Group items tagged

"As the federal government readies the third iteration of Einstein, privacy concerns over the intrusion detection system were voiced at a Senate hearing on Tuesday. Philip Reitinger, Department of Homeland Security deputy undersecretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate, told the Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security that DHS envisions deploying Einstein 3 as an intrusion prevention system. Einstein 1 monitors network flow and Einstein 2 detects system intrusions. "This more robust version of Einstein would provide the federal government with an improved early warning and an enhanced situational awareness; the ability to automatically detect malicious activity; and the capability to prevent malicious intrusions before harm is done," Reitinger said. But Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel and director of Project Freedom, Security and Technology at the Center for Democracy and Technology, cited press accounts that Einstein 3 would rely on pre-defined signatures of malicious code that might contain personally identified information, and threaten the privacy of law-abiding citizens. "While Einstein 2 merely detected and reported malicious code, Einstein 3 is to have the capability of intercepting threatening Internet traffic before it reaches a government system, raising additional concerns," Nojeim testified. Einstein 3 reportedly could operate within the networks of private telecommunications companies, and Nojeim wondered if the technology could analyze private-to-private communications. "If Einstein were to analyze private-to-private communications, that would likely be an interception under the electronic surveillance laws, requiring a court order," he said. "

Obama administration cybersecurity advisor Melissa Hathaway, in her much anticipated speech before the RSA Conference on Wednesday, suggested that the findings of a study she submitted Friday to President Obama calls for cybersecurity policy to be run from the White House. "The White House must lead the way forward with leadership that draws upon the strength, advice and ideas of the entire nation," said Hathaway, acting senior director for cyberspace for the National Security and Homeland Security Councils. Scant on details, Hathaway in her 2,400-word speech did not explain how federal cybersecurity should be governed, even if it's based in the White House. Two months ago, President Obama charged Hathaway to head up a team to review current cybersecurity policies and processes. "It can be said that the federal government is not organized appropriately to address this growing problem because responsibilities for cyberspace are distributed across a wide array of federal departments and agencies, many with overlapping authorities and none with sufficient decision authority to direct actions that can address the problem completely," Hathaway said. "We need an agreed way forward based on common understanding and acceptance of the problem." Hathaway said the team she assembled addressed all missions and activities associated with the information and communications infrastructure, including the missions of computer network defense, law enforcement investigations, military and intelligence activities and the intersection of information assurance, counter intelligence, counter terrorism, telecommunications policies and general critical infrastructure protection. Task force members held more than 40 meetings with different stakeholder groups during the 60 days and received and read more than 100 papers that provided specific recommendations and goals, she said. "We identified over 250 needs, tasks, and recommendations," Hathaway said. "We also solicited input from gov

A top lawyer for P&G called upon industry execs to work harder than ever to defend self-regulation of the ad business at a gathering of top advertisers today. Speaking about the tough economic environment and increased government involvement in business affairs, Deborah Platt Majoras, VP-general counsel at P&G, said the ad business has to tout that it has been responsible and doesn't need additional oversight. The current business environment -- one in which market failures have prompted government bailouts and heightened government oversight -- is leading to a more skeptical outlook from policymakers about self-regulation. ' "The road ahead is not going to be easy, but we are not helpless," said Ms. Majoras, who, prior to joining P&G served as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission from 2004 to 2008. "The industry has been far more responsible than we get credit for. It's time that we backed up rhetoric with facts," she said.

In the paradises of broadband - Japan, South Korea and Sweden - nearly everyone can surf far faster and far cheaper than anyone in the United States. What is their secret sauce and how can we get some? The short answer is that broadband deployment in those countries was spurred by a combination of heavy government involvement, subsidies and lower corporate profits that may be tough for the economic and political system in the United States to accept. Those countries have also tried to encourage demand for broadband by paying schools, hospitals and other institutions to use high-speed Internet services. Sweden has built one of the fastest and most widely deployed broadband networks in Europe because its government granted tax breaks for infrastructure investments, directly subsidized rural deployment, and, perhaps most significantly, required state-owned municipal utilities to create local backbone networks, reducing the cost for the local telephone company to provide service. Japan let telecommunications companies write down about one-third of their investment in broadband the first year, rather than the usual policy, which requires them to spread the deductions over 22 years. The Japanese government also subsidized low-cost loans for broadband construction and paid for part of the wiring of rural areas.

The team that ran the most technologically advanced presidential campaign in modern history is finding it difficult to adapt that model to government. WhiteHouse.gov, envisioned as the primary vehicle for President Obama to communicate with the online masses, has been overwhelmed by challenges that staffers did not foresee and technological problems they have yet to solve. Obama, for example, would like to send out mass e-mail updates on presidential initiatives, but the White House does not have the technology in place to do so. The same goes for text messaging, another campaign staple. Beyond the technological upgrades needed to enable text broadcasts, there are security and privacy rules to sort out involving the collection of cellphone numbers, according to Obama aides, who acknowledge being caught off guard by the strictures of government bureaucracy. "This is uncharted territory," said Macon Phillips, White House director of new media, which was a midlevel position in previous administrations but has been boosted by Obama to a "special assistant to the president."

The Heartland data breach is an opportunity for the US government to standardise data breach notification laws. Bill Conner, chairman, president and CEO of Entrust, claimed that following the revelation that more than 100 million credit cards could have been compromised, the government needs to continue to move quickly to standardise data breach notification laws and call for technology, such as encryption and stronger authentication, that truly protects consumer information. Conner said: "Cybercrime continues to grow and is increasingly affecting more and more of this country's citizens. To slow the upward trend of cybercrime in this country, all organisations - enterprise, consumer and even governments - need to carefully review current security approaches and identify key gaps within their infrastructures." He further called for Congress to pass a data breach notification law that better protects consumer identities through stronger data security standards with strong encryption. "This is an opportunity to do something about a security issue that impacts all Americans", said Conner.

Government Computer News presents Pat Howard, chief information security officer of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Ari Schwartz, vice president and chief operating officer of the Center for Democracy and Technology, in an eSeminar recoreded at 2 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 19, where they discuss personally identifiable information in the government. Federal IT officials must continually balance competing demands to share information while also complying with various mandates to protect the privacy of PII within federal information systems and programs. During the presentation, Mr. Howard discusses: * How IT and program managers are adapting to these challenges; * The latest laws and guidance on PII; * Measures taken by the NRC to strengthen PII protections; and * New demands concerning privacy in the federal marketplace. A question-and-answer session follows the presentation. GCN Editor in Chief Wyatt Kash moderates.

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

You have an unlisted phone number, you guard your personal information, you shred your financial papers- so everything is private and safe, right? Would you be alarmed to know that even when you think things are private, a perfect stranger can look you up online, see your address, birth date, past addresses, and even see a photo of your home, down to the detail of your child's play set out in the back yard? Alarmed yet? You should be. Take a look at this website: www.zabasearch.com. Simply plug your name in, and you are likely to be surprised, and probably a bit distressed to see all the information that is readily available online. How could this happen? Easy. Virtually every major change in your life is recorded somewhere in a government document. When you are born, a birth certificate is issued. When you obtain a driver's license, get married, buy a house, file a lawsuit ' all of these events are recorded in public documents easily available to you and to others. Government records are intentionally public in order to enable citizens to monitor the government and to ensure accountability in our society. The challenge is to balance the public's right to information with the individual's right to privacy.

"A key, centrist digital rights group is set to put out a report calling for strong federal privacy laws and guidelines to regulate the growing tracking and targeting of Americans online. It argues that the self-regulation approach that industry fights for just hasn't worked. The online ad industry has "historically failed to fully implement its self-regulatory principles," according to the 34-page draft report by the Center for Democracy and Technology. CDT is a centrist D.C. group that works with and is substantially funded by the tech industry, including companies like Facebook, Google and AOL that are deeply invested in targeted ads. "Recently revised self-regulatory principles still fall short (.pdf) even as written," charges the draft, obtained by Wired.com. These tough words spearhead a new tactic for a group more used to convening inside-the-Beltway tech policy forums than launching ACLU-style send-outraged-e-mail campaigns. The CDT, which splintered off from the rabble-rousing Electronic Frontier Foundation 15 years ago, is also planning to launch a "Take Back Your Privacy" campaign on Thursday, designed to garner support for its call for comprehensive federal privacy legislation. Dozens of tech firms, known and obscure, record users' behaviors as they interact with search engines, blogs, e-commerce sites and even government websites. The tracking goes on in the background with little knowledge by consumers and even less oversight from government authorities. The tech industry - like others subject to potentially blunt-forced government regulation - has argued that policing itself was enough to prevent egregious privacy intrusions that could proliferate without any real chance individuals would even be aware of them."

"Rep. Loretta Sanchez, Chair, House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities With many committees and subcommittees having oversight over government cybersecurity, Rep. Loretta Sanchez thinks it would be a good idea to gather them together to map out steps Congress can take to help secure government IT."

US Government agencies collaborate to help secure information assets & protect our infrastructure and citizens? What an idea!

A disconnect exists between federal government CIOs, CISOs and IT hiring managers and the human resources professionals charged with finding qualified candidates with cybersecurity skills, according to a just-published report. The report, Cyber In-Security: Strengthening the Federal Cybersecurity Workforce from the Partnership for Public Service, concludes that IT managers are less satisfied than their HR counterparts with the quality of cybersecurity recruits and the time it takes to hire IT security personnel. "The human capital management process is broken; operations and HR people should be joined at the hip and collaborate across the government," the report quotes Norman Lorentz, former chief technology officer at the White House Office of Management and Budget. Indeed, one third of chief information officers, chief information security officers and IT hiring managers surveyed for the report expressed unhappiness with candidate quality vs. 10 percent for HR managers. Sixty-one percent of HR managers vs. 40 percent of IT managers expressed satisfaction with candidate quality (see chart).

"In a bizarre case of cyber crime, the Wall Street Journal reported today that Russian hackers may have stolen tens of millions of dollars from Citigroup, a charge the bank denies. " Citing anonymous government officials, the newspaper reported that the hackers were connected to a Russian cyber gang and that two other computer systems, at least one connected to a U.S. government agency, were also attacked. The FBI is investigating the case, according to the Wall Street Journal, but the company has flatly denied the story. "We had no breach of the system and there were no losses, no customer losses, no bank losses," the banking giant said in a statement. "Any allegation that the FBI is working a case at Citigroup involving tens of millions of losses is just not true."

"The U.S. Supreme Court Monday will hear arguments for and against the constitutionality of the oversight board established to monitor public company financial activity as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley regulation. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was created and enacted into law partly in response to corporate accounting scandals such as Enron and WorldCom. The regulatory standard set out to reduce such fraudulent financial activities and provide an oversight mechanism for public companies. Part of the law includes the establishment of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), which consists of five members appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The arguments to be heard this week relate directly to the PCAOB. While set up to regulate financial accounting at companies, those opposed to the board's powers argue that because its members are not appointed by the president, the board's control is unconstitutional based on the country's tenets of three branches of government. The challengers to the law say that the PCAOB lacks the presidential control required for executive branch agencies because the five members are appointed by the SEC, which doesn't fall under presidential powers. As a private agency in essence, the PCAOB is able to act as a government authority, which the Free Enterprise Fund believes to be unconstitutional. "

The US government has now adopted a policy of fostering the adoption of electronic medical records (EMR). The policy is intended to increase the efficiency of the US healthcare system, thereby lowering costs and reducing the incidence of preventable errors. At the same time, through its The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rules, the government has set minimum standards for the security of those records. These two goals-privacy and security of these records, along with their free interchange among medical providers-can easily wind up at odds with each other. A recent study that looked at the role of state privacy laws in EMR adoption suggests that the problem is very real, as state privacy laws seem to inhibit the use of EMR by hospitals located there. The authors, based at MIT and the University of Virginia, line up a variety of data that validate their suggestion that privacy and the use of EMR may require a careful balance. So, for example, they cite some highly publicized lapses when it comes to the maintenance of patient privacy: someone once offered the records of 200,000 patients for sale on Craigslist, while hospitals have seen their own employees attempt to get at the electronic files of famous patients. Perhaps more significantly, the authors suggest that the public, as represented by their legislators, has concerns about the privacy of EMR. They found that states that have passed their own privacy laws to supplement the HIPAA rules tend to have a higher percentage of their populace signed up for the Do Not Call Registry, indicating a corresponding individual-level interest in maintaining privacy. So, they looked at whether these laws had any impact on the adoption of EMR by hospitals located in each state.

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

A typical lost or stolen laptop costs employers $49,246, mostly due to the value of the missing intellectual property or other sensitive data, according to an Intel-commissioned study made public Wednesday. "It is the information age, and employees are carrying more information on their laptops than ever before," according to an analysis done for Intel by the Michigan-based Ponemon Institute, which studies organizational data-management practices. "With each lost laptop there is the risk that sensitive data about customers, employees and business operations will end up in the wrong hands." The five-month study examined 138 laptop-loss cases suffered over a recent 12-month period by 29 organizations, mostly businesses but also a few government agencies. It said laptops frequently are lost or stolen at airports, conferences and in taxis, rental cars and hotels. About 80 percent of the typical cost - or a little more than $39,000 - was attributed to what the report called a data breach, which can involve everything from hard-to-replace company information to data on individuals. Companies then often incur major expenses to prevent others from misusing the data. Lost intellectual property added nearly $5,000 more to the average cost. The rest of the estimated expense was associated with such things as investigative costs, lost productivity and replacing the laptop. Larry Ponemon, the institute's chairman and Advertisement founder, said he came up with the cost figure based on his discussions with the employers who lost the laptops. When he later shared his findings with the companies and government agencies, he said, some of their executives expressed surprise at the size of the average loss. But he noted that one of the employers thought the amount could have been even higher.

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.

"Knowledge is the currency of the future," says Sidney Pearl, Global Director of Enterprise Security Solution management for the Unisys Global Financial Services business. And according to the latest Unisys Security Index, Americans are getting much smarter - and more demanding - about the basic information security they expect from government and businesses. In an exclusive interview, Pearl discusses: Results of the latest Unisys Security Index; The security topics that mean the most to U.S. consumers; What these findings mean for government agencies and banking institutions. Pearl's Enterprise Security Solutions Management Group has worldwide responsibility for defining and managing the company's Fraud, Risk Management and Enterprise Security services offerings for the financial industry. Unisys provides Security Business Operations services and solutions to financial services clients in over 40 countries.

After Google issued an official raspberry to South Korea - by sidestepping its "real name" law by simply disabling comments and uploads - the Korean government has taken to pounding the table and turning beet red. Korean reporter Koo Bonkwo sent me an email with his latest report on the situation. The Hankyoreh reports that the Korea Communications Commission is "in an uproar" over Google's actions. According to an unnamed official at KCC: The people higher up said that they could not just leave Google alone and told us to find something to punish them with, so the related team is researching possible illegalities. At a meeting of a National Assembly committee that deals with communciations, KCC chairman Choi See-joong, railed to members: They are speaking as though Korea is a backwards Internet nation that is intensifying its Internet censorship. Why are you just standing around doing nothing?

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

Laws in Canada and other countries are increasingly helping technology force people to identify themselves where they never had to before, threatening privacy that allows people to function effectively in society, a new study has found. "What we're starting to see is a move toward making people more and more identifiable," University of Ottawa law professor Ian Kerr said Wednesday. His comments followed the launch of Lessons from the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society, a book summing up the study's findings, at a public reading in downtown Ottawa hosted jointly with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Kerr led the study with University of Ottawa criminology professor Valerie Steeves. They collaborated with 35 other researchers in Canada, the U.S., the U.K., the Netherlands and Italy. The researchers reported that governments are choosing laws that require people to identify themselves and are lowering judicial thresholds defining when identity information must be disclosed to law enforcement officials. That is allowing the wider use of new technologies capable of making people identifiable, including smartcards, security cameras, GPS, tracking cookies and DNA sequencing. Consequently, governments and corporations are able to do things like: * Embrace technologies such as radio frequency identification tags that can be used to track people and merchandise to analyze behaviour. * Boost video surveillance in public places. * Pressure companies such as internet service providers to collect and maintain records of identification information about their customers. While Canada, the U.K., the Netherlands and Italy all have national laws protecting privacy - that is, laws that allow citizens to control access to their personal data - such legal protection does not exist for anonymity, Kerr said. "Canada is quite similar [to other countries] with respect to anonymity. Namely, it's shrinking here just as it is there.