Group items tagged

Federal Trade Commission staff today issued a report describing its ongoing examination of online behavioral advertising and setting forth revisions to proposed principles to govern self-regulatory efforts in this area. The key issue concerns how online advertisers can best protect consumers' privacy while collecting information about their online activities. Over the last decade, the FTC has periodically examined the consumer privacy issues raised by online behavioral advertising - which is the practice of tracking an individual's online activities in order to deliver advertising tailored to his or her interests. The FTC examined this practice most recently at its November 2007 "Behavioral Advertising" Town Hall. The following month, in response to public discussion about the need to address privacy concerns in this area, FTC staff issued a set of proposed principles to encourage and guide industry self-regulation for public comment. Today's report, titled "Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising," summarizes and responds to the main issues raised by more than 60 comments received. It also sets forth revised principles. The report discusses the potential benefits of behavioral advertising to consumers, including the free online content that advertising generally supports and personalization that many consumers appear to value. It also discusses the privacy concerns that the practice raises, including the invisibility of the data collection to consumers and the risk that the information collected - including sensitive information regarding health, finances, or children - could fall into the wrong hands or be used for unanticipated purposes. Consistent with the FTC's overall approach to consumer privacy, the report seeks to balance the potential benefits of behavioral advertising against the privacy concerns it raises, and to encourage privacy protections while maintaining a competitive marketplace. The report points ou

The U.S. government's director for cybersecurity resigned on Friday, criticizing the excessive role of the National Security Agency in countering threats to the country's computer systems. "He has tendered his resignation," Amy Kudwa, a Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman told Reuters. Former Silicon Valley entrepreneur Rod Beckstrom said in a resignation letter published by the Wall Street Journal it was a "bad strategy" to have the National Security Agency, which is part of the Department of Defense, play a major role in cybersecurity. Beckstrom headed the National Cybersecurity Center, which was created last March to coordinate all government cybersecurity efforts and answers to the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security said in a statement that it has a strong relationship with the NSA and continues to work closely with all of its partners to protect the country's cyber networks. Beckstrom wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Thursday in his resignation letter that the NSA currently dominates most national cyber efforts. "While acknowledging the critical importance of NSA to our intelligence efforts, I believe this is a bad strategy on multiple grounds," he wrote in the letter posted by the Wall Street Journal on its website. National Security Agency officials could not immediately be reached for comment. Beckstrom said in his letter that the cybersecurity group did not receive adequate support to accomplish its role during the previous administration of President George W. Bush, which only provided the center with five weeks of funding in the last year. His resignation will be effective March 13, the letter said. The newspaper said the Obama administration was conducting a 60-day review of the cybersecurity program started by Bush last year to protect government networks.

Following on the heels of Facebook's decision to rescind a highly controversial move to store all content posted on the social network, new data has emerged to support consumers' increasing alarm over online privacy. The vast majority--80.1%--of Web surfers are indeed concerned about the privacy of their personal information such as age, gender, income and Web-surfing habits, according to a survey of some 4,000 Web users administered and analyzed by Burst Media. More worrisome, perhaps, is the finding that privacy concerns are prevalent among all age segments, including younger demographics that are coming of age online. Still, privacy concerns do appear to increase with age, from 67.3% among respondents ages 18-24 to 85.7% of respondents 55 years and older. "Online privacy is a prevailing concern for web surfers," said Chuck Moran, vice president of marketing for Burst Media. The survey was administered by Burst with the purpose of better understanding how privacy is impacting Web users' experiences online, as well as its impact on advertisers. "Advertisers must take concrete actions to mitigate consumers' privacy concerns and at the same time continue to deliver their message as effectively as possible," Moran added. "In addition, and as recently seen in the news flare up regarding Facebook's privacy controversy, publishers need to be completely transparent about their privacy policies." Facebook recently changed its terms of use agreement, which gave the Palo Alto, Calif.-based company the ability to store user-posted photos and other content, even after it was deleted by users themselves. Earlier this week, however, the company reverted to a previous version of its legal user guidelines after thousands of members protested that Facebook was claiming ownership over the content. In addition, the Burst survey found that most Web users believe Web sites are tracking their behavior online. Three out of five--62.5%--respondents indicated it is likely that a W

An Italian judge on Wednesday gave the go-ahead to a case in which Google (GOOG) could be held responsible for content it hosts but does not produce. The case centers on a 2006 video of four Italian youths taunting a child with Down syndrome. In the video, one of the youths incorrectly claims to be part of a small Down syndrome advocacy group called Vivi Down. The video was uploaded to the Google Video site, where it stayed for two months. Prosecutors have filed charges against five Google executives, saying they were in violation of Italian privacy laws and of contributing to the defamation of Vivi Down. At the heart of the case are two main questions: Should sites such as Google Video be held responsible for the content they host? And should such non-brick-and-mortar New Economy companies be subject to the laws in countries where they are not based? "The outcome of this will be to determine how big companies like Google should be expected to act," said Raffaele Zallone, a former chief counsel for IBM's Italian offices and the attorney representing a woman seeking damages in a secondary case tacked onto the main charges. FIND MORE STORIES IN: Italy | Google Inc | International Bus. Machines | Milan | New Economy Zallone, along with Milan prosecutors, the city's ombudsman and an attorney for Vivi Down, the advocacy group, say Google should have become aware of the offending video sooner and removed it sooner. Guglielmo Pisapia, Google's lead attorney in the case, denies any wrongdoing and says Google could not have acted differently. "Google did not produce the video, and when they received an official complaint, they removed it within five hours," said Pisapia, a former member of the Italian parliament. "If the argument is that they should have evaluated the video before it was posted, then that is a dangerous precedent." Oliviero Rossi, an author and commentator on technology issues, says unusual cases that push the limits of the law as this one does are

Update on Feb. 18, 8:33 a.m.: Facebook is backing off changes to its terms of service, informing users on their official blog that they will remain intact. "Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information," Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg writes in the blog. "Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised." To learn more, read our original post below. Facebook is having trouble dousing the flames in a firestorm over its trustworthiness. A recent change in its terms of use -- the legalese tacked onto the bottom of most websites -- has sparked concerns that the social networking giant plans to own all users' information forever. Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed in a blog post Monday that "on Facebook people own and control their information." But privacy advocates still aren't satisfied. "I think in simple terms it's a tug of war over user data," says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington. "People put information on a Facebook page to share with friends. But it's pretty much with the understanding that they're deciding what to post and who has access to it. Facebook, like any other company, is trying to obtain maximum commercial value from its users."

The fuss over Facebook's attempt to modify the contract with its millions of users has died down for the moment, and I haven't noticed any of my friends closing their account or even significantly changing their behaviour in protest despite the widespread coverage. The problem started in early February when Facebook updated the section on its site which establishes the legal agreement with its users. Like most people who use it I didn't notice the change, and even though Facebook clearly knows who I am and how to contact me I didn't get a message or see a notification in my news feed about it. This is pretty common practice on the web, where long legal contracts are agreed with a click of a mouse and sites update them at will because they contain a clause saying that you accept the changes if you carry on using the site. Term paper Unlike laws passed by Parliament, which have to be properly promulgated to those affected, contracts can evidently be changed without any proper notice.

In October 2001, the Bush administration took an administrative action that would prove sadly symptomatic of its rule. John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, issued a memorandum warning against casual release of information to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. Such releases, Ashcroft said, should be made "only after full and deliberate consideration of the institutional, commercial and personal privacy interests that could be implicated." In case anyone missed the point, Ashcroft added that any bureaucrat who said no to such a request could "be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis." It goes without saying that Ashcroft did not promise any such defense of government employees who released information under the terms of the act. If cavalier disregard of the law and the public's right to hold its government accountable were hallmarks of the recently departed administration, we can only hope that President Obama's response signals a new approach. One of his first presidential acts was to issue a memo to federal agencies on the Freedom of Information Act. It opens by quoting former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' pronouncement that sunlight is the "best of disinfectants" and continues by trumpeting the act as "the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open government." Where Ashcroft searched for excuses to withhold information, Obama directed all agencies to "adopt a presumption" in favor of releasing it.

The federal government has a key role to play in researching and organizing a national response to the problem of medical identity theft, authors of a government-funded study have concluded. Patients, providers, payers and other members of the healthcare community also must join in the effort to combat a problem that is serious, although as yet its scope is not fully known, the report stated. Contractor Booz Allen Hamilton released the report last week. It represents the final phase of the $450,000 study funded last year by the Office of the National Coordinator at HHS. The study consisted of three parts, the first being to review existing knowledge about medical identity theft as well as policies and practices to prevent it. Those findings were included in a research paper on the subject released last October. The second phase involved a public meeting Oct. 15, 2008, the same day the paper was released, to "open a dialogue about medical identity theft within the healthcare industry. The final phase, the 26-page report, includes 31 "potential actions," which are recommendations that could form a national policy on medical identity theft. While medical identity theft "may be categorized as healthcare fraud," according to the report, "there are unique and important distinctions of medical identity theft that need to become more commonly understood to address this issue effectively." One difference, the report authors noted, is that the primary motive behind healthcare fraud "is most often monetary gain, such as when fraudulent providers bill for more expensive services than those rendered. However, medical identity theft tends to be focused on the use of someone else's information to gain goods, services and healthcare." IT could hurt, help Therefore, undetected medical identity theft poses medical risks to its victims, since their medical records may contain inaccurate and potentially harmful information that may cause them not to be con

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

Consumer Sentiment rose up by 1.8 points in early January to 61.9%, compared with market expectations for a slight decline to 59.0%. Despite this surprising gain, sentiment is still 8.4 points below its September level and 21.0% below its year ago level. The current level remains well below its recessionary average of the past 50 years. Current Conditions slipped by 0.3 points to 69.2%. This is 5.8 percentage points below its September level and 26.7% below its year ago level. Consumer Expectations jumped by 3.2 points to 57.2%. Nevertheless, they are still 10.0 percentage points below their September level and 16.0% below their year ago level. Bottom Line: Consumer sentiment climbed in early January. However, sentiment had collapsed in October in reaction to the intensification of the financial and credit market turmoil. Overall assessments of the economy, as well as assessment of current conditions and consumer expectations, are still significantly below their September level and well below their year ago levels. Thus, despite this month's increase, household assessments of the economy are still mired at recessionary levels. The causes of consumers' pessimism are also dampening real consumer spending.

Enterprise employees frequently use social networking tools, most notably Web-based applications. It's no surprise more organizations are wondering what happens if social networking data becomes relevant to an e-discovery investigation. How does an enterprise go about discovering and assessing Web 2.0 data? How responsible is an organization, legally speaking, for the information that's out there in the Web 2.0 world? What risks arise from e-discovery as it relates to Web 2.0 data, and how can you mitigate them? In this tip, we will look at e-discovery as it relates to Web 2.0 and consider the strongest options for minimizing risks to the organization. E-discovery basics We begin with a quick look at what e-discovery is and how it can create risk. Essentially, e-discovery is the electronic extension of the legal process of discovery, which Wikipedia defines as "the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party through the law of civil procedure can request documents and other evidence from other parties or can compel the production of evidence by using a subpoena or through other discovery devices, such as requests for production and depositions." If you're an IT person, not a lawyer, it's important to note that the rules governing the discovery process now require plaintiffs to address all electronically stored information or ESI. In other words, if your organization faces litigation, it will have to deal with the issue of e-discovery, which will entail a whole lot more than turning over some old emails. Depending upon your role in the organization, the first you may hear of this is a "notice of litigation" with perhaps a "litigation hold directive" containing a "preservation directive." Here is a generic e-discovery request below. Apart from a few limiting factors, such as subject matter, named persons and a specified time period, the scope of such a notice is likely to be broad; blame standard procedure, not some high-powered attorney pushing his or her lu

Jan 15, 2009 There may be only a handful of days left in the Bush administration, but the brouhaha over White House e-mail retention policies promises to continue right up to the last day. A federal court yesterday extended a preservation order to ensure that the outgoing administration does everything it can to recover any missing White House e-mails. The White House IT staff now has five days to scour workstations for missing e-mail before administration data records are archived on Jan. 20. The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy Jr., also orders staff of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) to relinquish any digital media that may contain e-mails from March 2003 and October 2005. The legal action is the latest resulting from a lawsuit filed in September 2007 by the National Security Archive against the EOP, seeking to preserve and restore White House e-mails it alleged were missing. "There is nothing like a deadline to clarify the issues," Tom Blanton, the National Security Archive's director, said in a statement. "The White House will complain about the last-minute challenge, but this is a records crisis of its own making." The Archive, an independent nongovernmental research institute based at George Washington University, is a repository of government records and does not receive U.S. government funding. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a left-wing public advocacy group, also filed suit, but its legal action was subsequently consolidated with the Archive's legal action, which is taking place in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Last May, the White House's top tech staffer acknowledged that three months of data were missing from backup tapes. In earlier testimony before a congressional committee, White House technical staff said millions of e-mails from the past eight years could potentially have been erased. Also yesterday, Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held an emergency status con

As arguments swirl over online privacy, a new survey indicates the issue is a dominant concern for Americans. More than 90 percent of respondents called online privacy a "really" or "somewhat" important issue, according to the survey of more than 1,000 Americans conducted by TRUSTe, an organization that monitors the privacy practices of Web sites of companies like I.B.M., Yahoo and WebMD for a fee. When asked if they were comfortable with behavioral targeting - when advertisers use a person's browsing history or search history to decide which ad to show them - only 28 percent said they were. More than half said they were not. And more than 75 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, "The Internet is not well regulated, and naïve users can easily be taken advantage of." The survey arrives at a fractious time. Debate over behavioral advertising has intensified, with industry groups trying to avoid government intervention by creating their own regulatory standards. Still, some Congressional representatives and the Federal Trade Commission are questioning whether there are enough safeguards around the practice. Last month, the F.T.C. revised its suggestions for behavioral advertising rules for the industry, proposing, among other measures, that sites disclose when they are participating in behavioral advertising and obtain consumers' permission to do so. One F.T.C. commissioner, Jon Leibowitz, warned that if the industry did not respond, intervention would be next. "Put simply, this could be the last clear chance to show that self-regulation can - and will - effectively protect consumers' privacy," Mr. Leibowitz said, or else "it will certainly invite legislation by Congress and a more regulatory approach by our commission." Some technology companies are making changes on their own. Yahoo recently shortened the amount of time it keeps data derived from searches. It is also including a link in some ads that explains how

WASHINGTON -- Few tech policy debates are plumped up with more rhetoric than those concerning Net neutrality and privacy restrictions for advertisers. It should be a noisy year at the Federal Communications Commission. Here at the Cable Show, the annual conference hosted by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, advisors to the three current commissioners outlined some of the simmering issues that are likely to boil up at the FCC this year, and those two are on the short list. Rick Chessen, acting chief of staff for interim FCC Chairman Michael Copps, said the agency could move toward adding to its Internet policy statement a fifth principle that would explicitly bar ISPs from discriminating against certain traffic on their networks. "The principle would be one of nondiscrimination, but you would recognize the need for reasonable network management," Chessen said. The FCC's broadband principles comprised the policy document that was at the center of last year's action against Comcast, where the agency found that the cable giant had unfairly blocked peer-to-peer traffic on its network without notifying its subscribers it was doing so. The new principle Chessen suggested would seek to clarify the agency's stance against the selective blocking of traffic. Comcast is challenging last year's ruling in a court case where the outcome could broadly shape how Congress proceed with Net neutrality policy. Rosemary Harold, the legal advisor to Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell, said her boss is more cautious than the two Democrats on the matter.

(March 31, 2009) First Data Corp. announced on Tuesday it will use technology from Inside Contactless, a French chipmaker, for its Go-Tag product, a sticker that can be affixed to mobile phones to make them work like contactless-payment devices. Under the three-year agreement, Inside Contactless will supply so-called prelams, or chip-and-antenna elements, that card manufacturers can use to manufacture the stickers for First Data. Up to now, Go-Tags have been proprietary devices for use in so-called closed-loop networks involving individual merchants, but with Inside Contactless's technology the product will likely be usable by mid-year on the payWave and PayPass contactless platforms operated by Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc., pending certification on those systems, according to industry sources. A First Data spokesperson will not comment beyond Tuesday's announcement concerning the company's arrangement with Inside Contactless to provide prelams for Go-Tags. In addition, CPI Card Group, a card manufacturer based in Littleton, Colo., last fall said it expected to ship millions of contactless stickers based on prelams from Inside Contactless (Digital Transactions News, Oct. 15, 2008). CPI's customers are financial institutions interested in using the stickers to permit contactless transactions on payWave and PayPass. CPI is a manufacturer of Go-Tags, but will not comment on any plans for that product. First Data's deal with Inside Contactless follows by one day an announcement by Blaze Mobile Inc., an Alameda, Calif.-based provider of applications for mobile devices, that it is introducing a similar sticker that will work on the PayPass platform. The product works with the Blaze Mobile Wallet, a service the 4-year-old company launched a year ago when it was known as Mobile Candy Dish Inc. (Digital Transactions News, April 10, 2008). The stickers link to prepaid accounts managed by MetaBank, a Storm Lake, Iowa-based unit of Meta Financial Group Inc. Devel

The country's largest office products store sold a returned computer hard-drive on clearance containing hundreds of personal files on it - a move privacy experts say violates key provisions of a privacy law requiring businesses to safeguard personal information of customers. The transaction occurred recently at a Staples Business Depot store in Ottawa, one of about 300 across the country. When the purchaser booted up the Maxtor mini, he found hundreds of files on the external hard drive. The files, totalling about 400, belonged to Jill Vickers, a retired political science professor from Carleton University. They included some research papers already in the public domain, but some were sensitive documents. "It is especially of concern to me as the files contain some 20 years of reference and assessment letters which are confidential documents," said Vickers, who recently purchased a new computer system for her home that initially included the Maxtor backup drive. When her son, who was tasked with transferring her files to the drive, noticed the daily automatic backup function was not functioning properly, he returned it to Staples. He thought he had deleted the files. "Even though it's not in my possession, it's my data. They should wipe it clean," Vickers said of Staples. Canwest News Service last week provided Staples with the model and serial number of equipment, as well as the receipt for the clearance purchase. A company spokeswoman said it required more time to gather the facts to comment on the specific incident. "We will continue to look into this," said Alessandra Saccal. In a statement, she reiterated, "privacy of any kind is of great concern to us, that is why we have procedures in place to clear any items with memory before being resold."

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

I have an open question for the people who complain about the potential of advertising networks to track your behavior on the Internet: What is a better way? Some might say that all behavioral targeting should simply be banned. But if you don't think that showing Chevy ads to people looking for cars is equivalent to poisoning the peanut butter, we need a middle ground that explains to people what's going on and lets them decide what is acceptable. This is much harder than it sounds: Any one Web page you visit can have a dozen advertisements and invisible bits of code that each send information about you to different companies, each with different ways of using that data. The privacy policy of the site you are looking at - not that anyone reads privacy policies - can't even try to explain this to you, because the site owner doesn't even know what all of its advertisers are doing. I'm coming to the conclusion that each advertisement on a page has to speak for itself. That's implicit in the approach Google is taking for its new behavioral targeting system. It puts the phrase "Ads by Google" on all its advertisements. Click that link and you'll get some limited information about Google's targeting system and an ability to adjust some of the interests that Google is tracking. But Google's approach is presented in a way that glosses over what they are doing and discourages people from reading the disclosure and exercising control, says Joseph Turow, a marketing professor at the Annenberg School for Communication of the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Turow has developed a plan that is simpler and more comprehensive: Put an icon on each ad that signifies that the ad collects or uses information about users. If you click the icon, you will go to what he calls a "privacy dashboard" that will let you understand exactly what information was used to choose that ad for you. And you'll have the opportunity to edit the information or opt out o

Visa Inc. last week removed breached payment processors Heartland Payment Systems Inc. and RBS WorldPay Inc. from its list of companies that are compliant with the PCI data-security rules. But analysts said the move may be more about protecting Visa itself than about safeguarding payment card data. In a terse statement issued last Friday, Visa said it was removing Heartland and RBS WorldPay from its list of service providers compliant with PCI (download PDF) in response to the recent data breaches disclosed by each company. The decision to delist the two payment processors was based on "compromise event findings," Visa said without elaborating. The company added that it would "consider" putting Heartland and RBS WorldPay back on the compliant list, but only after they are recertified by a third-party assessor. Meanwhile, reports posted by online news site BankInfoSecurity.com and several blogs that follow the payment card industry also cited a March 12 letter from a Visa executive to banks notifying them that Heartland was now "in a probationary period" during which it would have to meet more stringent security requirements than usual. Strictly speaking, Visa's actions mean that merchants can't use either Heartland or RBS WorldPay to process payments if they themselves want to remain compliant with the PCI rules, which are formally known as the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), said Gartner Inc. analyst Avivah Litan.

LOS ANGELES-Fifteen hospital workers have been fired and another eight disciplined for looking at medical records of octuplet mother Nadya Suleman without permission, hospital officials said Monday. Kaiser Permanente reported the violations of health care privacy laws to the state and has warned employees at its Bellflower facility to keep away from Suleman's records unless they have a medical purpose, said hospital spokesman Jim Anderson. "Despite the notoriety of this case, to us this person is a patient who deserves the privacy that all our patients get," Anderson told The Associated Press. Anderson would not elaborate on how the other eight employees were reprimanded, saying only that the punishments were significant. A similar privacy breach at UCLA hospitals led to celebrities' medical information getting leaked to tabloids in recent years, including details of Farrah Fawcett's cancer treatment showing up in the National Enquirer. Anderson said Kaiser does not believe any of Suleman's information was shared with the media, based on the results of their inquiry. The 33-year-old single mother of 14 gave birth to her octuplets on Jan. 26 at Kaiser's hospital in Bellflower, about 17 miles southeast of Los Angeles. Her attorney Jeff Czech said Suleman does not plan to file a lawsuit, though he suspects Kaiser employees were looking for medical information on Suleman's sperm donor. He said the name is not listed on the Advertisement medical records. "She trusts Kaiser and they said they'd look into it," Czech said. "We feel that they're on top of it and are taking care of it." Anderson could not provide details about when Suleman's medical records were accessed and by what kind of hospital employee. He said Kaiser had warned its employees about patient confidentiality rules before Suleman checked into the hospital in December. "Even though no one knew she was there, they knew she was going to have a lot of babies," Anderson said. "The extra monitoring he