Group items tagged

A health care industry coalition on Monday released a prescriptive security framework that organizations can use to safeguard patient records as they increasingly move online. The framework, released by the Health Information Trust Alliance (HITRUST) -- which represents health care providers, pharmacies, insurers, biotech firms and medical device manufacturers -- is based on well-known standards such as COBIT, NIST and ISO 270001. But this is the first benchmark developed specifically for protecting health data. "It's tailored to protecting health information right out of the gate," Michael Wilson, vice president and chief information security officer of McKesson, the largest U.S. pharmaceutical distributor, told SCMagazineUS.com on Monday. "It's just a different sort of data. It's still structured [like other verticals], but there's a lot more of it in health care." The framework was created to improve adoption rates with regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and increase patient confidence in the security of their information. It also arrives on the heels of the new $787 billion economic stimulus bill, about $20 billion of which is earmarked to encourage health care organizations to adopt electronic health records as a way to reduce the number of medical errors and save money. The stimulus bill, in itself, contains srict privacy and security regulations for patient information. The standards took about 18 months to devise and can be implemented by organizations of any size, according to HITRUST. "2009 will be a turning point for information security in the health care industry, when organizations will begin implementing the framework...and create a cascading effect that will impact and benefit the entire health care ecosystem," Daniel Nutkis, CEO of HITRUST, said in news release. Wilson said the framework also will enable companies such as McKesson to show their customers and business partners that they are taki

The Data Protection Directive is old-fashioned and out of date, a report published by the UK's privacy regulator the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has said.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

One of the things I notice while reading about privacy issues today is the lack of a definition of the term privacy. How can we make laws, regulations, and instantiate frameworks or intelligently discuss this privacy thing, if we cannot be sure we are talking about the same thing?
I thought explori

At a minimum, we need some sort of framework to act as a guide for protecting the privacy of various types of personally identifiable data that we generate, store or consume and share with others.
The following section introduces the Generally Accepted Privacy Principles (GAPP), developed by the A

"In light of a spike in identity theft and the frequency with which personal information is stored on portable devices, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) have expanded Generally Accepted Privacy Principles (GAPP) to include protocols for securing and disposing of personal information. "Safeguarding personal information is one of the most challenging responsibilities facing an organization, whether such information pertains to employees or customers," said Everett C. Johnson, CPA, chair of AICPA/CICA Privacy Task Force and a past international president of ISACA, a global information technology association. "We've updated the criteria of our privacy principles to minimize the risks to personal information." GAPP offers guidance and best practices on securing portable devices, breach management and ensuring continued effectiveness of privacy controls. The guidance additionally covers disposal and destruction of personal information. The principles are designed for chief privacy officers, executive management, compliance officers, legal counsel, CPAs and CAs offering technology advisory services. "Portable tools such as laptops and memory sticks provide convenience to employees but appropriate measures must be put in place to secure them and the data they contain," said Donald Sheehy, CA.CISA, CIPP/C, associate partner with Deloitte (Canada) and a member of the AICPA/CICA Privacy Task Force. "We must stay abreast of technological advances to assure that proper measures are put into place to defend against any new threats." Created by the AICPA/CICA Privacy Task Force, GAPP is designed to help an organization's management team assess an existing privacy program or address privacy obligations and risks. The principles provide a framework for CPAs and CAs to offer privacy services to their clients and employers, such as advisory services, privacy risk assessments and attestation or

"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

"Sun Microsystems, Inc. and Deloitte today announced a collaborative initiative to help companies develop efficient, cost-effective and sustainable technology and business processes to address their unique regulatory compliance and technology governance challenges. As part of this initiative, Sun and Deloitte today announced their plans for the Center for Technology Governance and Compliance (CTGC), which combines Deloitte's consulting and advisory services with Sun's IT management solutions and services, including its Information Lifecycle Management (ILM) and Identity Management technology portfolios. Access to the professionals and services within the CTGC is available through Sun Solution Centers. To learn more, please visit http://www.sun.com/compliance or http://www.deloitte.com/ . As a worldwide leader in network computing systems, Sun provides scalable solutions designed to protect and manage business-critical information through its lifecycle. The combination of Deloitte and Sun brings together complementary competencies to deliver a business-driven, technology-enabled framework for creating and implementing technology governance and compliance strategies and programs."

A Microsoft-led group set up three years ago has backed away from its original goal of pushing for comprehensive U.S. privacy legislation. Originally, the Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum was set up to bring a diverse array of consumer companies, technology vendors and even advocacy groups together and help drive privacy legislation. But now the group has been renamed the Business Forum for Consumer Privacy and is instead being billed as "an organization focused on fostering innovation in consumer privacy governance," according to the group's new mission statement. The Forum has released a white paper at the International Association of Privacy Professionals conference held in Washington this week. "What the organization is doing is developing the framework that would make new governance possible," said Martin Abrams, an adviser to the Forum who is executive director with the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams, an international law firm. Two of the Forum's original members, Symantec and the Center for Democracy and Technology, say they have dropped out. Eastman Kodak has also dropped out, according to Abrams. He was not authorized to say who the current members are, but the group appears to include Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, eBay and Google. U.S. consumers are covered by a patchwork of state and federal laws that are confusing for companies, and which often force consumers to work hard to protect their own data. Many of the Forum's members would like to change things, but it appears that coming up with legislative proposals was too much.

A complaint filed with the Federal Trade Commission by consumer groups seeking greater privacy protection for mobile Internet users could become a crucial test for the Obama administration's commitment to Internet privacy, a researcher has said. A policy statement published on then-President-elect Barack Obama's transitional Web site said he plans to "strengthen privacy protections for the digital age." Need to review your privacy policy or guide your clients in preparing a privacy framework? Download a copy of the Generally Accepted Privacy Principles.

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.

Some consumers say they like the way Internet retailers will suggest new purchases to them based on what they've bought previously. Others feel creeped out when a banner ad seems to know a bit too much about their Web surfing habits. It's called behavioral advertising, and it's central to the business success of all manner of Internet commerce, from bookstores to newspapers. The practice needs regulation, says Rep. Rick Boucher , the Virginia Democrat who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet. Boucher says legislation to protect consumer privacy online will spur people to surf more. But Internet advertising companies are not happy about regulation, especially because Boucher's plan would require, in some cases, that consumers agree in advance before their surfing habits could be tracked. Such an approach "would really be a sea change in the U.S. regulatory framework," says Mike Zaneis, vice president for public policy at the Interactive Advertising Bureau. Virtually all consumer protection laws, he says, permit people to opt out of solicitation, for instance, with a "do not call" registry. For the Internet, Congress has done almost nothing. "To suddenly move toward a draconian opt-in standard," he says, "would really be damaging not just to businesses but consumers." Zaneis, whose group includes such news heavyweights as the New York Times Co. and Conde Nast Publications, says now is not the time to upend Internet companies' business models, right when the economy is in the tank and print advertising is drying up. He argues further that new Web browsers make the issue moot by giving consumers the ability to easily block the electronic "cookies" that track their online movements. The issue promises to be a lobbying extravaganza. Last year, when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was developing self-regulatory guidelines for Web companies engaging in behavioral advertising, it

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.

At last, my summer reading list is complete!

In what it described as an historic document, the National Institute for Standards and Technology issued a special report entitled Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. Special Publication 800-53, Revision 3, is historic in nature. For the first time, and as part of a continuing initiative to develop a unified information security framework for the federal government and its contractors, NIST has included security controls in its catalog for national security and non-national security systems in its latest revision, No. 3, of Special Publication 800-53. "The important changes described (in the publication) are part of a larger strategic initiative to focus on enterprise-wide, near real-time risk management; that is, managing risks from information systems in dynamic environments of operation that can adversely affect organizational operations and assets, individuals, other organizations, and the nation," Ron Ross, NIST's Federal Information Security Management Act implementation project leader, said in a message incorporated into the 220-page report. According to the document, the updated security control catalogue incorporates best practices in information security from the Department of Defense, intelligence community and civilian agencies to produce the most broad-based and comprehensive set of safeguards and countermeasures ever developed for information systems.

Taking a step toward creating more formal standards, the Interactive Advertising Bureau Monday released a set of best practices for social media advertising covering key terms, creative elements, and user privacy, among other topics. The guidelines unveiled at the IAB's Social Media Marketplace conference in New York are intended to encourage the growth of social advertising by giving marketers, agencies and social networks preliminary rules to navigate a category that now spans hundreds of millions of users. "Industry standards are essential to making social media easy, safe and scalable for advertisers," said Seth Goldstein, CEO of Socialmedia.com and co-chair of the IAB's UGC Social Media Committee, in a statement. "The new IAB framework is a critical first step in this direction and we are excited to help enable the next generation of social advertising." While marketers have been eager to experiment with social media, a lack of standard ad formats and metrics and privacy concerns remain obstacles to more rapid advertising growth on social sites. Even so, Forrester Research projects that social media marketing will increase nearly 60% this year to $716 million.

Has your management team asked the following four questions about your organization's internal controls? 1) Have we identified the meaningful risks to our objectives? 2) Which controls are "key controls" that will best support a conclusion regarding the effectiveness of internal control in a particular process? 3) What information will be persuasive in assessing whether the controls are continuing to operate effectively? 4) Are we presently performing effective monitoring that is not unnecessary and costly testing? These questions appear in a white paper, "Effective Internal Control Systems for Rapidly Changing Markets: A New Opportunity," packed with answers for GRC professionals wondering if there is a better way to operate. The paper, authored by the GRC experts at advisory firm SMART Group, clearly lays out how controls monitoring processes can and should align with the "Guidance on Monitoring" COSO published earlier this year to help organizations strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of their internal controls frameworks. Among other useful how-to information, the 12-page paper includes a five-step "Implementation Guide" for creating a better controls-monitoring program.

State and federal lawmakers continue to introduce bills regulating the collection, use and security of consumer and personal information. The proposed federal bills could change the national privacy framework. At the same time, regulators and the plaintiffs' bar remain focused on privacy and security issues and continue to initiate enforcement actions and class action suits. This program will address these developments and provide tips for managing privacy concerns in an era of fast-changing privacy laws.

What constitutes unfair -- unethical -- aggregation? In the absence of a clear legal framework (the "fair use" doctrine in the U.S. is notoriously mushy), a lot of media people tend to use the "I know it when I see it" standard, echoing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's wry 1964 declaration about what constitutes hard-core porn.