Group items tagged

A South Korean court acquitted a blogger on Monday of spreading false information, in a case that triggered debate about freedom of speech in cyberspace and critics said was only launched because his economic doom postings angered authorities. Defendant Park Dae-sung, who went by the pseudonym "Minerva" after the Greek goddess of wisdom became a household name last year for his predictions of sharp falls in the won and the local stock market and the collapse of U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers. "He's been found not guilty," a court official said by telephone. The court threw out charges that he purposely harmed market sentiment by posting false information on his blog. Prosecutors said a posting Park made in December led to volatility in the local currency and caused financial authorities to inject billions of dollars to stabilize the Korean won. "Even if there was recognition that it was false information, he cannot be seen as having acted on purpose to harm public interest considering the situation at the time including the special nature of the foreign exchange market," the court said. As the markets tumbled last year, the main financial regulator warned it would crack down on what it considered malicious rumors. Some economic analysts said they had come under pressure from authorities not to voice negative views on the economy.

Late last month, the House passed an economic recovery package containing $20 billion for health information technology, which would require the Department of Health and Human Services to develop standards by 2010 for a nationwide system to exchange health data electronically. The version of the recovery package passed by the Senate yesterday contains slightly less funding for health information technology ("health IT"). But as Congress moves to reconcile the two stimulus packages, conservatives have begun attacking the health IT provisions, falsely claiming that they would lead to the government "telling the doctors what they can't and cannot treat, and on whom they can and cannot treat." The conservative misinformation campaign began on Monday with a Bloomberg "commentary" by Hudson Institute fellow Betsy McCaughey, which claimed that the legislation will have the government "monitor treatments" in order to "'guide' your doctor's decisions." McCaughey's imaginative misreading was quickly trumpeted by Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report, eventually ending up on Fox News, where McCaughey's opinion column was described as "a report." In one of the many Fox segments focused on the column, hosts Megyn Kelly and Bill Hemmer blindsided Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Jon Tester (D-MT) with McCaughey's false interpretation, causing them to promise that they would "get this provision clarified." On his radio show yesterday, Limbaugh credited himself for injecting the false story into the stimulus debate, saying that he "detailed it and now it's all over mainstream media."

In May 2008, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) awarded an approximately $450,000 contract to Booz Allen Hamilton to assess and evaluate the scope of the medical identity theft problem in the U.S. Medical Identity Theft Medical identity theft is a specific type of identity theft which occurs when a person uses someone else's personal health identifiable information, such as insurance information, Social Security Number, health care file, or medical records, without the individual's knowledge or consent to obtain medical goods or services, or to submit false claims for medical services. There is limited information available about the scope, depth, and breadth of medical identity theft. Dr. Robert Kolodner, National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, has noted that medical identity theft stories are being documented at an increasing rate, bringing to light serious financial, fraud, and patient care issues. ONC recognizes that health IT is an important tool to combat the threat of medical identity theft. We are seeking input from the public and other government agencies to better understand how health IT can be utilized to prevent and detect medical identity theft as well as build consumer trust in electronic health information exchange. ONC believes it is imperative to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of this issue from a variety of perspectives, and to create an open forum for dialogue to work proactively to address medical identity theft. Medical Identity Theft final report. The report summarizing health IT and medical identity theft issues raised at the town hall was completed January 15, 2009 and sets forth potential actions the Federal government and other stakeholders can undertake in working toward prevention, detection, and remediation of medical identify theft.

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."

First quarter federal reports show Google lobbied on the electronic medical records provisions of the federal economic stimulus act, contradicting the Internet giant's earlier claims that Consumer Watchdog's report of its effort was "100 percent false." Google's report shows a total expenditure of $880,000 on lobbying during the period including on "online health-related initiatives; issues relating to online personal health records, including in connection with H.R. 1: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." Google also contracted with an outside firm, the Podesta Group, which independently reported lobbying for Google on "health information technology" and "online privacy." King and Spalding LLP also independently reported lobbying for Google on "online health-related initiatives, including health information technology provisions in H.R. 1, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." After the nonprofit, nonpartisan Consumer Watchdog reported the "rumored" lobbying in January, Google contacted a charitable foundation about withdrawing Consumer Watchdog's funding. In a letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt released today, Consumer Watchdog said the company owes the group an apology. Read Consumer Watchdog's letter here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/LtrSchmidt042209.pdf. "It is now clear from public records that Google was lobbying Congress relating to online personal health records in connection with the economic stimulus act... What else could Google have been seeking except to be excluded from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provisions on privacy and forbidding sale of records? Please tell us," wrote Jamie Court, Consumer Watchdog president and John M. Simpson, consumer advocate. "There is a simple way to resolve this," the letter said. "Publicly release all the substance of Google's lobbying efforts on H.R. 1. Google knows the drill: organize the information and make it universally accessible and useful."

"The ubiquity of online advertising is a product of its importance to the internet economy, said a group of consumer advocates Wednesday during a debate on the future of online advertising. But the impact of new targeted advertising methods on consumer privacy and its potential to manipulate online experiences was the subject of heated argument at the event, sponsored by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Privacy does not mean the same thing to all consumers in all situations, said Progress and Freedom Foundation Senior Fellow Berin Szoka. Advertisements are attempts to capture user attention - the "great currency of the Internet" - and when successful support a wide range of valuable content, he said. But in online life, "consumers have many values," Szoka added. "Privacy is one of them," he said, but it is not an absolute. Consumers must sometimes trade privacy for content, he said. "There is no free lunch." As more information and entertainment migrates to the internet, Szoka said it is "critical…that we find a way to support this media." Targeted advertising can fit the bill, he suggested - especially if technology gives users more control over their own preferences. Most consumers don't understand that advertising is a necessity for today's internet, he said. New technologies like targeting need to be given a try, he said, so content providers can recoup the value of their advertising - down 25 percent since 2000, he noted. Center for Digital Democracy founder Jeff Chester said Szoka's ideas about advertising's future represented a "false dichotomy." The real debate should be over the rules that regulate advertiser content, he said. Chester warned of a "Targeting 2.0″ system in which neuroscience combined with massive databases not only serve ads, but target content to users. "It's about influencing our behavior without our consent," he said. Chester pointed to the subprime lending cr

A consumer group accused Google of seeking provisions in the economic stimulus package that would allow it to sell patient medical data to Google Health advertisers. Perhaps patients' biggest worry about electronic medical records is that their private health data will get into the wrong hands. To get a feel for some folks' anxiety, just take a look at this from a group called Patient Privacy Rights: "CHILLING NEWS ABOUT HEALTH PRIVACY: You Have None." (Or look at one of our many posts about health data breaches.) So it's probably not a surprise that Google, which last year launched Google Health, a personal online repository, was quick to refute a charge by a different consumer group, called Consumer Watchdog, of "a rumored [Google] lobbying effort aimed at allowing the sale of electronic medical records." The group further claimed that Google is "reportedly" pushing for items in the economic stimulus bill that would allow the company to "sell patient medical information" to advertisers. Google shot back, posting an item in its public policy blog calling the claims "100 percent false and unfounded." The company added: Google does not sell health data. In fact, one of our most steadfast privacy principles is that we don't sell our users' personal data, whether it's stored in Google Health, Gmail, or in any of our products. And from a policy perspective, we oppose the sale of medical information in the health care industry. Google's ear is likely fine tuned to this issue, considering some folks in the medical community have already pointed out the company is not a type required to follow a federal patient-privacy law called HIPAA.

With the ink barely dry on headlines about what could be the biggest security breach in history (identity thieves hacked into payment processor Heartland Payment Services, possibly gaining access to the credit-card information of millions of consumers) signing up for a credit-monitoring service may have jumped a few notches on your to-do list. After all, paying $12 or so a month seems like a small price to pay for the peace of mind that -- through regular alerts about activity on your credit reports and other monitoring services -- you'll be protected from identity theft. Right? Think again.

An Orange County woman accused of using a false identity to obtain breast implants from a plastic surgeon is now facing three felony charges, including commercial burglary, grand theft and identity theft. Yvonne Jean Pampellonne, 30, nicknamed the 'Breast Implant Bandit', appeared in a Westminster court Wednesday. She did not enter a plea and asked that her arraignment be continued so she could hire a new attorney. Pampellone surrendered to police in March after detectives caught up with her using breast implant tracking numbers. Police say that in September of 2008 Pampellonne used the personal information of another woman to establish a line of credit at the Pacific Center for Plastic Surgery in Huntington Beach. Doctors performed $12,000 in liposuction and breast augmentation surgery at the center, police say, charging $12,000 to the phony line of credit and exchanging her existing implants for new ones. Medical staff at the center became suspicious after Pampellonne never returned for follow-up appointments. Because Pampellone had old breast implants replaced, they were able to track her down using the serial numbers that appear on every set of implants. Pampellone faces 3 years, 8 months in prison if convicted. She remains free on $20,000 bail and is due back in court on June 29th.

"On October 6, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") announced proposed settlement agreements with six companies over charges that they falsely claimed membership in the U.S. Department of Commerce Safe Harbor program. In six separate complaints, the FTC alleged that ExpatEdge Partners LLC, Onyx Graphics, Inc., Directors Desk LLC, Collectify LLC, and Progressive Gaitways LLC deceived consumers by representing that they maintained current certifications to the Safe Harbor program when such certifications had previously lapsed. The terms of the proposed settlement agreements prohibit the companies from misrepresenting their membership in any privacy, security or other compliance program. The six enforcement actions are significant as they mark a considerable uptick in the FTC's enforcement related to the Safe Harbor program. The FTC recently brought its first enforcement action relevant to the program, which is detailed in our post titled FTC's First Safe Harbor Enforcement Action. The European Union Data Protection Directive requires EU Member States to implement legislation that prohibits the transfer of personal data outside the EU unless the EU has made a determination that the laws of the recipient jurisdiction are substantially equivalent to those of the EU, and thus provide "adequate" protection for personal data. Because the EU has determined that laws of the United States do not meet its adequacy standard, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the EU developed the Safe Harbor Framework, which went into effect in November 2000. The Safe Harbor Program allows participating U.S. companies under the jurisdiction of the FTC or the U.S. Department of Transportation to transfer personal data lawfully from the EU. To join the Safe Harbor, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce that it complies with seven principles that have been deemed to meet the EU's adequacy standard. To maintain its certification to the Safe Harbor