Group items tagged

Data security represents both a new market opportunity to sell insurance coverage and a new risk - especially for independent insurance agencies that may not be compliant with data security laws or have plans in place to protect their own companies from data breaches. While data security is an evolving issue, failing to protect data can have a huge financial impact on a company. The average total per-incident cost of a data security breach was $6.65 million, compared to an average per-incident cost of $6.3 million in 2007, according to the "U.S. Cost of Data Breach Study" conducted by data protection company PGP Corp. and information management research firm The Ponemon Institute. The PGP/Ponemon study indicated that data breach incidents cost U.S. companies $202 per compromised customer record in 2008, meaning that companies incur additional costs with an abnormal churn in lost customers. More than 84 percent of data breach cases in 2008 involved organizations that had more than one data breach. And, more than 88 percent of all cases in the study involved insider negligence. The cost of lost business continued to be the most costly effect of a breach, averaging $4.59 million or $139 per record compromised. Lost business now accounts for 69 percent of data breach costs, up from 65 percent in 2007, compared to 54 percent in the 2006 study. "After four years of conducting this study, one thing remains constant: U.S. businesses continue to pay dearly for having a data breach," said Dr. Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of The Ponemon Institute. "As costs only continue to rise, companies must remain on guard or face losing valuable customers in this unpredictable economy." Includes video: Data Security Creating Insurance Agent Sales Opportunities

The Data Protection Directive is old-fashioned and out of date, a report published by the UK's privacy regulator the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has said. Commissioner Richard Thomas said that the European Union must change its legislation. The ICO commissioned RAND Europe to investigate whether or not 1995's EU Data Protection Directive was a good basis for Europe-wide data protection law. The research concluded that the law was flawed and needed to be updated. It found that the law must be clearer about what it seeks to achieve, that it should be better at forcing organisations to protect personal data in their charge, that it should encourage a more strategic approach to enforcement and that it does not deal well enough with the export of personal data outside the EU. Thomas said that the Directive, on which the UK's Data Protection Act is based, is outmoded. "The Directive is showing its age. Modern approaches to regulation mean that laws must concentrate on the real risks that people face in the modern world, must avoid unnecessary burdens, and must work well in practice," he said. "Organisations must embed privacy by design and data protection must become a top level corporate governance issue." RAND said that the Directive would be improved by its fundamental approach to ensuring data privacy being changed. It said that the law should focus on the protection of individuals and the security of their data, and not on the processes that lead to that. "The stronger, results oriented approach described in this report aims to protect data subjects against personal harm resulting from the unlawful processing of any data, rather than making personal data the building block of data protection regulations," said the report. "It would move away from a regulatory framework that measures the adequacy of data processing by measuring compliance with certain formalities, towards a framework that instead requires certain fundamental principles to be respected

Compared to other key corporate executives, CEOs appear to underestimate the IT security risks faced by their own organizations, according to a survey of C-level executives released today by the Ponemon Institute. The Ponemon survey (download PDF) of 213 CEOs, CIOs, COOs and other senior executives reveals what appears to be a perception gap between CEOs and other senior managers concerning information security issues. For instance, 48% of CEOs surveyed said they believe hackers rarely try to access corporate data. On the other hand, some 53% of other C-level executives believe that their company's data is under attack on a daily or even hourly basis. The survey also found that the top executives were less aware of specific security incidents at their companies than other C-level executives and are more confident that data breaches can be easily avoided. Ponemon found that CEOs tend to view data protection efforts as vital to maintaining good customer satisfaction levels and to the company's brand image. The other managers, however, were more likely to say that the most important role for data security efforts is to satisfy regulatory requirements. The survey also found that CEOs and other top managers differed in their opinion of who is responsible for protecting corporate data. While eight out of 10 respondents said they believe there is one person responsible for data protection in their organization, there was a sharp difference of opinion on just who that person was. More than half of the CEOs said that CIOs are responsible for protecting data at their companies; only 24% of other senior managers felt the same way. And 85% of respondents said someone else would be held responsible for a data breach. "On the issue of accountability, we found that while people acknowledged that data breaches were a problem, very few people felt that if [their company] suffered a breach, they would be held responsible," said Larry Ponemon, founder of the Ponemon Institute.

Compared to other key corporate executives, CEOs appear to underestimate the IT security risks faced by their own organizations, according to a survey of C-level executives released today by the Ponemon Institute. The Ponemon survey (download PDF) of 213 CEOs, CIOs, COOs and other senior executives reveals what appears to be a perception gap between CEOs and other senior managers concerning information security issues. For instance, 48% of CEOs surveyed said they believe hackers rarely try to access corporate data. On the other hand, some 53% of other C-level executives believe that their company's data is under attack on a daily or even hourly basis. The survey also found that the top executives were less aware of specific security incidents at their companies than other C-level executives and are more confident that data breaches can be easily avoided. Ponemon found that CEOs tend to view data protection efforts as vital to maintaining good customer satisfaction levels and to the company's brand image. The other managers, however, were more likely to say that the most important role for data security efforts is to satisfy regulatory requirements. The survey also found that CEOs and other top managers differed in their opinion of who is responsible for protecting corporate data. While eight out of 10 respondents said they believe there is one person responsible for data protection in their organization, there was a sharp difference of opinion on just who that person was. More than half of the CEOs said that CIOs are responsible for protecting data at their companies; only 24% of other senior managers felt the same way. And 85% of respondents said someone else would be held responsible for a data breach. "On the issue of accountability, we found that while people acknowledged that data breaches were a problem, very few people felt that if [their company] suffered a breach, they would be held responsible," said Larry Ponemon, founder of the Ponemon Institute.

Identity theft concerns are focused on the security and necessity of the collection process. Collecting personal information just because you can is unsafe. Organizations can reduce privacy risks by not collecting unnecessary personal info. Once the data gets into the data life cycle pipeline, the cost of managing and destroying it escalates. The Federal Trade Commission estimates that as many as 9 million people have their identities stolen every year. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 200 million instances of data breaches have occurred since the beginning of 2005, and they show no signs of letting up. In the first quarter of 2008 alone, more than 85 million incidents were reported. The causes of data breaches run the gamut: Hackers get unencrypted, transmitted data and data at rest; laptops are stolen or lost; storage Relevant Products/Services devices are lost by third-party shipping companies; flash drives or PDAs are left lying around; Social Security numbers are accidentally printed on envelopes; or data is found on discarded computers. This article examines the organizational risks to CPAs and their clients or corporate employers of improperly managed data throughout the data life cycle. It also discusses best data management practices and proper procedures for responding to a data breach. Data breaches, whatever the cause, are costly. According to a study by the Ponemon Institute, the average cost of a data breach in 2007 was $6.3 million. The average cost to an organization per record compromised is about $197, which is typically spent on phone calls for customer notification, providing free credit monitoring, discounts on membership fees, or discounts on merchandise to make up for the security Relevant Products/Services breach. Some organizations also experience an increase in customer turnover. The organization typically spends additional money in data protection Relevant Products/Services enhancements. Companies sanctioned by

The European Commission has prepared a set of questions and answers as well as a flowchart to help companies understand when they can and when they cannot send personal data abroad. The European Union's Data Protection Directive protects the personal data of EU citizens from abuse and misuse. Organisations have a duty to protect it, and that means ensuring that it is not sent to countries with poor data protection. The Directive says that data can be sent to another country "only if... the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection". Only a handful of countries have been deemed acceptable destinations for data by the European Commission. Those are Switzerland, Canada, Argentina, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the US, when the data's treatment is in the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles of the US Department of Commerce The advice has been prepared by the Data Protection Unit of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security at the European Commission. It is designed particularly to help small and medium sized companies to understand the law when it comes to transferring personal data outside of the European Economic Area (EEA). The guidance points out that in order for a transfer to be legal, data has to be properly handled in the first place according to the data protection laws of the country where the processing organisation is established. If the transfer is to a country not listed as having adequate data protections in place, a transfer can still take place, the guidance says, but only if "the data controller offers 'adequate safeguards with respect to the protection of the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and as regards the exercise of the corresponding rights'," says the guidance, quoting the Directive. "These safeguards may result from appropriate contractual clauses, and more particularly from standard contractual clauses issued by the Commission," it sai

A third (34 per cent) of discarded hard disk drives still contain confidential data, according to a new study which unearthed copies of hospital records and sensitive military information on eBayed kit. The study, sponsored by BT and Sims Lifecycle Services and run by the computer science labs at University of Glamorgan in Wales, Edith Cowan University in Australia and Longwood University in the US, also found network data and security logs from the German Embassy in Paris on one purchased drive. Researchers bought 300 drives from eBay, other auction sites, second-hand stalls and car boot sales. A disk bought on eBay contained details of test launch routines for the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defence) ground to air missile defence system. The same disk also held information belonging to the system's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, including blueprints of facilities and personal data on workers, including social security numbers. Lockheed Martin denies that the disk came from it. The arm manufacturer has launched an investigation that aims to uncover just how the sensitive data might have been wound up on the disk. Two discs bought in the UK apparently came from Lanarkshire NHS Trust, including patient medical records, images of X-rays and staff letters. Lanarkshire NHS Trust runs the Monklands and Hairmyres hospitals. In Australia, the exercise turned up a disk from a nursing home that contained pictures of actual patients and their wound photos, along with patient details. A hard disk from a US bank contained account numbers and details of plans for a $50bn currency exchange through Spain. Details of business transactions between the bank and organisations in Venezuela, Tunisia and Nigeria were also included. Correspondence between a member of the Federal Reserve Board and the unnamed banks revealed that one of the deals was already under scrutiny by the European Central Bank, and that federal investigators were also taking an interest. Yet anothe

"The United States House of Representatives took a major step this week toward enacting a national data breach notification law. H.R. 2221, the Data Accountability and Trust Act (DATA), cleared the House with a voice vote. In its current form, DATA requires businesses to notify customers and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if sensitive information has been exposed to a security breach. If the U.S. Senate can reconcile its own approach to data breach notification legislation with DATA, a new federal standard will emerge. If signed into law by President Barack Obama, a federal data breach ¬law would pre-empt the jumbled mass of dozens of state laws. "You'd be better served by federal legislation if the federal legislation has teeth and doesn't pre-empt the state's law," said California state senator Joe Simitian, speaking to executive editor Scot Petersen in September. "If there was a meaningful standard at the national level, I think many states would be happy to accept it." Aside from the data breach notification required by the HITECH Act, DATA would put into place the first national law of its kind. H.R. 2221 was sponsored by House Subcommittee Chair Rep. Bobby L. Rush of Illinois. The bill specifically states that: "Any person engaged in interstate commerce that owns or possesses data in electronic form containing personal information shall, following the discovery of a breach of security of the system maintained by such person that contains such data -- 1. notify each individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States whose personal information was acquired by an unauthorized person as a result of such a breach of security; and 2. notify the Federal Trade Commission."

IT and business both understand the need to protect regulated customer and business data -- so long as they're in business, analysts say. Here's a look at how some folding businesses are falling short protecting data and the possible liabilities for the IT group and CIO. From HIPPA to Sarbox, a slew of regulations to protect customer and employee data force CIOs to step lively to comply. The punishment for failure to do so is costly and even dire. But once a company folds-and more are folding every week given the economy-what happens to that data? Who in the business and IT could be hit by the splatter if it all hits the fan? "Certain companies have been disposing of records containing sensitive consumer information in very questionable ways, including by leaving in bags at the curb, tossing it in public dumpsters, leaving it in vacant properties and/or leaving it behind in the offices and other facilities once they've gone out of business and left those offices," says Jacqueline Klosek, a senior counsel in Goodwin Procter's Business Law Department and a member of its Intellectual Property Group. "In addition, company computers, often containing personal data, will find their ways to the auction block," she adds. "All too often, the discarded documents and computer files will sensitive data, such as credit card numbers, social security numbers and driver's licenses numbers. This is the just the kind of data that can be used to commit identity theft." Discarded and unguarded data is now low-hanging fruit for criminal harvesters and corporate spies. "Recent client activity supports that competitors are beginning to buy up such auction devices specifically with the intention of trying to salvage the data," says James DeLuccia, author of IT Compliance & Controls. "Hard drives are being removed and sold online, or whole servers are sold via Craigslist and Ebay." In some cases, the courts insist data be sold during a bankruptcy. "Company servers, once I restore

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

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

It's been four years since data broker ChoicePoint acknowledged the data security breach that put it in the middle of a media firestorm and pushed data protection to the top of the infosecurity community's priority list. Since then, the business world has made plenty of progress hardening its data defenses -- thanks in part to industry standards like PCI DSS and data breach disclosure laws (click to see state-by-state map) now in place. But the latest data breach to grab headlines illustrates how vulnerable organizations remain to devastating network intrusions. Heartland Payment Systems, the Princeton, N.J.-based provider of credit and debit processing, payment and check management services, admitted Tuesday it was the victim of a data breach some quickly began citing as the largest of its kind. The company discovered last week that malware compromised card data across its network, after Visa and MasterCard alerted Heartland to sinister activity surrounding processed card transactions. The Shadow of ChoicePoint The Heartland breach comes roughly four years after ChoicePoint announced -- as required by California's SB 1386 data breach disclosure law -- that conmen stole personal financial records of more than 163,000 consumers by setting up fake business requests. Since then, much bigger incidents have occurred, most notably the TJX data breach that exposed more than 45 million debit and credit card holders to identity fraud. Heartland President and CFO Robert H.B. Baldwin Jr. said Tuesday that 100 million card transactions occur each month on the compromised systems used to provide processing to merchants and businesses. As of Tuesday, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse estimated that a total of 251,164,141 sensitive records had been compromised since early 2005. Up to 15 separate cases have been reported since Jan. 1, 2009.

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

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.

A recent data breach study commissioned by the state of Maine sheds light on the losses banks experienced as a result of the data breaches at TJX and Hannaford Brother's supermarkets. The state's banks said they incurred $2.1 million in expenses related to data breaches since January 1, 2007. The Hannaford breach had the largest impact, affecting 71 financial institutions and incurring $1.6 million in expenses according to the Maine Data Breach Study. Hannaford is based in Scarborough, Maine. The TJX breach accounted for $485,000 in expenses. The report was issued by the Main Bureau of Financial Institutions in November 2008. It studied the impact of data security breaches on Maine banks and credit unions. Fifty credit unions and 25 banks headquartered in Maine responded to the survey. Financial institutions reported more than 18 million records breached last year, according to the Identity Theft Research Center. The San Diego-based nonprofit found that data breach reports across five industry sectors jumped to 656 last year, up 47% from 2007. About 12% of the reports came from financial-services firms, up from 7% in 2007. In Maine, the Hannaford breach resulted in more than $318,000 in gross fraud losses, according to data reported by 22 financial institutions. More than 700 accounts were used to buy items fraudulently, although five of the 22 institutions that suffered a fraud loss did not report the number of accounts, according to the report. The Hannaford breach cost some banks as much as $58,000 to reissue credit cards to customers. Investigation expenses cost nearly $30,000 for some banks. Communication to customers cost nearly $28,000, some banks and credit unions reported. Fraud losses of nearly $45,000 were tied to the TJX data breach. The losses were reported by six financial institutions. The expenses for reissuing credit cards cost some banks as much as $32,000. Investigation expenses were as high as $21,000 for some banks. Communication to custom

"Legislation, which now moves to the Senate, requires data brokers to provide nationwide notice for certain data breaches and allows consumers to verify and to correct information held on them by data brokers. The U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation Dec. 8 requiring data brokers to establish procedures to verify the accuracy of information that identifies individuals in their databases and to allow consumers to access and request correction of incorrect information. The Data Accountability and Trust Act, approved on a voice vote, would also require data brokers to provide nationwide notice in the event of certain security breaches. The legislation now moves to the U.S. Senate."

"The last quarter of 2009 should be partly remembered in the advertising community as a juncture when big agencies -- namely Omnicom Media Group, The Nielsen Company, and WPP -- announced consumer data mergers. The deals entailed the marriages of offline and online data and appeared to reveal a potentially major stepping stone in the evolution of "hyper-targeting." Some of the agencies have trumpeted their newfound ability to create consumer segments related to behavioral elements such as "passion points" (e.g., shown interest in electronics, photography, fantasy football, etc.), as well as geographic location, beverage preferences, favorite social media sites, activity levels at the sites, and so on. Augustine Fou, group chief digital officer for Omnicom's Healthcare Consultancy Group and a ClickZ columnist, said that while increased hyper-targeting would likely result from the data marriages, unresolved issues remain before the use of combined online/offline data is widely adopted by brands. "For example, as diverse data sets begin to be integrated, it will become painfully apparent what data can be integrated -- or not -- and specific tradeoffs will have to be made to move forward," he explained. "In particular, privacy policies of sites and ad networks will need to be revisited." The growing ability for marketers to target online ads using data gathered offline has generally raised concern among consumer privacy advocates. To that end, Fou suggested that brands are cautiously optimistic about hyper-targeting and slightly wary of public/consumer perception. "

Marriage of offline and online data sources to target advertising may make tracking more interesting for consumers and advertisers alike.

A group of U.S. companies, led by technology giants Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and eBay, is set to outline recommendations for new federal data-privacy legislation that could make life easier for consumers and lead to a standard federal breach-notification law. The recommendations, which were developed by a group of industry players called the Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum, are set to be released at an upcoming privacy conference six weeks from now, according to Peter Cullen, Microsoft's chief privacy officer. The companies have been working for the past three years to encourage the adoption of federal consumer data-privacy laws and to answer the question of what federal legislation should look like, Cullen said in an interview. Other forum members include Google, Oracle, Procter & Gamble and Eli Lilly. One idea is that laws should make it easier for consumers to understand what they're getting into when they share their personal data with Web sites, Cullen said. "The whole focus on consent really puts an unfair burden on the consumer," he said. "My mom doesn't know what an IP address is." The recommendations will cover rules around data use and the ability of consumers to correct inaccurate data. And they will cover data breach notification, which is now covered by a patchwork of state laws. Simplifying breach-notification laws by creating a single federal standard is important, Cullen said Wednesday while speaking at a discussion of privacy policy in San Francisco. "It's not that there is no privacy law. There's actually too much privacy law," he said. "If you think about data-breach notification laws just as an example, there are 38 state laws, many of them very different." "We need to think about much more of a framework approach." Congress has passed some laws covering consumer data privacy, such as the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), but existing laws do not comprehensively cover consumer privacy in general.

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

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. this week unveiled what it says is the first coverage available to small and medium-sized businesses for losses from payment card data breaches. News of the policy came on the same day that a non-profit research organization reported that data breaches increased 47% last year. The idea behind the coverage, according to Brian Gerritsen, product director at Novato, Calif.-based Fireman's, is to give peace of mind to business owners who are diligent about complying with the Payment Card Industry data-security standard, or PCI, the card networks' uniform protection rules that all card acceptors are supposed to meet. "That's what we're really trying to insure against-business owners trying to do everything in their power to protect their customers' cardholder data, but still find themselves in a data-breach situation and out of compliance with the PCI standards or other security standards that may apply to them," he tells Digital Transactions News. To get the coverage, however, a merchant must clear a number of hurdles. An applicant must already have property or liability coverage from Fireman's as well as the company's general data-breach policy first offered in 2006. The new payment card coverage is an add-on to that earlier product. Coverage is available to retailers and most other card-accepting merchants, but not schools and hospitals, says Gerritsen. The insurer excluded the former because of their high rate of data breaches and the latter because they hold extremely sensitive medical and personal data. If breached, a covered merchant could recoup about $160,000 in resulting expenses. That includes up to $50,000 for a PCI-specific forensic investigation, system scans and software, and hardware upgrades to get card security up to snuff. The policy also provides up to $100,000, with a 5% deductible, for PCI fines-"contractual penalties" in industry lingo-and related costs such as chargebacks and issuersâ€

Data Privacy Trends: Randy Sabett, Information Security Attorney March 26, 2009 Activity at the State Level Points Toward a Federal Data Breach Notification Law Data privacy legislation -- the trend started in California and is being discussed heatedly in Massachusetts today. Data breach notification and privacy laws have now been enacted in 40 separate states, and government observers think we're close to seeing federal legislation proposed. In an exclusive interview, Randy Sabett, a noted privacy/information security attorney, discusses: Trends in state data privacy legislation; What these laws mean to businesses; The Obama Administration's approach to data privacy; Trends to keep an eye on throughout 2009. Randy V. Sabett, CISSP, is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, where he is a member of the Internet, Communications & Data Protection Practice. He counsels clients on information security, privacy, IT licensing, and patents, dealing with such issues as Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), digital and electronic signatures, federated identity, HIPAA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, Sarbanes-Oxley, state and federal information security and privacy laws, identity theft and security breaches. He served as a Commissioner for the Commission on Cyber Security for the 44th Presidency.