Group items tagged

Federal regulators on Tuesday met to hear about whether the benefits of cloud computing justify increased regulation, as privacy activists claim, or whether such an approach would do more harm than good. "We need to be smarter about dealing with technology, and cloud computing is posing (a) risk for us," said Hugh Stephenson, deputy director for international consumer protection at the Federal Trade Commission's Office of International Affairs. The FTC convened the two-day meeting in its offices here, which follows a series of similar workshops held in previous years on topics like spam, privacy, and behavioral advertising. The agency may file lawsuits to halt "unfair or deceptive acts or practices," meaning that if cloud computing is not unfair or deceptive, the FTC would likely not have jurisdiction. To secure personal information on the cloud, regulators may have to answer questions such as which entities have jurisdiction over data as it flows across borders, whether governments can access that information as it changes jurisdiction, and whether there is more risk in storing personal information in data centers that belong to a single entity rather than multiple data centers. The current panoply of laws at the state, national, and international level have had insufficient results; FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour cited a 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers information security survey (PDF) in which 71 percent of organizations queried said they did not have an accurate inventory of where personal data for employees and customers is stored. With data management practices that are not always clear and are subject to change, companies that offer cloud-computing services are steering consumers into dangerous territory, said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Already, problems of identity theft are skyrocketing, he said, and without more regulation, data management services may experience a collapse analogous to that

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

A top affliction of privacy professionals is the growing complexity of privacy laws. The number of jurisdictions regulating data privacy and the number of other laws in which privacy provisions are tucked has increased with no letup since 2000. Like the Lilliputians in Gulliver's Travels, the tiniest jurisdictions are now lassoing their privacy ropes around the mightiest of corporations. Where does this leave those who are charged with keeping their organizations privacy-compliant? Desperately looking for a way to organize news about all of these developments. I recently surveyed the landscape of possible solutions to this problem. What did I find? Three different approaches: free Web sites, newsletters and news feeds; fee-based periodicals; and fee-based databases, such as Nymity's PrivaWorks, Cecile Park Publishing's DataGuidance and law firm Morrison and Foerster LLP's Summit Privacy. What were the pros and cons of each approach? Free sources Privacy leaders with no budget will want to exploit what's free, including these options: * Morrison & Foerster's Privacy Library, probably the most comprehensive and current free online listing of privacy laws in 95 countries. * Law firm Baker & McKenzie's annual Global Privacy Handbook, which is distributed to clients and friends. * Computerworld's own Security Newsletter, which offers a regular look at news about the technical threats to personal data. * The International Association of Privacy Professionals' Daily Dashboard, Canada Dashboard Digest and monthly Inside 1to1: Privacy. These are the best available free news feeds on privacy.

An insurance company seeking to challenge the authority of Canada's privacy legislation and the privacy commissioner in an auto injury case will have to go to the Federal Court to make its case, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal has ruled. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Privacy Commissioner of Canada and Attorney General Canada, State Farm argued that Canada's privacy regime does not apply to surveillance tapes the insurer commissioned following a motor vehicle accident in 2005. In March 2005, Jennifer Vetter, insured by State Farm, was involved in a motor vehicle collision with Gerald Gaudet. State Farm subsequently hired a lawyer in anticipation of litigation by Gaudet against Vetter. The insurer also hired private investigators that conducted video surveillance on Gaudet. Gaudet filed a request under Canada's privacy legislation, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), that State Farm turn over to him the personal information it had compiled, including copies of the surveillance reports and tapes. State Farm went to the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench asking for "declaratory" relief on several issues. Among other things, the insurer asked for a court order declaring that PIPEDA did not apply to information obtained in a bodily injury damages claim. It also asked the court for an order confirming that the privacy commissioner had no right or authority to compel State Farm to turn over the documents. The privacy commissioner asked for a stay of proceedings in the New Brunswick court, arguing that the authority of the privacy commissioner was a matter for the Federal Court (which has jurisdiction over federal legislation such as the PIPEDA). The New Brunswick Appeal Court noted both the provincial and federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases about the constitutionality of federal legislation. But only the Federal Court could determine the outcome of a direct challenge to the authority of the p

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) has developed these guidelines to explain how the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) applies to transfers of personal information to a third party, including a third party operating outside of Canada, for processing. As the legislation itself states, PIPEDA is intended to "support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances…" This acknowledges that proper protection of personal information both facilitates and promotes commerce by building consumer confidence. Today's globally interdependent economy relies on international flows of information. These cross-border transfers do raise some legitimate concerns about where personal information is going as well as what happens to it while in transit and after it arrives at some foreign destination. Consumer confidence will be enhanced, and trust will be fostered, if consumers know that transfers of their personal information are governed by clear and transparent rules. There are different approaches to protecting personal information that is being transferred for processing. European Union member states have passed laws prohibiting the transfer of personal information to another jurisdiction unless the European Commission has determined that the other jurisdiction offers "adequate" protection for personal information.

Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold Election Systems) admitted in a state hearing Tuesday that the audit logs produced by its tabulation software miss significant events, including the act of someone deleting votes on election day. The company acknowledged that the problem exists with every version of its tabulation software. The revelation confirmed that a problem uncovered by Threat Level in January, and reiterated in a report released two weeks ago by the California secretary of state's office, has widespread implications for election jurisdictions around the country that use any version of the company's Global Election Management System (GEMS) software to tabulate votes. "Today's hearing confirmed one of my worst fears," said Kim Alexander, founder and president of the non-profit California Voter Foundation. "The audit logs have been the top selling point for vendors hawking paperless voting systems. They and the jurisdictions that have used paperless voting machines have repeatedly pointed to the audit logs as the primary security mechanism and 'fail-safe' for any glitch that might occur on machines. To discover that the fail-safe itself is unreliable eliminates one of the key selling points for electronic voting security."

With the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) promising to begin enforcing the "Red Flags Rules" on May 1, the FTC launched on Thursday a website aimed at helping entities adhere to the requirements. The rules, designed to reduce identity theft, requires that creditors and financial institutions create and implement an identity theft prevention program. The website describes the entities covered by the rule and provides information, articles and guidance to help entitles develop ID theft prevention programs, the FTC said in a news release. One of the resources on the site is a how-to guide that provides tips for identifying and stopping ID theft. The rules became effective Nov. 1 but will not be enforced by the FTC until May 1. Last October, the FTC extended the original Nov. 1 enforcement deadline because many companies were not prepared to meet the original requirements, the FTC said. Eduard Goodman, general counsel and chief privacy officer for vendor Identity Theft 911, told SCMagazineUS.com Friday that the FTC has been tight-lipped about how the rule is going to be enforced -- likely because they don't want companies looking for ways to get around it. Goodman said that based on his conversations with those in the industry, the FTC will likely enforce the rule on a case-by-case basis. The FTC maintains a database that tracks all identity theft cases reported to the agency. If they hear of instances of identity theft associated with a company, the FTC may ask for a copy of the company's identity theft prevention program, if any, Goodman said. If the entity has a program in place, the FTC will make a determination of whether it's adequate. The May 1 enforcement deadline extension applies to entities under the FTC's jurisdiction, which includes state-chartered credit unions. The extension did apply to the the majority of the estimated 11 million businesses that must comply with the requirements, Goodman has said

A few weeks ago, I was very relieved to find out I had passed the IAPP exam to be a "Certified Information Privacy Professional" or CIPP. I got this certificate and even a pin, which is more than I ever got for passing the bar exams of New York and California. So what exactly did I need to know to become a CIPP? To be certified in corporate privacy law, you're expected to know what's covered in the CIPP Body of Knowledge, primarily major U.S. privacy laws and regulations and "the legal requirements for the responsible transfer of sensitive personal data to/from the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions." You're also expected to pass the Certification Foundation, required for all three certifications offered by IAPP. That covers basic privacy law, both in the U.S. and abroad, information security principles and practices, and "online privacy," which includes an overview of the technologies used by online companies to collect information and the particular issues to be considered in this context. So what do you think? Should you be able to pass an all-objective, 180 question, three-hour exam (counting the CIPP and Certification Foundation exams together) on the above topics and be able to call yourself a "privacy professional"?