Group items tagged

Compared to other key corporate executives, CEOs appear to underestimate the IT security risks faced by their own organizations, according to a survey of C-level executives released today by the Ponemon Institute. The Ponemon survey (download PDF) of 213 CEOs, CIOs, COOs and other senior executives reveals what appears to be a perception gap between CEOs and other senior managers concerning information security issues. For instance, 48% of CEOs surveyed said they believe hackers rarely try to access corporate data. On the other hand, some 53% of other C-level executives believe that their company's data is under attack on a daily or even hourly basis. The survey also found that the top executives were less aware of specific security incidents at their companies than other C-level executives and are more confident that data breaches can be easily avoided. Ponemon found that CEOs tend to view data protection efforts as vital to maintaining good customer satisfaction levels and to the company's brand image. The other managers, however, were more likely to say that the most important role for data security efforts is to satisfy regulatory requirements. The survey also found that CEOs and other top managers differed in their opinion of who is responsible for protecting corporate data. While eight out of 10 respondents said they believe there is one person responsible for data protection in their organization, there was a sharp difference of opinion on just who that person was. More than half of the CEOs said that CIOs are responsible for protecting data at their companies; only 24% of other senior managers felt the same way. And 85% of respondents said someone else would be held responsible for a data breach. "On the issue of accountability, we found that while people acknowledged that data breaches were a problem, very few people felt that if [their company] suffered a breach, they would be held responsible," said Larry Ponemon, founder of the Ponemon Institute.

Compared to other key corporate executives, CEOs appear to underestimate the IT security risks faced by their own organizations, according to a survey of C-level executives released today by the Ponemon Institute. The Ponemon survey (download PDF) of 213 CEOs, CIOs, COOs and other senior executives reveals what appears to be a perception gap between CEOs and other senior managers concerning information security issues. For instance, 48% of CEOs surveyed said they believe hackers rarely try to access corporate data. On the other hand, some 53% of other C-level executives believe that their company's data is under attack on a daily or even hourly basis. The survey also found that the top executives were less aware of specific security incidents at their companies than other C-level executives and are more confident that data breaches can be easily avoided. Ponemon found that CEOs tend to view data protection efforts as vital to maintaining good customer satisfaction levels and to the company's brand image. The other managers, however, were more likely to say that the most important role for data security efforts is to satisfy regulatory requirements. The survey also found that CEOs and other top managers differed in their opinion of who is responsible for protecting corporate data. While eight out of 10 respondents said they believe there is one person responsible for data protection in their organization, there was a sharp difference of opinion on just who that person was. More than half of the CEOs said that CIOs are responsible for protecting data at their companies; only 24% of other senior managers felt the same way. And 85% of respondents said someone else would be held responsible for a data breach. "On the issue of accountability, we found that while people acknowledged that data breaches were a problem, very few people felt that if [their company] suffered a breach, they would be held responsible," said Larry Ponemon, founder of the Ponemon Institute.

"Lora Bentley spoke with Anzen analysts Megan Brister and Jordan Prokopy via e-mail regarding behavioral advertising - what companies are doing, what regulators want to do and what we, as advertising consumers, need to know. With their coworker Miyo Yamashita, the analysts recently wrote a guest opinion for IT Business Edge. Bentley: Why are so many concerned about privacy when it comes to behavioral advertising? What is it about the Internet that convinces consumers that information they share there is not being used? Brister and Prokopy: Most concerns stem from the lack of transparency around data disclosure practices. While consumers may value a Web site's product and service offerings, they are generally unaware that businesses share their information with an extensive group of other businesses in order to deliver targeted advertising. This group includes news Web sites, advertising networks, profiling services, and Web analytics providers, to name a few. As Pamela Jones Harbour, a Commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), discussed at the FTC Roundtable earlier this week, there is an asymmetry between consumer perceptions and business realities. Once consumers are informed of businesses' data handling practices, they will want to have more control over how businesses manage their information. As we discuss in our article, some businesses engaged in online behavioral advertising have been slow to adopt transparent consumer data management policies. This is a concern particularly for vulnerable groups, such as minors or non-English speaking consumers, because they may not understand legally written policies. Consumer advocacy groups argue that without knowledge and control over the collection, use, and disclosure of data, Web sites may misuse or expose sensitive data about consumers' health, lifestyles and finances."

"The last quarter of 2009 should be partly remembered in the advertising community as a juncture when big agencies -- namely Omnicom Media Group, The Nielsen Company, and WPP -- announced consumer data mergers. The deals entailed the marriages of offline and online data and appeared to reveal a potentially major stepping stone in the evolution of "hyper-targeting." Some of the agencies have trumpeted their newfound ability to create consumer segments related to behavioral elements such as "passion points" (e.g., shown interest in electronics, photography, fantasy football, etc.), as well as geographic location, beverage preferences, favorite social media sites, activity levels at the sites, and so on. Augustine Fou, group chief digital officer for Omnicom's Healthcare Consultancy Group and a ClickZ columnist, said that while increased hyper-targeting would likely result from the data marriages, unresolved issues remain before the use of combined online/offline data is widely adopted by brands. "For example, as diverse data sets begin to be integrated, it will become painfully apparent what data can be integrated -- or not -- and specific tradeoffs will have to be made to move forward," he explained. "In particular, privacy policies of sites and ad networks will need to be revisited." The growing ability for marketers to target online ads using data gathered offline has generally raised concern among consumer privacy advocates. To that end, Fou suggested that brands are cautiously optimistic about hyper-targeting and slightly wary of public/consumer perception. "

Marriage of offline and online data sources to target advertising may make tracking more interesting for consumers and advertisers alike.

Banks and cellphone companies have a long way to go to persuade U.S. consumers to use their cellphones for banking, as many worry about security and extra fees and others are not even aware they can. In a survey of about 500 U.S. consumers, accounting firm KPMG found that only about 9 percent had tried mobile banking. In comparison, about 76 percent "consistently use" online banking services on computers. As many as 95 percent said they were so uncomfortable with conducting financial transactions on their phones that they've never used them to make a purchase on a retailer's Web site. About 48 percent of respondents cited security and privacy worries as their reason for not banking on their cellphones, according to KPMG. While many respondents said they believe mobile banking is important, according to the accounting firm, they do not think it is important enough to pay extra for it. Roughly 19 percent of respondents said they are "somewhat likely" to a use a mobile device for online banking in the next 12 months but only seven percent said are willing to pay a nominal fee for cellphone banking, according to the survey. And even though most of the major U.S. banks offer a mobile banking service, about 68 percent of the survey respondents said their bank does not offer the service. "The fact that the majority of U.S. consumers are not aware that their current banks offer mobile banking is clearly more perception than reality," said Carl Carande, a principal in KPMG LLP's Advisory and Banking and Finance practices. Banks offering mobile services include Citigroup Bank of America and Wells Fargo.

If behavioral targeting is the key to providing Web users with advertising that's better tailored to their particular needs and interests--instead of banner ads that they ignore--then what's the harm to consumers? That was a central question tackled by a panel of privacy and online marketing experts Thursday at the OMMA Behavioral conference in New York. Whether online user tracking--even when anonymous--represents a growing threat to privacy has become a hotly debated issue in the last year, with FTC, Congress and state governments considering increased regulation of behavioral targeting. For Jules Polonetsky, co-chair and director of the AT&T-funded think tank Future of Privacy Forum, that debate has become almost superfluous. Whatever side one takes, he emphasized that there is now a widespread perception among consumers and regulators that online tracking is creepy at the very least. The key to diffusing the controversy is for publishers and marketers to give Web users notice that their behavior is being tracked in order to provide them with more relevant content, recommendations and marketing offers.

In belt-tightening times, making the case for security investment is more difficult than ever. Security Catalyst founder Michael Santarcangelo details five steps risk professionals can use to communicate value effectively. The biggest challenge security teams face in their organization is one of perception, according to Michael Santarcangelo, founder of Security Catalyst, a New York-based consultancy focused on changing the way people protect information. Santarcangelo, who was recently a keynote speaker at the CSO Perspectives conference, said professionals focused on security are practiced at looking at risks and reducing them. Unfortunately, the rest of society often doesn't see risks the same way, making communication difficult (See also: Security and Business: Communication 101). "They lack relevant context," said Santarcangelo. "So security people get wrapped up in thinking: 'The CFO wants an ROI. We better work on ROI.' But what the CFO is really saying is:' I don't understand what you do. So you have to justify it to me.' Santarcangelo outlined his strategies for making the case for security investments at the three-day event held in Clearwater, Florida. He gave an audience of security professionals the details of his five step process for getting executives and boards to understand, and even approve, spending decisions in tough economic times. Create Santarcangelo believes one of the most effective ways to communicate value is to place focus back on the person to whom you are trying to make your pitch (See also: A CEO and CSO Who Actually Communicate). "The reason why someone changes a behavior or takes an action is because there is an inherent benefit to the person," said Santarcangelo. "But when many people start to create, they forget that. They tend to fall into the trap of thinking: 'I'm really smart and I know a lot of stuff. So I'm just going to say it and hope they will understand the value of it.'" Instead, Santarcangelo recommends creating

Social engineering and mind games expert Brian Brushwood has not come by his knowledge in the traditional manner of school or business training. Brushwood is the host of the Internet video series Scam School, a show he describes as dedicated to social engineering in the bar and on the street. In addition to his passion for teaching people about social engineering cons, Brushwood is also a touring magician who frequently performs on college campuses and has appeared on the Tonight Show. He first became interested in social engineering years ago as a means to enhance his performance and pull off secret moves successfully. Brushwood said his understanding and use of the term social engineering goes beyond the security industry perception. "When I use the phrase, I am actually talking about an older version of it. Social engineering just basically means the application of social science to the solution of social problems," he said. "In other words, it's getting people to do what you want by using certain sociological principles."