Group items tagged

With identity theft on the upswing, Aram Langhans thought he was simply being prudent when he asked the Yakima Heart Center to remove his Social Security number from its files. "They had my insurance card and my driver's license. What else did they need?" said Langhans, a retired public school teacher insured by Group Health. Langhans said he was initially hooked up to a portable heart monitor that he was to wear for 24 hours, but the disagreement over his Social Security number prompted upper-level personnel to change their minds. He said moments after the device was attached, he was sent to a restroom to remove it and turned away. Shawnie Haas, administrator of the Heart Center, an independent outpatient group practice, declined to discuss the incident. But she said in an e-mail statement that the practice protects patients' privacy. "The Yakima Heart Center is careful to collect data pertinent to ensuring accuracy of our patient's medical record. Routine information collected for all patients includes name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, gender, and other specific information that helps us verify that individual's identity and insurance enrollment or coverage data. We are careful to maintain confidentiality of all patient information in our system." According to state and federal regulators, private insurance companies have moved away from using Social Security numbers for patient identification. But health-care providers in the Yakima Valley say they routinely collect them as "backup" in the event that patients' insurance doesn't pay the claim.

Heartland Payment Systems Inc., which announced a breach of potentially millions of credit and debit cards last month, said it plans to vigorously defend itself against lawsuits filed as a result of the data breach. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Heartland Chairman and CEO Robert Carr acknowledged the claims that cardholders, card issuers, the credit card brands, regulators, and others have asserted, or may assert, against the payment processor as a result of the breach and the impact it could have on the business. Several class action lawsuits have been filed against Heartland, claiming that the payment processor issued belated and inaccurate statements when it announced a security breach of its systems. Carr He said the company could not "reasonably estimate the potential impact of the breach on the day-to-day operations" of the business. "We intend to vigorously defend any such claims and we believe we have meritorious defenses to those claims that have been asserted to date," Carr said. "At this time we do not have information that would enable us to reasonably estimate the amount of losses we might incur in connection with such claims." The Princeton, N.J.-based payment processor announced Jan. 20 that its systems were breached last year when intruders installed malware to pilfer data crossing the company's network. Since then, Sherriff's authorities in Tallahassee, Fla. arrested three suspects for using stolen credit card numbers to make purchases at local Wal-Mart stores. The credit card numbers used by the trio were allegedly stolen from the Heartland processing center in New Jersey. Carr said the company's sales force was doing well despite the obvious challenges caused by the combination of the downturn in the economy and the data security breach. The payment processor's current customer base has responded positively, he said. "In the weeks since our announcement of the breach, we have installed more margin, and have a bit

With the nation's strictest data security law set to take effect Jan. 1 in Massachusetts, mobile phone merchant Dennis Kelly plans to parlay the regulations into a competitive advantage. Kelly will display signs at each point-of-sale device inside 28 Wireless City shops, of which he is co-owner, stating that the company complies with the state's new mandate and that protecting customers' personal information is a company-wide priority. He says that as his business has grown in a few short years, adhering to the new requirements - namely, establishing an official information security policy and deploying more stringent access control solutions - was necessary, regardless of the impending legal obligation. And now he wants to show that investment off. "We can set ourselves apart from competitors by communicating that we take this stuff seriously," he says. "I think we will be somewhat unique in that regard." Kelly's take on the regulations - the first time any state has issued such a comprehensive and prescriptive list of measures that must be taken to protect data - appears to be in direct contrast to most other business owners across the Bay State.

www.killdo.de.gg Most quality online stores. Know whether you are a trusted online retailer in the world. Whatever we can buy very good quality. and do not hesitate. Everything is very high quality. Including clothes, accessories, bags, cups. Highly recommended. This is one of the trusted online store in the world. View now www.retrostyler.com

The Federal Trade Commission today approved a final consent order settling claims that CVS Caremark violated customers' privacy and the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) when it failed to dispose of records properly last year. Earlier this year, CVS Caremark agreed to settle FTC charges that it failed to take reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect the sensitive financial and medical information of its customers and employees, in violation of federal law. In a separate but related agreement, the company's pharmacy chain also has agreed to pay $2.25 million to resolve Department of Health and Human Services allegations that it violated HIPAA regulations. "This is a case that will restore appropriate privacy protections to tens of millions of people across the country," said FTC chairman William Kovacic following the settlement. "It also sends a strong message to other organizations that possess consumers' protected personal information. They are required to secure consumers' private information." Under the final consent order, CVS Caremark is required to rebuild its security and confidentiality program, which will be audited every two years for the next 20 years. The HHS settlement requires the company to develop a new training program to instruct employees on how to handle patient data.

IT practices such as identity management, email and URL filtering, virus scanning and electronic monitoring of employees can get companies that do business globally into a heap of trouble if deployed without an understanding of global data privacy laws. The warning was one of several alarms raised in a presentation on global privacy best practices by Gartner Inc. analysts Arabella Hallawell and Carsten Casper at the recent Gartner Risk Management and Compliance Summit in Chicago. Always a thorny issue, the protection of personally identifiable information (PII) is made more complicated in a world where there is limited agreement on how best to do that. According to the Gartner analysts, the world is divided into three parts when it comes to data privacy laws: countries with strong, moderate or inadequate legislation. The European Union, under the European Union Directive on Data Protection, possesses the strongest privacy regulations, followed by Canada and Argentina; Australia, Japan and South Africa have moderate to strong, recent legislation; laws in China, India and the Philippines are the least effective or laxly enforced. The United States has the dubious distinction of occupying two categories -- the strong column, due to the 45 state breach notification laws on the books, and the weak column, because of the lack of a federal law. Even among the three categories, nuances abound. Under the European Union Directive, member countries enact their own principles into legislation, and some laws (like Italy's) are more stringent than the directive's standards. Russia's very recent law is modeled after the strong EU laws, but how it will be enforced remains questionable. And in the U.S., state breach notification laws vary, with Nevada and Massachusetts proposing the most prescriptive data privacy legislation to date.

State and federal lawmakers continue to introduce bills regulating the collection, use and security of consumer and personal information. The proposed federal bills could change the national privacy framework. At the same time, regulators and the plaintiffs' bar remain focused on privacy and security issues and continue to initiate enforcement actions and class action suits. This program will address these developments and provide tips for managing privacy concerns in an era of fast-changing privacy laws.

Legal woes may be next for Heartland Payment Systems, a payment processor that reported a major security breach this week. Depending on the results of the ongoing investigation, Heartland is likely to face the threat of litigation from issuing banks, merchants and consumers, says Scott Vernick, an attorney with Fox Rothschild LLP in Philadelphia, who specializes in data theft cases. "The businesses that use Heartland as a credit card processor, as well as thousands of consumers, will be anxiously watching for any negative impact, including harm to their business reputations, and the real possibility of identity theft or fraud," says Vernick. The fact that Heartland's systems were certified as being fully in compliance with data handling rules, called the PCI standards, raises questions about the efficacy of such standards. Hannaford Brothers grocery chain was likewise fully PCI compliant when it had 300 stores hacked and 4.3 million record swiped..... "This latest incident shows how, despite companies being compliant with regulations such as PCI, they are still a long way from being secure," says Mike Rothman, senior vice president of strategy at elQnetworks.

"Computer scientists have recently undermined our faith in the privacy-protecting power of anonymization, the name for techniques that protect the privacy of individuals in large databases by deleting information like names and social security numbers. These scientists have demonstrated that they can often "reidentify" or "deanonymize" individuals hidden in anonymized data with astonishing ease. By understanding this research, we realize we have made a mistake, labored beneath a fundamental misunderstanding, which has assured us much less privacy than we have assumed. This mistake pervades nearly every information privacy law, regulation, and debate, yet regulators and legal scholars have paid it scant attention. We must respond to the surprising failure of anonymization, and this Article provides the tools to do so."

Assumption of privacy through anonymization of data is called into question by deanonymization techniques. The work is not new but its implications have gone under-realized. In a country struggling to understand how to even define privacy, will anyone listen?

Beyond PCI: Other Regulations to Look For in 2009 Just a few days ago, the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the National Credit Union Administration announced the enactment of comprehensive new rules regarding card practices. These rules, which will not take effect until July 1, 2010, impose restrictions on a number of controversial issuer practices, including interest rate increases, late fees and double-cycle billing. Many industry observers predict that the rules will result in less credit being made available, and on stricter terms, than has been the case over the last several years. These rules may not be the end of the matter. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), who in 2008 introduced the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008 (which sought to regulate many of the same practices as the then-proposed Fed rules), stated that she was disappointed in the delayed effectiveness of the Fed rules and promised to revive the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights in 2009 to, as she put it, "bridge the gap" between now and the effective date of the Fed rules.

A National Security Agency eavesdropping program exceeded legal limits intended to safeguard privacy, and officials have taken steps to bring the intercepts program into compliance, the Justice Department said Wednesday. The department, in a statement, said problems with the NSA program were uncovered as the Justice Department and National Security Agency were conducting routine oversight of intelligence activities to ensure compliance with laws and court orders. Attorney General Eric Holder has sought court approval to renew the NSA program after instituting new safeguards. The House intelligence committee was informed of the compliance issues and is conducting an inquiry, a House congressional official said. The New York Times on Wednesday reported on its Web site that the program intercepted private email messages and phone calls of Americans. However, intelligence officials have described the program as primarily searching for information based on data about communications, such as email addresses, subject headers and the time a message or phone call was placed. The Justice Department said officials notified the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of the problems with the NSA program and took "comprehensive steps" to correct the matter. "The Justice Department takes its national security oversight responsibilities seriously and works diligently to ensure that surveillance under established legal authorities complies with the nation's laws, regulations and policies, including those designed to protect privacy interests and civil liberties," the department said.

Like this http://www.hdfilmsaati.net Film,dvd,download,free download,product... ppc,adword,adsense,amazon,clickbank,osell,bookmark,dofollow,edu,gov,ads,linkwell,traffic,scor,serp,goggle,bing,yahoo.ads,ads network,ads goggle,bing,quality links,link best,ptr,cpa,bpa. www.killdo.de.gg

Federal regulators slapped hundreds of small telecommunications providers for not abiding by new rules designed to protect consumer phone records, proposing more than $13 million in total fines. The Federal Communications Commission proposed $20,000 fines on more than 650 small phone, pager and wireless providers Tuesday, accusing them of not filing paperwork that certifies they have put protections in place to protect customer phone data. "I have long stressed the importance of protecting the sensitive information that telecommunications carriers collect about their customers," said Michael Copps, the FCC's interim chairman, in a statement. "The broad nature of this enforcement action hopefully will ensure substantial compliance with our [privacy] rules going forward as the Commission continues to make consumer privacy protection a top priority." In April 2007, the FCC tightened privacy requirements on phone companies in response to consumer complaints about data brokers selling phone records they had obtained illegally through "pretexting," or getting information under false circumstances. The agency required telecom companies to increase security of phone records, requiring customers to provide a password before receiving account information over the phone or online. Phone companies are required to notify customers when changes are made to their accounts or if their information has been improperly accessed. Companies are required to file annual certifications that they have complied with those requirements. The FCC said hundreds of small companies didn't provide the information in 2008, although it noted it was the first year the agency had required the paperwork. The agency warned that future noncompliance could face "more severe penalties."

A top affliction of privacy professionals is the growing complexity of privacy laws. The number of jurisdictions regulating data privacy and the number of other laws in which privacy provisions are tucked has increased with no letup since 2000. Like the Lilliputians in Gulliver's Travels, the tiniest jurisdictions are now lassoing their privacy ropes around the mightiest of corporations. Where does this leave those who are charged with keeping their organizations privacy-compliant? Desperately looking for a way to organize news about all of these developments. I recently surveyed the landscape of possible solutions to this problem. What did I find? Three different approaches: free Web sites, newsletters and news feeds; fee-based periodicals; and fee-based databases, such as Nymity's PrivaWorks, Cecile Park Publishing's DataGuidance and law firm Morrison and Foerster LLP's Summit Privacy. What were the pros and cons of each approach? Free sources Privacy leaders with no budget will want to exploit what's free, including these options: * Morrison & Foerster's Privacy Library, probably the most comprehensive and current free online listing of privacy laws in 95 countries. * Law firm Baker & McKenzie's annual Global Privacy Handbook, which is distributed to clients and friends. * Computerworld's own Security Newsletter, which offers a regular look at news about the technical threats to personal data. * The International Association of Privacy Professionals' Daily Dashboard, Canada Dashboard Digest and monthly Inside 1to1: Privacy. These are the best available free news feeds on privacy.

There is pervasive fear of identity theft. Victims spend an extraordinary amount of time and money recovering from it. The government is doing something about it, but businesses may not be pleased to hear that the government's latest action is another unfunded mandate. New rules concerning identity theft prevention at financial companies go into effect on Friday May 1, 2009, but for most organizations, complying with the FTC's Red Flags Rule could be as simple as writing down rules and procedures already in place and having them certified by the Board. The rules are about procedures, not about data security, said Tiffany George, attorney for the division of privacy and identity protection at the FTC. She spoke on Tuesday at the FTC's workshop for businesses held on the campus of Fordham University in New York City. "The Red Flags Rule covers what to do when, despite our best efforts, thieves steal data," she said. As new regulations go, the FTC's Red Flags Rule will be less painful than many other recently enacted rules. For example, while Sarbanes-Oxley is considered a burden to many public companies, requiring several full-time staff, the Red Flags Rule can likely be handled by legal or compliance staff already in place.

Big Brother may be at it again. Behavioral advertising - the tracking of consumer's Internet surfing activity to create tailored ads - has triggered an intense legal controversy that has law firms scrambling to stay on top of a burgeoning practice. Attorneys say that behavioral advertising is raising privacy, litigation and regulation fears among consumer advocates, the electronic commerce and advertising industries and legislators. Law firms are busy helping companies come up with a transparent way of letting consumers know that their online activities are being tracked and possibly shared. "Lawmakers and companies are having a tough time keeping up with this new frontier of Internet privacy issues, and there is growing consumer unrest about behavioral advertising, leading in some cases to consumer rebellion," said Lisa Sotto, a partner and head of the privacy and security data group in the New York office of Richmond, Va.-based Hunton & Williams. "Consumers find this type of tracking intrusive, and businesses are starting to take the consumer reaction seriously," she said. The buzz over behavioral advertising has been building since congressional hearings that were held last year, during which Congress called on Internet service providers (ISPs) to testify about a highly controversial advertising practice known as "deep-packet inspection." The practice gives companies the ability to track every Web site consumers visit and provides a detailed look at everything they're doing, such as where they're going on vacation, who is going, how much they spent on the trip and what credit card was used. But then came the first class action targeting behavioral advertising, filed against Foster City, Calif.-based NebuAd Inc., an online advertising company accused of spying on consumers from several states and allegedly violating their privacy and computer security rights. The lawsuit specifically alleges that NebuAd engaged in deep-packet inspection. Valentine v. Ne

Big Brother may be at it again. Behavioral advertising -- the tracking of consumer's Internet surfing activity to create tailored ads -- has triggered an intense legal controversy that has law firms scrambling to stay on top of a burgeoning practice. Attorneys say that behavioral advertising is raising privacy, litigation and regulation fears among consumer advocates, the electronic commerce and advertising industries and legislators. Law firms are busy helping companies come up with a transparent way of letting consumers know that their online activities are being tracked and possibly shared. "Lawmakers and companies are having a tough time keeping up with this new frontier of Internet privacy issues, and there is growing consumer unrest about behavioral advertising, leading in some cases to consumer rebellion," said Lisa Sotto, a partner and head of the privacy and security data group in the New York office of Richmond, Va.-based Hunton & Williams. "Consumers find this type of tracking intrusive, and businesses are starting to take the consumer reaction seriously," she said. The buzz over behavioral advertising has been building since congressional hearings that were held last year, during which Congress called on Internet service providers (ISPs) to testify about a highly controversial advertising practice known as "deep-packet inspection." The practice gives companies the ability to track every Web site consumers visit and provides a detailed look at everything they're doing, such as where they're going on vacation, who is going, how much they spent on the trip and what credit card was used. But then came the first class action targeting behavioral advertising, filed against Foster City, Calif.-based NebuAd Inc., an online advertising company accused of spying on consumers from several states and allegedly violating their privacy and computer security rights. The lawsuit specifically alleges that NebuAd engaged in deep-packet inspection. Valentine v. Ne

The United States' 35-year-old federal privacy law and related policies should be updated to reflect the realities of modern technologies and information systems, and account for more advanced threats to privacy and security, according to a report sent today to OMB Director Orszag. In its 40-page paper, the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board calls for Congress to amend the 1974 Privacy Act and provisions of the 2002 E-Government Act to improve federal privacy notices; clearly cover commercial data sources; and update the definition of "system of records" to encompass relational and distributed systems based on government use of records, not just its possession of them. The panel included technology experts from industry and academia. The panel wants heightened government leadership on privacy and suggests the hiring of a full-time chief privacy officer at OMB and regular Privacy Act guidance updates from the office. Chief privacy officers should be hired at major agencies and a chief privacy officers' council should be created, much like the Chief Information Officers' Council that is chaired by OMB's e-government and IT administrator.

The PCI DSS standard was released back in December 2004 and was quickly hailed as one of the most important private-industry data security standards ever developed. Over the past few years, however, amid a steady stream of news about breaches and thefts, the PCI DSS standards has been roundly criticized. At a congressional hearing this month, one congresswoman said, "I do want to dispel the myth once and for all that PCI compliance is enough to keep a company secure." Many would agree. A case in point noted by Network World: The breach at Hannaford Brothers, where hackers installed malware on the grocery store chain's internal servers to seize card numbers as they were swiped by customers. Hannaford was certified a PCI DSS-compliant company as the scam was in progress. Heartland Payment Systems, before its scam broke in the news, was also certified compliant by Visa. Visa defends the standard as a way to minimize theft if properly implemented, and you certainly can't blame PCI DSS entirely for recent thefts. For all we know, there would have been many more if not for the standard. Still, the general view is that the PCI DSS standard has become overly complex and has done little thus far to stop fraud, as fraud artists get sophisticated technologically.

A few weeks ago, I was very relieved to find out I had passed the IAPP exam to be a "Certified Information Privacy Professional" or CIPP. I got this certificate and even a pin, which is more than I ever got for passing the bar exams of New York and California. So what exactly did I need to know to become a CIPP? To be certified in corporate privacy law, you're expected to know what's covered in the CIPP Body of Knowledge, primarily major U.S. privacy laws and regulations and "the legal requirements for the responsible transfer of sensitive personal data to/from the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions." You're also expected to pass the Certification Foundation, required for all three certifications offered by IAPP. That covers basic privacy law, both in the U.S. and abroad, information security principles and practices, and "online privacy," which includes an overview of the technologies used by online companies to collect information and the particular issues to be considered in this context. So what do you think? Should you be able to pass an all-objective, 180 question, three-hour exam (counting the CIPP and Certification Foundation exams together) on the above topics and be able to call yourself a "privacy professional"?