Group items tagged

Affixing a dollar cost to a problem has immense benefit, and The Ponemon Institute goes to great lengths to arrive at the figures for its Annual Cost of a Data Breach Study. We painstakingly analyzed the financial impact a data breach has on a company by examining 43 different companies from a cross section of industries, all of which experienced a significant data breach affecting a range of data records representative of the norm. And knowing that a data breach may cost your company $6.65 million dollars may be all the information that is needed for a company to assign an appropriate budget to those tasked with information security. In 2008 the average total cost of a data breach was $6.65 million, up from $6.35 million last year and $4.54 in 2005. In 2008, the per-victim cost of a data breach was $202, up from $197 in 2007, and from $138 when the study was launched in 2005. Breaches involving a third party to which data had been outsourced bore a per-victim cost of $231, whereas self contained breaches bore a per-victim cost of $179. Breaches that were the result of a malicious act bore a per-victim cost of $225, whereas breaches that were the result of negligence bore a per-victim cost of $199. Breaches that were the result of a lost of stolen laptop computer bore a per-victim cost of $249, whereas breaches that did not involve a lost or stolen laptop computer bore a per-victim cost of $177. If the data breach was a first-time event for the company the per victim cost was $243, but if the company had experienced a breach previously the per victim cost was $192. The simple conclusion to these numbers is clear: the financial impact for a company that experiences a data breach is significant and rising. That finding alone may be alarming, but it seems to merely quantify what most people already knew to be true. The "wow" factor comes when you realize that we haven't simply identified the cost of an inevitable outcome, as if to tell the world, "buckle up and brac

A couple in Pittsburgh whose lawsuit claimed that Street View on Google Maps is a reckless invasion of their privacy lost their case. Aaron and Christine Boring sued the Internet search giant last April, alleging that Google "significantly disregarded (their) privacy interests" when Street View cameras captured images of their house beyond signs marked "private road." The couple claimed in their five-count lawsuit that finding their home clearly visible on Google's Street View caused them "mental suffering" and diluted their home value. They sought more than $25,000 in damages and asked that the images of their home be taken off the site and destroyed. However, the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania wasn't impressed by the suit and dismissed it (PDF) Tuesday, saying the Borings "failed to state a claim under any count." Ironically, the Borings subjected themselves to even more public exposure by filing the lawsuit, which included their home address. In addition, the Allegheny County's Office of Property Assessments included a photo of the home on its Web site. The Borings are not alone in their ire toward the Google Maps feature. As reported earlier, residents in California's Humboldt County complained that the drivers who are hired to collect the images are disregarding private property signs and driving up private roads. In January, a private Minnesota community near St. Paul, unhappy that images of its streets and homes appeared on the site, demanded Google remove the images, which the company did. However, Google claims to be legally allowed to photograph on private roads, arguing that privacy no longer exists in this age of satellite and aerial imagery. "Today's satellite-image technology means that...complete privacy does not exist," Google said in its response to the Borings' complaint Not long after the feature launched in May 2007, privacy advocates criticized Google for displaying photographs that included people's faces and car license

There is no denying that Google is a giant success. But its size has made the "do no evil" mantra all the more difficult for it to follow - and for some of us to believe. Lately, it seems every new release and every new decision draws the ire of someone, be it politicians, privacy campaigners, or even villagers. While the Google brand is certainly in better shape than many tech firms, its constant moves to control more and more of our data and information has some up in arms. Privacy Three recent announcements have drawn the attention of privacy campaigners in the UK - Latitude, Street View, and behavioural advertising. Latitude is Google's mobile tracking system. Sign up for it, add your friends, and you can all see exactly where each other is via your mobile phone signal pinpointed on a Google map. Handy if you're bored and want to know who's out and about, but the location tracking system could be frightening for a host of other reasons, some say. Last month, Liberal Democrats Home Affairs spokesman Tom Brake filed an early day motion (EDM) asking the government to look into Latitude. Brake said: "This system poses an insidious threat to our hard-won liberties. 24-hour surveillance and a Big Brother society are new realities." But the heat was off Latitude after Street View was unveiled in the UK. The photo mapping system features street-level photos of 25 cities, offering a virtual tour of places such as London, Manchester and more. But some people aren't so happy having their homes, cars and selves photographed and mapped - even with face and number plates blurred. The backlash didn't take long to start. Within a day, Privacy International was on the case, asking the Information Commissioner to shut the site down.