Group items tagged Personal Data - CIPP Information Privacy & Security News

Basis of data protection law is out of date, says privacy regulator - 0 views

www.out-law.com/page-10005

Privacy EU Data Directive

shared by Karl Wabst on 14 May 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 14 May 09

The Data Protection Directive is old-fashioned and out of date, a report published by the UK's privacy regulator the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has said. Commissioner Richard Thomas said that the European Union must change its legislation. The ICO commissioned RAND Europe to investigate whether or not 1995's EU Data Protection Directive was a good basis for Europe-wide data protection law. The research concluded that the law was flawed and needed to be updated. It found that the law must be clearer about what it seeks to achieve, that it should be better at forcing organisations to protect personal data in their charge, that it should encourage a more strategic approach to enforcement and that it does not deal well enough with the export of personal data outside the EU. Thomas said that the Directive, on which the UK's Data Protection Act is based, is outmoded. "The Directive is showing its age. Modern approaches to regulation mean that laws must concentrate on the real risks that people face in the modern world, must avoid unnecessary burdens, and must work well in practice," he said. "Organisations must embed privacy by design and data protection must become a top level corporate governance issue." RAND said that the Directive would be improved by its fundamental approach to ensuring data privacy being changed. It said that the law should focus on the protection of individuals and the security of their data, and not on the processes that lead to that. "The stronger, results oriented approach described in this report aims to protect data subjects against personal harm resulting from the unlawful processing of any data, rather than making personal data the building block of data protection regulations," said the report. "It would move away from a regulatory framework that measures the adequacy of data processing by measuring compliance with certain formalities, towards a framework that instead requires certain fundamental principles to be respected

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">The Data Protection Directive is old-fashioned and out of date, a report published by the UK's privacy regulator the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has said. Commissioner Richard Thomas said that the European Union must change its legislation. The ICO commissioned RAND Europe to investigate whether or not 1995's EU Data Protection Directive was a good basis for Europe-wide data protection law. The research concluded that the law was flawed and needed to be updated. It found that the law must be clearer about what it seeks to achieve, that it should be better at forcing organisations to protect personal data in their charge, that it should encourage a more strategic approach to enforcement and that it does not deal well enough with the export of personal data outside the EU. Thomas said that the Directive, on which the UK's Data Protection Act is based, is outmoded. "The Directive is showing its age. Modern approaches to regulation mean that laws must concentrate on the real risks that people face in the modern world, must avoid unnecessary burdens, and must work well in practice," he said. "Organisations must embed privacy by design and data protection must become a top level corporate governance issue." RAND said that the Directive would be improved by its fundamental approach to ensuring data privacy being changed. It said that the law should focus on the protection of individuals and the security of their data, and not on the processes that lead to that. "The stronger, results oriented approach described in this report aims to protect data subjects against personal harm resulting from the unlawful processing of any data, rather than making personal data the building block of data protection regulations," said the report. "It would move away from a regulatory framework that measures the adequacy of data processing by measuring compliance with certain formalities, towards a framework that instead requires certain fundamental principles to be respected</div>

...

Cancel

CEOs underestimate security risks, survey finds - 0 views

www.computerworld.com/...te_security_risks_survey_finds

Privacy Security Perception Roles Accountability

shared by Karl Wabst on 17 Jul 09 - No Cached

Karl Wabst on 17 Jul 09

Compared to other key corporate executives, CEOs appear to underestimate the IT security risks faced by their own organizations, according to a survey of C-level executives released today by the Ponemon Institute. The Ponemon survey (download PDF) of 213 CEOs, CIOs, COOs and other senior executives reveals what appears to be a perception gap between CEOs and other senior managers concerning information security issues. For instance, 48% of CEOs surveyed said they believe hackers rarely try to access corporate data. On the other hand, some 53% of other C-level executives believe that their company's data is under attack on a daily or even hourly basis. The survey also found that the top executives were less aware of specific security incidents at their companies than other C-level executives and are more confident that data breaches can be easily avoided. Ponemon found that CEOs tend to view data protection efforts as vital to maintaining good customer satisfaction levels and to the company's brand image. The other managers, however, were more likely to say that the most important role for data security efforts is to satisfy regulatory requirements. The survey also found that CEOs and other top managers differed in their opinion of who is responsible for protecting corporate data. While eight out of 10 respondents said they believe there is one person responsible for data protection in their organization, there was a sharp difference of opinion on just who that person was. More than half of the CEOs said that CIOs are responsible for protecting data at their companies; only 24% of other senior managers felt the same way. And 85% of respondents said someone else would be held responsible for a data breach. "On the issue of accountability, we found that while people acknowledged that data breaches were a problem, very few people felt that if [their company] suffered a breach, they would be held responsible," said Larry Ponemon, founder of the Ponemon Institute.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Compared to other key corporate executives, CEOs appear to underestimate the IT security risks faced by their own organizations, according to a survey of C-level executives released today by the Ponemon Institute. The Ponemon survey (download PDF) of 213 CEOs, CIOs, COOs and other senior executives reveals what appears to be a perception gap between CEOs and other senior managers concerning information security issues. For instance, 48% of CEOs surveyed said they believe hackers rarely try to access corporate data. On the other hand, some 53% of other C-level executives believe that their company's data is under attack on a daily or even hourly basis. The survey also found that the top executives were less aware of specific security incidents at their companies than other C-level executives and are more confident that data breaches can be easily avoided. Ponemon found that CEOs tend to view data protection efforts as vital to maintaining good customer satisfaction levels and to the company's brand image. The other managers, however, were more likely to say that the most important role for data security efforts is to satisfy regulatory requirements. The survey also found that CEOs and other top managers differed in their opinion of who is responsible for protecting corporate data. While eight out of 10 respondents said they believe there is one person responsible for data protection in their organization, there was a sharp difference of opinion on just who that person was. More than half of the CEOs said that CIOs are responsible for protecting data at their companies; only 24% of other senior managers felt the same way. And 85% of respondents said someone else would be held responsible for a data breach. "On the issue of accountability, we found that while people acknowledged that data breaches were a problem, very few people felt that if [their company] suffered a breach, they would be held responsible," said Larry Ponemon, founder of the Ponemon Institute. </div>

...

Cancel
Karl Wabst on 17 Jul 09

Compared to other key corporate executives, CEOs appear to underestimate the IT security risks faced by their own organizations, according to a survey of C-level executives released today by the Ponemon Institute. The Ponemon survey (download PDF) of 213 CEOs, CIOs, COOs and other senior executives reveals what appears to be a perception gap between CEOs and other senior managers concerning information security issues. For instance, 48% of CEOs surveyed said they believe hackers rarely try to access corporate data. On the other hand, some 53% of other C-level executives believe that their company's data is under attack on a daily or even hourly basis. The survey also found that the top executives were less aware of specific security incidents at their companies than other C-level executives and are more confident that data breaches can be easily avoided. Ponemon found that CEOs tend to view data protection efforts as vital to maintaining good customer satisfaction levels and to the company's brand image. The other managers, however, were more likely to say that the most important role for data security efforts is to satisfy regulatory requirements. The survey also found that CEOs and other top managers differed in their opinion of who is responsible for protecting corporate data. While eight out of 10 respondents said they believe there is one person responsible for data protection in their organization, there was a sharp difference of opinion on just who that person was. More than half of the CEOs said that CIOs are responsible for protecting data at their companies; only 24% of other senior managers felt the same way. And 85% of respondents said someone else would be held responsible for a data breach. "On the issue of accountability, we found that while people acknowledged that data breaches were a problem, very few people felt that if [their company] suffered a breach, they would be held responsible," said Larry Ponemon, founder of the Ponemon Institute.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Compared to other key corporate executives, CEOs appear to underestimate the IT security risks faced by their own organizations, according to a survey of C-level executives released today by the Ponemon Institute. The Ponemon survey (download PDF) of 213 CEOs, CIOs, COOs and other senior executives reveals what appears to be a perception gap between CEOs and other senior managers concerning information security issues. For instance, 48% of CEOs surveyed said they believe hackers rarely try to access corporate data. On the other hand, some 53% of other C-level executives believe that their company's data is under attack on a daily or even hourly basis. The survey also found that the top executives were less aware of specific security incidents at their companies than other C-level executives and are more confident that data breaches can be easily avoided. Ponemon found that CEOs tend to view data protection efforts as vital to maintaining good customer satisfaction levels and to the company's brand image. The other managers, however, were more likely to say that the most important role for data security efforts is to satisfy regulatory requirements. The survey also found that CEOs and other top managers differed in their opinion of who is responsible for protecting corporate data. While eight out of 10 respondents said they believe there is one person responsible for data protection in their organization, there was a sharp difference of opinion on just who that person was. More than half of the CEOs said that CIOs are responsible for protecting data at their companies; only 24% of other senior managers felt the same way. And 85% of respondents said someone else would be held responsible for a data breach. "On the issue of accountability, we found that while people acknowledged that data breaches were a problem, very few people felt that if [their company] suffered a breach, they would be held responsible," said Larry Ponemon, founder of the Ponemon Institute. </div>

...

Cancel

Network Security - Preventing Identity Theft Throughout the Data Life Cycle - 0 views

www.toptechnews.com/story.xhtml

Privacy Data LifeCycle

shared by Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09

Identity theft concerns are focused on the security and necessity of the collection process. Collecting personal information just because you can is unsafe. Organizations can reduce privacy risks by not collecting unnecessary personal info. Once the data gets into the data life cycle pipeline, the cost of managing and destroying it escalates. The Federal Trade Commission estimates that as many as 9 million people have their identities stolen every year. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 200 million instances of data breaches have occurred since the beginning of 2005, and they show no signs of letting up. In the first quarter of 2008 alone, more than 85 million incidents were reported. The causes of data breaches run the gamut: Hackers get unencrypted, transmitted data and data at rest; laptops are stolen or lost; storage Relevant Products/Services devices are lost by third-party shipping companies; flash drives or PDAs are left lying around; Social Security numbers are accidentally printed on envelopes; or data is found on discarded computers. This article examines the organizational risks to CPAs and their clients or corporate employers of improperly managed data throughout the data life cycle. It also discusses best data management practices and proper procedures for responding to a data breach. Data breaches, whatever the cause, are costly. According to a study by the Ponemon Institute, the average cost of a data breach in 2007 was $6.3 million. The average cost to an organization per record compromised is about $197, which is typically spent on phone calls for customer notification, providing free credit monitoring, discounts on membership fees, or discounts on merchandise to make up for the security Relevant Products/Services breach. Some organizations also experience an increase in customer turnover. The organization typically spends additional money in data protection Relevant Products/Services enhancements. Companies sanctioned by

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Identity theft concerns are focused on the security and necessity of the collection process. Collecting personal information just because you can is unsafe. Organizations can reduce privacy risks by not collecting unnecessary personal info. Once the data gets into the data life cycle pipeline, the cost of managing and destroying it escalates. The Federal Trade Commission estimates that as many as 9 million people have their identities stolen every year. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 200 million instances of data breaches have occurred since the beginning of 2005, and they show no signs of letting up. In the first quarter of 2008 alone, more than 85 million incidents were reported. The causes of data breaches run the gamut: Hackers get unencrypted, transmitted data and data at rest; laptops are stolen or lost; storage Relevant Products/Services devices are lost by third-party shipping companies; flash drives or PDAs are left lying around; Social Security numbers are accidentally printed on envelopes; or data is found on discarded computers. This article examines the organizational risks to CPAs and their clients or corporate employers of improperly managed data throughout the data life cycle. It also discusses best data management practices and proper procedures for responding to a data breach. Data breaches, whatever the cause, are costly. According to a study by the Ponemon Institute, the average cost of a data breach in 2007 was $6.3 million. The average cost to an organization per record compromised is about $197, which is typically spent on phone calls for customer notification, providing free credit monitoring, discounts on membership fees, or discounts on merchandise to make up for the security Relevant Products/Services breach. Some organizations also experience an increase in customer turnover. The organization typically spends additional money in data protection Relevant Products/Services enhancements. Companies sanctioned by </div>

...

Cancel

EC publishes Q&A on overseas data transfer * The Register - 0 views

www.theregister.co.uk/...eu_personal_data_overseas

Privacy International EU Transfer Personal Data

shared by Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09

The European Commission has prepared a set of questions and answers as well as a flowchart to help companies understand when they can and when they cannot send personal data abroad. The European Union's Data Protection Directive protects the personal data of EU citizens from abuse and misuse. Organisations have a duty to protect it, and that means ensuring that it is not sent to countries with poor data protection. The Directive says that data can be sent to another country "only if... the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection". Only a handful of countries have been deemed acceptable destinations for data by the European Commission. Those are Switzerland, Canada, Argentina, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the US, when the data's treatment is in the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles of the US Department of Commerce The advice has been prepared by the Data Protection Unit of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security at the European Commission. It is designed particularly to help small and medium sized companies to understand the law when it comes to transferring personal data outside of the European Economic Area (EEA). The guidance points out that in order for a transfer to be legal, data has to be properly handled in the first place according to the data protection laws of the country where the processing organisation is established. If the transfer is to a country not listed as having adequate data protections in place, a transfer can still take place, the guidance says, but only if "the data controller offers 'adequate safeguards with respect to the protection of the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and as regards the exercise of the corresponding rights'," says the guidance, quoting the Directive. "These safeguards may result from appropriate contractual clauses, and more particularly from standard contractual clauses issued by the Commission," it sai

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">The European Commission has prepared a set of questions and answers as well as a flowchart to help companies understand when they can and when they cannot send personal data abroad. The European Union's Data Protection Directive protects the personal data of EU citizens from abuse and misuse. Organisations have a duty to protect it, and that means ensuring that it is not sent to countries with poor data protection. The Directive says that data can be sent to another country "only if... the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection". Only a handful of countries have been deemed acceptable destinations for data by the European Commission. Those are Switzerland, Canada, Argentina, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the US, when the data's treatment is in the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles of the US Department of Commerce The advice has been prepared by the Data Protection Unit of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security at the European Commission. It is designed particularly to help small and medium sized companies to understand the law when it comes to transferring personal data outside of the European Economic Area (EEA). The guidance points out that in order for a transfer to be legal, data has to be properly handled in the first place according to the data protection laws of the country where the processing organisation is established. If the transfer is to a country not listed as having adequate data protections in place, a transfer can still take place, the guidance says, but only if "the data controller offers 'adequate safeguards with respect to the protection of the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and as regards the exercise of the corresponding rights'," says the guidance, quoting the Directive. "These safeguards may result from appropriate contractual clauses, and more particularly from standard contractual clauses issued by the Commission," it sai</div>

...

Cancel

Federal data breach notification law passes in U.S. House - 0 views

searchcompliance.techtarget.com/...9142,sid195_gci1376407,00.html

Privacy US Breach Notification Legislation H.R. 2221

shared by Karl Wabst on 15 Dec 09 - No Cached

Karl Wabst on 15 Dec 09

"The United States House of Representatives took a major step this week toward enacting a national data breach notification law. H.R. 2221, the Data Accountability and Trust Act (DATA), cleared the House with a voice vote. In its current form, DATA requires businesses to notify customers and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if sensitive information has been exposed to a security breach. If the U.S. Senate can reconcile its own approach to data breach notification legislation with DATA, a new federal standard will emerge. If signed into law by President Barack Obama, a federal data breach ¬law would pre-empt the jumbled mass of dozens of state laws. "You'd be better served by federal legislation if the federal legislation has teeth and doesn't pre-empt the state's law," said California state senator Joe Simitian, speaking to executive editor Scot Petersen in September. "If there was a meaningful standard at the national level, I think many states would be happy to accept it." Aside from the data breach notification required by the HITECH Act, DATA would put into place the first national law of its kind. H.R. 2221 was sponsored by House Subcommittee Chair Rep. Bobby L. Rush of Illinois. The bill specifically states that: "Any person engaged in interstate commerce that owns or possesses data in electronic form containing personal information shall, following the discovery of a breach of security of the system maintained by such person that contains such data -- 1. notify each individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States whose personal information was acquired by an unauthorized person as a result of such a breach of security; and 2. notify the Federal Trade Commission."

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">"The United States House of Representatives took a major step this week toward enacting a national data breach notification law. H.R. 2221, the Data Accountability and Trust Act (DATA), cleared the House with a voice vote. In its current form, DATA requires businesses to notify customers and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if sensitive information has been exposed to a security breach. If the U.S. Senate can reconcile its own approach to data breach notification legislation with DATA, a new federal standard will emerge. If signed into law by President Barack Obama, a federal data breach ¬law would pre-empt the jumbled mass of dozens of state laws. "You'd be better served by federal legislation if the federal legislation has teeth and doesn't pre-empt the state's law," said California state senator Joe Simitian, speaking to executive editor Scot Petersen in September. "If there was a meaningful standard at the national level, I think many states would be happy to accept it." Aside from the data breach notification required by the HITECH Act, DATA would put into place the first national law of its kind. H.R. 2221 was sponsored by House Subcommittee Chair Rep. Bobby L. Rush of Illinois. The bill specifically states that: "Any person engaged in interstate commerce that owns or possesses data in electronic form containing personal information shall, following the discovery of a breach of security of the system maintained by such person that contains such data -- 1. notify each individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States whose personal information was acquired by an unauthorized person as a result of such a breach of security; and 2. notify the Federal Trade Commission."</div>

...

Cancel

S'pore's privacy laws to be reviewed - 0 views

digital.asiaone.com/...A1Story20090120-116000.html

Privacy Security Singapore Law Review

shared by Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09

DURING the Parliament session on Monday, MP of Ang Mo Kio GRC Ms Lee Bee Wah, asked the Minister of Information, Communications and Arts, Dr Lee Boon Yang, whether a comprehensive privacy law will be introduced to protect the privacy of individuals and their personal data. She also queried about the existing laws which are in place to protect people from spam mails and unauthorised sale of personal information, as well as protecting people whose photographs are posted on blogs and other new media platforms. Dr Lee's reply was: "The Government recognises the importance of data protection and the need to protect personal data. At the same time, we also appreciate the impact of data protection on businesses and the general public. I had previously informed the House that an Inter-Ministry Committee is reviewing Singapore's data protection regime. This review is on-going. We are currently looking into developing a data protection model that can best address Singapore's privacy concerns, commercial requirements and national interest. As data protection is a complex issue with extensive impact on all stakeholders, this review will take some time." With regards to unauthorised Use of personal data, he replied: "While there is currently no generic data protection law, it does not mean that there is no protection of personal data. In fact we have in place strict provisions in sectoral laws, such as the Banking Act and codes for medical professionals to protect sensitive financial and health information. There are also other industry codes of practices against the unauthorised use of personal information. For example, in the telecommunications sector, under the Telecom Competition Code, IDA requires licensees to take reasonable measures to prevent the unauthorised use of End User Service Information. A telecom licensee would be in breach of the Code if it shares with third parties its customers' information that was obtained from the use of its service, without the cust

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">DURING the Parliament session on Monday, MP of Ang Mo Kio GRC Ms Lee Bee Wah, asked the Minister of Information, Communications and Arts, Dr Lee Boon Yang, whether a comprehensive privacy law will be introduced to protect the privacy of individuals and their personal data. She also queried about the existing laws which are in place to protect people from spam mails and unauthorised sale of personal information, as well as protecting people whose photographs are posted on blogs and other new media platforms. Dr Lee's reply was: "The Government recognises the importance of data protection and the need to protect personal data. At the same time, we also appreciate the impact of data protection on businesses and the general public. I had previously informed the House that an Inter-Ministry Committee is reviewing Singapore's data protection regime. This review is on-going. We are currently looking into developing a data protection model that can best address Singapore's privacy concerns, commercial requirements and national interest. As data protection is a complex issue with extensive impact on all stakeholders, this review will take some time." With regards to unauthorised Use of personal data, he replied: "While there is currently no generic data protection law, it does not mean that there is no protection of personal data. In fact we have in place strict provisions in sectoral laws, such as the Banking Act and codes for medical professionals to protect sensitive financial and health information. There are also other industry codes of practices against the unauthorised use of personal information. For example, in the telecommunications sector, under the Telecom Competition Code, IDA requires licensees to take reasonable measures to prevent the unauthorised use of End User Service Information. A telecom licensee would be in breach of the Code if it shares with third parties its customers' information that was obtained from the use of its service, without the cust</div>

...

Cancel

Missile data, medical records found on discarded hard disks - 0 views

www.theregister.co.uk/...print.html

Privacy Security Destruction eBay Sensitive Data

shared by Karl Wabst on 08 May 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 08 May 09

A third (34 per cent) of discarded hard disk drives still contain confidential data, according to a new study which unearthed copies of hospital records and sensitive military information on eBayed kit. The study, sponsored by BT and Sims Lifecycle Services and run by the computer science labs at University of Glamorgan in Wales, Edith Cowan University in Australia and Longwood University in the US, also found network data and security logs from the German Embassy in Paris on one purchased drive. Researchers bought 300 drives from eBay, other auction sites, second-hand stalls and car boot sales. A disk bought on eBay contained details of test launch routines for the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defence) ground to air missile defence system. The same disk also held information belonging to the system's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, including blueprints of facilities and personal data on workers, including social security numbers. Lockheed Martin denies that the disk came from it. The arm manufacturer has launched an investigation that aims to uncover just how the sensitive data might have been wound up on the disk. Two discs bought in the UK apparently came from Lanarkshire NHS Trust, including patient medical records, images of X-rays and staff letters. Lanarkshire NHS Trust runs the Monklands and Hairmyres hospitals. In Australia, the exercise turned up a disk from a nursing home that contained pictures of actual patients and their wound photos, along with patient details. A hard disk from a US bank contained account numbers and details of plans for a $50bn currency exchange through Spain. Details of business transactions between the bank and organisations in Venezuela, Tunisia and Nigeria were also included. Correspondence between a member of the Federal Reserve Board and the unnamed banks revealed that one of the deals was already under scrutiny by the European Central Bank, and that federal investigators were also taking an interest. Yet anothe

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">A third (34 per cent) of discarded hard disk drives still contain confidential data, according to a new study which unearthed copies of hospital records and sensitive military information on eBayed kit. The study, sponsored by BT and Sims Lifecycle Services and run by the computer science labs at University of Glamorgan in Wales, Edith Cowan University in Australia and Longwood University in the US, also found network data and security logs from the German Embassy in Paris on one purchased drive. Researchers bought 300 drives from eBay, other auction sites, second-hand stalls and car boot sales. A disk bought on eBay contained details of test launch routines for the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defence) ground to air missile defence system. The same disk also held information belonging to the system's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, including blueprints of facilities and personal data on workers, including social security numbers. Lockheed Martin denies that the disk came from it. The arm manufacturer has launched an investigation that aims to uncover just how the sensitive data might have been wound up on the disk. Two discs bought in the UK apparently came from Lanarkshire NHS Trust, including patient medical records, images of X-rays and staff letters. Lanarkshire NHS Trust runs the Monklands and Hairmyres hospitals. In Australia, the exercise turned up a disk from a nursing home that contained pictures of actual patients and their wound photos, along with patient details. A hard disk from a US bank contained account numbers and details of plans for a $50bn currency exchange through Spain. Details of business transactions between the bank and organisations in Venezuela, Tunisia and Nigeria were also included. Correspondence between a member of the Federal Reserve Board and the unnamed banks revealed that one of the deals was already under scrutiny by the European Central Bank, and that federal investigators were also taking an interest. Yet anothe</div>

...

Cancel

Data privacy regs vary around New England - Mass High Tech Business News - 0 views

www.masshightech.com/...s-vary-around-New-England.html

Privacy Laws US State New England

shared by Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09

New Englanders have a reputation for being taciturn, but when it comes to data Massachusetts takes the cake. No state loves its privacy more than the Bay State, which last year passed the nation's most exacting data privacy law, requiring companies to check off a honey-do list of steps designed to protect personal data belonging to commonwealth residents. Connecticut and Rhode Island preceded Massachusetts in joining the minority of states that have enacted proactive data privacy laws, requiring businesses to protect information like Social Security and credit card numbers. Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire, like nearly all states, have only reactive data laws, requiring companies to take certain steps - like reporting a breach to authorities - after data has been compromised. Rhode Island's law, passed in 2006, requires businesses that own or license Rhode Islanders' personal information to "provide reasonable security" for that data. Connecticut's law, passed shortly before Massachusetts enacted data privacy legislation last summer, requires businesses to create and publicly display a data protection policy, but does not specify what that policy should entail. The Connecticut and Rhode Island laws stop far short of the controversial requirements in Massachusetts, where new regulations are scheduled to take effect by January 2010. "They're not technically one-liners, but they're very general," Goodwin Procter LLP partner David Goldstone said of the Connecticut and Rhode Island statutes, which are similar to laws passed in Texas and California. "Essentially they say companies have to have reasonable protections in place."

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">New Englanders have a reputation for being taciturn, but when it comes to data Massachusetts takes the cake. No state loves its privacy more than the Bay State, which last year passed the nation's most exacting data privacy law, requiring companies to check off a honey-do list of steps designed to protect personal data belonging to commonwealth residents. Connecticut and Rhode Island preceded Massachusetts in joining the minority of states that have enacted proactive data privacy laws, requiring businesses to protect information like Social Security and credit card numbers. Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire, like nearly all states, have only reactive data laws, requiring companies to take certain steps - like reporting a breach to authorities - after data has been compromised. Rhode Island's law, passed in 2006, requires businesses that own or license Rhode Islanders' personal information to "provide reasonable security" for that data. Connecticut's law, passed shortly before Massachusetts enacted data privacy legislation last summer, requires businesses to create and publicly display a data protection policy, but does not specify what that policy should entail. The Connecticut and Rhode Island laws stop far short of the controversial requirements in Massachusetts, where new regulations are scheduled to take effect by January 2010. "They're not technically one-liners, but they're very general," Goodwin Procter LLP partner David Goldstone said of the Connecticut and Rhode Island statutes, which are similar to laws passed in Texas and California. "Essentially they say companies have to have reasonable protections in place."</div>

...

Cancel
anonymous on 28 Sep 13

Stay Online on the world wide web online roulette from Contemporary sydney, Fun and Free! Now you is capable of doing Actual "www.funlivecasino.com.au" Stay Online on the world wide web online roulette for Fun in Contemporary sydney on a product new web page, FunLiveCasino.com.au. Using the newest on the world wide web operating technology, Fun Stay Gambling house allows you be a part of a genuine action occurring on a genuine desk in a genuine betting house, all approved on Live! You can see other real gamers in the betting house betting on the same outcomes you do providing you greatest believe in in the outcomes as they are not designed 'just for you a, like other action experiencing items such as 'live studios' or pc designed actions. Its awesome to think next time your really in the betting house that you might be on digicam, and individuals on the world wide web might be watching! The long run is scary! Believe one day soon this will be the only way individuals would bet on the world wide web because the worldwide web is complete of fraudsters, you have to be extremely cautious, and why would you perform Online Online on the world wide web online roulette any other way except from a Actual Gambling house you can check out, see, pay attention to and trust! Amazingly this site is absolutely 100 % 100 % 100 % free and has no determining upon up process, no junk, no pc rabbit mouse mouse clicks and no pressure. Just Immediate Fun "www.funlivecasino.com.au" 100 % 100 % 100 % free Stay Roulette! Give it a try, its value verifying out! "www.funlivecasino.com.au"Australia's Online Fun Stay Casino! Backlinks designed from http://fiverr.com/radjaseotea/making-best-156654-backlink-high-pr

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Stay Online on the world wide web online roulette from Contemporary sydney, Fun and Free! Now you is capable of doing Actual "<a href="http://www.funlivecasino.com.au" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.funlivecasino.com.au</a>" Stay Online on the world wide web online roulette for Fun in Contemporary sydney on a product new web page, FunLiveCasino.com.au. Using the newest on the world wide web operating technology, Fun Stay Gambling house allows you be a part of a genuine action occurring on a genuine desk in a genuine betting house, all approved on Live! You can see other real gamers in the betting house betting on the same outcomes you do providing you greatest believe in in the outcomes as they are not designed 'just for you a, like other action experiencing items such as 'live studios' or pc designed actions. Its awesome to think next time your really in the betting house that you might be on digicam, and individuals on the world wide web might be watching! The long run is scary! Believe one day soon this will be the only way individuals would bet on the world wide web because the worldwide web is complete of fraudsters, you have to be extremely cautious, and why would you perform Online Online on the world wide web online roulette any other way except from a Actual Gambling house you can check out, see, pay attention to and trust! Amazingly this site is absolutely 100 % 100 % 100 % free and has no determining upon up process, no junk, no pc rabbit mouse mouse clicks and no pressure. Just Immediate Fun "<a href="http://www.funlivecasino.com.au" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.funlivecasino.com.au</a>" 100 % 100 % 100 % free Stay Roulette! Give it a try, its value verifying out! "<a href="http://www.funlivecasino.com.au"Australia's" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.funlivecasino.com.au"Australia's</a> Online Fun Stay Casino! Backlinks designed from <a href="http://fiverr.com/radjaseotea/making-best-156654-backlink-high-pr" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://fiverr.com/radjaseotea/making-best-156654-backlink-high-pr</a></div>

...

Cancel

Govt looks at ways to protect personal data - 0 views

digital.asiaone.com/...A1Story20090122-116476.html

Privacy Government Straits Times Asia

shared by Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09

THE Government is looking to develop a way to protect individuals' personal data that can 'best address' three issues. These are privacy concerns, commercial requirements and national interest. An inter-ministry committee is already reviewing the issue, said Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang. 'As data protection is a complex issue, with extensive impact on all stakeholders, this review will take some time,' he said. He said this in a written reply to a question posed by Ms Lee Bee Wah of Ang Mo Kio GRC in Parliament on Monday. She had asked if his ministry will consider a comprehensive privacy law, and wanted to know what laws there are to protect people from spam mail and the unauthorised sale of personal information. Also, what about those whose photographs have been posted on blogs and other new media platforms without their authorisation, she had asked. This would be considered a 'civil matter', said Dr Lee. 'The aggrieved persons could first ask the site's webmaster to remove the pictures,' he said. 'As with matters relating to online libel and personal defamation, they could also seek professional legal advice to determine the most appropriate legal recourse.' As for the protection of personal data, the minister said that although no generic data protection law exists, such data is still protected. He listed the various measures that are already in place. For instance, there are 'strict provisions' in sectoral laws such as the Banking Act, and codes for medical professionals to protect sensitive financial and health information, he said. There are also other industry codes of practices against the unauthorised use of personal information, he added. For example. the Telecom Competition Code requires licensees to take 'reasonable measures' to prevent the unauthorised use of consumers' information. In addition, there is a voluntary privacy code, which has been adopted by many companies in the private sector, said Dr

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">THE Government is looking to develop a way to protect individuals' personal data that can 'best address' three issues. These are privacy concerns, commercial requirements and national interest. An inter-ministry committee is already reviewing the issue, said Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang. 'As data protection is a complex issue, with extensive impact on all stakeholders, this review will take some time,' he said. He said this in a written reply to a question posed by Ms Lee Bee Wah of Ang Mo Kio GRC in Parliament on Monday. She had asked if his ministry will consider a comprehensive privacy law, and wanted to know what laws there are to protect people from spam mail and the unauthorised sale of personal information. Also, what about those whose photographs have been posted on blogs and other new media platforms without their authorisation, she had asked. This would be considered a 'civil matter', said Dr Lee. 'The aggrieved persons could first ask the site's webmaster to remove the pictures,' he said. 'As with matters relating to online libel and personal defamation, they could also seek professional legal advice to determine the most appropriate legal recourse.' As for the protection of personal data, the minister said that although no generic data protection law exists, such data is still protected. He listed the various measures that are already in place. For instance, there are 'strict provisions' in sectoral laws such as the Banking Act, and codes for medical professionals to protect sensitive financial and health information, he said. There are also other industry codes of practices against the unauthorised use of personal information, he added. For example. the Telecom Competition Code requires licensees to take 'reasonable measures' to prevent the unauthorised use of consumers' information. In addition, there is a voluntary privacy code, which has been adopted by many companies in the private sector, said Dr</div>

...

Cancel

When A Company Folds, Who Guards Your Data's Privacy? - CIO.com - Business Technology ... - 0 views

www.cio.com/...ho_Guards_Your_Data_s_Privacy_

Privacy Data Disposal

shared by Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09

IT and business both understand the need to protect regulated customer and business data -- so long as they're in business, analysts say. Here's a look at how some folding businesses are falling short protecting data and the possible liabilities for the IT group and CIO. From HIPPA to Sarbox, a slew of regulations to protect customer and employee data force CIOs to step lively to comply. The punishment for failure to do so is costly and even dire. But once a company folds-and more are folding every week given the economy-what happens to that data? Who in the business and IT could be hit by the splatter if it all hits the fan? "Certain companies have been disposing of records containing sensitive consumer information in very questionable ways, including by leaving in bags at the curb, tossing it in public dumpsters, leaving it in vacant properties and/or leaving it behind in the offices and other facilities once they've gone out of business and left those offices," says Jacqueline Klosek, a senior counsel in Goodwin Procter's Business Law Department and a member of its Intellectual Property Group. "In addition, company computers, often containing personal data, will find their ways to the auction block," she adds. "All too often, the discarded documents and computer files will sensitive data, such as credit card numbers, social security numbers and driver's licenses numbers. This is the just the kind of data that can be used to commit identity theft." Discarded and unguarded data is now low-hanging fruit for criminal harvesters and corporate spies. "Recent client activity supports that competitors are beginning to buy up such auction devices specifically with the intention of trying to salvage the data," says James DeLuccia, author of IT Compliance & Controls. "Hard drives are being removed and sold online, or whole servers are sold via Craigslist and Ebay." In some cases, the courts insist data be sold during a bankruptcy. "Company servers, once I restore

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">IT and business both understand the need to protect regulated customer and business data -- so long as they're in business, analysts say. Here's a look at how some folding businesses are falling short protecting data and the possible liabilities for the IT group and CIO. From HIPPA to Sarbox, a slew of regulations to protect customer and employee data force CIOs to step lively to comply. The punishment for failure to do so is costly and even dire. But once a company folds-and more are folding every week given the economy-what happens to that data? Who in the business and IT could be hit by the splatter if it all hits the fan? "Certain companies have been disposing of records containing sensitive consumer information in very questionable ways, including by leaving in bags at the curb, tossing it in public dumpsters, leaving it in vacant properties and/or leaving it behind in the offices and other facilities once they've gone out of business and left those offices," says Jacqueline Klosek, a senior counsel in Goodwin Procter's Business Law Department and a member of its Intellectual Property Group. "In addition, company computers, often containing personal data, will find their ways to the auction block," she adds. "All too often, the discarded documents and computer files will sensitive data, such as credit card numbers, social security numbers and driver's licenses numbers. This is the just the kind of data that can be used to commit identity theft." Discarded and unguarded data is now low-hanging fruit for criminal harvesters and corporate spies. "Recent client activity supports that competitors are beginning to buy up such auction devices specifically with the intention of trying to salvage the data," says James DeLuccia, author of IT Compliance & Controls. "Hard drives are being removed and sold online, or whole servers are sold via Craigslist and Ebay." In some cases, the courts insist data be sold during a bankruptcy. "Company servers, once I restore </div>

...

Cancel

Lessons of ChoicePoint, 4 Years Later - CSO Online - Security and Risk - 0 views

www.csoonline.com/...ons_of_ChoicePoint_Years_Later

Privacy Security ChoicePoint Anniversary

shared by Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09

It's been four years since data broker ChoicePoint acknowledged the data security breach that put it in the middle of a media firestorm and pushed data protection to the top of the infosecurity community's priority list. Since then, the business world has made plenty of progress hardening its data defenses -- thanks in part to industry standards like PCI DSS and data breach disclosure laws (click to see state-by-state map) now in place. But the latest data breach to grab headlines illustrates how vulnerable organizations remain to devastating network intrusions. Heartland Payment Systems, the Princeton, N.J.-based provider of credit and debit processing, payment and check management services, admitted Tuesday it was the victim of a data breach some quickly began citing as the largest of its kind. The company discovered last week that malware compromised card data across its network, after Visa and MasterCard alerted Heartland to sinister activity surrounding processed card transactions. The Shadow of ChoicePoint The Heartland breach comes roughly four years after ChoicePoint announced -- as required by California's SB 1386 data breach disclosure law -- that conmen stole personal financial records of more than 163,000 consumers by setting up fake business requests. Since then, much bigger incidents have occurred, most notably the TJX data breach that exposed more than 45 million debit and credit card holders to identity fraud. Heartland President and CFO Robert H.B. Baldwin Jr. said Tuesday that 100 million card transactions occur each month on the compromised systems used to provide processing to merchants and businesses. As of Tuesday, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse estimated that a total of 251,164,141 sensitive records had been compromised since early 2005. Up to 15 separate cases have been reported since Jan. 1, 2009.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">It's been four years since data broker ChoicePoint acknowledged the data security breach that put it in the middle of a media firestorm and pushed data protection to the top of the infosecurity community's priority list. Since then, the business world has made plenty of progress hardening its data defenses -- thanks in part to industry standards like PCI DSS and data breach disclosure laws (click to see state-by-state map) now in place. But the latest data breach to grab headlines illustrates how vulnerable organizations remain to devastating network intrusions. Heartland Payment Systems, the Princeton, N.J.-based provider of credit and debit processing, payment and check management services, admitted Tuesday it was the victim of a data breach some quickly began citing as the largest of its kind. The company discovered last week that malware compromised card data across its network, after Visa and MasterCard alerted Heartland to sinister activity surrounding processed card transactions. The Shadow of ChoicePoint The Heartland breach comes roughly four years after ChoicePoint announced -- as required by California's SB 1386 data breach disclosure law -- that conmen stole personal financial records of more than 163,000 consumers by setting up fake business requests. Since then, much bigger incidents have occurred, most notably the TJX data breach that exposed more than 45 million debit and credit card holders to identity fraud. Heartland President and CFO Robert H.B. Baldwin Jr. said Tuesday that 100 million card transactions occur each month on the compromised systems used to provide processing to merchants and businesses. As of Tuesday, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse estimated that a total of 251,164,141 sensitive records had been compromised since early 2005. Up to 15 separate cases have been reported since Jan. 1, 2009.</div>

...

Cancel

EU Data Protection Working Party Issues Guidance on Cross Border Discovery : Security, ... - 0 views

www.securityprivacyandthelaw.com/...ance-on-cross-border-discovery

Legal Discovery eDiscovery Privacy US EU

shared by Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09

On Wednesday, February 11, 2009, the Data Protection Working Party, an independent European advisory body on data protection and privacy, released its Working Document 1-2009 (.pdf) on pre-trial discovery for cross border civil litigation. The Working Document attempts to reconcile the tension between U.S. discovery rules and the European Union's Directive 95/46/EC (.pdf), which outlines the EU's privacy requirements. What follows is a summary of the Working Document and an analysis of how it begins to bridge the gap between U.S. discovery rules and the European privacy framework. The Working Document offers guidance to EU data controllers responding to U.S. discovery requests. As the Working Document explains, those controllers often find themselves in a bind. On the one hand, U.S. law allows for broad discovery, which may require a controller to provide, or "process," personal data of customers or employees. On the other hand, Article 7 of EU Directive 95/46 limits a member state's authority to process such data. Under Article 7, a member state may process personal data only if one of six identified grounds for processing applies. The Working Document considers the Article 7 grounds most likely to supply a legitimate basis for compliance with a discovery request - namely 1) consent, 2) necessary for compliance with a legal obligation, and 3) necessary for the purposes of a legitimate interest, where such interests are not "overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject." Recognizing that the "interests of justice would be served by not unnecessarily limiting the ability of an organisation to act to promote or defend a legal right," the Working Document suggests that the third basis - necessary for the purposes of a legitimate interest - will often provide a ground for processing data in response to a U.S. discovery request.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">On Wednesday, February 11, 2009, the Data Protection Working Party, an independent European advisory body on data protection and privacy, released its Working Document 1-2009 (.pdf) on pre-trial discovery for cross border civil litigation. The Working Document attempts to reconcile the tension between U.S. discovery rules and the European Union's Directive 95/46/EC (.pdf), which outlines the EU's privacy requirements. What follows is a summary of the Working Document and an analysis of how it begins to bridge the gap between U.S. discovery rules and the European privacy framework. The Working Document offers guidance to EU data controllers responding to U.S. discovery requests. As the Working Document explains, those controllers often find themselves in a bind. On the one hand, U.S. law allows for broad discovery, which may require a controller to provide, or "process," personal data of customers or employees. On the other hand, Article 7 of EU Directive 95/46 limits a member state's authority to process such data. Under Article 7, a member state may process personal data only if one of six identified grounds for processing applies. The Working Document considers the Article 7 grounds most likely to supply a legitimate basis for compliance with a discovery request - namely 1) consent, 2) necessary for compliance with a legal obligation, and 3) necessary for the purposes of a legitimate interest, where such interests are not "overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject." Recognizing that the "interests of justice would be served by not unnecessarily limiting the ability of an organisation to act to promote or defend a legal right," the Working Document suggests that the third basis - necessary for the purposes of a legitimate interest - will often provide a ground for processing data in response to a U.S. discovery request. </div>

...

Cancel

Massachusetts Gets Tough on Data Security - Bank Systems & Technology - 0 views

www.banktech.com/...showArticle.jhtml

Privacy Security MA Legislation Data Security Regulations

shared by Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09

As if banks didn't have enough on their plates with compliance and regulation on the federal front, come May 1, they will have to be mindful of strict new rules coming from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts around data security. The Massachusetts Data Security Regulations are perhaps like no other in terms of their depth and scope. During a teleconference, attorneys from the privacy and data security practice of the law firm Goodwin Procter (Boston) described this very detailed, all-encompassing set of rules designed to keep consumers' personal data safe. They go beyond the rules of other states and the federal government that simply require companies to notify their customers of theft of their personal information. "Personal information," for the purposes of the regulation, is described as someone's first and last name or first initial and last name, in combination with Social Security Number, driver's license number or financial account number. At its core, the regulation states that companies, including banks, that handle the personal data of a Massachusetts resident must show they have in place a comprehensive, written information security program with heightened security procedures around how this information is handled. The rules also extend to entities' service providers and the degree to which they too much show they comply with the Massachusetts rules of handling data on residents. Companies have until May 1 to amend their vendor contracts to reflect this and until Jan. 1, 2010 to certify their vendors comply. Furthermore, companies must comply with these rules even if they do not have a single office in the Bay State or if they are in an already heavily regulated industry, like financial services. As long as customers in businesses' databases reside in Massachusetts, those companies are affected by the rules. According to partner Deborah Birnbach, this is some of the most intrusive legislation as it relates to the operation of businesses. "It requires

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">As if banks didn't have enough on their plates with compliance and regulation on the federal front, come May 1, they will have to be mindful of strict new rules coming from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts around data security. The Massachusetts Data Security Regulations are perhaps like no other in terms of their depth and scope. During a teleconference, attorneys from the privacy and data security practice of the law firm Goodwin Procter (Boston) described this very detailed, all-encompassing set of rules designed to keep consumers' personal data safe. They go beyond the rules of other states and the federal government that simply require companies to notify their customers of theft of their personal information. "Personal information," for the purposes of the regulation, is described as someone's first and last name or first initial and last name, in combination with Social Security Number, driver's license number or financial account number. At its core, the regulation states that companies, including banks, that handle the personal data of a Massachusetts resident must show they have in place a comprehensive, written information security program with heightened security procedures around how this information is handled. The rules also extend to entities' service providers and the degree to which they too much show they comply with the Massachusetts rules of handling data on residents. Companies have until May 1 to amend their vendor contracts to reflect this and until Jan. 1, 2010 to certify their vendors comply. Furthermore, companies must comply with these rules even if they do not have a single office in the Bay State or if they are in an already heavily regulated industry, like financial services. As long as customers in businesses' databases reside in Massachusetts, those companies are affected by the rules. According to partner Deborah Birnbach, this is some of the most intrusive legislation as it relates to the operation of businesses. "It requires </div>

...

Cancel

Experts urge overhaul of health privacy rules| Reuters - 0 views

uk.reuters.com/...idUKTRE5135WA20090204

Privacy Health Care Research HIPPA Security

shared by Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09

Current government rules do too little to protect the privacy of people's personal health information and also hinder the use of health data in medical research, a panel of experts reported on Wednesday. A committee of the Institute of Medicine, which provides advice to U.S. policymakers, urged Congress to take an entirely new approach to protecting personal health data in research. Federal standards for protecting privacy of personal health data under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, are not doing the job, the panel said. Congress and the Obama administration are planning major changes this year to the U.S. health care system. Regarding the privacy rules, Congress should either start from scratch or thoroughly overall HIPAA's privacy provisions, the panel said. Better data security is needed, with greater use of encryption and other security techniques, the panel said. Encryption should be required for laptops, flash drives and other devices containing such data, it said. "Both privacy and health research are important. And we feel that we can strengthen privacy protections for people who participate in research while also allowing important research to proceed without unnecessary impediments," Dr. Bernard Lo of the University of California San Francisco, a member of the panel, told reporters. HIPAA governs how personally identifiable health information can be used and disclosed by health plans, health care providers and others. The intention is to protect personal health information while permitting the flow of information for health-related research and medical care. Lo said HIPAA has burdensome and confusing procedures for people to consent to have their health data used in medical research, dissuading people from taking part in such research.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Current government rules do too little to protect the privacy of people's personal health information and also hinder the use of health data in medical research, a panel of experts reported on Wednesday. A committee of the Institute of Medicine, which provides advice to U.S. policymakers, urged Congress to take an entirely new approach to protecting personal health data in research. Federal standards for protecting privacy of personal health data under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, are not doing the job, the panel said. Congress and the Obama administration are planning major changes this year to the U.S. health care system. Regarding the privacy rules, Congress should either start from scratch or thoroughly overall HIPAA's privacy provisions, the panel said. Better data security is needed, with greater use of encryption and other security techniques, the panel said. Encryption should be required for laptops, flash drives and other devices containing such data, it said. "Both privacy and health research are important. And we feel that we can strengthen privacy protections for people who participate in research while also allowing important research to proceed without unnecessary impediments," Dr. Bernard Lo of the University of California San Francisco, a member of the panel, told reporters. HIPAA governs how personally identifiable health information can be used and disclosed by health plans, health care providers and others. The intention is to protect personal health information while permitting the flow of information for health-related research and medical care. Lo said HIPAA has burdensome and confusing procedures for people to consent to have their health data used in medical research, dissuading people from taking part in such research.</div>

...

Cancel

Leahy trying again with data breach bill - InternetNews:The Blog - Kenneth Corbin - 0 views

blog.internetnews.com/...-trying-again-with-data-b.html

Privacy Security Accountability Standards Breach Notification Federal

shared by Karl Wabst on 24 Jul 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 24 Jul 09

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has reintroduced a data breach bill that would set tougher rules for government agencies and private sector firms regarding consumers' personal information. This will be the third time around the block for the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, which has cleared the Judiciary Committee, but never come to a vote on the Senate floor. The bill would preempt the more than 40 state laws laying out requirements for notifying consumers in the event of a data breach, a long-deferred legislative goal that has the general support of the IT industry. But Leahy's bill is about more than just data breaches. Among other things, it would set baseline security information standards for government agencies, something that the Obama administration has begun to work on with the early steps of an overhaul of the government's cybersecurity apparatus. "This is a comprehensive bill that not only deals with the need to provide Americans with notice when they have been victims of a data breach, but that also deals with the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability to help prevent data breaches from occurring in the first place," Leahy said in a statement. "Passing this comprehensive data privacy legislation is one of my highest legislative priorities as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee."

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has reintroduced a data breach bill that would set tougher rules for government agencies and private sector firms regarding consumers' personal information. This will be the third time around the block for the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, which has cleared the Judiciary Committee, but never come to a vote on the Senate floor. The bill would preempt the more than 40 state laws laying out requirements for notifying consumers in the event of a data breach, a long-deferred legislative goal that has the general support of the IT industry. But Leahy's bill is about more than just data breaches. Among other things, it would set baseline security information standards for government agencies, something that the Obama administration has begun to work on with the early steps of an overhaul of the government's cybersecurity apparatus. "This is a comprehensive bill that not only deals with the need to provide Americans with notice when they have been victims of a data breach, but that also deals with the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability to help prevent data breaches from occurring in the first place," Leahy said in a statement. "Passing this comprehensive data privacy legislation is one of my highest legislative priorities as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee."</div>

...

Cancel

Identity Theft: Governments Have Acted to Protect Personally Identifiable Information, ... - 0 views

www.gao.gov/GAO-09-759T

Privacy Personally Identifiable Information GAO Identity Theft

shared by Karl Wabst on 22 Jun 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 22 Jun 09

The loss of personally identifiable information, such as an individual's Social Security number, name, and date of birth can result in serious harm, including identity theft. Identity theft is a serious crime that impacts millions of individuals each year. Identity theft occurs when such information is used without authorization to commit fraud or other crimes. While progress has been made protecting personally identifiable information in the public and private sectors, challenges remain. GAO was asked to testify on how the loss of personally identifiable information contributes to identity theft. This testimony summarizes (1) the problem of identity theft; (2) steps taken at the federal, state, and local level to prevent potential identity theft; and (3) vulnerabilities that remain to protecting personally identifiable information, including in federal information systems. For this testimony, GAO relied primarily on information from prior reports and testimonies that address public and private sector use of personally identifiable information, as well as federal, state, and local efforts to protect the security of such information. GAO and agency inspectors general have made numerous recommendations to agencies to resolve prior significant information control deficiencies and information security program shortfalls. The effective implementation of these recommendations will continue to strengthen the security posture at these agencies. Identity theft is a serious problem because, among other things, it can take a long period of time before a victim becomes aware that the crime has taken place and thus can cause substantial harm to the victim's credit rating. Moreover, while some identity theft victims can resolve their problems quickly, others face substantial costs and inconvenience repairing damage to their credit records. Some individuals have lost job opportunities, been refused loans, or even been arrested for crimes they did not commit as a result of identit

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">The loss of personally identifiable information, such as an individual's Social Security number, name, and date of birth can result in serious harm, including identity theft. Identity theft is a serious crime that impacts millions of individuals each year. Identity theft occurs when such information is used without authorization to commit fraud or other crimes. While progress has been made protecting personally identifiable information in the public and private sectors, challenges remain. GAO was asked to testify on how the loss of personally identifiable information contributes to identity theft. This testimony summarizes (1) the problem of identity theft; (2) steps taken at the federal, state, and local level to prevent potential identity theft; and (3) vulnerabilities that remain to protecting personally identifiable information, including in federal information systems. For this testimony, GAO relied primarily on information from prior reports and testimonies that address public and private sector use of personally identifiable information, as well as federal, state, and local efforts to protect the security of such information. GAO and agency inspectors general have made numerous recommendations to agencies to resolve prior significant information control deficiencies and information security program shortfalls. The effective implementation of these recommendations will continue to strengthen the security posture at these agencies. Identity theft is a serious problem because, among other things, it can take a long period of time before a victim becomes aware that the crime has taken place and thus can cause substantial harm to the victim's credit rating. Moreover, while some identity theft victims can resolve their problems quickly, others face substantial costs and inconvenience repairing damage to their credit records. Some individuals have lost job opportunities, been refused loans, or even been arrested for crimes they did not commit as a result of identit</div>

...

Cancel
Karl Wabst on 22 Jun 09

The loss of personally identifiable information, such as an individual's Social Security number, name, and date of birth can result in serious harm, including identity theft. Identity theft is a serious crime that impacts millions of individuals each year. Identity theft occurs when such information is used without authorization to commit fraud or other crimes. While progress has been made protecting personally identifiable information in the public and private sectors, challenges remain. GAO was asked to testify on how the loss of personally identifiable information contributes to identity theft. This testimony summarizes (1) the problem of identity theft; (2) steps taken at the federal, state, and local level to prevent potential identity theft; and (3) vulnerabilities that remain to protecting personally identifiable information, including in federal information systems. For this testimony, GAO relied primarily on information from prior reports and testimonies that address public and private sector use of personally identifiable information, as well as federal, state, and local efforts to protect the security of such information. GAO and agency inspectors general have made numerous recommendations to agencies to resolve prior significant information control deficiencies and information security program shortfalls. The effective implementation of these recommendations will continue to strengthen the security posture at these agencies. Identity theft is a serious problem because, among other things, it can take a long period of time before a victim becomes aware that the crime has taken place and thus can cause substantial harm to the victim's credit rating. Moreover, while some identity theft victims can resolve their problems quickly, others face substantial costs and inconvenience repairing damage to their credit records. Some individuals have lost job opportunities, been refused loans, or even been arrested for crimes they did not commit as a result of identit

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">The loss of personally identifiable information, such as an individual's Social Security number, name, and date of birth can result in serious harm, including identity theft. Identity theft is a serious crime that impacts millions of individuals each year. Identity theft occurs when such information is used without authorization to commit fraud or other crimes. While progress has been made protecting personally identifiable information in the public and private sectors, challenges remain. GAO was asked to testify on how the loss of personally identifiable information contributes to identity theft. This testimony summarizes (1) the problem of identity theft; (2) steps taken at the federal, state, and local level to prevent potential identity theft; and (3) vulnerabilities that remain to protecting personally identifiable information, including in federal information systems. For this testimony, GAO relied primarily on information from prior reports and testimonies that address public and private sector use of personally identifiable information, as well as federal, state, and local efforts to protect the security of such information. GAO and agency inspectors general have made numerous recommendations to agencies to resolve prior significant information control deficiencies and information security program shortfalls. The effective implementation of these recommendations will continue to strengthen the security posture at these agencies. Identity theft is a serious problem because, among other things, it can take a long period of time before a victim becomes aware that the crime has taken place and thus can cause substantial harm to the victim's credit rating. Moreover, while some identity theft victims can resolve their problems quickly, others face substantial costs and inconvenience repairing damage to their credit records. Some individuals have lost job opportunities, been refused loans, or even been arrested for crimes they did not commit as a result of identit</div>

...

Cancel

Industry Giants to Weigh in on US Privacy Laws - PC World - 0 views

www.pcworld.com/...igh_in_on_us_privacy_laws.html

Privacy Breach Notification Law

shared by Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09

A group of U.S. companies, led by technology giants Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and eBay, is set to outline recommendations for new federal data-privacy legislation that could make life easier for consumers and lead to a standard federal breach-notification law. The recommendations, which were developed by a group of industry players called the Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum, are set to be released at an upcoming privacy conference six weeks from now, according to Peter Cullen, Microsoft's chief privacy officer. The companies have been working for the past three years to encourage the adoption of federal consumer data-privacy laws and to answer the question of what federal legislation should look like, Cullen said in an interview. Other forum members include Google, Oracle, Procter & Gamble and Eli Lilly. One idea is that laws should make it easier for consumers to understand what they're getting into when they share their personal data with Web sites, Cullen said. "The whole focus on consent really puts an unfair burden on the consumer," he said. "My mom doesn't know what an IP address is." The recommendations will cover rules around data use and the ability of consumers to correct inaccurate data. And they will cover data breach notification, which is now covered by a patchwork of state laws. Simplifying breach-notification laws by creating a single federal standard is important, Cullen said Wednesday while speaking at a discussion of privacy policy in San Francisco. "It's not that there is no privacy law. There's actually too much privacy law," he said. "If you think about data-breach notification laws just as an example, there are 38 state laws, many of them very different." "We need to think about much more of a framework approach." Congress has passed some laws covering consumer data privacy, such as the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), but existing laws do not comprehensively cover consumer privacy in general.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">A group of U.S. companies, led by technology giants Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and eBay, is set to outline recommendations for new federal data-privacy legislation that could make life easier for consumers and lead to a standard federal breach-notification law. The recommendations, which were developed by a group of industry players called the Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum, are set to be released at an upcoming privacy conference six weeks from now, according to Peter Cullen, Microsoft's chief privacy officer. The companies have been working for the past three years to encourage the adoption of federal consumer data-privacy laws and to answer the question of what federal legislation should look like, Cullen said in an interview. Other forum members include Google, Oracle, Procter & Gamble and Eli Lilly. One idea is that laws should make it easier for consumers to understand what they're getting into when they share their personal data with Web sites, Cullen said. "The whole focus on consent really puts an unfair burden on the consumer," he said. "My mom doesn't know what an IP address is." The recommendations will cover rules around data use and the ability of consumers to correct inaccurate data. And they will cover data breach notification, which is now covered by a patchwork of state laws. Simplifying breach-notification laws by creating a single federal standard is important, Cullen said Wednesday while speaking at a discussion of privacy policy in San Francisco. "It's not that there is no privacy law. There's actually too much privacy law," he said. "If you think about data-breach notification laws just as an example, there are 38 state laws, many of them very different." "We need to think about much more of a framework approach." Congress has passed some laws covering consumer data privacy, such as the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), but existing laws do not comprehensively cover consumer privacy in general.</div>

...

Cancel

With Breaches Rising, Insurer Offers Card-Compromise Coverage - 0 views

www.digitaltransactions.net/newsstory.cfm

Breach Insurance Fireman's PCI

shared by Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. this week unveiled what it says is the first coverage available to small and medium-sized businesses for losses from payment card data breaches. News of the policy came on the same day that a non-profit research organization reported that data breaches increased 47% last year. The idea behind the coverage, according to Brian Gerritsen, product director at Novato, Calif.-based Fireman's, is to give peace of mind to business owners who are diligent about complying with the Payment Card Industry data-security standard, or PCI, the card networks' uniform protection rules that all card acceptors are supposed to meet. "That's what we're really trying to insure against-business owners trying to do everything in their power to protect their customers' cardholder data, but still find themselves in a data-breach situation and out of compliance with the PCI standards or other security standards that may apply to them," he tells Digital Transactions News. To get the coverage, however, a merchant must clear a number of hurdles. An applicant must already have property or liability coverage from Fireman's as well as the company's general data-breach policy first offered in 2006. The new payment card coverage is an add-on to that earlier product. Coverage is available to retailers and most other card-accepting merchants, but not schools and hospitals, says Gerritsen. The insurer excluded the former because of their high rate of data breaches and the latter because they hold extremely sensitive medical and personal data. If breached, a covered merchant could recoup about $160,000 in resulting expenses. That includes up to $50,000 for a PCI-specific forensic investigation, system scans and software, and hardware upgrades to get card security up to snuff. The policy also provides up to $100,000, with a 5% deductible, for PCI fines-"contractual penalties" in industry lingo-and related costs such as chargebacks and issuers�

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. this week unveiled what it says is the first coverage available to small and medium-sized businesses for losses from payment card data breaches. News of the policy came on the same day that a non-profit research organization reported that data breaches increased 47% last year. The idea behind the coverage, according to Brian Gerritsen, product director at Novato, Calif.-based Fireman's, is to give peace of mind to business owners who are diligent about complying with the Payment Card Industry data-security standard, or PCI, the card networks' uniform protection rules that all card acceptors are supposed to meet. "That's what we're really trying to insure against-business owners trying to do everything in their power to protect their customers' cardholder data, but still find themselves in a data-breach situation and out of compliance with the PCI standards or other security standards that may apply to them," he tells Digital Transactions News. To get the coverage, however, a merchant must clear a number of hurdles. An applicant must already have property or liability coverage from Fireman's as well as the company's general data-breach policy first offered in 2006. The new payment card coverage is an add-on to that earlier product. Coverage is available to retailers and most other card-accepting merchants, but not schools and hospitals, says Gerritsen. The insurer excluded the former because of their high rate of data breaches and the latter because they hold extremely sensitive medical and personal data. If breached, a covered merchant could recoup about $160,000 in resulting expenses. That includes up to $50,000 for a PCI-specific forensic investigation, system scans and software, and hardware upgrades to get card security up to snuff. The policy also provides up to $100,000, with a 5% deductible, for PCI fines-"contractual penalties" in industry lingo-and related costs such as chargebacks and issuers�</div>

...

Cancel

Do You Know Where Your Data Are? - WSJ.com - 0 views

online.wsj.com/...SB123997522418329223.html

Privacy Unfair Deceptive Data Policy OPT-IN Trust Capitalism

shared by Karl Wabst on 28 Apr 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 28 Apr 09

Do you know what your data did last night? Almost none of more than 27 million people who took the RealAge quiz realized that their personal health data was sold to drug companies, who in turned used that information for targeted e-mail marketing campaigns. There's a basic consumer protection principle at work here, and it's the concept of "unfair and deceptive" trade practices. Basically, a company shouldn't be able to say one thing and do another: sell used goods as new, lie on ingredients lists, advertise prices that aren't generally available, claim features that don't exist, and so on. RealAge's privacy policy doesn't mention anything about selling data to drug companies, but buried in its 2,400 words, it does say that "we will share your personal data with third parties to fulfill the services that you have asked us to provide to you." They maintain that when you join the website, you consent to receiving pharmaceutical company spam. But since that isn't spelled out, it's not really informed consent. That's deceptive. Cloud computing is another technology where users entrust their data to service providers. Salesforce.com, Gmail, and Google Docs are examples; your data isn't on your computer -- it's out in the "cloud" somewhere -- and you access it from your web browser. Cloud computing has significant benefits for customers and huge profit potential for providers. It's one of the fastest growing IT market segments -- 69% of Americans now use some sort of cloud computing services -- but the business is rife with shady, if not outright deceptive, advertising.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Do you know what your data did last night? Almost none of more than 27 million people who took the RealAge quiz realized that their personal health data was sold to drug companies, who in turned used that information for targeted e-mail marketing campaigns. There's a basic consumer protection principle at work here, and it's the concept of "unfair and deceptive" trade practices. Basically, a company shouldn't be able to say one thing and do another: sell used goods as new, lie on ingredients lists, advertise prices that aren't generally available, claim features that don't exist, and so on. RealAge's privacy policy doesn't mention anything about selling data to drug companies, but buried in its 2,400 words, it does say that "we will share your personal data with third parties to fulfill the services that you have asked us to provide to you." They maintain that when you join the website, you consent to receiving pharmaceutical company spam. But since that isn't spelled out, it's not really informed consent. That's deceptive. Cloud computing is another technology where users entrust their data to service providers. Salesforce.com, Gmail, and Google Docs are examples; your data isn't on your computer -- it's out in the "cloud" somewhere -- and you access it from your web browser. Cloud computing has significant benefits for customers and huge profit potential for providers. It's one of the fastest growing IT market segments -- 69% of Americans now use some sort of cloud computing services -- but the business is rife with shady, if not outright deceptive, advertising.</div>

...

Cancel

Raw Data-Breach Numbers Rise, But the Real Picture Is Fuzzy - 0 views

www.digitaltransactions.net/newsstory.cfm

Privacy Security Breach Records ITRC

shared by Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09 - Cached

Karl Wabst on 21 Apr 09

Data breaches are running at record levels, according to the San Diego-based Identity Theft Resource Center, a non-profit that tracks cybercrime. ITRC says it recorded 342 data breaches from Jan. 1 through June 24, up 69% from the same period in 2007. But, like the origins and perpetrators of so many individual data breaches, mystery also lies behind the aggregated numbers. "I'm not sure that this says breaches are increasing," ITRC founder Linda Foley tells Digital Transactions News. "What we know is the reporting of breaches is increasing." A handful of states now require some disclosure of data breaches to authorities, Alaska being the most recent. And some companies that have been hacked are starting to report breaches voluntarily, Foley says. While data breaches can compromise all manner of personal and business records, they often involve credit and debit card data and bank-account information. ITRC lists five major categories of breached entities, with the so-called banking/credit/financial sector accounting for 10% of 2008's breaches. Businesses, which include physical and Internet retailers, insurance companies and other private enterprises, accounted for 36.8%. Schools accounted for 21.3%; government and military facilities, 17%; and health-care facilities, 14.9%. IRTC also categorizes breaches by how they happened, such as through hackings-break-ins into computers and related systems, insider thefts, data lost in physical transit, and by other methods. The number of 2008 hackings through late June in the banking/credit/financial category was 10-double the five for all of 2007. The estimated number of records compromised as a result was 227,864. In 2007, the reported number of compromised records at financial institutions through hackings was 83,500. But Foley says not to put too much stock in the records numbers because so many breached organizations don't know or fail to report the number of compromised records when they report a bre

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Data breaches are running at record levels, according to the San Diego-based Identity Theft Resource Center, a non-profit that tracks cybercrime. ITRC says it recorded 342 data breaches from Jan. 1 through June 24, up 69% from the same period in 2007. But, like the origins and perpetrators of so many individual data breaches, mystery also lies behind the aggregated numbers. "I'm not sure that this says breaches are increasing," ITRC founder Linda Foley tells Digital Transactions News. "What we know is the reporting of breaches is increasing." A handful of states now require some disclosure of data breaches to authorities, Alaska being the most recent. And some companies that have been hacked are starting to report breaches voluntarily, Foley says. While data breaches can compromise all manner of personal and business records, they often involve credit and debit card data and bank-account information. ITRC lists five major categories of breached entities, with the so-called banking/credit/financial sector accounting for 10% of 2008's breaches. Businesses, which include physical and Internet retailers, insurance companies and other private enterprises, accounted for 36.8%. Schools accounted for 21.3%; government and military facilities, 17%; and health-care facilities, 14.9%. IRTC also categorizes breaches by how they happened, such as through hackings-break-ins into computers and related systems, insider thefts, data lost in physical transit, and by other methods. The number of 2008 hackings through late June in the banking/credit/financial category was 10-double the five for all of 2007. The estimated number of records compromised as a result was 227,864. In 2007, the reported number of compromised records at financial institutions through hackings was 83,500. But Foley says not to put too much stock in the records numbers because so many breached organizations don't know or fail to report the number of compromised records when they report a bre</div>

...

Cancel

Group items tagged

Basis of data protection law is out of date, says privacy regulator - 0 views

CEOs underestimate security risks, survey finds - 0 views

Network Security - Preventing Identity Theft Throughout the Data Life Cycle - 0 views

EC publishes Q&A on overseas data transfer * The Register - 0 views

Federal data breach notification law passes in U.S. House - 0 views

S'pore's privacy laws to be reviewed - 0 views

Missile data, medical records found on discarded hard disks - 0 views

Data privacy regs vary around New England - Mass High Tech Business News - 0 views

Govt looks at ways to protect personal data - 0 views

When A Company Folds, Who Guards Your Data's Privacy? - CIO.com - Business Technology ... - 0 views

Lessons of ChoicePoint, 4 Years Later - CSO Online - Security and Risk - 0 views

EU Data Protection Working Party Issues Guidance on Cross Border Discovery : Security, ... - 0 views

Massachusetts Gets Tough on Data Security - Bank Systems & Technology - 0 views

Experts urge overhaul of health privacy rules| Reuters - 0 views

Leahy trying again with data breach bill - InternetNews:The Blog - Kenneth Corbin - 0 views

Identity Theft: Governments Have Acted to Protect Personally Identifiable Information, ... - 0 views

Industry Giants to Weigh in on US Privacy Laws - PC World - 0 views

With Breaches Rising, Insurer Offers Card-Compromise Coverage - 0 views

Do You Know Where Your Data Are? - WSJ.com - 0 views

Raw Data-Breach Numbers Rise, But the Real Picture Is Fuzzy - 0 views

Related searches