Group items tagged

The head of Calgary's Drop-In Centre says he is astounded by the controversy surrounding the shelter's use of a handprint-based security system, with the latest salvo coming from the province's privacy commissioner on Friday. "People . . . have no idea what we're going through here,"said the centre's executive director Dermot Baldwin, adding he now has three staff off work because of beatings. "We're going to (take) the measures necessary to make this place safe, secure, a good place to come . . . but in order to do that, I've got to keep the bad guys out." The comments came after Alberta's privacy commissioner said he's concerned about a new security system the Drop-In Centre is testing, which includes the scanning of clients' handprints to confirm their identification. Frank Work said Friday the home-less shelter's system of scanning and collecting handprints will likely lead to the creation of a database that will store that information.

Hackers, possibly from Asia, have stolen about a decade's worth of personal information on current and former UC-Berkeley students, the university announced Friday. The breaches involved records dating to 1999 at the school's health center that included Social Security numbers, health insurance information, immunization history and the names of treating physicians. No other treatment-related records were stolen, the university said, although self-reported medical histories of students who studied abroad were hacked. The school on Friday sent e-mails and letters to 160,000 people, including about 3,400 Mills College students who used or were eligible for University of California-Berkeley medical services. About 97,000 people are most at risk because their names and Social Security numbers could be connected by the hackers, said Steve Lustig, the university's associate vice chancellor for health and human services. "What's been taken is bits of data that the thief might put together into an identity," he said. The university traced the hackers back to Asia, possibly China, but the exact origin could not be pinpointed. UC and FBI investigators are probing the breaches, which apparently occurred over several months. An FBI spokesman said the agency was informed of the hacking immediately, but declined to provide more information. The thefts were discovered about a month ago, but system administrators did Advertisement not realize the breadth of the attack until April 21. The hackers disguised their work as routine operations and then left taunting messages for UC-Berkeley employees, said Shelton Waggener, the university's associate vice chancellor for information technology. The thieves accessed the information through the university Web site, he said. "You should think of it as a public building," Waggener said. "They got into the building properly, but then they broke into secure areas." Administrators at Mills College, which contracts with UC-Berkeley for

Consumer Watchdog has sent the U.S. Justice Department a Google document presenting the best corporate arguments for why Google should not be viewed as monopolistic, along with a duplicate of the presentation marked up with comments from an expert countering the claims. The nonprofit consumer group received both documents from an anonymous industry insider. In the presentation, Google seeks to deflate increasing criticism that it is too big and powerful by spin meant to minimize the notion its search and advertising businesses are virtual monopolies. Commentary surrounding the presentation in the second document delivered to Consumer Watchdog presents information countering Google's contentions in what is described as a "Charm Offensive." "As the Justice Department examines the Google book deal and other Google enterprises it deserves to see the play book Google has prepared to deflect scrutiny and insider commentary on how many Google myths lack a basis in reality," said Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court. "Google's charm and spin should not be allowed to deter anti-trust regulators from seeing the real problems with Google's dominance and setting appropriate limits to protect users."

For months somebody (I don't know who) has been running a Facebook profile that bears my name, my personal information and several photos of me. An old high school friend had connected with the faker, instead of me. Several of the people with whom fake Matt is friends also appeared to be fakes, including a copycat of Vertex Pharmaceuticals ( VRTX - news - people ) founder and chief executive Joshua Boger. (Boger has a real Facebook profile but isn't friends with me. He declined to comment on the fakesters.) I couldn't see this Fake Matt's profile myself, even by searching for my name.

A former IT analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and his brother were arrested Friday on charges that they took out loans using stolen information, including sensitive information belonging to federal employees at the bank. Prosecutors allege that Curtis Wiltshire, 34, took out student loans totalling US$73,000 using the stolen information. His brother, Kenneth Wiltshire, 40, is charged with using the identities of two federal employees to try and obtain a loan for a 2006 Sea Ray 340 Sundancer speedboat. The charges (pdf) come two months after federal investigators found two 2006 student loan applications on a thumb drive attached to the work computer of Curtis Wiltshire, who had worked at the Reserve Bank for nearly eight years as an information and technical analyst. According to court documents, that investigation was unrelated to the fraud charges. Wiltshire was dismissed soon after the drive was found on around Feb. 15, prosecutors said. The charges were filed in the federal court in Manhattan. The two men could not be reached for comment Friday and the names of their lawyers were not included in the court documents. Curtis Wiltshire had "access to computer files containing information about employees of the [federal bank], including their names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and photographs," U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Cordel James said in an affidavit filed in the case. Curtis Wiltshire was charged with bank fraud and identity theft and faces more than 30 years in prison if convicted. His brother was charged with mail fraud and identity theft and faces a maximum of 22 years in prison.

A very heated reaction has followed the interview I conducted yesterday with Robert Carr, CEO of Heartland Payment Systems. One reader even said the resulting Q&A made his "blood boil." Why the outrage? Because Carr did something a lot of people find unacceptable. He threw someone else under the proverbial bus for his company's failure to keep customer credit and debit card numbers out of evil hands. Specifically, he thrust an angry finger at the QSAs who came in to inspect the security controls Heartland had in place to meet the requirements of PCI security. In the article, [Heartland CEO on Data Breach: QSAs Let Us Down] Carr said, "The audits done by our QSAs (Qualified Security Assessors) were of no value whatsoever. To the extent that they were telling us we were secure beforehand, that we were PCI compliant, was a major problem. The QSAs in our shop didn't even know this was a common attack vector being used against other companies. We learned that 300 other companies had been attacked by the same malware. I thought, 'You've got to be kidding me.' That people would know the exact attack vector and not tell major players in the industry is unthinkable to me. I still can't reconcile that." That one comment brought down the house, and not in a favorable way. "I just read Bill Brenner's interview with Heartland Payment Systems' CEO Bob Carr and truthfully, my blood is boiling," Mike Rothman, SVP of strategy at eIQnetworks and chief blogger at Security Incite wrote in a counterpoint piece CSOonline ran today. "Basically, he's throwing his QSA under the bus for the massive data breach that happened under his watch. Basically, because the QSA didn't find anything, therefore he should be off the hook. I say that's a load of crap."

NIST announces the release of the Initial Public Draft (IPD) of Special Publication 800-16, Revision 1, Information Security Training Requirements: A Role- and Performance-Based Model. This publication is now available for public comment. The comprehensive training methodology provided in this publication is intended to be used by federal information security professionals and instructional design specialists to design (1) role-based training courses or modules for personnel who have been identified as having significant responsibilities for information security, and (2) a basics and literacy course for all users of information systems. We encourage readers to pay special attention to the Notes to Reviewers section, as we are looking for feedback on the many changes we have made to this document.

Perhaps Mark Z is surprised that people actually read terms of service. Arrogant twit. He's a multi-millionaire who cares about the little people (stage direction: Mark Z looks sincerely into web cam as he wipes away tear with hundred dollar bill). Perhaps the Tweens don't understand what social networking sites really sell; looks like some grown ups started asking where all their personal information is going and when it might inconveniently show up in some ad campaign.

A couple of weeks ago, we revised our terms of use hoping to clarify some parts for our users. Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information. Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. Many of us at Facebook spent most of today discussing how best to move forward. One approach would have been to quickly amend the new terms with new language to clarify our positions further. Another approach was simply to revert to our old terms while we begin working on our next version. As we thought through this, we reached out to respected organizations to get their input. Going forward, we've decided to take a new approach towards developing our terms. We concluded that returning to our previous terms was the right thing for now. As I said yesterday, we think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective so we don't plan to leave it there for long. More than 175 million people use Facebook. If it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world. Our terms aren't just a document that protect our rights; it's the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service. Our next version will be a substantial revision from where we are now. It will reflect the principles I described yesterday around how people share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand. Since this will be the governing document that we'll all live by, Facebook users will have a lot of input in crafting these terms. You have my commitment that we'll do all of these things, but in order to do them right it will take a little bit of time. We expect to complete this in the next few we

Google has released a more detailed privacy policy for its Google Books product, a move demanded in recent weeks by several critics of its settlement with publishers and authors. The company announced the new policy in a blog post late Thursday afternoon, saying it developed the policy following conversations with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Google had previously said it was unable to release a detailed policy because the Google Books product was incomplete due to the fact that the settlement allowing its Book Search project to display certain types of books has yet to be formally approved. However, criticism of Google's lack of detailed information on the subject appears to have forced its hand. "To provide all users with a clear understanding of our practices, and in response to helpful comments about needing to be clearer about the Books product from the FTC and others, we wanted to highlight key provisions of the main Google Privacy Policy in the context of the Google Books service, as well as to describe privacy practices specific to the Google Books service," wrote Jane Horvath, general privacy counsel for Google, in a blog post.

In this video, Andre Gold, vice president and CISO of MoneyGram International, will discuss the basics of disaster recovery and business continuity planning, and define several general terms associated with disaster recovery and business continuity planning to help organizations develop a more accurate understanding. The text transcript of Gold's comments is included below. Andre Gold: Over the past four to five years, I've spent a lot of time in disaster recovery and business continuity planning as part of my role as the chief risk officer as well as the CISO for a couple major organizations. During that time, in working with those firms, I've had a greater appreciation of disaster recovery and business continuity planning, and I've learned that although BCP and DR are very important to firms, when its actually time to execute upon those respected strategies, many firms fail, and they fail fundamentally because they lose sight of the core elements of disaster recovery and business continuity planning. And with that, it's those core elements that we will be discussing today.

While 51% of the comments were posted to blogs and 30% to message boards, just 7% appeared on Facebook and 7% on Twitter.

The statement did not indicate whether the information was paper-based or downloaded electronic information, and hospital officials were not immediately available for comment. The information likely was paper-based because "it appears the patients impacted by the incident were limited to individuals born between 1988 and 1992," according to the statement.

"Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg told a live audience yesterday that if he were to create Facebook again today, user information would by default be public, not private as it was for years until the company changed dramatically in December. In a six-minute interview on stage with TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington, Zuckerberg spent 60 seconds talking about Facebook's privacy policies. His statements were of major importance for the world's largest social network - and his arguments in favor of an about-face on privacy deserve close scrutiny. Zuckerberg offered roughly 8 sentences in response to Arrington's question about where privacy was going on Facebook and around the web. The question was referencing the changes Facebook underwent last month. Your name, profile picture, gender, current city, networks, Friends List, and all the pages you subscribe to are now publicly available information on Facebook. This means everyone on the web can see it; it is searchable. I"

Zuckerberg should not be trusted with your personal data. The range of reader comments in response to this article are worth a read.

If done artfully and well, mobile media and technology is capable of reversing a century-old model of selling -- where salespeople went to people's homes or waited for interested consumers to come to them. In some ways, mobile replaces the traveling and in-store salesmen with the newer (albeit slightly creepy) model of the "following salesman."

Social networking sites are often used by government ministers as an example of the profound way attitudes to privacy have changed. They argue that the young generation invade their own privacy to a far greater extent than the government ever would. The implication is that the older people who object to government intrusion are living in the past. The response to this is that people who use social networking sites voluntarily reveal things about themselves and have a degree of control of over how long information and photographs stay in the public domain, while the government collects and stores information without permission and allows the subject no access to the data held. There is no obvious comparison between the two activities. But this doesn't let the social networking sites off the hook. Most internet companies claim a kind of morality free status when it comes to such issues as privacy and copyright, and Web 2.0 sites are no different. A study published this week by Cambridge PhD students shows that nearly half of all social networking sites retain copies of photographs after being "deleted" by users. The study examined 16 popular websites that host user-uploaded photos, including social networking sites, blogging sites and dedicated-photo-sharing sites. Seven of the 16 sites surveyed were still maintaining copies of users' photos after they had been deleted by the user. The researchers - Jonathan Anderson, Andrew Lewis, Joseph Bonneau and lecturer Frank Stajano - found that by keeping a note of the URL where the photo is actually stored in a content delivery network, it was possible for them to access the photo even after it had been deleted.