Group items tagged

The US Department of Justice has asked for yet another extension to the judicial oversight of Microsoft's antitrust compliance in order to give the company more time to update its technical documentation. The original judgment had already been extended once to late 2009, but now the DOJ wants it extended again for another 18 months. The sanctions on Microsoft, which were agreed to in 2002 and originally set to expire in November 2007, are aimed at preventing the company from retaliating against hardware vendors that ship computers with alternatives to Microsoft's software products. An additional set of sanctions mandating interoperability API licensing had already been extended for another two years. When it came time for the decree to be lifted, however, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly decided that Microsoft failed to provide protocol specification documents to competitors as required by the agreement. Because of this, she extended the oversight until November of 2009. In a document filed with Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on Thursday, the DOJ requested another extension to her oversight of Microsoft's antitrust settlement, apparently because it feels Microsoft still has a ways to go before meeting the requirements. At the same time, a joint status report from Microsoft and the plaintiffs states that all parties seem to think that things are almost ready. "It is clear to Plaintiffs that Microsoft has made substantial progress in improving the technical documentation over the last two years," reads the report. "While the entire project has taken longer than any of the parties anticipated, the project is nearly complete." The request marks a reversal of the DOJ's previous position that it took in 2007 when it decided not to ask for an extension of the settlement while the attorneys general of ten states (the so-called California and New York Groups) pushed for extensions. At that time, the DOJ stated that it didn't believe that the standard for such an extension had b

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

There is an old axiom in marketing circles that it costs more money to acquire new customers than to retain and service your old ones. In this precarious financial environment, the focus for many companies is now on keeping the existing customers satisfied, rather than worrying only about adding new ones to the fold. Since the business environment has slowed for now, showing your clients additional "value added" services rather than simply a lower price, for example, will be critical. Companies should be taking an introspective look for differentiating factors in the areas of security and privacy "value," and how they can leverage what they uncover - a competitive advantage. How can an organization best position their privacy and security programs to be used as a competitive advantage? First, of course, you need to ensure that your privacy and security program is robust, well-tested, formally documented and meets or exceeds whatever legislation that your company is subject to or regulated against. It is also important to give your customers a point of reference about the validity of your programs so they easily translate the value into a currency they recognize. Further, you should take advantage of any other internal and external audits, assessments and oversights that you can reasonably share with external parties by crafting the results of these documents as a consumable for external parties. It has been my experience that clients, especially their security teams, really appreciate this effort. Another innovative way to deliver a competitive advantage today is in the realm of vendor management. This discipline is quickly becoming an increasingly high-profile topic of discussion and interest between clients, customers and their service providers. The onus is on you anyway to demonstrate oversight of your third-party service provider(s). This is where you should also have the "value add" conversation and validate why your clients placed their trus

www.killdo.de.gg Most quality online stores. Know whether you are a trusted online retailer in the world. Whatever we can buy very good quality. and do not hesitate. Everything is very high quality. Including clothes, accessories, bags, cups. Highly recommended. This is one of the trusted online store in the world. View now www.retrostyler.com

A National Security Agency eavesdropping program exceeded legal limits intended to safeguard privacy, and officials have taken steps to bring the intercepts program into compliance, the Justice Department said Wednesday. The department, in a statement, said problems with the NSA program were uncovered as the Justice Department and National Security Agency were conducting routine oversight of intelligence activities to ensure compliance with laws and court orders. Attorney General Eric Holder has sought court approval to renew the NSA program after instituting new safeguards. The House intelligence committee was informed of the compliance issues and is conducting an inquiry, a House congressional official said. The New York Times on Wednesday reported on its Web site that the program intercepted private email messages and phone calls of Americans. However, intelligence officials have described the program as primarily searching for information based on data about communications, such as email addresses, subject headers and the time a message or phone call was placed. The Justice Department said officials notified the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of the problems with the NSA program and took "comprehensive steps" to correct the matter. "The Justice Department takes its national security oversight responsibilities seriously and works diligently to ensure that surveillance under established legal authorities complies with the nation's laws, regulations and policies, including those designed to protect privacy interests and civil liberties," the department said.

Like this http://www.hdfilmsaati.net Film,dvd,download,free download,product... ppc,adword,adsense,amazon,clickbank,osell,bookmark,dofollow,edu,gov,ads,linkwell,traffic,scor,serp,goggle,bing,yahoo.ads,ads network,ads goggle,bing,quality links,link best,ptr,cpa,bpa. www.killdo.de.gg

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

From the Heartland data breach to the new Massachusetts data protection law, privacy is the hot topic in business and government. In an exclusive interview, Peter Kosmala, assistant director of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), discusses: The top privacy topics in business and government; How organizations are tackling these issues; The potential impact of state and federal privacy legislation; The value of the Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP) credential. Kosmala oversees product management for the IAPP with specific oversight of distance learning products, privacy certifications and industry awards programs. He also manages business development efforts between the IAPP and peer organizations in the information security, information auditing and legal compliance arenas as well as organizations based in the Asia-Pacific region. The IAPP, based in York, Maine, was founded in 2000 with a mission to define, promote and improve the privacy profession globally. Kosmala oversees product management for the IAPP with specific oversight of distance learning products, privacy certifications and industry awards programs. He also manages business development efforts between the IAPP and peer organizations in the information security, information auditing and legal compliance arenas as well as organizations based in the Asia-Pacific region. The IAPP, based in York, Maine, was founded in 2000 with a mission to define, promote and improve the privacy profession globally.

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday accepted an appeal by several groups that brought a constitutional challenge to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board created by 2002 changes in federal accounting laws. The free-enterprise groups and a Nevada accounting firm sued to stop the Securities and Exchange Commission from naming members of the accounting board, set up by Congress to oversee public-company accountants. "In creating the board, Congress deliberately sought to test the outer boundaries of its ability to reduce presidential power," the groups said in the appeal. The groups, in their lawsuit, claimed the U.S. Constitution required board members to be appointed by the president or the SEC chairman, rather than the entire commission for the securities agency. The Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeal breathes new life into the case, which didn't get much traction in lower courts. The U.S. Solicitor General's office, in court briefs, had urged the high court to reject the appeal, calling it a "poor vehicle" to resolve the constitutional issues raised by the challengers. "The president's control over the SEC is constitutionally sufficient and the act in turn grants the SEC complete and pervasive control over every aspect of the board's authority," Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote. A U.S. federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2007 and the Washington-based U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals also rejected the challenge in a 2-1 decision last year. The private, nonprofit board is charged with inspecting and disciplining public company accountants. The case is the Free Enterprise Fund vs. the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 08-861. Oral arguments will be held in the fall, and a decision is expected by July 2010.

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

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

"Federal agents can examine webcam photos and other information secretly collected from students' laptops and stored in the Lower Merion School District's computer network, a judge has ruled. Acting on a request from federal prosecutors, U.S. District Judge Jan E. DuBois agreed to broaden an earlier order that limited the release of the photos to the students or their parents and lawyers. His order was signed Friday and made public Monday. FBI agents and prosecutors want to review the images to see whether any laws were broken when school district employees activated a tracking system that snapped photos and copied screen images from lost or stolen laptops. Lower Merion school officials have acknowledged poor planning and oversight led the tracking system to capture at least 50,000 images - some showing teens or their relatives in their homes - from laptops that had already been returned to students."

Confused by the difference between privacy & security? What might your kid's laptop camera capture if it was secretly turned on by their school while searching for stolen laptops? Soon the FBI will be able to tell you.

"Google Inc. co-founder Sergey Brin Wednesday said the Internet giant "screwed up" by collecting personal data through wireless networks and promised new oversight as European officials pledged to open investigations of the data collection. Authorities in Germany, Spain and Italy said Wednesday they were investigating Google and its Street View service, which uses camera-equipped vehicles to take street images and mark the location of Wi-Fi networks. Mr. Brin, speaking the same day at Google's developer conference in San Francisco, said the company would put "more internal controls in place" to prevent such data captures in the future, including the hiring of outside help. "Trust is very important to us," Mr. Brin said. "We're going to do everything we can to preserve that trust.""

G apologizes. Again, better to ask forgiveness... If users remain silent & gvt doesn't prosecute, why comply?

An eBay Inc. effort to broaden communication through the popular Twitter Web-messaging service highlights the hurdles facing corporate users of online social media. The growing Twitter audience also attracted the attention of eBay's lawyers, who last month required Mr. Brewer-Hay to include regulatory disclaimers with certain posts. Some followers think the tougher oversight is squelching Mr. Brewer-Hay's spontaneous, informal style. His experience shows the tension that can arise as more companies tap social media to reach investors, customers and others. Eighty-one Fortune 500 companies sponsor public blogs, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Chevron Corp. and General Motors Corp., according to the Society for New Communications Research. Of those blogs, 23 link to corporate Twitter accounts. On Thursday, a Johnson & Johnson executive reported for the first time on the health-care giant's annual meeting via Twitter, which allows users to post "tweets" of as many as 140 characters via text messages and the Web. Such efforts raise thorny questions. Blogs and tweets can run afoul of Securities and Exchange Commission regulations on corporate communications. But sanitizing such posts risks hurting credibility with online audiences. The online auctioneer launched a corporate blog in April 2008. Two months later, blogger Richard Brewer-Hay began "tweeting" -- posting updates on Twitter -- about Silicon Valley technology conferences, eBay's quarterly earnings calls and other topics.

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

Privacy Issues and Education: Peter Kosmala, International Association of Privacy Professionals April 1, 2009 From the Heartland data breach to the new Massachusetts data protection law, privacy is the hot topic in business and government. In an exclusive interview, Peter Kosmala, assistant director of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), discusses: The top privacy topics in business and government; How organizations are tackling these issues; The potential impact of state and federal privacy legislation; The value of the Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP) credential. Kosmala oversees product management for the IAPP with specific oversight of distance learning products, privacy certifications and industry awards programs. He also manages business development efforts between the IAPP and peer organizations in the information security, information auditing and legal compliance arenas as well as organizations based in the Asia-Pacific region. The IAPP, based in York, Maine, was founded in 2000 with a mission to define, promote and improve the privacy profession globally.

US senators have drafted legislation that would give the federal government unprecedented authority over the nation's critical infrastructure, including the power to shut down or limit traffic on private networks during emergencies. The bill would also establish a broad set of cybersecurity standards that would be imposed on the government and the private sector, including companies that provide software, IT work or other services to networks that are deemed to be critical infrastructure. It would also mandate licenses for all individuals administering to strategically important networks. The bill, which is being co-sponsored by Senate Commerce Committee chairman John Rockefeller IV and Senator Olympia Snowe, was expected to be referred to a senate committee on Wednesday. Shortly after a working draft of the legislation began circulating, some industry groups lined up to criticize it for giving the government too much control over the internet and the private companies that make it possible. "This gives the president too much power and there's too little oversight, if there's any at all," said Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It gives him the power to act in the interest of national security, a vague term that has been broadly defined." Nojeim was pointing to language in the bill that permits the president to "order the limitation or shutdown of internet traffic to and from any compromised federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network" after first declaring a national cybersecurity emergency. A separate provision allows the executive in chief to "order the disconnection of any federal government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security." "It applies to any critical infrastructure," Nojeim added. "Surely, the internet is one." The bill would also require NIST, or the National Institute of Standards and Techn

Should responsibility for defending against cyberattacks be moved from the Dept. of Homeland Security to the military? Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton suggested as much at a Congressional hearing where he warned of U.S. vulnerability to cyberwarfar "across the spectrum." Such attacks "potentially threaten not only our military networks, but also our critical national networks," Chilton told a House Armed Services subcommittee, the Washington Post reported. As head of Strategic Command, the general isn't responsibel for defending civilian networks, just government computers. [Stratcom's responsibility is] "to operate and defend the military networks only and be prepared to attack in cyberspace when directed. I think the broader question is, who should best do this for the other parts of America, where we worry about defending power grids, our financial institutions, our telecommunications, our transportation networks, the networks that support them." Well, that's where the 60-day interagency overview of cybersecurity comes in. At the end of that, Chilton said, responsibility for protecting private sector networks may well fit under Stratcom's duties. So what impact in having the military at the center of cybersecurity? Importantly, it brings offensive ops into the defense game. And where the military is involved, can NSA be far behind? No. Operational control over both [offensive and defensive ops], Chilton said, has been delegated to Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the head of the National Security Agency. … NSA, according to Chilton, already has a role in information security, and the agency's support "has been instrumental in our efforts to operate and particularly to defend our networks," he said. Combining oversight of cyber defense and offense made sense, Chilton said, "because they're so interconnected. . . . As you consider offensive operations, you want to make sure your defense are up."

The White House has erased all mention of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board from its Web site. The removal, which was done wth no public notice, has underlined questions about the Obama administration's commitment to the board, which was created on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission to oversee the federal government's actions on civil liberties and privacy.

There is no simple technology solution to protect children from bullying, pornography, sexual predation and other online threats, a new study says. The highly anticipated report -- results of a year-long study ordered by 49 state attorneys general -- found that "a combination of technologies, in concert with parental oversight, education, social services, law enforcement, and sound policies by social-network sites and service providers, may assist in addressing specific problems that minors face online," according to a draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The report also found that the risks that minors face on the Web -- notably bullying and harassment by peers -- aren't very different from those they face in the real world. The report is scheduled to be issued Wednesday by the Internet Safety Technical Task Force, led by Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Task-force members included representatives of several top Internet and security companies, including News Corp.'s MySpace, Google Inc., Time Warner Inc.'s AOL and Facebook Inc. (News Corp. also publishes the Journal.) The 278-page report is a boon for the Web companies, which have long argued that technology isn't the sole solution to the dangers kids face online. It is a disappointment for those in favor of stricter technological controls, such as age-verification and filtering tools.

Look for almost a dozen consumer groups and privacy advocates to launch a full-court press on targeted behavioral advertising and online privacy on Capitol Hill next week. According to a source, those groups on Sept. 1 will release a background paper, letters to House members and other documents to make their case for stronger government oversight of online marketing targeted to kids. "A growing number of child advocacy and health groups have called on the FTC and Congress to prohibit the behavioral targeting of both children and teens, next week, many leading consumer and privacy groups will send a letter to congressional leaders calling for similar safeguards," confirms Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. Chester saidd that 10 groups will be involved in the push, and that they will be "pressing Congress to write legislation that truly protects consumer privacy, but enables online marketing to flourish in a more responsible fashion." The effort comes as Congress prepares to return from its summer break. House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.) has made an online privacy bill a legislative priority in this session of Congress.

"As Congress makes headlines on healthcare and financial industry oversight reform, online data privacy watchdogs are hammering away behind the scenes on the Hill. A joint hearing on online and offline data collection scheduled for later this week, and a planned series of Federal Trade Commission data privacy events have advocacy groups from as far away as California visiting Washington to make sure their voices are heard. "What we're concerned about is the amount of surveillance and tracking going on without consumer consent," said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. Though often skeptical of government regulation, EFF recently joined lobbying groups including Center for Digital Democracy in recommending that Congress pass clear consumer privacy legislation. "

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