Group items tagged

"On October 6, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") announced proposed settlement agreements with six companies over charges that they falsely claimed membership in the U.S. Department of Commerce Safe Harbor program. In six separate complaints, the FTC alleged that ExpatEdge Partners LLC, Onyx Graphics, Inc., Directors Desk LLC, Collectify LLC, and Progressive Gaitways LLC deceived consumers by representing that they maintained current certifications to the Safe Harbor program when such certifications had previously lapsed. The terms of the proposed settlement agreements prohibit the companies from misrepresenting their membership in any privacy, security or other compliance program. The six enforcement actions are significant as they mark a considerable uptick in the FTC's enforcement related to the Safe Harbor program. The FTC recently brought its first enforcement action relevant to the program, which is detailed in our post titled FTC's First Safe Harbor Enforcement Action. The European Union Data Protection Directive requires EU Member States to implement legislation that prohibits the transfer of personal data outside the EU unless the EU has made a determination that the laws of the recipient jurisdiction are substantially equivalent to those of the EU, and thus provide "adequate" protection for personal data. Because the EU has determined that laws of the United States do not meet its adequacy standard, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the EU developed the Safe Harbor Framework, which went into effect in November 2000. The Safe Harbor Program allows participating U.S. companies under the jurisdiction of the FTC or the U.S. Department of Transportation to transfer personal data lawfully from the EU. To join the Safe Harbor, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce that it complies with seven principles that have been deemed to meet the EU's adequacy standard. To maintain its certification to the Safe Harbor

The European Commission started legal action against Britain on Tuesday for what the EU executive called a failure to keep people's online details confidential. EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding said the action related to how Internet service providers used Phorm (PHOR.L) technology to send subscribers tailor-made advertisements based on websites visited. Reding said Internet users in Britain had complained about the way the UK applied EU rules on privacy and electronic communications that were meant to prohibit interception and surveillance without the user's consent. "Technologies like Internet behavioural advertising can be useful for businesses and consumers but they must be used in a way that complies with EU rules," Reding said in a statement. "We have been following the Phorm case for some time and have concluded that there are problems in the way the UK has implemented parts of the EU rules on the confidentiality of communications," Reding said. She called on Britain to change its national laws to ensure there were proper sanctions to enforce EU confidentiality rules. Unless Britain complies, Reding has the power to issue a final warning before taking the country to the 27-nation EU's top court, the European Court of Justice. If it rules in favour of the European Commission, the court can force Britain to change its laws. (Reporting by Huw Jones, editing by Dale Hudson)

making best indexing in goggle and bing. RADJASEOTEA is a master of backlinks. You want indexing in goggle and bing. LOOK THIS www.fiverr.com/radjaseotea/making-best-super-backlink-143445

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.

The authorities in Brussels fired a warning shot across the bows of online advertisers today, signalling new rules to combat surfer profiling and breaches of privacy in the interests of commercial gain. In the strongest denunciation of the conduct of online advertisers, Meglena Kuneva, the European commissioner for consumer affairs, argued that personal data has become "the oil of the internet and the new currency of the digital world". She warned that surfers' privacy rights were being abused by the amassing of personal information and its supply to advertisers who targeted individuals who were often unaware of what was happening. "From the point of view of commercial communications the world wide web is turning out to be the world wild west. This could be very damaging," Kuneva told a meeting of industry professionals and analysts in Brussels. "Consumer rights must adapt to technology, not be crushed by it. The current situation with regard to privacy, profiling, and targeting is not satisfactory." The commissioner outlined European laws regulating the protection of privacy, commercial contracts, and countering discrimination, and indicated that the regulations were failing to keep up with the pace of developments on the internet. She called on the online advertising industry to come up with a voluntary code of conduct to protect consumer and privacy rights, but clearly signalled that the EU authorities would probably have to legislate to prevent abuses. The volume of personal data collected on the internet was growing exponentially and was increasingly being used for commercial purposes by tracking surfers' browsing habits, using cookies, and making the information available for individual profiling and targeting of consumers, she said.

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

The European Commission has moved to sue Sweden after the Nordic state failed to implement the EU's Data Retention Directive in a timely fashion. The Directive was passed back in 2006 and requires all EU member states to implement some form of data retention legislation, with terms of six month to two years. National laws were to be in place by March of this year, but Sweden still has yet to introduce a bill of its own.

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

The arrangement between the U.S. and the EU - for which both continents vary a great deal on data protection and citizen privacy - were shot down when the Patriot Act was rushed through Congress in October 2001.

European Union's move indicates growing government concern over how Internet companies are using individuals' private data The European Commission began legal action against the U.K. Tuesday over its failure to protect Internet users from Phorm -- a covert behavioral advertising technology tested by the U.K.'s biggest fixed line operator, BT, in 2006 and 2007. The move signals growing concern in Brussels over the way new Internet-based technologies are using people's personal data. In addition to taking legal action against the U.K., the Commission also issued a general warning to all 27 E.U. countries to uphold privacy laws, especially regarding social-networking Web sites and users of RFID (radio frequency identification) technologies. In Canada, the federal government has even proposed a legislation that will provide law enforcement agents sweeping powers to obtain user information from ISPs. The Commission, the executive body of the European Union responsible for upholding laws, said the U.K. had failed to enforce E.U. data protection and privacy rules, because broadband Internet subscribers were not informed that their browsing was being tracked.

IT practices such as identity management, email and URL filtering, virus scanning and electronic monitoring of employees can get companies that do business globally into a heap of trouble if deployed without an understanding of global data privacy laws. The warning was one of several alarms raised in a presentation on global privacy best practices by Gartner Inc. analysts Arabella Hallawell and Carsten Casper at the recent Gartner Risk Management and Compliance Summit in Chicago. Always a thorny issue, the protection of personally identifiable information (PII) is made more complicated in a world where there is limited agreement on how best to do that. According to the Gartner analysts, the world is divided into three parts when it comes to data privacy laws: countries with strong, moderate or inadequate legislation. The European Union, under the European Union Directive on Data Protection, possesses the strongest privacy regulations, followed by Canada and Argentina; Australia, Japan and South Africa have moderate to strong, recent legislation; laws in China, India and the Philippines are the least effective or laxly enforced. The United States has the dubious distinction of occupying two categories -- the strong column, due to the 45 state breach notification laws on the books, and the weak column, because of the lack of a federal law. Even among the three categories, nuances abound. Under the European Union Directive, member countries enact their own principles into legislation, and some laws (like Italy's) are more stringent than the directive's standards. Russia's very recent law is modeled after the strong EU laws, but how it will be enforced remains questionable. And in the U.S., state breach notification laws vary, with Nevada and Massachusetts proposing the most prescriptive data privacy legislation to date.

"Recently, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has gotten tough with US companies that have not lived up to their own privacy promises to European consumers. In particular, it has filed complaints against seven US companies that claimed that they were adhering to the European Union's Safe Harbor Program, but allegedly were not. (The FTC issues or files a complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaints themselves are not a finding or ruling that the named parties have violated the law.) By taking action, the FTC has shown that the Safe Harbor program, as applied to US companies, is not a set of empty promises. Rather, the FTC is keeping watch over businesses and will sanction those that misrepresent their own policies. In this column, I will explain how the Safe Harbor program works, and also discuss the recent FTC enforcement actions."

The European Commission threatened Britain with sanctions on Tuesday for allowing an Internet service provider to use a new advertising technology to track the Web movements of customers. The European telecommunications commissioner, Viviane Reding, said that use of a tracking tool created by Phorm violated European privacy laws. The country's largest service provider, BT, acknowledged last April that it used the tool without customers' consent in 2006 and 2007, Ms. Reding said. "European privacy rules are crystal clear: a person's information can only be used with their prior consent," Ms. Reding said. The case could become a test for the limits of ads that aim at online behavior. Supporters of the practice say it has the potential to transform advertising by allowing marketers to show Internet users only ads that are considered relevant to them, based on their surfing habits.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Privacy rights are accepted and, generally, honored in Europe. The wealth - literally and figuratively - of personal information made available through the internet staggers the imagination. Staggering, too, is the prospect of privacy rights being trampled. EC Consumer Protection Commissioner Meglena Kuneva has a bone to pick with internet snooping. And she's launching an investigation into deep data mining. In an official statement (to be released March 31) she will outline concerns of vague and misleading 'term of use' for access to Web sites that can breach EC privacy rules. Commissioner Kuneva was born and raised in Bulgaria during a time when snooping on people was common, legal and nasty. The European Parliament (EuroParl) voted (March 27) overwhelmingly for recommendations in a report linking data surveillance, advertising and cybercrime. The report recommends safeguards for the privacy rights of internet users. The EuroParl called for "making use of existing national, regional, and international law." The MEPs raised the "imbalance of negotiating power between (internet) users and institutions." Internet users, said the MEPs, have the right to "permanently delete" personal details. Facebook's recent change in 'terms of use' allowing it to retain personal information brought a firestorm of criticism and the social networking portal backtracked. And the EC was watching. "It wasn't regulators who spotted the proposed change of terms at Facebook, it was one of the 175 million users," said Commissioner Kuneva's spokesperson Helen Kearns. Collecting and analyzing profile data is big business. It is "the new petroleum of the Internet world," said Ms Kearns, quoted in PC World (March 30). "If you are happy trading your data that's fine, but you should at least know how valuable it is." As Google and Microsoft have learned European Commission rules, unlike American rules, tend to set a low bar for compliance. The former pr

Hartmut Mehdorn's days as the boss of German rail operator Deutsche Bahn look to have come to an end as the embattled executive offers his resignation amid a damaging, ongoing data privacy scandal. Mehdorn said he was offering to go because the "destructive debates" over his future were damaging the company. "I have made an offer to terminate my contract with the supervisory board chairman," Mehdorn said Monday, March 20, at a press conference to announce Deutsche Bahn's annual financial results. "I assume that a successor will be appointed before the summer holidays" begin in July. Mehdorn, who has run the state-owned firm since 1999, has been under increasing pressure ever since it was revealed earlier this year that Deutsche Bahn accessed confidential staff data as far back as 1998.

New rules will protect consumers, harmonize regulation, and enshrine net neutrality. But a late amendment left the legislation in limbo The European Parliament has voted through a massive tranche of reforms for the European telecommunications sector, including a significant net-neutrality amendment. The 'Telecoms Package' of laws was voted into force on Wednesday with a large majority, and must now be ratified by the Council of Telecoms Ministers. The vote marks the first time that internet access has been recognised in European law as a fundamental right on a par with freedom of expression. The legislation also compels European telecoms and internet service providers (ISPs) to notify their customers of any personal data breaches, the first time they have been required to do so.