Group items tagged

There are many websites that sell or provide for free, personal information about individuals. This information is gathered from many sources including white pages listings (directory assistance), publicly-available sources and public records. * Data vendors that offer an opt out policy * Data vendors that do not offer an opt out policy Directory Listings: To prevent the cross-referencing of your address with your phone number, you can choose to not have your information available in the phone book or through directory assistance. If your number is "unlisted," your name, address and phone number will not be printed in the phone book, but the information is available through both directory assistance and reverse directory assistance. If your number is "unpublished," your information will not be printed in the phone book and is not available through directory assistance or reverse directory assistance. Or you can list your name and phone number, but not your address. Telephone companies usually charge a monthly fee to be unlisted or unpublished. Public Records: Please note that public records are often that--public. Web sites that provided personal information gathered from various sources are not required to offer a way to have that information removed or suppressed, though many will as a courtesy. The table below notes many of the more common online providers of public and non-public information that do offer an opt out mechanism. The opt out notes below usually only apply to non-public information. Not all web sites that sell personal information allow individuals to have their information removed or suppressed. Check the privacy policy of the site to see if they offer an opt-out mechanism. If one is provided, ask the online data broker for clarification on whether opting out also applies to public records information they may maintain. Some online data vendors will request information from you (such as your Social Security number or date of birth) to proce

When the CISO asks to speak to you with that look on his face, you know the news isn't good. We were contacted by one of our third-party vendors, whom we had hired to do analysis on our website traffic. It appears that we have been passing sensitive information to them over the Internet. This sensitive information included data, such as customer names, addresses and credit card information. Because we are a public company, there are many regulatory guidelines that we have to follow like Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) and the Payment Card Industry's (PCI) data security standard. Fortunately for us, our vendor has retained a copy of everything that we have sent to them. Unfortunately for us, it was six months of information totaling over a terabyte. Since our website is international, the legal department needed to obtain outside council to assist us in this matter. It will be a few days until I receive the data from the vendor.

Free, vendor-neutral online Data and Privacy in Web 2.0 Summit on August 13th. Thought leaders will present a series of webcasts discussing best practices and case studies on legal issues in online social communities, implications of the smart grid and the Cloud, privacy policies and more: http://www.brighttalk.com/summit/dataprivacy2 Web 2.0 services have been rapidly growing because of the value they offer to businesses and individuals alike. However, with so much information at stake and so little control of employees and customer activities online, how do companies ensure consumer and businesses' data are secure and safe from misuse and malware-related data breach? This summit will focus on minimizing leakage from people, devices and data on the move, keeping consumer and businesses' data secure and safe from misuse and malware-related data breach.

Forrester has a recommendation for CISOs struggling with how to secure corporate data: Stop trying so hard. Despite years of investments in technology and processes, protecting enterprise-wide data remains a maddeningly elusive goal for chief information security officers (CISOs). Software-as-a-service (SaaS), Web 2.0 technologies, and consumerized hardware increase the number of escape routes for sensitive information. Regulations, statutes, and contractual expectations drown CISOs in audit requests and ratchet up the pressure to do something about the problem. Hordes of vendors confuse CISOs with innumerable sales pitches. Instead of beating your head against the wall, devolve responsibility to the business, keeping controls closest to the people who use the data. IT security should be primarily responsible only for deploying data protection technologies that require minimal or no customization.

The reality of any new technology, security or otherwise, rarely lives up to its promise. Once you move past the bright sheen of the product brochures and top-level user interfaces, only the practicalities of implementing the product in the real world remain. This is especially true of newer technologies we have little prior experience with, where our product expectations are defined by marketing, the press, and the rare peer reference. It's only after these tools are tested in the real world, under full production conditions, that we really start learning how to either best implement them, or kick them back to the vendor for a little more polish (and a compelling business use). Data loss prevention (DLP) is one of the most promising, and least understood, security technologies to emerge during the last few years. It dangles promises of ubiquitous content protection before our eyes, with shadows of complexity and costs glooming over its shoulder. As with everything, the reality is somewhere in-between. We've interviewed dozens of DLP users (including our own contacts, random volunteers and vendor references) to find out how DLP works in the trenches of the real world. The result is a collection of lessons learned and use cases to help you avoid common pitfalls while deriving maximum value. Lesson 1: Users are confused by a confusing market Lesson 2: Full DLP solutions take more effort to deploy, but are more effective and easier to manage Lesson 3: Set the right expectations and workflow early Lesson 4: Poor identity management hinders good DLP Lesson 5: False positives are a manageable concern Lesson 6: Progressive deployments are most effective Lesson 7: Endpoint DLP is still more limited than network or discovery Lesson 8: Content discovery is hot

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 announced that it has approved a Federal Register notice seeking public comment on a proposed rule that would require entities to notify consumers when the security of their electronic health information is breached. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) includes provisions to advance the use of health information technology and, at the same time, strengthen privacy and security protections for health information. Among other things, the Recovery Act recognizes that there are new types of Web-based entities that collect or handle consumers' sensitive health information. Some of these entities offer personal health records, which consumers can use as an electronic, individually controlled repository for their medical information. Others provide online applications through which consumers can track and manage different kinds of information in their personal health records. For example, consumers can connect a device such as a pedometer to their computers and upload miles traveled, heart rate, and other data into their personal health records. These innovations have the potential to provide numerous benefits for consumers, which can only be realized if they have confidence that the security and confidentiality of their health information will be maintained. To address these issues, the Recovery Act requires the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a study and report, in consultation with the FTC, on potential privacy, security, and breach notification requirements for vendors of personal health records and related entities. This study and report must be completed by February 2010. In the interim, the Act requires the Commission to issue a temporary rule requiring these entities to notify consumers if the security of their health information is breached. The proposed rule the Commission is announcing today is the first step in implementing this requirement. In keeping with the Recover

Like this http://cheaptravelbooker.com Like this http://cheaptravelbooker.com like this http://killdo.de.gg travel,hotel,fun,hotel new,new offer,hotel best,best hotel,hotel travel,seo,backlinks,edu,gov,ads,indexing,bookmark,killgoggle,gogglesuck,goggle bookmark,kill goggle,yahoo,bing,indexing,quality links,linkwell,traffic boster,index best

A new malware variant called Silon is targeting Internet Explorer users, attempting to intercept their sessions and steal credentials. "Researchers at security vendor Trusteer Inc. issued an advisory warning that the Silon Trojan can detect when a user initiates a Web login session in Internet Explorer. It intercepts the login session, encrypts the data and sends it to a command-and-control server where it is collected with credentials from other victims. In a more sophisticated attack, the Trojan targets people logging into their online bank accounts. New York, N.Y.-based Trusteer said Silon can inject sophisticated dynamic HTML code into the login flow between the user and their bank's Web server. The method involves using a webpage displaying a phony message asking the victim to verify their login details. If the victim complies with the request, the login credentials are sent to the command-and-control server, said Amit Klein, chief technology officer of Trusteer. "

Is it a violation of privacy that should be banned or a tool necessary to keep the internet running? Canada's privacy commissioner has opened an online discussion on deep packet inspection, a technology that allows internet service providers and other organizations to intercept and examine packets of information as they are being sent over the internet. "We realized about a year ago that technologies involving network management were increasingly affecting how personal information of Canadians was being handled," said Colin McKay, director of research, education and outreach for the commissioner's office. The office decided to research those technologies, especially after receiving several complaints, and realized it was an opportunity to inform Canadians about the privacy implications. Over the weekend, the privacy commissioner launched a website where the public can discuss a series of essays on the technology written by 14 experts. The experts range from the privacy officer of a deep-packet inspection service vendor to technology law and internet security researchers. The website also offers an overview of the technology, which it describes as having the potential to provide "widespread access to vast amounts of personal information sent over the internet" for uses such as: * Targeted advertising based on users' behaviour. * Scanning for unlawful content such as copyright or obscene materials. * Intercepting data as part of surveillance for national security and crime investigations. * Monitoring traffic to measure network performance.