Group items tagged

Overview Privacy is a fundamental human right. It underpins human dignity and other values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important human rights of the modern age.[1] Privacy is recognized around the world in diverse regions and cultures. It is protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in many other international and regional human rights treaties. Nearly every country in the world includes a right of privacy in its constitution. At a minimum, these provisions include rights of inviolability of the home and secrecy of communications. Most recently written constitutions include specific rights to access and control one's personal information. In many of the countries where privacy is not explicitly recognized in the constitution, the courts have found that right in other provisions. In many countries, international agreements that recognize privacy rights such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights have been adopted into law. Defining Privacy Of all the human rights in the international catalogue, privacy is perhaps the most difficult to define.[2] Definitions of privacy vary widely according to context and environment. In many countries, the concept has been fused with data protection, which interprets privacy in terms of management of personal information. Outside this rather strict context, privacy protection is frequently seen as a way of drawing the line at how far society can intrude into a person's affairs.[3] The lack of a single definition should not imply that the issue lacks importance. As one writer observed, "in one sense, all human rights are aspects of the right to privacy."[4]

In Deloitte's sixth annual Global Security Survey, people are the problem. "[P]eople continue to be an organization's greatest asset as well as its greatest worry," Adel Melek, global leader of security and privacy services at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, said in the report. "That has not changed from 2007. What has changed is the environment. The economic meltdown was not at its peak when respondents took this survey. If there was ever an environment more likely to facilitate an organization's people being distracted, nervous, fearful, or disgruntled, this is it. To state that security vigilance is even more important at a time like this is an understatement." On one level, that couldn't be more obvious: It's not as if anyone worries about squirrels hacking servers; security has always been about people. (Robots, the report says, are unlikely to replace the human workforce during the lifetime of anyone reading the report. Finally, some good employment news.) Yet despite the obviousness of the problem, the obvious solution -- complete denial of access -- doesn't work. People use computers and computers are more useful when connected and it just gets worse from there. That may explain why identity and access management remained top of mind for survey respondents. Deloitte's survey, drawn from major financial companies around the globe, focuses on governance, investment, risk, use of security technologies, quality of operations, and privacy. It includes some good news -- external breaches have declined sharply over the past year -- and troublesome news -- fewer companies say they have the commitment and funding to address regulatory compliance. In terms of risk, specifically information systems failure, people are identified as the most significant vulnerability. "Human error is overwhelmingly stated as the greatest weakness this year (86%), followed by technology (a distant 63%)," the report states. It attributes the rising risk to increased adoption of new techno

"The Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) reported its annual breach data for 2009 last week, and for the first time malicious attacks were more frequently identified as the source of those breaches than human error. In its "2009 Data Breach Report," the ITRC found 498 publicly disclosed breaches last year, down from 657 the year before. The downturn could have resulted from changes in breach disclosure, rather than a real drop-off in system compromises, the organization says. Interestingly, paper breaches now account for 26 percent of data leaks, up 46 percent compared to 2008. Malicious attacks outnumbered breaches attributed to human error for the first time in the three years the report has been compiled. The business sector accounted for 41 percent of data breaches, up from 21 percent the year before. Approximately 222 million records were compromised, the organization says -- and about 130 million of those came from the single breach at Heartland Payment Systems. Out of 498 breaches, only six reported they had either encryption or other strong security features protecting the exposed data, the ITRC says . "

Expect more action from the FTC on data privacy breeach

We all like to think our privacy is absolute. But if your job involves working across borders, you'll want to talk about privacy as a matter of degree rather than as an uncompromising right. Why? Not only do you want to be seen as someone who can get things done globally, but you also may personally want to be part of advancing social objectives that are arguably as important as privacy. Have you ever had to re-architect your global rollout of PeopleSoft or Lawson because of European Union privacy concerns? Or adjust how your company offers technical support to medical products sold in Europe? Have you ever been part of acquiring a failing European company where the privacy of employee data was a final sticking point? If you've seen projects with obvious social benefit get held up by seemingly minor data-related questions, then you might have been running up against this notion of "nothing trumps privacy." It's a popular idea. The half-billion people of Europe do view privacy as a human right. And they're not the only ones. As one of the first acts of the UN, Eleanor Roosevelt and the U.S. delegation in 1948 lobbied for the global adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UNDHR), whose Article 12 states, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation." With Europe and the UN using absolute-sounding language to describe a right to privacy, it's no wonder we have all of these delayed and downsized corporate projects. People are legitimately concerned about our sometimes reckless march into the Information Age, and they want to put some brakes on it. But does privacy trump all foes? I can think of at least six other equally important social objectives that regularly put limits on privacy: 1. Personal health. We all want to stay healthy - even when we lose the ability to communicate and give consent. Emergency-room personnel need access t

"A UN watchdog has called for a new international agreement on privacy following a review of the expanding global array of surveillance measures and databases advanced by governments in the cause of counter-terrorism. The special rapporteur on human rights, Martin Scheinin, said the UN should create a "a global declaration on data protection and data privacy" in response. His report, delivered to the UN's Human Rights Council, describes the expansion of watchlists, border checks, financial data sharing, interception of communications, biometrics and ID registers in recent years. "States no longer limit exceptional surveillance schemes to combating terrorism and instead make these surveillance powers available for all purposes," he added."

The Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) is notifying more than one million state residents that their personal data was stored on an unencrypted laptop that was stolen from an agency employee. The computer file contained the names, Social Security numbers, birth dates and home addresses of Oklahoma's Human Services' clients receiving benefits from programs such as Medicaid, child care assistance, nutrition aid and disability benefits, the agency announced Thursday. The computer, which was stolen when a thief broke into the car April 3 after the employee stopped on her way home from work, was password protected, and officials do not believe the burglar realized what he or she was stealing. Therefore, the risk of the data being accessed is minimal, according to the agency. "We feel this was not a situation where someone was targeting the agency or that information," DHS spokeswoman Mary Leaver told SCMagazineUS.com on Friday. "We feel it was random." Leaver said the state Office of Inspector General is conducting an investigation, out of which likely will come a mandatory review of information security policies. However, it is not believed the employee violated existing policy when the incident occurred, she said. News of the theft comes one day after the Ponemon Institute, in conjunction with Intel, released a study that found the average value of a lost laptop is $49,246. About 80 percent of the cost is related to the chance that a breach could occur, the study showed.

The departments of Defense, State, and Health and Human Services have not met legal requirements meant to protect Americans' civil liberties, and a board that's supposed to enforce the mandates has been dormant since 2007, according to federal records. All three departments have failed to comply with a 2007 law directing them to appoint civil liberties protection officers and report regularly to Congress on the safeguards they use to make sure their programs don't undermine the public's rights and privacy, a USA TODAY review of congressional filings shows. An independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board set up to monitor the departments hasn't met publicly since 2006; it no longer has members. Government missteps such as putting innocent people on terrorist watch lists and misusing administrative warrants, known as national security letters, "might have been dealt with much sooner if we had … cops on the beat to make sure there are standards that are being upheld," says Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The lack of civil liberties officers at State and Health and Human Services is troubling because the departments hold passport and medical records, says James Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology. "Security of that information is very important," he says, and these officers should monitor how it's used and shared. The Pentagon also has sparked concerns. Its Counterintelligence Field Activity office was criticized by the ACLU for wrongly tracking anti-war groups - a charge confirmed by the Pentagon in 2006. A 2007 law requires eight departments and agencies to have civil liberties officers and file reports. Justice, Homeland Security, Treasury, the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have done so. Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, leaders of the Homeland Security committee, says departments not in compliance will b

Traditionally, we trust doctors with confidential information about our health in the knowledge that it�s in our own interests. Similarly, few patients object to the idea that such information may be used in some form for medical research. But what happens when this process is subject to scrutiny?How explicit does our consent have to be? Since the introduction of the Data Protection Act 1998 medical researchers have raised concerns over the increasing barriers they face to accessing patient data.These concerns have heightened amongst some researchers since the passing of the Human Tissue Act 2004 introduced in the wake of the Alder Hey and Bristol Royal Infirmary scandals. When scientific advances are unraveling the secrets of DNA and the decoding of the human genome has opened up substantial new research opportunities.Clinical scientists and epidemiologists argue that the requirements being placed upon them are disproportionate to the use they are making of either datasets or tissues samples and, besides, their work is in the public interest.At the heart of the debate lie key questions over trust and consent and how these can best be resolved.To complicate things, it is no longer just medical researchers, but also public health bureaucrats who are keen to have access to our data.Quasi-official bodies have been charged with persuading individuals to change their behaviour and lifestyles in connection with all manner of issues such as diet, exercise, smoking and alcohol consumption.Social Marketing � the borrowing of commercial marketing techniques in the pursuit of 'public goods' � is in vogue amongst public health officials. Empowered by advanced data collection and computing techniques, armed with the latest epidemiological research, and emboldened by a mission to change unhealthy behaviour, public health officials are keen to target their messages to specific 'market segments' in most need of advice.Are government researchers abusing patients' trust? Can an

Supercharging the HVA Engineering and Maintenance Risk Assessment in the Healthcare Setting Webinar Registration Hospitals have been under close scrutiny for years to insure they evaluate and mitigate risks and exposures that could impact their ability to deliver healthcare services under all conditions. A staple of this activity is the "Hazard Vulnerability Assessment". A traditional HVA looks at specific threats within four categories (natural, technological, human and hazardous materials). While the HVA is useful for auditors looking to confirm minimum compliance, it does not properly arm the organization to assess how risk, mitigation strategies and limited capital can effectively be deployed for maximum benefit. Come hear from leaders of Deaconess Health Systems Engineering and Maintenance team on how they partnered with Virtual Corporation to execute an effective risk assessment methodology and toolkit across the DHS enterprise. Participants will see examples of innovative risk mapping and reporting methods that yield high information density in simple, understandable format. Presenters: Mark Merrill, Facility Engineer, Deaconess Health System Tom Barnett, Manager, Engineering and Maintenance, Deaconess Health System Scott Ream, President, Virtual Corporation Webinar Registration Hospitals have been under close scrutiny for years to insure they evaluate and mitigate risks and exposures that could impact their ability to deliver healthcare services under all conditions. A staple of this activity is the "Hazard Vulnerability Assessment". A traditional HVA looks at specific threats within four categories (natural, technological, human and hazardous materials). While the HVA is useful for auditors looking to confirm minimum compliance, it does not properly arm the organization to assess how risk, mitigation strategies and limited capital can effectively be deployed for maximum benefit. Come hear from leaders of Deaconess H

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).

"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule to beef up penalties for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accounting Act (HIPAA), as several Congressmen criticize the agency for leaving dangerous loopholes in the law. The new rules significantly increase penalty amounts that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services can impose for HIPAA violations of patient privacy, according to a statement from HHS. The new rules reflect requirements enacted in the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) sections of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. Before HITECH, maximum penalties were $100 for each violation or $25,000 for all identical violations of the same provision. A covered health care provider, health plan, or clearinghouse could be exempt from civil financial penalties if it demonstrated it did not know it violated the HIPAA rule. The HITECH act increases civil financial penalties by establishing tiered ranges of increasing minimum penalties, with a maximum $1.5 million for all violations of identical provisions. And a "covered entity" can plead ignorance as a protection only if it fixes the violation within 30 days of discovery."

Banks and financial firms are placing more emphasis on internal threats to cut the flow of data leakage as a result of employee mistakes or workers disgruntled with layoffs and downsizing during the economic crisis, according to a recent survey. The report, "Protecting What Matters: The Sixth Annual Global Security Survey," is based on a Deloitte survey of 250 CISOs in the financial-services industry. It found that 36% of respondents believe the internal threat represents the greatest risk to organizations, compared to 13% who said external threats are the biggest concern. Mark Steinhoff, head of Deloitte's financial services security and privacy practices, said an organization's biggest mistake would be to let its guard down. While the number of security breaches may have declined over the last year, cybercriminals are not rationing back their efforts. "The number of breaches that are occurring are really at the hands of insiders and organizations are understanding that there is a real threat of malicious attacks and exposure of personal information by insiders," Steinhoff said. The failing economy may be driving the increased concern over insider threats, Steinoff said. "The climate we're in today causes concerns about disgruntled employees," he said. "We are seeing the layoffs and other forms of downsizing. Frankly with limited budget and less than satisfied employees, it really raises the parameter on that threat." Human error is the leading cause of information systems failure, and is likely to be the main cause of security attacks in the near future, according to 86% of those surveyed. To protect against employee mistakes that lead to a breach, financial firms should focus on risk rather than compliance to protect themselves, Steinhoff said. "[Organizations] need to look at what they want to protect and look at various types of threats internally and evaluate who has access to the data and who has access to which system, and approach it from that persp

Privacy & security are individual rights and responsibilities, not just corporate or governmental responsibilities. Reliance on technology is bound to fail without motivation for all involved to find mutual benefits.

Identity theft and security is always in the spotlight through the constant stream of news stories about companies losing confidential customer or client data, such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, health histories and so forth. These "breaking news" stories now seem to happen so frequently that we scarcely pay attention to them unless, of course, we are directly impacted by them. They have, however, heightened the public awareness and have even spawned new identity protection businesses. Information technology companies rightly react to this by developing new technologies to improve security and eagerly market these to CIOs as a way to protect the personal information of their customers and clients. While we should use these appropriately, we can't rely just on technology for identity protection. While some of these security incidents involve someone hacking into a system, many involve a human failing. Examples include a laptop with confidential information being lost or stolen and employees e-mailing sensitive data to their personal e-mail accounts so they can work on it from home.

In the 2002 film Minority Report, video billboards scanned the irises of passing consumers and advertised to them by name. That was science fiction back then, but today's marketers are creating digital signs that can display targeted ads based on information they extract from examining the contours of individual human faces. These smart signs are proliferating in commercial establishments and public places from New York's Times Square to St. Louis area shopping malls. They are a powerful innovation in advertising, but one that raises compelling privacy issues - issues that should be addressed now, before digital signs that monitor our behavior become the new normal. The most common name for this medium is digital signage. Most digital signs are flat-screen TVs that run commercials on a continuous loop in airports, gas stations, and anywhere else marketers think they can get your attention. However, marketers have had difficulty determining exactly who sees the display units, which makes it harder to measure viewership and target ads at specific audiences. The industry's solution? Hidden facial recognition cameras. The tiny cameras can estimate the age, ethnicity and gender of people passing by and can track how long a given person watches the display. The digital sign can then play an advertisement specifically targeted to whomever happens to be watching. Tens of millions of people have already been picked up by digital signage cameras. While camera-driven systems are the most common, the industry is also utilizing mobile phones and radio frequency identification (RFID) for similar purposes. Some companies, for example, embed RFID chips in shopper loyalty cards. Digital kiosks located in stores can read the information on the cards at a distance and then display ads or print coupons based on cardholders' shopping histories. Facial recognition, RFID and mobile phone tracking are powerful tools that should be matched by business practices that protect consu

In the 2002 film Minority Report, video billboards scanned the irises of passing consumers and advertised to them by name. That was science fiction back then, but today's marketers are creating digital signs that can display targeted ads based on information they extract from examining the contours of individual human faces. These smart signs are proliferating in commercial establishments and public places from New York's Times Square to St. Louis area shopping malls. They are a powerful innovation in advertising, but one that raises compelling privacy issues - issues that should be addressed now, before digital signs that monitor our behavior become the new normal. The most common name for this medium is digital signage. Most digital signs are flat-screen TVs that run commercials on a continuous loop in airports, gas stations, and anywhere else marketers think they can get your attention. However, marketers have had difficulty determining exactly who sees the display units, which makes it harder to measure viewership and target ads at specific audiences. The industry's solution? Hidden facial recognition cameras. The tiny cameras can estimate the age, ethnicity and gender of people passing by and can track how long a given person watches the display. The digital sign can then play an advertisement specifically targeted to whomever happens to be watching. Tens of millions of people have already been picked up by digital signage cameras. While camera-driven systems are the most common, the industry is also utilizing mobile phones and radio frequency identification (RFID) for similar purposes. Some companies, for example, embed RFID chips in shopper loyalty cards. Digital kiosks located in stores can read the information on the cards at a distance and then display ads or print coupons based on cardholders' shopping histories. Facial recognition, RFID and mobile phone tracking are powerful tools that should be matched by business practices that protect consu

"Can personal medical data that has been stripped of its identifiers to protect privacy later be used to identify a specific person? That is the question that the Health and Human Services Department is hoping a research contractor can answer. HHS intends to hire a contractor to demonstrate either the "ability or inability" to re-identify data from a data set that has been de-identified under the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule, according to a Jan. 4 notice on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site. De-identification and re-identification of patient data have become hot issues in the discussion about how to protect patient privacy while advancing adoption of electronic health records. The Obama administration is distributing at least $17 billion in incentive payments to doctors and hospitals who buy and use digital systems for medical data."

In an organization, it's human nature to resist change and to stick with the status quo that's often more comfortable and safe. Some of your teammates in your company may be devil's advocates who claim they want what's best for the business while they oppose initiatives for Innovation. As a leader and innovator-in-chief of your company, it is critical to drive the culture of Innovation throughout the organization even in the face of opposition.

The global recession manifests itself in big and small ways, most gloomy, some quirky and often reflecting the inventive human spirit. Here is a look at some signs of the times. * With record defaults on consumer loans, collection agencies in the United States are going to extra lengths to recover the money. Illinois resident and Mercedes driver James Ricobene says an agency hired by JP Morgan Chase left a post on his daughter's MySpace page threatening action that could lead to prison, unless she contacted the agency within five days about its efforts to repossess her father's car. Ricobene has sued the collection agency and JP Morgan for libel, fraud and invasion of privacy.

The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it has approved a Federal Register notice seeking public comment on a proposed rule that would require entities to notify consumers when the security of their electronic health information is breached. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) includes provisions to advance the use of health information technology and, at the same time, strengthen privacy and security protections for health information. Among other things, the Recovery Act recognizes that there are new types of Web-based entities that collect or handle consumers' sensitive health information. Some of these entities offer personal health records, which consumers can use as an electronic, individually controlled repository for their medical information. Others provide online applications through which consumers can track and manage different kinds of information in their personal health records. For example, consumers can connect a device such as a pedometer to their computers and upload miles traveled, heart rate, and other data into their personal health records. These innovations have the potential to provide numerous benefits for consumers, which can only be realized if they have confidence that the security and confidentiality of their health information will be maintained. To address these issues, the Recovery Act requires the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a study and report, in consultation with the FTC, on potential privacy, security, and breach notification requirements for vendors of personal health records and related entities. This study and report must be completed by February 2010. In the interim, the Act requires the Commission to issue a temporary rule requiring these entities to notify consumers if the security of their health information is breached. The proposed rule the Commission is announcing today is the first step in implementing this requirement. In keeping with the Recover

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

Late last month, the House passed an economic recovery package containing $20 billion for health information technology, which would require the Department of Health and Human Services to develop standards by 2010 for a nationwide system to exchange health data electronically. The version of the recovery package passed by the Senate yesterday contains slightly less funding for health information technology ("health IT"). But as Congress moves to reconcile the two stimulus packages, conservatives have begun attacking the health IT provisions, falsely claiming that they would lead to the government "telling the doctors what they can't and cannot treat, and on whom they can and cannot treat." The conservative misinformation campaign began on Monday with a Bloomberg "commentary" by Hudson Institute fellow Betsy McCaughey, which claimed that the legislation will have the government "monitor treatments" in order to "'guide' your doctor's decisions." McCaughey's imaginative misreading was quickly trumpeted by Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report, eventually ending up on Fox News, where McCaughey's opinion column was described as "a report." In one of the many Fox segments focused on the column, hosts Megyn Kelly and Bill Hemmer blindsided Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Jon Tester (D-MT) with McCaughey's false interpretation, causing them to promise that they would "get this provision clarified." On his radio show yesterday, Limbaugh credited himself for injecting the false story into the stimulus debate, saying that he "detailed it and now it's all over mainstream media."

Kaiser Permanente says that the personal information of 29,500 employees in Northern California may have been exposed in a security breach. "A handful" of employees have reported identify theft, the Oakland, Calif.-based managed-care giant said. Police in San Ramon, Calif., seized a computer file containing the employee information from a suspect who was arrested. The suspect was not a Kaiser Permanente employee, and officials declined to provide further details. The file contained the names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers and dates of birth of the Kaiser workers. No health plan member information or personal health information was involved in the data breach, according to Kaiser officials. "We regret that this unfortunate incident occurred, and we understand the anxiety and worry that some employees may feel," said Gay Westfall, senior vice president for human resources at Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Hospitals, Northern California, in a written statement. Kaiser is providing one year of free credit-monitoring to workers whose information was in the file.