Group items tagged

Top attorneys for Microsoft and Google today reiterated their companies' support for tougher government rules to protect consumer privacy. But when it comes to the details, some watchdog groups say they are concerned that Web firms will continue to fight against specific provisions that would limit the ways they can collect and use people's information to serve more targeted ads. Today's panel discussion, held here at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference, revisited a longstanding policy debate over the government's role in online privacy. The talk ran along some familiar plotlines, with Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy thundering about the detailed personal profiles being assembled by advertising companies who are using neuroscience to manipulate consumer behavior, while industry representatives assured the audience that their data-collection practices are benign, not to mention essential to providing free content and services on the Internet. But this wasn't just an idle debate. Rep. Rick Boucher, the Virginia Democrat who chairs a House subcommittee on the Internet, is developing legislation that could seek to impose sweeping restrictions on behavioral targeting. A few blocks up Pennsylvania Avenue at the Federal Trade Commission, the principal regulatory agency with authority over online advertising, newly minted Chairman Jon Leibowitz has spoken often about the need for industry to get serious about privacy. "The FTC's central concern here is transparency, consumer control," said Jessica Rich, assistant director of the agency's privacy and identity protection division. "We don't think consumers really know what's happening with their data."

Advertisers are your friend, and the government is here to help. If consumers don't take responsibility for their data, then all the regulation in the World won't matter.

When it comes to online privacy, we all appreciate the risk of publicizing juicy factoids such as incriminating photos or credit card numbers. But few of us realize a subtler threat: In abundance, innocuous, everyday data can divulge sensitive information as well. Some questions shouldn't be asked. Employers, for instance, generally are not allowed to discriminate based on marital status, sexual orientation and so on. But our growing digital footprint is threatening our ability to dodge inappropriate inquiries. Through data mining, employers, insurers, advertisers and others can infer the answers to private questions without even asking. They need two things: a heap of personal data, and the techniques to crunch it. Both are readily available. People generate and share more information than ever before. Besides consciously generated Web content such as blogs, Facebook profiles and YouTube videos, a steady stream of data is exchanged in the background. Companies track our searches, browsing and shopping behavior. Personal electronic devices can silently disclose our location while we post status updates and photos to the Web. All this seems innocent enough - and the more others do it, the safer we all feel. After all, what's one more Twitter update among millions?

In a decision that has privacy advocates and others scratching their heads, a federal judge has ruled that LifeLock has been breaking California law for years by placing fraud alerts on its customer's credit profiles. The decision is a blow to the burgeoning identify-theft protection industry, and means that companies that experience data breaches may no longer be able to offer victims free subscriptions to such services - a standard damage-control tactic in recent years. Consumers can still place fraud alerts by contacting one of the three U.S. credit reporting agencies directly. Bo Holland, founder and CEO of Debix, a competitor of LifeLock, called the ruling "dramatic and unexpected." "It causes a real shift in the industry," he told Threat Level. The pre-trial partial summary judgment comes in a lawsuit filed last year against LifeLock by Experian, one of the nation's three credit reporting bureaus. Experian claimed LifeLock is trying to "game the system" of fraud alerts to make a profit.

When the director of IT at a Boston-based, midsize pharmaceutical firm was first approached to participate in a data leakage audit, he was thrilled. He figured the audit would uncover a few weak spots in the company's data leak defenses and he would then be able to leverage the audit results into funding for additional security resources. "Data leakage is an area that doesn't get a lot of focus until something bad happens. Your biggest hope is that when you raise concerns about data vulnerability, someone will see the value in allowing you to move forward to protect it," the IT director says. But he got way more than he bargained for. The 15-day audit identified 11,000 potential leaks, and revealed gaping holes in the IT team's security practices. (Read a related story on the most common violations encountered.) The audit, conducted by Networks Unlimited in Hudson, Mass., examined outbound e-mail, FTP and Web communications. The targets were leaks of general financial information, corporate plans and strategies, employee and other personal identifiable information, intellectual property and proprietary processes. Networks Unlimited placed one tap between the corporate LAN and the firewall and a second tap between the external e-mail gateway and the firewall. Networks Unlimited used WebSense software on two servers to monitor unencrypted traffic. Then it analyzed the traffic with respect to company policy. Specifically, Networks Unlimited looked for violations of the pharmaceutical firm's internal confidentiality policy, corporate information security policy, Massachusetts Privacy Laws (which go into effect in 2010), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and Security and Exchange Commission and Sarbanes-Oxley regulations. Auditor Jason Spinosa, senior engineer at Networks Unlimited, says that while he selected the criteria for this audit, he usually recommends that companies take time to determine their policy settings based on their risk

A majority of business executives believe that they have a right to know what their employees are doing on social-networking sites, but most workers say it's none of their bosses' business, according to a new survey by Deloitte. The survey was conducted in April with about 2,000 U.S. adults. Of the 500 respondents with managerial job titles (vice president, CIO, partner, board member, etc.), 299, or 60%, agreed that businesses have a right to know how employees portray themselves or their companies on sites like Facebook and MySpace. But 53% of employee respondents said their profiles are none of their employers' business, and 61% said that they wouldn't change what they were doing online even if their boss was monitoring their activities. That disagreement, says Sharon Allen, chairman of Deloitte's board and the sponsor of the survey, is one that companies need to address, particularly as these sites have become part of younger workers' lives. "It does, in fact, tee up the challenging debate or discussion that needs to take place to try to resolve both of their concerns," she said. Few businesses are having that conversation, according to the survey, though many executives indicated that it was on their minds. When asked what their company's policy was regarding social-networking use, roughly a quarter (26%) of employees said they knew of specific guidelines as to what they could and couldn't post. Similar numbers said their office didn't have a policy or they didn't know if their company had a policy - 23% and 24%, respectively.

Are you an advertiser looking to target mothers online with children under 12 who are concerned about obesity to promote a healthy snack food? Or people that don't support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge but support offshore drilling generally? If so, Resonate Networks -- a new ad network geared to nonprofit, political and corporate advertisers -- promises to serve up just the right audience based on highly targeted, if anonymous, profile data focused on political views and attitudes. "It's really drilling down to people's beliefs and where they stand on issues," said Bryan Gernert, CEO of Alexandria, Va.-based Resonate, a non-partisan company launched by former Republican and Democratic political strategists including Harold Ickes, Bill Clinton's former deputy chief of staff and one of Resonate's investors. Unlike traditional ad networks that target advertising based on a site content or audience demographics, Resonate combines survey information, online and offline databases and proprietary algorithms to match Web users' political leanings and levels of activism with sites they tend to visit most often. "You can identify Web sites that have a preponderance of people who support certain issues," that go beyond obvious issue-oriented or political sites, said Gernert. He added that Resonate is already working with 500 of about 2,500 sites that correlate strongly with particular issues or audiences with high levels of engagement or influence.

Photos, addresses, family ties, court documents, details from MySpace profiles -- the moment information is published online, it can be copied and re-posted, and often is.

The federal GLBA, HIPAA, FACTA and its Red Flags and Disposal Rules, state data Breach Notification Laws and many other federal and state laws and industry regulations like PCI-DSS are intended to protect the privacy and security of consumer's personally identifiable and financial information entrusted to businesses and other organizations. Many suchidentity theft, id theft, government security, government privacy regulations aim to prevent identity theft and privacy violations. While some businesses have been negligent in securing information, other businesses have been victimized by black hat hackers or "crackers" who operate ahead of the cybersecurity technology curve. Cybersecurity is an ongoing challenge for businesses and for government as discussed in the President's Cyberspace Policy Review. In the four-year period ending in 2008, 23% of all data breaches reported were attributed to hackers. For those data breaches involving more than one million profiles, hacking was identified as the cause in 66% of the breaches according to a recent research report on data breach risk factors.

Hunch.com helps users search for answers -- but first, it performs a detailed search on the users themselves. Launching today after a year in development, Hunch aims to supply users with computer-generated advice on thousands of lifestyle and consumer questions: What kind of dog should I buy? What should I get dad for Father's Day? Which book by George Orwell would I like? Most important, though, Hunch is not a search engine. Rather than scouring the open Web for information, as Google, Microsoft's new Bing and scores of others do, or collating written opinions, as Amazon.com does, Hunch computes answers by comparing what it knows about you to what it knows about people like you. "Ultimately, what we're doing is providing a kind of shortcut through human expert systems," said Hunch founder Caterina Fake, who also started Flickr.com, the popular photo-sharing site that was acquired by Yahoo in 2005. By first inviting users to answer as many as 1,500 questions about themselves -- an addictive kind of personality test that involves such diverse questions as political orientation, relationship status and whether you believe in UFOs and keep your closet organized -- Hunch looks to assemble a demographic profile whose depth could rival anything in the commercial universe. The New York company also believes that users stand to benefit from this kind of large-scale data farming -- not just from getting better answers, but also from discovering the many microdemographics to which they belong. Hunch also says it will not sell user data to marketers. But this promise, written into the site's privacy policy, is not precisely a legal contract, said Siva Vaidhyanathan, a new-media scholar at the University of Virginia, and the difference leaves the data it collects in a fuzzy domain.

Naturally, privacy watchdogs answer the question in this post title with a resounding "Yes!" The answer is so emphatic, in fact, that the Center for Digital Democracy and U.S. Public Interest Research Group are filing a 52-page complaint with the FTC today alleging that mobile marketers collect so much "non personally identifiable information" that it infringes on users' privacy-and are "unfair and deceptive." Mobile devices, which know our location and other intimate details of our lives, are being turned into portable behavioral tracking and targeting tools that consumers unwittingly take with them wherever they go. (Shh! Don't tell them the FBI can remotely turn on the microphone of several cell phone brands and convert your phone into a roving bug, even when it's off!) But is the Internet private-and should it be? Is a profile that states that you are interested in outdoor rec and currently in the Santa Clara, CA, area an invasion of your privacy? And if so, should we ban all outdoor rec stores and centers in Santa Clara from collecting personally identifiable information like, say, a picture of you when you walk in their lobby? Should we prohibit all employees from asking your name and if you slip and mention it, make sure they never call you by it?

Facebook's developer platform has been used for a zillion marketing campaigns so far, but this one is actually dead-on hilarious. Fast-food chain Burger King has created "Whopper Sacrifice," a Facebook app that will give you a coupon for a free hamburger if you delete 10 people from your friends list. Burger King has put out some interesting campaigns as of late ("Whopper Virgin," "Subservient Chicken"), but this one piques our interest because of how gleefully it pokes fun at our social-networking obsessions. "Now is the time to put your fair-weather Web friendships to the test," the Whopper Sacrifice site explains. "Install Whopper Sacrifice on your Facebook profile, and we'll reward you with a free flame-broiled Whopper when you sacrifice ten of your friends. The funniest part: The "sacrifices" show up in your activity feed. So it'll say, for example, "Caroline sacrificed Josh Lowensohn for a free Whopper." Unfortunately, you can't delete your whole friends list and eat free (however unhealthily) for a week. The promotion is limited to one coupon per Facebook account. My Facebook friends had better appreciate the fact that I made a New Year's resolution to cut out red meat. Hint, hint.

Personal profiles on Facebook and other social-networking sites are a trove of inappropriate and embarrassing photographs and discomfiting breaches of confidentiality. You might expect that from your friends and even some colleagues - but what about your doctor? A new survey of medical-school deans finds that unprofessional conduct on blogs and social-networking sites is common among medical students. Although med students fully understand patient-confidentiality laws and are indoctrinated in the high ethical standards to which their white-coated profession is held, many of them still use Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Flickr and other sites to depict and discuss lewd behavior and sexual misconduct, make discriminatory statements and discuss patient cases in violation of confidentiality laws, according to the survey, which was published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Of the 80 medical-school deans questioned, 60% reported incidents involving unprofessional postings and 13% admitted to incidents that violated patient privacy. Some offenses led to expulsion from school.

Tax deadbeats are finding someone actually reads their MySpace and Facebook postings: the taxman. State revenue agents have begun nabbing scofflaws by mining information posted on social-networking Web sites, from relocation announcements to professional profiles to financial boasts. In Minnesota, authorities were able to levy back taxes on the wages of a long-sought tax evader after he announced on MySpace that he would be returning to his home town to work as a real-estate broker and gave his employer's name. The state collected several thousand dollars, the full amount due.

"Malicious hackers are using fake alerts around H1N1 (Swine Flu) vaccines to trick end users into installing malware on Windows computers, according to warnings issued by computer security firms. The latest malware campaign begins with e-mail messages offering information regarding the H1N1 vaccination. The e-mail messages contain a link to a bogus Centers for Disease Control and Prevention site with prompts to create a user profile. During this process, a malware file gets planted on the user's machine."