Group items tagged

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

The arrangement between the U.S. and the EU - for which both continents vary a great deal on data protection and citizen privacy - were shot down when the Patriot Act was rushed through Congress in October 2001.

Many of us here in the United States believe our personal privacy is a Constitutional right. In fact, the word Privacy was not included in the US Constitution or in the Bill of Rights as originally passed.

The concept of privacy, or at least a few actions that relate to privacy were included in

For the third time in recent months, Tampa Bay citizens have found themselves the unwanted recipients of patients' private medical records. What's more, in two cases, the recipients' efforts to restore patients' privacy were rebuffed, suggesting the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is falling far short of its promise to protect and enforce patient privacy.

If the government won't enforce HIPAA, why bother having the law at all. Let patients know they are own their own.

First quarter federal reports show Google lobbied on the electronic medical records provisions of the federal economic stimulus act, contradicting the Internet giant's earlier claims that Consumer Watchdog's report of its effort was "100 percent false." Google's report shows a total expenditure of $880,000 on lobbying during the period including on "online health-related initiatives; issues relating to online personal health records, including in connection with H.R. 1: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." Google also contracted with an outside firm, the Podesta Group, which independently reported lobbying for Google on "health information technology" and "online privacy." King and Spalding LLP also independently reported lobbying for Google on "online health-related initiatives, including health information technology provisions in H.R. 1, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." After the nonprofit, nonpartisan Consumer Watchdog reported the "rumored" lobbying in January, Google contacted a charitable foundation about withdrawing Consumer Watchdog's funding. In a letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt released today, Consumer Watchdog said the company owes the group an apology. Read Consumer Watchdog's letter here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/LtrSchmidt042209.pdf. "It is now clear from public records that Google was lobbying Congress relating to online personal health records in connection with the economic stimulus act... What else could Google have been seeking except to be excluded from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provisions on privacy and forbidding sale of records? Please tell us," wrote Jamie Court, Consumer Watchdog president and John M. Simpson, consumer advocate. "There is a simple way to resolve this," the letter said. "Publicly release all the substance of Google's lobbying efforts on H.R. 1. Google knows the drill: organize the information and make it universally accessible and useful."

The FBI has used a secret form of spyware in a series of investigations designed to nab extortionists, database-deleting hackers, child molesters, and hitmen, according to documents obtained by CNET News. One suspect used Microsoft's Hotmail to send bomb and anthrax threats to an undercover government investigator; another demanded a payment of $10,000 a month to stop cutting cables; a third was an alleged European hitman who was soliciting for business from a Hushmail.com account. CNET News obtained the documents -- totaling hundreds of pages, although nearly all of them were heavily redacted -- this week through a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI. The FBI spyware, called CIPAV, came to light in July 2007 through court documents that showed how the bureau used it to nab a teenager who was e-mailing bomb threats to a high school near Olympia, Wash. (CIPAV stands for Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier.) A June 2007 memo says that the FBI's Deployment Operations Personnel were instructed to "deploy a CIPAV to geophysically locate the subject issuing bomb threats to the Timberline High School, Lacy, Washington. The CIPAV will be deployed via a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address posted to the subject's private chat room on MySpace.com."

Set of podcasts providing a road map through the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, particularly a 4th Amendment search. Intended to give you a step-by-step approach through the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as it applies to searches, your expectation of privacy and related issues.

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

The new year has come and gone on the Gregorian calendar. But the new year for legal technology is still in progress at LegalTech New York, where vendors are unveiling their new products and services and attendees are helping them celebrate. LegalTech attendees should revel in the number of vendor initiatives aimed at reducing e-discovery costs from acquisition to review and production. And, like last year, EDD vendors continue to design and manufacture their products for international litigation. But LegalTech is not all about e-discovery. There were still plenty of vendors with products outside the Electronic Data Reference Model. EDD PARTIES Readers should be aware that Index Engines can access and extract data from tape and tape libraries -- and can do so really fast. But now they can also extract data from network storage systems, file shares, forensic images and hard drives and still provide users a single point of access to it -- via a Web browser. Index Engines first indexes data on disparate resources. Once the index is compiled, data can be deduped, searched, reviewed and extracted on demand. Also note that Index Engines can now filter unwanted file types such as EXE, DLL, etc., during the indexing process to reduce the time it takes to review the data. Read LegalTech New York 2009 Coverage on Legal Blog Watch In preparation for the new year, Kazeon Systems introduced new pay-as-you-go pricing models that augment their current standard software licensing option and focus on case matters. Kazeon hopes the new pricing models allow customers to implement an e-discovery solution that does not require a major financial investment or lengthy rollout. Vendors are starting to "go left" of the EDRM to provide organizations a better view of the end of litigation via early case assessment tools. In fact, KPMG promoted the concept with a T-shirt emblazoned with "go left." Toward that end, Daticon EED announced the availability of its Early Case Assessment servic

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme court announced its refusal to hear appeals against the banning of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), effectively killing the bill. The American Civil Liberties Union called it "a clear victory for free speech," having fought the bill for ten years claiming it infringed on a website's freedom of speech. I've always advocated that it is the responsibility of parents to monitor their children's online activity. There are a ton of Web filtering and parental control applications available, many for free such as Blue Coat's K9 Web Protection. Especially with the country in the shape it's in now, my personal opinion is that the government has more pressing issues to attend to than babysitting children online. COPA was first passed in 1998, and made it illegal to display any pornographic material on a Web site without an access code or proof of age message. However, state courts began challenging the bill immediately, claiming it was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment. Instead, it was ruled that parental controls should be used by individual families to block unwanted content, rather than the government determining what can and cannot be seen by all. (COPA was killed, not COPPA - Children's Online Privacy Protection Act)

As the National Security Council works on its comprehensive review of federal cybersecurity programs for President Obama, it is going to great lengths to consider privacy and civil liberty issues, some Congress members said Thursday. The House Cybersecurity Caucus on Thursday met with Melissa Hathaway, the acting senior director for cyberspace for the National Security and Homeland Security Councils, who is conducting for the administration a 60-day cybersecurity review. Rep. James Langevin (D-R.I.), co-chair of the House Cybersecurity Caucus, said Hathaway has been meeting with privacy and civil liberties groups to receive their input on how to reform cybersecurity. Those issues are "a forethought rather than an afterthought," he said. "Because these are such powerful tools (to grant federal authorities to regulate cyberspace), we're going to have to have the buy-in of the public and have their support." While the Senate is working on its own plan for White House-run cybersecurity efforts, Langevin said Hathaway's assessment may ultimately suggest a strategy with a stronger emphasis on inter-agency efforts. Langevin said it is still unclear whether Hathaway will recommend that a new office for cybersecurity should be created within the Executive Office of the President--a move some senators are pushing for. Certainly, though, policy will have to come from the White House. "This is going to have to be an ongoing strategy of collaboration and cooperation directed out of the White House," Langevin said. "But there won't be one king, so to speak, at the end of the day. The chief information officers at the departments and agencies are still going to have a role to play."

Those who are superstitious may believe that bad things happen on Friday the 13th, but we will leave it to each individual and entity to formulate conclusions regarding the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the HITECH Act), which Congress passed late on Friday, February 13, 2009, and President Obama officially signed into effect on February 17, 2009. The HITECH Act addresses various aspects relating to the use of health information technology (H.I.T.), including providing for federal funding by way of grants and incentive payments in order to promote H.I.T. implementation. This Alert focuses, however, on Subtitle D of the HITECH Act, which includes important, new and far-reaching provisions concerning the privacy and security of health information that will materially and directly affect more entities, businesses and individuals in more diverse ways than ever before. These changes are further elaborated upon below, but this Alert can only highlight certain prominent issues under the HITECH Act and is by no means a comprehensive review of this lengthy and complex Act. For questions and additional guidance on the HITECH Act, contact your Fox Rothschild attorney or the authors of this Alert. New Privacy and Security Requirements * Security Breach Notification Requirements: Security breach notification requirements under the HITECH Act go into effect 30 days after the date that interim final regulations are promulgated, which will be no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the HITECH Act (August 16, 2009). Covered entities, business associates and vendors who handle personal health records are required to abide by breach notification requirements. Violations of this requirement by vendors would be treated as an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. If a breach affects more than 500 individuals of a particular state, notice also must be provided to prominent media outl

Industry Insiders Discuss HIT and HIPAA Issues March 30, 2009 by Astrid Fiano, Writer A significant part of President Obama's health care reform agenda is the push for implementing more health care technology. In the health care field privacy is always a major concern, and was the impetus of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996--protecting the privacy of individually identifiable health information in all formats, and the confidentiality provisions of the Patient Safety Act--protecting identifiable information being used to analyze patient safety events. So those in the health care industry now wonder will the Administration's focus on health IT (HIT) present more challenges to privacy concerns? As part of a continuing focus on HIT issues, DOTmed interviewed industry expert Kirk J. Nahra, a partner in the Washington D.C. legal firm of Wiley Rein LLP, specializing in privacy and information security for the health care and insurance industries, and named an expert practitioner by the Guide to the Leading U.S. Healthcare Lawyers. DOTmed also interviewed Lise Rauzi, Vice President, Training Development, for Health Care Compliance Strategies (HCCS). HCCS provides online training compliance for employees. Nahra notes that regardless of the rising concern over privacy and the new HIT legislation, there have already been formal HIPAA security rules on electronic information in place for several years--the health care industry compliance has just been inconsistent. The problem -- to the extent there is one -- is that HIPAA rules are process-oriented, Nahra explained. The rules don't tell an entity what to do, but rather what to evaluate--a standard set of questions, but without a standard set of answers. For example, a covered entity has to have an internal audit, but the rules do not tell the entity how best to carry out that internal audit. Not surprisingly, different businesses have different ideas on how to implement their HIPAA evaluations

In a 4-to-3 ruling, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that the State Police violated a criminal suspect's rights under the State Constitution when it placed a GPS tracking device inside the bumper of his van without obtaining a warrant. The police had used the device to monitor the movements of the suspect, Scott C. Weaver, for more than two months. But the court ordered the evidence gathered from the device suppressed and ordered a new trial for Mr. Weaver. In three written opinions, the judges on the court debated the constitutional issues raised by the growing use of global positioning system technology as a tool of surveillance. The case could set an important precedent for state and local police agencies.

I. INTRODUCTION The globalization revolution is undeniably well underway. Some of the primary leaders of the revolution are the off-shoring outsourcers of the world in search of readily available talent at prices below what is available in the traditional geographical outsourcing centers. Certainly, U.S. companies seeking information technology resources--as well as those looking for human resources to support the ever-growing customer care requirements of their business--are at the forefront of the movement. Some of those companies are seeking their own solutions, but many have turned to business process outsourcing companies for assistance. Business process outsourcing is, generally speaking, the contracting of a specific business task to a third party service provider. Processes that are best suited to be outsourced are those that a company requires but does not depend upon to maintain its position in the marketplace. There are two primary categories of business process outsourcing. One category is commonly referred to as "back office outsourcing" which includes internal business functions such as billing or purchasing. The other category is commonly referred to as "front office outsourcing" which includes customer-related services such as marketing, customer contact management, and technical support. The globalization of business in general has resulted in the need for companies to be able to provide support to their customers in many different languages. At the same time, developments in technology have provided the ability for business process outsourcers to provide a cost effective global delivery platform. The convergence of the need for a portfolio of services to be sourced globally with the ability of business process outsourcers to do so on a cost effective basis has driven the outsourcers to geographic locations previously ignored by most business sectors. By many estimates, there are currently off-shore outsourcing vendors in more than 175 different

"In dire economic times such as these, companies are scouring their internal functionalities seeking ways to run "leaner and meaner." Operations and personnel that do not ostensibly contribute to profit are at risk. And nowhere are employees more vulnerable than in New York City, the nation's center for financial services, an industry particularly devastated. Because the influence of privacy on profit is not immediately apparent, managers searching for excisable fat will doubtless be attracted to the privacy function, concluding that it makes no contribution to the bottom line. But although many view privacy solely as a legal concept, it often provides important commercial benefits. Where privacy does indeed contribute to profit, chopping away at privacy will be counterproductive, slicing off meat and bone, rather than fat. If management is not educated to this fact, the privacy function will be at unnecessary risk. There are 11 reasons why privacy may benefit the bottom line, which should be raised with management."

Attorneys can customize discovery requests for online postings, status updates, blog entries, photos, or videos to fit the facts of each case. Deposition questions about online activity, changing privacy settings, and deleting online material likewise are fair game if reasonably related to the case at hand.