Group items tagged

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."

"* To pay all costs tied to administration of settlement * To pay class members' attorney costs Dec 21 (Reuters) - Credit card processor Heartland Payment Systems Inc (HPY.N) said it would settle consumer cardholder class actions tied to claims arising from breach of its system by cyber thieves, and pay up to $2.4 million to class members submitting valid claims. Heartland agreed to pay a minimum of $1 million to class members and take up settlement-related administration costs, including up to $1.5 million for the cost of notice to the settling class. The company will pay up to $760,000 of the costs of attorneys representing the class members. Heartland said it could terminate the deal if costs of notice exceeded $1.5 million, or if it received more than 2,500 requests for exclusion from the settlement class. The deal settles all intrusion-related proceedings by consumers who used the payment cards between Dec. 6, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2008, including those who may allege to have suffered losses, the company said in a statement. Heartland, which agreed to pay $3.6 million last week to settle claims with American Express Co (AXP.N) related to the criminal breach, reported in January this year that cyber thieves hacked its payment system and stole credit card information. Shares of the New Jersey-based company were down 18 cents at $13.29 Monday morning on the New York Stock Exchange. "

Most Americans believe the world financial crisis has increased their risk of identity theft or related crimes, according to the latest Unisys Security Index. The biannual survey of consumers in nine countries found that more than two-thirds of Americans are "extremely or very concerned" about other people obtaining and using their credit or debit card details -- with 90 percent at least "somewhat concerned." In addition, computer security remains a major concern. More than 40 percent of Americans are extremely or very concerned about security in relation to viruses or unsolicited emails. Three-quarters of Americans believe that the world financial crisis will increase the risk that they will personally experience identity theft or related crimes. More than one-quarter believe that the risk will increase substantially. "Financial security for Americans has moved from third place to front and center, number one," Tim Kelleher, vice president of enterprise security at Unisys, provider of information technology consulting services, told SCMagazineUS.com Monday. "People feel they are much more financially at risk." This has major implications for banks and other financial institutions, as well as internet businesses, he said. "Banks and businesses need to understand that customers are more wary than ever about using services that may compromise their personal data," Kelleher said. "If economic concerns increase these fears, companies need new strategies to strengthen customer confidence through accountability and transparency, which also plays to part of the Obama administration's call to action for government and business." The U.S. Security Index is based on a random telephone survey of 1,004 persons ages 18 and over. The first wave of the study was conducted in August 2007.

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

Visa Inc. said recent alerts it sent to credit card issuers are not related to a new breach, countering reports that a second payment processor had been compromised. In a statement issued Friday, San Francisco-based Visa said the alerts "were part of an existing investigation and are not related to a new compromise event." Credit unions last week reported receiving alerts from Visa and MasterCard about credit and debit card accounts that were exposed in the breach of a payment processor. They reported that the compromise was unrelated to the breach announced by Heartland Payment Systems in January. Information about newly affected accounts was relayed to banks and credit unions Feb. 9, via Visa's Compromised Account Management System (CAMS). The system, which informs banks of compromised account numbers, gives issuers the ability to monitor, close, or block the compromised accounts. Visa's statement did not say what existing investigation the alerts are related to and a company spokesman said he couldn't provide that detail. "Visa has provided the affected accounts to financial institutions so they can take steps to protect consumers," the company said in its statement. "In addition, Visa is risk-scoring all transactions in real-time, helping card issuers better distinguish fraud transactions from legitimate ones." Rich Mogull, an independent consultant and founder of security consultancy Securosis LLC said it's impossible to draw any conclusions based on the Visa statement. "It doesn't say if the breach is public or not, so it may be older but not revealed yet," he wrote in an email. "In other words, it just adds to the confusion. I assume the full story will come out eventually, and since they don't identify the breach it's hard to really evaluate this at all." Heartland disclosed Jan. 20 that its systems were compromised by a hacker in 2008. The breach forced hundreds of banks and credit unions to replace thousands of credit and debit cards.

"On January 20, 2009, Heartland Payment Systems reported discovering malicious software in its payment processing system, a security breach of potentially massive magnitude given that the company's handles 100 million transactions per month for more than 250,000 businesses. While the monetary and data loses following from the penetration of Heartland's systems -- the compromise that lasted for months -- are still being determined, the financial impact on Heartland's stock price alone was devastating. " The breach, in conjunction with the economic downturn, led to the loss of about $500 million in shareholder value, more than three-quarters of the company's market capitalization, two months after the news was announced. And then there's the cost of more than several dozen breach-related lawsuits filed against the company this year and related expenses. According to slides presented in August at a National Retail Federation Conference by Robert O. Carr, Heartland's founder, chairman and CEO, the breach cost the company $32 million in legal fees, fines, settlements, and forensics during just the first half of the year.

Last week, the government took another step toward closing a legal loophole in federal privacy and security rules for emerging Health 2.0 information technology applications by issuing proposed rules aimed at covering an estimated 900 companies and organizations offering personal health records and electronic systems connected to them. The Federal Trade Commission was careful to point out its new interim proposed rule on federal breach notification requirements for the developers of electronic PHR systems did not apply to covered organizations or their business associates as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, heretofore the key federal privacy and security regulation. The FTC, operating under new authority given it by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, noted that its new rule seeks to cover previously unregulated entities that are part of a Health 2.0 product mix. FTC staff estimates that about 200 PHR vendors, another 500 related entities and 200 third-party service providers will be subject to the new breach notification rule. The staffers estimate that the 900 affected companies and organizations, on average, will experience 11 breaches each per year at a total cost of about $1 million per group, per year. Costs include investigating the breach, notifying consumers and establishing toll-free numbers for explaining the breaches and providing additional information to consumers. Pam Dixon, founder and executive director of the World Privacy Forum, said that this isn't the first involvement of the FTC in healthcare-related regulation, noting the consumer protection agency joined with the Food and Drug Administration in a joint statement on the marketing of direct-to-consumer genetic tests. The FTC also has worked in the field of healthcare competition. She noted the compliance deadline with the FTC's "red flag rules" on provider organizations that provide consumer credit to patients for installment payment

Individuals have been at risk of having their personal information stolen and used to commit identity-related crimes long before the emergence of the Internet. What the Information Age has changed, however, is the method by which identity thieves can access and exploit the personal information of others. One method in particular leaves hundreds of thousands, and in some cases tens of millions, of individuals at risk for identity theft: large scale data breaches by skilled hackers. In this method, criminals remotely access the computer systems of government agencies, universities, merchants, financial institutions, credit card companies, and data processors, and steal large volumes of personal information on individuals. Such large scale data breaches have revolutionized the identity theft landscape as it relates to fraud on existing accounts through the use of compromised credit and debit card account information. Large scale data breaches would be of no more concern than small scale identity thefts if criminals were unable to quickly and widely distribute the stolen information for subsequent fraudulent use (assuming, of course, that the breach would be quickly detected). Such wide-scale global distribution of stolen information has been made possible for criminals with the advent of criminal websites, known as "carding forums," dedicated to the sale of stolen personal and financial information. These websites allow criminals to quickly sell the fruits of their ill-gotten gains to thousands of eager fraudsters

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

Data breaches are running at record levels, according to the San Diego-based Identity Theft Resource Center, a non-profit that tracks cybercrime. ITRC says it recorded 342 data breaches from Jan. 1 through June 24, up 69% from the same period in 2007. But, like the origins and perpetrators of so many individual data breaches, mystery also lies behind the aggregated numbers. "I'm not sure that this says breaches are increasing," ITRC founder Linda Foley tells Digital Transactions News. "What we know is the reporting of breaches is increasing." A handful of states now require some disclosure of data breaches to authorities, Alaska being the most recent. And some companies that have been hacked are starting to report breaches voluntarily, Foley says. While data breaches can compromise all manner of personal and business records, they often involve credit and debit card data and bank-account information. ITRC lists five major categories of breached entities, with the so-called banking/credit/financial sector accounting for 10% of 2008's breaches. Businesses, which include physical and Internet retailers, insurance companies and other private enterprises, accounted for 36.8%. Schools accounted for 21.3%; government and military facilities, 17%; and health-care facilities, 14.9%. IRTC also categorizes breaches by how they happened, such as through hackings-break-ins into computers and related systems, insider thefts, data lost in physical transit, and by other methods. The number of 2008 hackings through late June in the banking/credit/financial category was 10-double the five for all of 2007. The estimated number of records compromised as a result was 227,864. In 2007, the reported number of compromised records at financial institutions through hackings was 83,500. But Foley says not to put too much stock in the records numbers because so many breached organizations don't know or fail to report the number of compromised records when they report a bre

A recurring problem in modern litigation is the inadvertent disclosure of materials subject to the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product protection. New Federal Rule of Evidence 502 changes the rules concerning waiver of privilege in all Federal and many State court cases, thereby reducing the risk that inadvertent disclosures will constitute a wavier of attorney client privilege or work product protection. But the new rule requires careful application. Important risks remain. Inadvertent disclosure of privileged or protected information too easily occurs when massive numbers of documents or files make it impractical or prohibitively expensive to review every item individually. The proverbial privileged document needle gets lost in the e-discovery haystack and is overlooked. Later, when opposing counsel recognizes that she has a potentially privileged document and brings this to the attention of disclosing counsel, there may be a fight as to whether the document will be returned, or whether the disclosure constitutes a wavier of any privilege related to the information. Under existing State and Federal law, release of privileged or protected information to an adversary, even if inadvertent, may constitute a waiver of the privilege or protection with regard to the information or document disclosed or, worse, to all documents and other information related to the same topic. Invoking the "claw" Amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), adopted in December 2006, were aimed at reducing the risks of waiver from inadvertent disclosures. Rule 26(b) provides that if privileged information is produced, the party making the claim of privilege may notify any party that received the information of the privilege claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has, must not use or disclose the information until the privilege claim is resolved; must t

Enterprise employees frequently use social networking tools, most notably Web-based applications. It's no surprise more organizations are wondering what happens if social networking data becomes relevant to an e-discovery investigation. How does an enterprise go about discovering and assessing Web 2.0 data? How responsible is an organization, legally speaking, for the information that's out there in the Web 2.0 world? What risks arise from e-discovery as it relates to Web 2.0 data, and how can you mitigate them? In this tip, we will look at e-discovery as it relates to Web 2.0 and consider the strongest options for minimizing risks to the organization. E-discovery basics We begin with a quick look at what e-discovery is and how it can create risk. Essentially, e-discovery is the electronic extension of the legal process of discovery, which Wikipedia defines as "the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party through the law of civil procedure can request documents and other evidence from other parties or can compel the production of evidence by using a subpoena or through other discovery devices, such as requests for production and depositions." If you're an IT person, not a lawyer, it's important to note that the rules governing the discovery process now require plaintiffs to address all electronically stored information or ESI. In other words, if your organization faces litigation, it will have to deal with the issue of e-discovery, which will entail a whole lot more than turning over some old emails. Depending upon your role in the organization, the first you may hear of this is a "notice of litigation" with perhaps a "litigation hold directive" containing a "preservation directive." Here is a generic e-discovery request below. Apart from a few limiting factors, such as subject matter, named persons and a specified time period, the scope of such a notice is likely to be broad; blame standard procedure, not some high-powered attorney pushing his or her lu

Changes relating to different aspects of data management have been highlighted as key trends in the IT industry for 2009 in a report by consultancy Deloitte. The falling price of digital storage has caused an irresponsible approach to file management and IT leaders will need to give an increased focus to these issues, says Deloitte, along with finding ways around the rise in physical storage costs. "There are ways to control the escalation of storage costs, such as de-duplication tools that can free up space by reducing duplicate files," says the report. "Companies can assess the impact of individual applications, especially email - which is estimated to take up 25 per cent of enterprise storage capacity," it says. According to Deloitte's research, businesses will become increasingly aggressive when pursuing disputes related to copyright infringement and digital ownership rights. "If undertaking a swift launch of a product or digital application, companies should ensure that no element could lead to litigation," says the report. Despite pointing out that 2009 will be the break-out year for social networks in the business, Deloitte says that such networks will need to be developed with caution to encourage more productivity and balance control with employees' desire for privacy.

The United States' 35-year-old federal privacy law and related policies should be updated to reflect the realities of modern technologies and information systems, and account for more advanced threats to privacy and security, according to a report sent today to OMB Director Orszag. In its 40-page paper, the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board calls for Congress to amend the 1974 Privacy Act and provisions of the 2002 E-Government Act to improve federal privacy notices; clearly cover commercial data sources; and update the definition of "system of records" to encompass relational and distributed systems based on government use of records, not just its possession of them. The panel included technology experts from industry and academia. The panel wants heightened government leadership on privacy and suggests the hiring of a full-time chief privacy officer at OMB and regular Privacy Act guidance updates from the office. Chief privacy officers should be hired at major agencies and a chief privacy officers' council should be created, much like the Chief Information Officers' Council that is chaired by OMB's e-government and IT administrator.

Raises some realistic questions about the American approach to privacy law & regulation. Unfortunately, the article tends to point at the misapplication of laws more heavily than offering the reader an account of the abuses that led us to where we are now. Businesses & government, including the medical industry, freely shared details - or spied on Americans with impunity for decades. The article reminds us that work needs to continue to balance our approach. A Federal law, that sets a floor for privacy requirements, could help reduce conflicting requirements caused by almost every state writing seperate laws because there was a lack of leadership from Washington. American privacy regulations are implemented sectorally - at the industry or State level for example. This leads to many different, and conflicting laws. Privacy is a difficult subject with complex considerations touching aspects of life that have not been questioned for years. This article provides more con than balance, but it reminds us that extreme positions rarely serve anyone well.

Special interest groups and lawyers claim they are defenders of individual privacy. But all that red tape is causing more harm to consumers than good. In a world of tight budgets and sacrificed programs, one sector has continued to grow with the speed and choking effectiveness of kudzu: regulations around privacy. More than 300 privacy-related laws are on the books, in both Washington, D.C. and state capitals. Privacy-related consulting services provided by law and accounting firms are a $500-million-a-year business and have been growing at double digits.

On September 12, 2009, Maine's Act to Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices Against Minors (the "Act") will take effect. The Act prohibits businesses from knowingly collecting or receiving a minor's health-related information or personal information for marketing purposes without first obtaining verifiable parental consent. Businesses are also prohibited from using any health-related information or personal information regarding a minor for the purpose of marketing a product or service to the minor. Pursuant to the Act, the use of information in such a manner is a predatory marketing practice, which may be sanctioned as an unfair trade practice. The law also allows individuals subject to unlawful data collection or predatory marketing practices to bring a private right of action against violators. For businesses, the implications of Maine's new data collection and marketing restrictions are far-reaching. The scope of the law covers both online and off-line marketing activities, and the broad definition of personal information includes a minor's name in combination with any information concerning the minor. In light of the Act's restrictive requirements and considerable scope, businesses would be well-advised to evaluate their current marketing practices and age verification mechanisms. The text of the law is available here.

Difficult economic times can be the breeding ground for increased fraudulent activities. In July 2009, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (www.fincen.gov) published its 12th edition of The SAR Activity Review - By the Numbers. SARs (Suspicious Activity Reports) are one key aspect of FinCEN's efforts related to its responsibility for regulatory administration of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. Many different financial industries such as banks, credit unions, insurance companies, check-cashing services, broker/dealers, and casinos are required to complete and file SARs. According to FinCEN's press release on the SAR Activity Review, "The report reveals that of the 20 different violation types tracked, seven of the categories relate specifically to fraud and all seven showed an increase in SAR filings during the year. While these categories represent one-third of the possible violation types, they accounted for nearly half of the increase in total SAR filings from 2007 to 2008, with all of the fraud categories seeing double-digit increases in percentage of filings in 2008. These categories are: check fraud, mortgage loan fraud, consumer loan fraud, wire transfer fraud, commercial loan fraud, credit card fraud, and debit card fraud." Could any of this apply to you? Are your control and monitoring processes able to identify these examples of common patterns of suspicious activity that FinCEN has identified?

Free, vendor-neutral online Data and Privacy in Web 2.0 Summit on August 13th. Thought leaders will present a series of webcasts discussing best practices and case studies on legal issues in online social communities, implications of the smart grid and the Cloud, privacy policies and more: http://www.brighttalk.com/summit/dataprivacy2 Web 2.0 services have been rapidly growing because of the value they offer to businesses and individuals alike. However, with so much information at stake and so little control of employees and customer activities online, how do companies ensure consumer and businesses' data are secure and safe from misuse and malware-related data breach? This summit will focus on minimizing leakage from people, devices and data on the move, keeping consumer and businesses' data secure and safe from misuse and malware-related data breach.

"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

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

"Today, the Federal Trade Commission opened new areas of a "virtual mall" with content that will help kids learn to protect their privacy, spot frauds and scams, and avoid identity theft. The FTC Web site, www.ftc.gov/YouAreHere, introduces key consumer and business concepts and helps youngsters understand their role in the marketplace. The FTC is the nation's consumer protection agency. "YouAreHere presents practical lessons about money and business in a fun and familiar setting," said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "The new content takes kids behind the scenes to raise their awareness of advertising and marketing, pricing and competition, fraud and identity theft. At the FTC's online mall, visitors play games, watch short animated films, and interact with customers and store owners. They can design and print advertisements for a shoe store, investigate suspicious claims in ads and sales pitches, learn to identify the catches behind bogus modeling schemes and vacation offers, and guess the retail prices of various candies based on their supply, demand, and production costs. At the Security Plaza, visitors can build a social networking page and see the unintended consequences of posting personal information. They also get tips on how to keep their computers safe while they're online. In the arcade, visitors can play Info Defender 3 and protect Earthlings from Cyclorian invaders who would steal their identities. The game teaches the importance of protecting personal information, including Social Security numbers. For parents and teachers, the site offers detailed fact sheets with ideas for related activities. Teachers can use the site to complement lessons in consumer economics, government, social studies, language arts, and critical thinking. The National Council for Economic Education has developed a lesson plan that prominently features YouAreHere; it is available on the Parents and Teachers page. "

"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. "