Group items tagged

In May 2008, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) awarded an approximately $450,000 contract to Booz Allen Hamilton to assess and evaluate the scope of the medical identity theft problem in the U.S. Medical Identity Theft Medical identity theft is a specific type of identity theft which occurs when a person uses someone else's personal health identifiable information, such as insurance information, Social Security Number, health care file, or medical records, without the individual's knowledge or consent to obtain medical goods or services, or to submit false claims for medical services. There is limited information available about the scope, depth, and breadth of medical identity theft. Dr. Robert Kolodner, National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, has noted that medical identity theft stories are being documented at an increasing rate, bringing to light serious financial, fraud, and patient care issues. ONC recognizes that health IT is an important tool to combat the threat of medical identity theft. We are seeking input from the public and other government agencies to better understand how health IT can be utilized to prevent and detect medical identity theft as well as build consumer trust in electronic health information exchange. ONC believes it is imperative to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of this issue from a variety of perspectives, and to create an open forum for dialogue to work proactively to address medical identity theft. Medical Identity Theft final report. The report summarizing health IT and medical identity theft issues raised at the town hall was completed January 15, 2009 and sets forth potential actions the Federal government and other stakeholders can undertake in working toward prevention, detection, and remediation of medical identify theft.

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.

Climbing into his Volvo, outfitted with a Matrics antenna and a Motorola reader he'd bought on eBay for $190, Chris Paget cruised the streets of San Francisco with this objective: To read the identity cards of strangers, wirelessly, without ever leaving his car. It took him 20 minutes to strike hacker's gold. Zipping past Fisherman's Wharf, his scanner detected, then downloaded to his laptop, the unique serial numbers of two pedestrians' electronic U.S. passport cards embedded with radio frequency identification, or RFID, tags. Within an hour, he'd "skimmed" the identifiers of four more of the new, microchipped PASS cards from a distance of 20 feet. Embedding identity documents - passports, drivers licenses, and the like - with RFID chips is a no-brainer to government officials. Increasingly, they are promoting it as a 21st century application of technology that will help speed border crossings, safeguard credentials against counterfeiters, and keep terrorists from sneaking into the country. But Paget's February experiment demonstrated something privacy advocates had feared for years: That RFID, coupled with other technologies, could make people trackable without their knowledge or consent. He filmed his drive-by heist, and soon his video went viral on the Web, intensifying a debate over a push by government, federal and state, to put tracking technologies in identity documents and over their potential to erode privacy. Putting a traceable RFID in every pocket has the potential to make everybody a blip on someone's radar screen, critics say, and to redefine Orwellian government snooping for the digital age. "Little Brother," some are already calling it - even though elements of the global surveillance web they warn against exist only on drawing boards, neither available nor approved for use.

On September 12, 2009, Maine's Act to Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices Against Minors (the "Act") will take effect. The Act prohibits businesses from knowingly collecting or receiving a minor's health-related information or personal information for marketing purposes without first obtaining verifiable parental consent. Businesses are also prohibited from using any health-related information or personal information regarding a minor for the purpose of marketing a product or service to the minor. Pursuant to the Act, the use of information in such a manner is a predatory marketing practice, which may be sanctioned as an unfair trade practice. The law also allows individuals subject to unlawful data collection or predatory marketing practices to bring a private right of action against violators. For businesses, the implications of Maine's new data collection and marketing restrictions are far-reaching. The scope of the law covers both online and off-line marketing activities, and the broad definition of personal information includes a minor's name in combination with any information concerning the minor. In light of the Act's restrictive requirements and considerable scope, businesses would be well-advised to evaluate their current marketing practices and age verification mechanisms. The text of the law is available here.

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

A new privacy law in Maine is facing a court challenge from media organizations as well as a coalition of online companies including AOL, News Corp. and Yahoo. The new law, officially titled "An Act To Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices against Minors," prohibits companies from knowingly collecting personal information or health-related information from minors under 18 without their parents' consent. The measure also bans companies from selling or transferring health information about minors that identifies them, regardless of how the data was collected. Wednesday, opponents asked the federal district court in Maine to issue an injunction against the measure, slated to take effect Sept. 12. In its court papers, the groups opposing the law say it has consequences far beyond limiting the marketing of health-care information. They contend the measure would "prevent common marketing practices used to serve teens information on colleges, test prep services, class rings, etc." The groups who are suing include the Maine Independent Colleges Association, Maine Press Association, Reed Elsevier and NetChoice -- a coalition of Web companies like AOL, eBay, Yahoo, IAC, News Corp. and Overstock.com.

"As Congress makes headlines on healthcare and financial industry oversight reform, online data privacy watchdogs are hammering away behind the scenes on the Hill. A joint hearing on online and offline data collection scheduled for later this week, and a planned series of Federal Trade Commission data privacy events have advocacy groups from as far away as California visiting Washington to make sure their voices are heard. "What we're concerned about is the amount of surveillance and tracking going on without consumer consent," said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. Though often skeptical of government regulation, EFF recently joined lobbying groups including Center for Digital Democracy in recommending that Congress pass clear consumer privacy legislation. "

Better to settle with the FTC than get your company's reputation as consumer-friendly (deserved or not) dragged through the court of public opinion.

Sears Holdings has agreed to settle allegations it collected personal data from customers without adequate disclosures, the Federal Trade Commission said on Thursday. The FTC had accused Sears Holdings, created in 2005 with the merger of Sears and Kmart, of paying online customers $10 to allow the company to track their online browsing. But the FTC said Sears also collected information on non-Sears sites, such as online bank statements, drug prescription records and emails. "The software would also track some computer activities that were not related to the Internet," the FTC said in a statement. Sears did disclose all it would monitor in a lengthy user license agreement, but the FTC argued it was not enough. "The complaint charges that Sears' failure to adequately disclose the scope of the tracking software's data collection was deceptive and violates the FTC Act," the FTC said in a statement. Sears did not immediately reply to two telephone calls and one email seeking a comment. Under the settlement, Sears is required to destroy the data collected and make future disclosures more prominent.