Group items tagged

A data protection group has warned that opting out of Phorm will not prevent the technology from processing data that users enter through web site search portals. Companies such as Amazon, Wikipedia and LiveJournal have taken the decision to block the controversial advertising technology from scanning their sites because of the privacy implications. However, Open Rights Group executive director Jim Killock has since admitted that, even if web sites opt out of the programme, ISPs supporting Phorm will still be able to profile users visiting those sites. "This is because Phorm can scan search requests entered in those sites, even if it cannot detect the web site pages users are viewing," Killock said. "For example, even if Google opts out of Webwise, when a user types in a Google query and they are using BT, it will still go through Phorm before it reaches BT." Killock added that Phorm does not gain permission from either senders or receivers of the information before it processes the data. Phorm uses browsing information to serve accurately targeted advertisements, and is soon to be rolled out under the Webwise brand by internet service providers BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk. However, as the time for deployment nears, the controversy surrounding the technology only seems to be increasing.

Following on the heels of Facebook's decision to rescind a highly controversial move to store all content posted on the social network, new data has emerged to support consumers' increasing alarm over online privacy. The vast majority--80.1%--of Web surfers are indeed concerned about the privacy of their personal information such as age, gender, income and Web-surfing habits, according to a survey of some 4,000 Web users administered and analyzed by Burst Media. More worrisome, perhaps, is the finding that privacy concerns are prevalent among all age segments, including younger demographics that are coming of age online. Still, privacy concerns do appear to increase with age, from 67.3% among respondents ages 18-24 to 85.7% of respondents 55 years and older. "Online privacy is a prevailing concern for web surfers," said Chuck Moran, vice president of marketing for Burst Media. The survey was administered by Burst with the purpose of better understanding how privacy is impacting Web users' experiences online, as well as its impact on advertisers. "Advertisers must take concrete actions to mitigate consumers' privacy concerns and at the same time continue to deliver their message as effectively as possible," Moran added. "In addition, and as recently seen in the news flare up regarding Facebook's privacy controversy, publishers need to be completely transparent about their privacy policies." Facebook recently changed its terms of use agreement, which gave the Palo Alto, Calif.-based company the ability to store user-posted photos and other content, even after it was deleted by users themselves. Earlier this week, however, the company reverted to a previous version of its legal user guidelines after thousands of members protested that Facebook was claiming ownership over the content. In addition, the Burst survey found that most Web users believe Web sites are tracking their behavior online. Three out of five--62.5%--respondents indicated it is likely that a W

Big Brother may be at it again. Behavioral advertising - the tracking of consumer's Internet surfing activity to create tailored ads - has triggered an intense legal controversy that has law firms scrambling to stay on top of a burgeoning practice. Attorneys say that behavioral advertising is raising privacy, litigation and regulation fears among consumer advocates, the electronic commerce and advertising industries and legislators. Law firms are busy helping companies come up with a transparent way of letting consumers know that their online activities are being tracked and possibly shared. "Lawmakers and companies are having a tough time keeping up with this new frontier of Internet privacy issues, and there is growing consumer unrest about behavioral advertising, leading in some cases to consumer rebellion," said Lisa Sotto, a partner and head of the privacy and security data group in the New York office of Richmond, Va.-based Hunton & Williams. "Consumers find this type of tracking intrusive, and businesses are starting to take the consumer reaction seriously," she said. The buzz over behavioral advertising has been building since congressional hearings that were held last year, during which Congress called on Internet service providers (ISPs) to testify about a highly controversial advertising practice known as "deep-packet inspection." The practice gives companies the ability to track every Web site consumers visit and provides a detailed look at everything they're doing, such as where they're going on vacation, who is going, how much they spent on the trip and what credit card was used. But then came the first class action targeting behavioral advertising, filed against Foster City, Calif.-based NebuAd Inc., an online advertising company accused of spying on consumers from several states and allegedly violating their privacy and computer security rights. The lawsuit specifically alleges that NebuAd engaged in deep-packet inspection. Valentine v. Ne

Big Brother may be at it again. Behavioral advertising -- the tracking of consumer's Internet surfing activity to create tailored ads -- has triggered an intense legal controversy that has law firms scrambling to stay on top of a burgeoning practice. Attorneys say that behavioral advertising is raising privacy, litigation and regulation fears among consumer advocates, the electronic commerce and advertising industries and legislators. Law firms are busy helping companies come up with a transparent way of letting consumers know that their online activities are being tracked and possibly shared. "Lawmakers and companies are having a tough time keeping up with this new frontier of Internet privacy issues, and there is growing consumer unrest about behavioral advertising, leading in some cases to consumer rebellion," said Lisa Sotto, a partner and head of the privacy and security data group in the New York office of Richmond, Va.-based Hunton & Williams. "Consumers find this type of tracking intrusive, and businesses are starting to take the consumer reaction seriously," she said. The buzz over behavioral advertising has been building since congressional hearings that were held last year, during which Congress called on Internet service providers (ISPs) to testify about a highly controversial advertising practice known as "deep-packet inspection." The practice gives companies the ability to track every Web site consumers visit and provides a detailed look at everything they're doing, such as where they're going on vacation, who is going, how much they spent on the trip and what credit card was used. But then came the first class action targeting behavioral advertising, filed against Foster City, Calif.-based NebuAd Inc., an online advertising company accused of spying on consumers from several states and allegedly violating their privacy and computer security rights. The lawsuit specifically alleges that NebuAd engaged in deep-packet inspection. Valentine v. Ne

"If you live in Texas, your medical records are definitely up for sale by the state. If you live anywhere else in the United States, they probably are for sale there, too. Medical health records provide key information to researchers, who have lobbied hard to keep them accessible, despite government concerns about the privacy of patient data. The controversy dates back to 1996, when Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to protect patients. "Researchers have very broad access rights to health care records under HIPAA," says Pam Dixon, director of a non-profit called the World Privacy Forum "The rules are pretty loose, and there are a lot of ways to get around them." That's especially true since the act wasn't designed to cover common scenarios today: records stored online in a vast, hackable cloud. In the rush to digitize all electronic health records, Dixon says not everyone is taking the proper steps to de-personalize the data and protect patients."

"Facebook tightens security as it deals with the continuing fallout over changes to its privacy settings." ...Earlier on May 13, Facebook had a meeting where employees asked executives questions about privacy. Facebook officials would not comment on exactly what was said. "We have an open culture and it should come as no surprise that we're providing a forum for employees to ask questions on a topic that has received a lot of outside interest," a spokesperson said.

Hey Zuck! Privacy & security are NOT the same thing. Misdirection is not the response FB users are seeking.

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."

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

Wikipedia told the controversial U.K. advertising firm Phorm on Thursday not to spy on Wikipedia's users, saying the company's plan to monitor what sites people visit on the net invaded people's privacy. Wikipedia now joins Amazon.co.uk in opting out of the Big-Brother-esque marketing scheme and creating the possibility of a mass opt-out by the net's largest websites. Phorm wants to pay ISPs -- such as British Telecom -- to let it build marketing profiles of its subscribers by installing boxes inside the ISP that monitor every url users visit and every search they run. Using those profiles, Phorm can charge advertisers high rates to serve targeted ads. But in an email sent Thursday, Wikimedia.org told Phorm not to record anything about urls from domains it controls, ranging from Wikiquotes to Wikipedia -- one of the most popular sites on the net. Phorm operates an opt-out system for sites and ISP customers, but it would be virtually impossible to verify if the company actually complied with such requests. "The Wikimedia Foundation requests that our web sites including Wikipedia.org and all related domains be excluded from scanning by the Phorm / BT Webwise system, as we consider the scanning and profiling of our visitors' behavior by a third party to be an infringement on their privacy," the email read, according to a Wikimedia blog post.

Like this http://cheaptravelbooker.com Like this http://cheaptravelbooker.com like this http://killdo.de.gg travel,hotel,fun,hotel new,new offer,hotel best,best hotel,hotel travel,seo,backlinks,edu,gov,ads,indexing,bookmark,killgoggle,gogglesuck,goggle bookmark,kill goggle,yahoo,bing,indexing,quality links,linkwell,traffic boster,index best

Amazon has opted out of Phorm's controversial targeted advertising technology, delivering a serious blow to the UK-listed company which has already prompted a European commission legal action against the British government. Phorm's technology, which is yet to be launched in the UK, allows ISPs to track their customers' activity on the internet in order to target adverts on pages they subsequently visit. Amazon's absence from Phorm's Webwise system deprives the company of the second most visited destination, after eBay.co.uk, among shopping and classified websites in the UK, according to data from Hitwise. It means Phorm will not have access to crucial information about what Amazon users are interested in. Last month the Open Rights Group, privacy campaigners, sent a letter to nine of the internet's biggest names, including Amazon, Google, Bebo, Facebook and Yahoo, asking them to opt out of Phorm's technology "to protect your users' privacy". Google and Bebo are actively considering whether to opt out and a spokesman for Amazon said the company has now removed all its domain names - including Amazon.com - from Webwise. A spokesman for Phorm said the company does not comment on individual cases but the it is understood to be planning a meeting with Amazon's management to explain the benefits of the Webwise system.

Like this http://www.hdfilmsaati.net Film,dvd,download,free download,product... ppc,adword,adsense,amazon,clickbank,osell,bookmark,dofollow,edu,gov,ads,linkwell,traffic,scor,serp,goggle,bing,yahoo.ads,ads network,ads goggle,bing,quality links,link best,ptr,cpa,bpa. www.killdo.de.gg

If behavioral targeting is the key to providing Web users with advertising that's better tailored to their particular needs and interests--instead of banner ads that they ignore--then what's the harm to consumers? That was a central question tackled by a panel of privacy and online marketing experts Thursday at the OMMA Behavioral conference in New York. Whether online user tracking--even when anonymous--represents a growing threat to privacy has become a hotly debated issue in the last year, with FTC, Congress and state governments considering increased regulation of behavioral targeting. For Jules Polonetsky, co-chair and director of the AT&T-funded think tank Future of Privacy Forum, that debate has become almost superfluous. Whatever side one takes, he emphasized that there is now a widespread perception among consumers and regulators that online tracking is creepy at the very least. The key to diffusing the controversy is for publishers and marketers to give Web users notice that their behavior is being tracked in order to provide them with more relevant content, recommendations and marketing offers.

On Monday, U.K.-based digital rights organization Open Rights Group submitted an open letter to major online media players, urging them to prevent ISP-level behavioral targeting firm Phorm from tracking user interactions on their Web sites. The letter, sent to Google, AOL, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Amazon and Ebay, said, "[ORG] believes that it is clearly in your company's interest, it is in the interests of all of your customers, and it will serve to protect your brand's reputation, if you insist that the Phorm/Webwise system does not process any data that passes to or from your website." "We have received the letter and are giving it careful consideration from privacy and business perspectives," a spokesperson for AOL and its social network Bebo told ClickZ News. Similarly, in reference to the ORG correspondence, a Google spokesperson told ClickZ, "We've received the ORG's letter, but we're still considering the points they raised, so we don't have a response to make at this time." According to information published on the British Telecom Web site (one of Phorm's ISP-partners,) site owners can specifically request that their properties are not "scanned" by Phorm's technology, by contacting the firm directly. Phorm announced deals with three major U.K. ISPs over a year ago, but its technology is still yet to be fully deployed. BT has, however, carried out live trials of the platform with some of its customers. Phorm's CEO, Kent Ertugrul, claims that BT will implement his company's technology by the end of the year, but BT itself remains less committed to that timeline. Both AOL and Google have vested interests in the behavioral targeting space, although not in the controversial area of deep packet inspection (DPI), in which Phorm's technology lies. AOL-owned Tacoda targets ads based on users' activity across a range of partner sites, but does not directly intercept ISP-data. Google also announced this month that it will begin testing similar behavioral targe

Online advertising firm Phorm is pressing ahead with plans to launch more than a year after it first drew criticism from some privacy advocates. Phorm executives will meet with members of the public on Tuesday, following a similar meeting in 2008. The service has proved controversial for some campaigners who believe it breaks UK data interception laws. The firm received clearance from the Home Office and police closed a file on BT trials of the technology. "We have been supported or endorsed by all of the leading stakeholders," Phorm chief executive Kent Ertugrul told BBC News. "Ofcom, the Information Commissioner's Office, the Home Office, leading privacy advocates like Simon Davies, the advertising industry and publishers have all backed our service," he said. He added: "We are very, very happy with where we are one year on." Trawling websites Phorm's system works by "trawling" websites visited by users whose ISPs have signed up to the service and for whom the technology is switched on, and then matches keywords from the content of the page to an anonymous profile. Users are then targeted with adverts that are more tailored to their interests on partner websites that have signed up to Phorm's technology.

Physician groups press FTC for exemption from Red Flag Rules With a May 1 deadline for compliance looming, the American Medical Association (AMA) has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to suspend the application of the Red Flag Rules to physicians and publish a new rule so that physicians have an opportunity to provide comments. In a March 9 letter to the FTC, AMA Executive Vice President Michael D. Maves wrote that the AMA "strongly believes that the FTC did not provide physicians with an opportunity to review and comment on this Rule." Controversy. Under the Red Flag Rules, which were finalized in October 2007 under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), financial institutions and creditors must develop and implement written identity theft prevention programs. FACTA provides a broad definition of "creditor" as "any entity that regularly extends, renews or continues credit." The FTC has interpreted this definition to include health care providers and physicians. The AMA and several other medical trade associations have taken the position that physicians were not intended to be subject to the Red Flag Rules, but the FTC has held firm in its interpretation, in spite of the objections. In a Feb. 4 letter to the AMA, the FTC reiterated its position that "the plain language and purpose of the Rule dictate that health care professionals are covered by the Rule when they regularly defer payment for goods or services." The FTC also has taken the position that application of the Red Flag Rules to physicians will reduce the incidence of medical identity theft and will not impose a heavy burden on health care professionals. Rulemaking process. In addition to its claim that health care providers should not be classified as creditors, the AMA also has argued that the physician community was not informed that it would be subject to the Red Flag Rules.

VANDALS who attacked Fred Goodwin's mansion could have been helped by Google's new Street View, it was claimed yesterday. Security experts say the attackers may have "cased" the shamed banker's £3million Edinburgh home using the detailed images provided by the controversial new service. It could have helped them plan the attack, in which windows were smashed and a car wrecked, by showing them how to get in and escape unnoticed.

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.

Diplomats and civil servants are to be warned about the danger of putting details of their family and career on social networking websites. The advice comes after the wife of Sir John Sawers, the next head of MI6, put family details on Facebook - which is accessible to millions of internet users. Lady Sawers disclosed details such as the location of the London flat used by the couple and the whereabouts of their three children and of Sir John's parents. She put no privacy protection on her account, allowing any of Facebook's 200 million users in the open-access London network to see the entries. Lady Sawers' half-brother, Hugo Haig-Thomas, a former diplomat, was among those featured in family photographs on Facebook. Mr HaigThomas was an associate and researcher for David Irving, the controversial historian who was jailed in Austria in 2006 after pleading guilty to Holocaust denial. Patrick Mercer, the Conservative chairman of the Commons counter-terrorism sub-committee, said that the entries were a serious error and potentially damaging.

Hackers will soon gain a powerful new tool for breaking into Oracle Corp's database, the top-selling business software used by companies to store electronic information. Security experts have developed an easy-to-use, automated software tool that can remotely break into Oracle databases over the Internet to simulate attacks on computer systems, but cybercrooks can use it for hacking. The tool's authors created it through a controversial open-source software project known as Metasploit, which releases its free software over the Web. Chris Gates, a security tester who co-developed the Metasploit tool, will unveil it next week at the annual Black Hat conference in Las Vegas, where thousands of security experts and hackers will gather to exchange trade secrets. "Anyone with no skill and knowledge can download and run it," said Pete Finnigan, an independent consultant who specializes in Oracle security and who advises large corporations and government agencies.

Beyond PCI: Other Regulations to Look For in 2009 Just a few days ago, the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the National Credit Union Administration announced the enactment of comprehensive new rules regarding card practices. These rules, which will not take effect until July 1, 2010, impose restrictions on a number of controversial issuer practices, including interest rate increases, late fees and double-cycle billing. Many industry observers predict that the rules will result in less credit being made available, and on stricter terms, than has been the case over the last several years. These rules may not be the end of the matter. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), who in 2008 introduced the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008 (which sought to regulate many of the same practices as the then-proposed Fed rules), stated that she was disappointed in the delayed effectiveness of the Fed rules and promised to revive the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights in 2009 to, as she put it, "bridge the gap" between now and the effective date of the Fed rules.

It was the annual crunch time between Thanksgiving and the new year, and Nuala O'Connor Kelly had just sent to the printer the first-ever report to Congress by a chief privacy officer. This was it, the historic reporta 40-page description of what O'Connor Kelly had been doing during her first year as the first CPO of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Like addressing concerns about DHS's policies with privacy officers from other countries. Examining the department's growing use of biometrics. And reading irate e-mails from the public about controversial initiatives like the Transportation Security Administration's passenger screening program. If O'Connor Kelly was nervous about the grilling she was likely to get once members of Congress got their mitts on her report, she wasn't letting on. "It's actually a great moment for the [privacy] office to sit back and take stock of where we are now and where we're going for the next two, three, four, five years," says O'Connor Kelly, dashing from one meeting to the next with one of her staff members. At the time, O'Connor Kelly was the only federal government CPO whose position was mandated by law and who was required to file an annual report to Congress. But this seemed on the brink of change. Congress's consolidated 2005 appropriations bill, signed by President Bush in December, contains a provision thatdepending on how the White House's Office of Management and Budget interprets itwould create a handful or more of CPOs at federal agencies.