does not define exactly how far a company can go, leaving it open to the possibility of abuse. The bill drew support from House Democrats, passing on a bipartisan vote of 288-127, although the White House repeated its veto threat on Tuesday if further civil liberties protections are not added. Some lawmakers and privacy activists worry that the legislation would allow the government to monitor citizens' private information and companies to misuse it. U.S. authorities have recently elevated the exposure to Internet hacks and theft of digital data to the list of top threats to national security and the economy. Though thousands of companies have

(EurActiv) - Insurers are eagerly eyeing exponential growth in the tiny cyber coverage market. But their lack of experience and skills handling hackers and data breaches may keep their ambitions in check. High profile cases of hackers seizing sensitive customer data from companies, such as US retailer Target Corp or e-commerce company eBay Inc, have executives checking their insurance policies. Increasingly, corporate risk managers are seeing insurance against cyber crime as necessary budget spending rather than just nice to have. The insurance brokerage arm of Marsh & McLennan Companies estimates that the US cyber insurance market was worth $1 billion (€0.73bn) last year in gross written premiums, and could reach as much as $2 billion (€1.4bn) this year. The European market is currently a fraction of that, at around $150 million (€110mn), but is growing by 50 to 100% annually, according to Marsh. Those numbers represent a sliver of the overall insurance market, which is growing at a far more sluggish rate. Premiums are set to grow only 2.8% this year in inflation-adjusted terms, according to Munich Re, the world's biggest reinsurer.