Group items tagged

The Supreme Court upheld a U.S. government crackdown on profanity on television, a policy that subjects broadcasters to fines for airing a single expletive blurted out on a live show. In its first ruling on broadcast indecency standards in more than 30 years, the high court handed a victory on Tuesday to the Federal Communications Commission, which adopted the crackdown against the one-time use of profanity on live television when children are likely to be watching. The case stemmed from an FCC decision in 2006 that found News Corp's Fox television network violated decency rules when singer Cher blurted out an expletive during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards broadcast and actress Nicole Richie used two expletives during the 2003 awards. No fines were imposed, but Fox challenged the decision. A U.S. appeals court in New York struck down the new policy as "arbitrary and capricious" and sent the case back to the FCC for a more reasoned explanation of its policy.

By now, many employees are uncomfortably aware that their every keystroke at work, from email on office computers to text messages on company phones, can be monitored legally by their employers. What employees typically don't expect is for the company to spy on them while on password-protected sites using nonwork computers. But even that privacy could be in jeopardy. A case brewing in federal court in New Jersey pits bosses against two employees who were complaining about their workplace on an invite-only discussion group on MySpace.com, a social-networking site owned by News Corp., publisher of The Wall Street Journal. The case tests whether a supervisor who managed to log into the forum -- and then fired employees who badmouthed supervisors and customers there -- had the right to do so. The case has some legal and privacy experts concerned that companies are intruding into areas that their employees had considered off limits. "The question is whether employees have a right to privacy in their non-work-created communications with each other. And I would think the answer is that they do," said Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment expert and partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP in New York. The legal landscape is murky. For the most part, employers don't need a reason to fire nonunion workers. But state laws in California, New York and Connecticut protect employees who engage in lawful, off-duty activities from being fired or disciplined, according to a report prepared by attorneys at the firm Proskauer Rose LLP. While private conversations might be covered under those laws, none of the statutes specifically addresses social networking or blogging. Thus, privacy advocates expect to see more of these legal challenges. In February, three police officers in Harrison, N.Y., were suspended after they allegedly made lewd remarks about the town mayor on a Facebook account. The officers mistakenly thought the remarks were protected with a password, but city officials view

Even a booster of electronic systems like David Blumenthal, who just started his Washington post as the national coordinator of health IT, points to a myriad of challenges when it comes to digitizing the nation's medical records. Just take a look at his piece this month in the New England Journal of Medicine, in which he cites technical concerns and worries about patient privacy, among other things. In an interview with the WSJ, he said problems can crop up if the systems are installed too quickly and without enough technical support. There are plenty of potential advantages that electronic records can bring, from helping hospitals and doctors get information quickly on patients' medical histories to making catches when two drugs are being prescribed that may interact dangerously together. But there are also risks: Take a look at a study in Pediatrics that cites the case of Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, which initially saw a rise in the death rate for certain patients after computerizing its order-entry system, perhaps because it took longer to begin their treatment. (The hospital told the WSJ the study was "flawed," adding the mortality rate had fallen since then.) The WSJ also cites the case of a patient who was initially given an incorrect diagnosis based on a mix-up involving electronic records and a test result for another patient. Health Blog Question of the Day: What's been your experience with electronic records? Do they prevent safety problems or create new risks?

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.

Purdue University last month reported its seventh data breach in the past four years. But Purdue is hardly alone. According to my records, over 300 publicized privacy incidents have occurred at U.S. institutions of higher learning since 2001, with at least 53 colleges and universities experiencing multiple breaches (see table at end of article). The regular stream of university data-breach reports has prompted Adam Dodge, assistant director for information security at Eastern Illinois University, to devote a blog - Educational Security Incidents - to the topic. When I last covered the issue four years ago (see "Security breaches challenge academia's 'open society' "), universities were the leading sector for publicized breaches. The same is true today. What's going on? Why haven't things changed? John Correlli of Los Angeles-based JMC Privacy Consulting Group has some answers. Correlli recently published a detailed analysis of the topic, "Breaches in the Academia Sector." Correlli identifies the top three root causes of university breaches: unauthorized access, usually inside jobs; accidental online exposures; and stolen laptops. "Privacy governance in academia is far too frequently thrown into the laps of the IT folks, who are then told, implicitly or explicitly, that privacy isn't a priority until it's a problem," Correlli told me.

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

The enormous international focus on privacy is growing more urgent in the face of business and government pressure to get the economy moving again and restore trust in our most basic institutions. To help rebuild trust and bolster bottom lines in a down market, it pays to prioritize privacy. The time is right to make smart investments in an organization's privacy professionals-the experts in the eye of the storm that must work collectively to find the right solutions to privacy challenges. The IAPP, which now boasts 6,000 members across 47 countries, is convening its annual Privacy Summit in Washington DC from March 11-13, 2009-the largest and most global privacy event in the world. Attendees will have the unique opportunity to interact with privacy regulators from Canada, France, Spain, Israel, the UK, Italy, the U.S. and the experts who help shape their policies across 60 different educational and networking sessions. Keynote speakers include Frank Abagnale (of Catch Me if You Can fame), one of the world's most respected authorities on forgery, embezzlement and secure documents as well as internationally renowned security technologist Bruce Schneier. The Future of Privacy Forum will be strongly represented at this year's Summit. Jules Polonetsky and Chris Wolf will be co-presenting a session entitled Cheers & Jeers: Who is Doing Privacy Right and Who Deserves Detention. Jules and Chris will also cover Behavioral Advertising Secrets: What Your Marketing and IT Team Didn't Think You Needed to Know. Both topics should be big draws for the expected 1500 attendees at the Summit! It's this sort of event that advances our profession and helps privacy professionals work together to reclaim trust. Registration is open and we look forward to seeing you in DC.

Enforcing Privacy Promises: Section 5 of the FTC Act A key part of the Commission's privacy program is making sure companies keep the promises they make to consumers about privacy, including the precautions they take to secure consumers' personal information. To respond to consumers' concerns about privacy, many Web sites post privacy policies that describe how consumers' personal information is collected, used, shared, and secured. Indeed, almost all the top 100 commercial sites now post privacy policies. Using its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices, the Commission has brought a number of cases to enforce the promises in privacy statements, including promises about the security of consumers' personal information. The Commission has also used its unfairness authority to challenge information practices that cause substantial consumer injury.

The team that ran the most technologically advanced presidential campaign in modern history is finding it difficult to adapt that model to government. WhiteHouse.gov, envisioned as the primary vehicle for President Obama to communicate with the online masses, has been overwhelmed by challenges that staffers did not foresee and technological problems they have yet to solve. Obama, for example, would like to send out mass e-mail updates on presidential initiatives, but the White House does not have the technology in place to do so. The same goes for text messaging, another campaign staple. Beyond the technological upgrades needed to enable text broadcasts, there are security and privacy rules to sort out involving the collection of cellphone numbers, according to Obama aides, who acknowledge being caught off guard by the strictures of government bureaucracy. "This is uncharted territory," said Macon Phillips, White House director of new media, which was a midlevel position in previous administrations but has been boosted by Obama to a "special assistant to the president."

Times are tough, and we all continue to hear about the heightened risk of the insider threat. Granted, unauthorized insider access to data has always been a concern. But the concern is increased now because of the tremendous changes that we are seeing in the economy. The term "disgruntled employee" now has a whole new meaning because there are more and more folks concerned about 'What if my job disappears? What kind of information can I keep? What kind of information can I have access to?' As one who's dealt with the insider threat, I have some questions of my own: What do you really mean by an insider? In our borderless world, the terms "insider" and "outsider" overlap. "Insiders" are not just employees and staff, but also service providers, business partners, consultants, contractors -- any number of parties who may work for companies we deal with. What do we really mean by an authorized versus an unauthorized insider? If you take a look at the Societe Generale situation, allegedly a fraud was committed by an authorized user with privileges he was not supposed to have. How? Well, the horribly overused cliché is that if you work with a company long enough, eventually you will have access to everything, and no one will know it. Bottom line: As people change jobs within a company, we are not good at updating their roles and responsibilities. If you look at all the efforts that have been spent on identity and access management products, the biggest challenge is trying to understand: What are the roles and responsibilities you are trying to apply to people? How do you develop these roles and responsibilities and how do group them? How do you really deal with people who have to change roles and responsibilities? How do you add and delete roles and responsibilities as people change jobs?

The recent U.S. stimulus bill includes $18 billion to catapult the health industry toward the world of electronic health records. This is sure to light a fire under every hungry security vendor to position itself as the essential product or service necessary to achieve HIPAA compliance. It should also motivate healthcare IT professionals to learn where their sensitive data is located and how it flows. To be sure, with federal money allocated through 2014 for the task of modernizing the healthcare industry there will be many consultant and vendor businesses that will thrive on stimulus money. Healthcare is unique in that storage of electronic health records is highly distributed between primary care physicians, specialist doctors, hospitals, and insurance/HMO organizations. Information has to be efficiently shared among these entities with great sensitivity towards patient privacy and legitimate claims processing. Patients want to prevent over zealous employers from performing unauthorized background checks on medical history; claim processors want to prevent paying fraudulent claims arising from targeted patient identity theft. The bill has two provisions which turn this into a tremendously challenging plan, and a daunting task for securing patient data: * Citizens will have the right to monitor and control use of their own health data. This implies a large centralized identity and access control service, or perhaps a federated network of patient registration directories. Authenticated users will be able to reach into the network of health databases audit use of their data and payment history. * Health organizations suffering loss of more than 500 patient records must publicly disclose the breach, starting with postings on the government's Health and Human Services website. This allows related organizations to trace the impact of the breach throughout the healthcare network, but care must be taken not to disclose vulnerabilities in the system to intruders

Outgoing CPO of the Department of Homeland Security Hugo Teufel discusses his team's accomplishments and the challenges ahead for his successor. If you had a chance to pose any question to the person in charge of protecting Americans' privacy as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security executes its mission, what would you say? I had that chance this month when Hugo Teufel, departing chief privacy officer at the DHS, delivered an address, entitled "Reflections on My Time as DHS CPO of the War on Terror," to the Twin Cities Privacy Retreat. After the address, I cornered Teufel for some follow-up questions. Those and his answers follow.

Online fraud is a $4 billion dollar a year industry. It grows as the unemployment rate increases and the jobless attempt to earn a living through whatever means necessary. Meanwhile, the Internet's footprint on the global economy and culture becomes larger every day. The expansion of fraud and the identification of this risk will create more jobs in the fields of compliance, risk management, and best practices. Who will fill these positions? For many companies looking to take action, the initial move will be to consolidate roles. Individuals in areas such as sales and marketing will absorb fraud identification, reporting, and prevention responsibilities. This will prove to be ineffective for the following reasons: 1. The sales and marketing staffs are not trained to identify fraud and they cannot keep up with the ever-changing tactics. 2. Associates are conflicted when faced with a fraud incident. They are not motivated to report fraud and their compensation structure dissuades them from reporting incidents. 3. Business goals are not aligned appropriately, which naturally moved fraud last on the priority list for the associates assigned the additional responsibilities. 4. While the internal attempt is made, no time is spent on partner due diligence and monitoring. Organizations will benefit in the long term by hiring dedicated staff. This tactic is one component of my company's Best Practice approach to doing business. My dedicated team helped realign business goals and create a culture that now embraces a higher set of standards and expectations. Staffing and training were the largest challenges I have faced in the last year. The positions were new, the skill set was specific, and as a result we received a dichotomous set of resumes. Applicants with online marketing experience had little to no experience with fraud, or they came from companies where more unscrupulous methods were used, and I was not confident those habits would be easily kicked. The app

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme court announced its refusal to hear appeals against the banning of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), effectively killing the bill. The American Civil Liberties Union called it "a clear victory for free speech," having fought the bill for ten years claiming it infringed on a website's freedom of speech. I've always advocated that it is the responsibility of parents to monitor their children's online activity. There are a ton of Web filtering and parental control applications available, many for free such as Blue Coat's K9 Web Protection. Especially with the country in the shape it's in now, my personal opinion is that the government has more pressing issues to attend to than babysitting children online. COPA was first passed in 1998, and made it illegal to display any pornographic material on a Web site without an access code or proof of age message. However, state courts began challenging the bill immediately, claiming it was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment. Instead, it was ruled that parental controls should be used by individual families to block unwanted content, rather than the government determining what can and cannot be seen by all. (COPA was killed, not COPPA - Children's Online Privacy Protection Act)

Government Computer News presents Pat Howard, chief information security officer of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Ari Schwartz, vice president and chief operating officer of the Center for Democracy and Technology, in an eSeminar recoreded at 2 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 19, where they discuss personally identifiable information in the government. Federal IT officials must continually balance competing demands to share information while also complying with various mandates to protect the privacy of PII within federal information systems and programs. During the presentation, Mr. Howard discusses: * How IT and program managers are adapting to these challenges; * The latest laws and guidance on PII; * Measures taken by the NRC to strengthen PII protections; and * New demands concerning privacy in the federal marketplace. A question-and-answer session follows the presentation. GCN Editor in Chief Wyatt Kash moderates.

Heartland Payment Systems, the sixth-largest payments processor in the U.S., announced Monday that its processing systems were breached in 2008, exposing an undetermined number of consumers to potential fraud. Meanwhile, Forcht Bank, one of the 10 largest banks in Kentucky, told its customers it would begin reissuing 8,500 debit cards after being informed by its own card processor of a possible breach. In the case of Heartland, while the company continues to assess the damages inflicted by the attack, Robert Baldwin, the company's president and CFO, says law enforcement has already noted that the attack against his company is part of a wider cyber fraud operation. "The indication that it is tied to wider cyber fraud operation comes directly from conversations with the Department of Justice and the U.S. Secret Service," Baldwin says. The company says it believes the breach has been contained. Heartland, headquartered in Princeton, NJ, handles approximately 100 million transactions per month, although the number of unique cardholders is much lower. "It is still a question as to the percentage of the data flow they were able to get," Baldwin says, adding he would not speculate on the number of cards potentially exposed. Specifics surrounding when the breach occurred are still being analyzed. But Baldwin says two forensic auditing teams have been working on the breach analysis and investigation since late 2008, after Heartland received the notification from Visa and MasterCard. The investigation began immediately after the credit card companies told Heartland they saw suspicious activity surrounding processed card transactions. Described by Baldwin as "quite a sophisticated attack," he says it has been challenging to discover exactly how it happened.

This tip is part of SearchSecurity.com's Data Protection School lesson, E-discovery and security in the enterprise. Visit the E-discovery and security in the enterprise lesson page for additional learning resources. Most information security pros have a handle on the major data types found in their environments, but they also know that there is a whole lot more data lurking around the edges. These unknown data types can include documents used by individuals, or whole applications owned by departments that have quietly become essential to the business. Most of the time, focusing on the squeaky wheels is an acceptable strategy; if there's no "squeak" then there's no need to worry. But when it comes to litigation, and especially managing the electronic discovery process, what you don't know can hurt you. There are four major types of data in use today: paper documents; structured data sets, like databases; semi-structured applications, like email and image stores; and unstructured repositories, like file servers. Comprehending the vast volume of these varied records can be a challenge for everyone involved, which includes information technology, records management, legal staff, and even the data owners themselves. But since almost all business information is stored in digital formats today, electronic storage systems are the most popular target for the discovery motions filed as part of legal proceedings. It is most efficient for a litigator to head straight for your email, spreadsheets and applications, looking for what they term electronically stored information (ESI). Making matters worse for IT administrators, new rules for civil litigation enacted at the end of 2006 (called the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or FRCP) have pushed up the timetable of electronic discovery. What was once a delayed and informal process has become much more structured, with lawyers meeting to discuss available ESI, typically just a few weeks after legal action commences. When l

Jan 15, 2009 There may be only a handful of days left in the Bush administration, but the brouhaha over White House e-mail retention policies promises to continue right up to the last day. A federal court yesterday extended a preservation order to ensure that the outgoing administration does everything it can to recover any missing White House e-mails. The White House IT staff now has five days to scour workstations for missing e-mail before administration data records are archived on Jan. 20. The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy Jr., also orders staff of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) to relinquish any digital media that may contain e-mails from March 2003 and October 2005. The legal action is the latest resulting from a lawsuit filed in September 2007 by the National Security Archive against the EOP, seeking to preserve and restore White House e-mails it alleged were missing. "There is nothing like a deadline to clarify the issues," Tom Blanton, the National Security Archive's director, said in a statement. "The White House will complain about the last-minute challenge, but this is a records crisis of its own making." The Archive, an independent nongovernmental research institute based at George Washington University, is a repository of government records and does not receive U.S. government funding. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a left-wing public advocacy group, also filed suit, but its legal action was subsequently consolidated with the Archive's legal action, which is taking place in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Last May, the White House's top tech staffer acknowledged that three months of data were missing from backup tapes. In earlier testimony before a congressional committee, White House technical staff said millions of e-mails from the past eight years could potentially have been erased. Also yesterday, Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held an emergency status con

The use of data in the online world is being governed by the rules of the "Wild West," the European Commission will argue this week, in the clearest warning yet to Internet companies to curb how they use the information they collect on users. With concern growing over the amount of data gathered by the biggest players on the Internet, the comments will challenge the industry to agree on new principles for its use - or face a clampdown. Meglena Kuneva, the European consumer affairs commissioner, will argue that basic consumer rights are being violated by companies that profile and target consumers, according to a draft of a speech seen by the International Herald Tribune. "From the point of view of commercial communications," the draft speech reads, "the World Wide Web is turning out to be the world 'Wild West."' Kuneva is to deliver the speech to a meeting of around 200 industry and consumer representatives on Wednesday. Her comments reflect the anxiety of regulators on both sides of the Atlantic about the commercial use of information garnered through online tracking made possible via "cookies" - small files dropped into users' computers by the Web sites they visit. These cookies help companies take note of users' habits and can be sold to advertisers to help them target their marketing efforts. But their use raises serious questions about who knows which sites we visit and what they do with that information. In the United States, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Jon Leibowitz, warned recently that, if the industry does not show it can protect users' privacy, it will invite legislation from Congress and a more regulatory approach from the F.T.C.

WASHINGTON -- Few tech policy debates are plumped up with more rhetoric than those concerning Net neutrality and privacy restrictions for advertisers. It should be a noisy year at the Federal Communications Commission. Here at the Cable Show, the annual conference hosted by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, advisors to the three current commissioners outlined some of the simmering issues that are likely to boil up at the FCC this year, and those two are on the short list. Rick Chessen, acting chief of staff for interim FCC Chairman Michael Copps, said the agency could move toward adding to its Internet policy statement a fifth principle that would explicitly bar ISPs from discriminating against certain traffic on their networks. "The principle would be one of nondiscrimination, but you would recognize the need for reasonable network management," Chessen said. The FCC's broadband principles comprised the policy document that was at the center of last year's action against Comcast, where the agency found that the cable giant had unfairly blocked peer-to-peer traffic on its network without notifying its subscribers it was doing so. The new principle Chessen suggested would seek to clarify the agency's stance against the selective blocking of traffic. Comcast is challenging last year's ruling in a court case where the outcome could broadly shape how Congress proceed with Net neutrality policy. Rosemary Harold, the legal advisor to Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell, said her boss is more cautious than the two Democrats on the matter.