Group items tagged

The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it has approved a Federal Register notice seeking public comment on a proposed rule that would require entities to notify consumers when the security of their electronic health information is breached. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) includes provisions to advance the use of health information technology and, at the same time, strengthen privacy and security protections for health information. Among other things, the Recovery Act recognizes that there are new types of Web-based entities that collect or handle consumers' sensitive health information. Some of these entities offer personal health records, which consumers can use as an electronic, individually controlled repository for their medical information. Others provide online applications through which consumers can track and manage different kinds of information in their personal health records. For example, consumers can connect a device such as a pedometer to their computers and upload miles traveled, heart rate, and other data into their personal health records. These innovations have the potential to provide numerous benefits for consumers, which can only be realized if they have confidence that the security and confidentiality of their health information will be maintained. To address these issues, the Recovery Act requires the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a study and report, in consultation with the FTC, on potential privacy, security, and breach notification requirements for vendors of personal health records and related entities. This study and report must be completed by February 2010. In the interim, the Act requires the Commission to issue a temporary rule requiring these entities to notify consumers if the security of their health information is breached. The proposed rule the Commission is announcing today is the first step in implementing this requirement. In keeping with the Recover

Like this http://cheaptravelbooker.com Like this http://cheaptravelbooker.com like this http://killdo.de.gg travel,hotel,fun,hotel new,new offer,hotel best,best hotel,hotel travel,seo,backlinks,edu,gov,ads,indexing,bookmark,killgoggle,gogglesuck,goggle bookmark,kill goggle,yahoo,bing,indexing,quality links,linkwell,traffic boster,index best

Federal regulators slapped hundreds of small telecommunications providers for not abiding by new rules designed to protect consumer phone records, proposing more than $13 million in total fines. The Federal Communications Commission proposed $20,000 fines on more than 650 small phone, pager and wireless providers Tuesday, accusing them of not filing paperwork that certifies they have put protections in place to protect customer phone data. "I have long stressed the importance of protecting the sensitive information that telecommunications carriers collect about their customers," said Michael Copps, the FCC's interim chairman, in a statement. "The broad nature of this enforcement action hopefully will ensure substantial compliance with our [privacy] rules going forward as the Commission continues to make consumer privacy protection a top priority." In April 2007, the FCC tightened privacy requirements on phone companies in response to consumer complaints about data brokers selling phone records they had obtained illegally through "pretexting," or getting information under false circumstances. The agency required telecom companies to increase security of phone records, requiring customers to provide a password before receiving account information over the phone or online. Phone companies are required to notify customers when changes are made to their accounts or if their information has been improperly accessed. Companies are required to file annual certifications that they have complied with those requirements. The FCC said hundreds of small companies didn't provide the information in 2008, although it noted it was the first year the agency had required the paperwork. The agency warned that future noncompliance could face "more severe penalties."

New Englanders have a reputation for being taciturn, but when it comes to data Massachusetts takes the cake. No state loves its privacy more than the Bay State, which last year passed the nation's most exacting data privacy law, requiring companies to check off a honey-do list of steps designed to protect personal data belonging to commonwealth residents. Connecticut and Rhode Island preceded Massachusetts in joining the minority of states that have enacted proactive data privacy laws, requiring businesses to protect information like Social Security and credit card numbers. Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire, like nearly all states, have only reactive data laws, requiring companies to take certain steps - like reporting a breach to authorities - after data has been compromised. Rhode Island's law, passed in 2006, requires businesses that own or license Rhode Islanders' personal information to "provide reasonable security" for that data. Connecticut's law, passed shortly before Massachusetts enacted data privacy legislation last summer, requires businesses to create and publicly display a data protection policy, but does not specify what that policy should entail. The Connecticut and Rhode Island laws stop far short of the controversial requirements in Massachusetts, where new regulations are scheduled to take effect by January 2010. "They're not technically one-liners, but they're very general," Goodwin Procter LLP partner David Goldstone said of the Connecticut and Rhode Island statutes, which are similar to laws passed in Texas and California. "Essentially they say companies have to have reasonable protections in place."

Stay Online on the world wide web online roulette from Contemporary sydney, Fun and Free! Now you is capable of doing Actual "www.funlivecasino.com.au" Stay Online on the world wide web online roulette for Fun in Contemporary sydney on a product new web page, FunLiveCasino.com.au. Using the newest on the world wide web operating technology, Fun Stay Gambling house allows you be a part of a genuine action occurring on a genuine desk in a genuine betting house, all approved on Live! You can see other real gamers in the betting house betting on the same outcomes you do providing you greatest believe in in the outcomes as they are not designed 'just for you a, like other action experiencing items such as 'live studios' or pc designed actions. Its awesome to think next time your really in the betting house that you might be on digicam, and individuals on the world wide web might be watching! The long run is scary! Believe one day soon this will be the only way individuals would bet on the world wide web because the worldwide web is complete of fraudsters, you have to be extremely cautious, and why would you perform Online Online on the world wide web online roulette any other way except from a Actual Gambling house you can check out, see, pay attention to and trust! Amazingly this site is absolutely 100 % 100 % 100 % free and has no determining upon up process, no junk, no pc rabbit mouse mouse clicks and no pressure. Just Immediate Fun "www.funlivecasino.com.au" 100 % 100 % 100 % free Stay Roulette! Give it a try, its value verifying out! "www.funlivecasino.com.au"Australia's Online Fun Stay Casino! Backlinks designed from http://fiverr.com/radjaseotea/making-best-156654-backlink-high-pr

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

Congress has been dithering over the adoption of a federal data security breach notice law for the last several years without coming to an agreement on a national standard for reporting breaches in the security of personal and financial data, but on February 17, data breach notice provisions applicable to health information were signed into law as part of the HITECH Act provisions of the massive economic stimulus legislation, H.R. 1 (111th Cong., 1st Sess. Feb. 17, 2009). Beginning no later than September 16 of this year, "covered entities" under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) will be required to give notice of breaches in the security of protected health information, and "business associates" of HIPAA-covered entities will be required to report such breaches to the covered entities. §13402(a) & (b). Currently, California and Arkansas are the only states that require that notification be given in the case of a breach in the security of medical or health insurance information. The HIPAA Privacy Rule currently does not contain a requirement that individuals be notified in the event of such as breach. However, some covered entities interpret the existing HIPAA Privacy Rule requirement that covered entities mitigate harmful effects of uses or disclosures of health information in violation of either the Privacy Rule or the entity's policies and procedures as suggesting that such notice be given, and many covered entities currently provide such notification.

The California State Senate approved today SB 20, legislation by State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), which aims to strengthen existing privacy protection laws for California consumers. The new law builds on legislation authored by Simitian in 2002 that requires a business or government agency that incurs a data breach to provide notice to the individual(s) whose information was compromised. More than 40 states have adopted similar legislation since that time, largely based on the California measure. "No one likes to get the news that information about them has been stolen," said Simitian, "but when it happens, people are entitled to get a notice they can understand, and that helps them decide what to do next." "The premise is simple," added Simitian. "What you don´t know can hurt you. Ignorance is not bliss. And you can´t protect yourself if you don´t know you´re at risk." Simitian said his latest proposal (SB 20), "is designed to make a good law even better." California´s current security breach notification law (AB 700, Simitian -2002) requires notice to consumers when their information has been compromised, but does not require data holders to provide any standard set of information about the nature of the breach. SB 20 will enhance consumer knowledge about security breaches by requiring that the notification contain specified information, including the type of personal information breached and the date of the breach.

With the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) promising to begin enforcing the "Red Flags Rules" on May 1, the FTC launched on Thursday a website aimed at helping entities adhere to the requirements. The rules, designed to reduce identity theft, requires that creditors and financial institutions create and implement an identity theft prevention program. The website describes the entities covered by the rule and provides information, articles and guidance to help entitles develop ID theft prevention programs, the FTC said in a news release. One of the resources on the site is a how-to guide that provides tips for identifying and stopping ID theft. The rules became effective Nov. 1 but will not be enforced by the FTC until May 1. Last October, the FTC extended the original Nov. 1 enforcement deadline because many companies were not prepared to meet the original requirements, the FTC said. Eduard Goodman, general counsel and chief privacy officer for vendor Identity Theft 911, told SCMagazineUS.com Friday that the FTC has been tight-lipped about how the rule is going to be enforced -- likely because they don't want companies looking for ways to get around it. Goodman said that based on his conversations with those in the industry, the FTC will likely enforce the rule on a case-by-case basis. The FTC maintains a database that tracks all identity theft cases reported to the agency. If they hear of instances of identity theft associated with a company, the FTC may ask for a copy of the company's identity theft prevention program, if any, Goodman said. If the entity has a program in place, the FTC will make a determination of whether it's adequate. The May 1 enforcement deadline extension applies to entities under the FTC's jurisdiction, which includes state-chartered credit unions. The extension did apply to the the majority of the estimated 11 million businesses that must comply with the requirements, Goodman has said

"Legislation, which now moves to the Senate, requires data brokers to provide nationwide notice for certain data breaches and allows consumers to verify and to correct information held on them by data brokers. The U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation Dec. 8 requiring data brokers to establish procedures to verify the accuracy of information that identifies individuals in their databases and to allow consumers to access and request correction of incorrect information. The Data Accountability and Trust Act, approved on a voice vote, would also require data brokers to provide nationwide notice in the event of certain security breaches. The legislation now moves to the U.S. Senate."

Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet providers and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, to keep records about users for two years to aid police investigations. The legislation, which echoes a measure proposed by one of their Democratic colleagues three years ago, would impose unprecedented data retention requirements on a broad swath of Internet access providers and is certain to draw fire from businesses and privacy advocates. "While the Internet has generated many positive changes in the way we communicate and do business, its limitless nature offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children," U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said at a press conference on Thursday. "Keeping our children safe requires cooperation on the local, state, federal, and family level." Joining Cornyn was Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who said such a measure would let "law enforcement stay ahead of the criminals."

Legislation aimed at protecting the privacy rights of car owners is drawing objections from auto manufacturers and Progressive Insurance, which hopes to introduce a program in Washington state that charges drivers based partly on how and when they drive.\n\nThe American Civil Liberties Union of Washington is pushing for the legislation, which would require automakers and other companies to inform car owners of the presence of devices that record information about their driving habits.\n\nThat includes event data recorders, or black boxes, installed on most newer cars, as well as electronic equipment such as GPS devices and OnStar, the wireless subscription service from General Motors.\n\nIn addition to requiring notification, a bill sponsored by state Sen. Claudia Kauffman, D-Kent, would clarify that vehicle owners are the owners of the data. With a few exceptions, a court order or the owner's permission would be required in order for a third party to obtain it.\n\nCarrie Tellefson, a lobbyist for Progressive Insurance, testified last week at a House Transportation Committee hearing that Substitute Senate Bill 5574 would prevent the insurance company from introducing its pioneering MyRate insurance program into Washington.\n\nProgressive Insurance first tested the idea of usage-based insurance in 1999. The company introduced the current plan, called MyRate, in 2004 and now offers it in nine states, including Oregon.\n\nCustomers who agree to opt into the program plug a device into their car's onboard diagnostic system, usually somewhere under the dashboard near the steering column. The device records information about how, when, and how much the car is driven, and wirelessly transmits the data back to Progressive's servers.\n\nCustomers are either rewarded with a discount or penalized with a higher rate depending on the information collected.\n\nThe discount can be as much as 30 percent, and the surcharge up to 9 percent.\n\nCustomers can go online and look at perso

A new report from the Progress & Freedom Foundation says that officials in some states want to pass legislation that would extend the Children Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) from covering children under 13 to covering teens until they're 18. COPPA, which became law in 1998, requires verifiable parental consent before a child under 13 can provide personally identifiable information to a Web site that caters to children. Expanding the law to cover teens till they're 18, according to the report, would "require Web sites to obtain more information about both minors and their parents, which runs counter to the original goal of the Act: protecting the privacy of minors." Ultimately, say the authors, "this would actually make minors less 'safe online.'" In this podcast, the report's co-author, PFF Senior Fellow Adam Thierer, explains the original COPPA law and why, in his opinion, the expanded law could have a chilling effect on the free speech rights of minors. The podcast runs 11:30

Six federal agencies issued a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) today to help financial institutions, creditors, users of consumer reports, and issuers of credit cards and debit cards comply with federal regulations on identity theft and discrepancies in changes of address. The "Red Flags and Address Discrepancy Rules," which implement sections of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act), were issued jointly on November 9, 2007, by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The rules require financial institutions and creditors to develop and implement written Identity Theft Prevention Programs and require issuers of credit cards and debit cards to assess the validity of notifications of changes of address. The rules also provide guidance for users of consumer reports regarding reasonable policies and procedures to employ when consumer reporting agencies send them notices of address discrepancy. The agencies' staff have jointly developed answers to these FAQs to provide guidance on numerous aspects of the rules, including which types of entities and accounts are covered; establishment and administration of an Identity Theft Prevention Program; address validation requirements applicable to card issuers; and the obligations of users of consumer reports upon receiving a notice of address discrepancy.

The Federal Trade Commission today approved a final consent order settling claims that CVS Caremark violated customers' privacy and the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) when it failed to dispose of records properly last year. Earlier this year, CVS Caremark agreed to settle FTC charges that it failed to take reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect the sensitive financial and medical information of its customers and employees, in violation of federal law. In a separate but related agreement, the company's pharmacy chain also has agreed to pay $2.25 million to resolve Department of Health and Human Services allegations that it violated HIPAA regulations. "This is a case that will restore appropriate privacy protections to tens of millions of people across the country," said FTC chairman William Kovacic following the settlement. "It also sends a strong message to other organizations that possess consumers' protected personal information. They are required to secure consumers' private information." Under the final consent order, CVS Caremark is required to rebuild its security and confidentiality program, which will be audited every two years for the next 20 years. The HHS settlement requires the company to develop a new training program to instruct employees on how to handle patient data.

"The United States House of Representatives took a major step this week toward enacting a national data breach notification law. H.R. 2221, the Data Accountability and Trust Act (DATA), cleared the House with a voice vote. In its current form, DATA requires businesses to notify customers and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if sensitive information has been exposed to a security breach. If the U.S. Senate can reconcile its own approach to data breach notification legislation with DATA, a new federal standard will emerge. If signed into law by President Barack Obama, a federal data breach ¬law would pre-empt the jumbled mass of dozens of state laws. "You'd be better served by federal legislation if the federal legislation has teeth and doesn't pre-empt the state's law," said California state senator Joe Simitian, speaking to executive editor Scot Petersen in September. "If there was a meaningful standard at the national level, I think many states would be happy to accept it." Aside from the data breach notification required by the HITECH Act, DATA would put into place the first national law of its kind. H.R. 2221 was sponsored by House Subcommittee Chair Rep. Bobby L. Rush of Illinois. The bill specifically states that: "Any person engaged in interstate commerce that owns or possesses data in electronic form containing personal information shall, following the discovery of a breach of security of the system maintained by such person that contains such data -- 1. notify each individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States whose personal information was acquired by an unauthorized person as a result of such a breach of security; and 2. notify the Federal Trade Commission."

Don't underestimate the maddening complexity and considerable costs of digitizing health care records and processes. That was the overarching message from a dozen or so health care players, some of them doctors, following my recent column urging the industry to bring its IT practices into the 21st century. A few readers took issue with my labeling health care practitioners as "laggards." In fact, argues Dr. Daniel Essin, former director of medical informatics at Los Angeles County + USC Medical Center, "physicians are, and have always been, early adopters of technology." Essin, who's now chairman of an electronic medical records vendor, ChartWare, says many physicians have made multiple attempts to implement EMRs but failed. He cites six main reasons: * They can't articulate a set of requirements against which products can be judged. * EMR systems aren't flexible enough, requiring workarounds even before their implementation is complete. * There's a mismatch between the tasks products are expected to perform and the products' actual functionality. * Some systems are conceived as a "simple" add-on to the billing system. * System workflows consume way too much physician time and attention. * There isn't adequate integration between internal and external systems. Related to most of those obstacles is cost. One EMR kit at the entry level, offered by Wal-Mart's Sam's Club unit in partnership with Dell and eClinicalWorks, is priced at around $25,000 for the first physician and $10,000 for each additional one. After installation and training, annual maintenance and support costs are estimated at $4,000 to $6,500. That's still not chump change, especially for the smallest practices.

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 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 Securities and Exchange Commission announced Wednesday that it has reopened the public comment period on a proposal for a model privacy form that financial institutions could use to provide disclosures required by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). The commission is reopening the comment period in order to solicit public comment on the results of recent quantitative consumer testing conducted to evaluate the form. In March 2007, pursuant to the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, the SEC, together with seven other federal regulators, proposed a model privacy form designed to allow consumers easily to compare privacy practices of financial institutions. The jointly developed model form uses easily readable type font and is designed to be succinct and comprehensible. Under the proposal, financial institutions that chose to use the model privacy form would satisfy GLBA disclosure requirements and could take advantage of a legal "safe harbor." The SEC has reopened the comment period on the proposal to provide all persons who are interested in this matter an opportunity to comment on the results of the recent testing of the model privacy form.

Like this http://cheaptravelbooker.com Like this http://cheaptravelbooker.com like this http://killdo.de.gg travel,hotel,fun,hotel new,new offer,hotel best,best hotel,hotel travel,seo,backlinks,edu,gov,ads,indexing,bookmark,killgoggle,gogglesuck,goggle bookmark,kill goggle,yahoo,bing,indexing,quality links,linkwell,traffic boster,index best

Broadband is cheaper in many other countries than in the United States. "You have a pretty uncompetitive market by European standards," said Tim Johnson, the chief analyst at Point-Topic, a London consulting firm. Other countries have lower costs for the same reasons their DSL service is faster. Dense urban areas reduce some of the cost of building networks. In addition, governments in some countries subsidized fiber networks. But the big difference between the United States and most other countries is competition. "Now hold on there," you might say to me. Since I wrote that many countries don't have cable systems and the bulk of broadband is run by way of DSL through existing phone wires, how can there be competition? Aren't those owned by monopoly phone companies? True enough. But most big countries have devised a system to create competition by forcing the phone companies to share their lines and facilities with rival Internet providers. Not surprisingly, the phone companies hate this idea, often called unbundling, and tend to drag their feet when it is introduced. So it requires rather diligent regulators to force the telcos to play fair. And the effect of this scheme depends a lot on details of what equipment is shared and at what prices. Britain has gone the furthest, forcing BT Group to split off a unit that operates the actual network and sells to various voice and Internet providers, including its own telephone service, on an equal basis. The United States was early with this sort of approach, requiring telephone companies to allow rival Internet service providers to sell DSL service using their networks. The way these rules were written, however, meant the wholesale cost was so high that providers like AOL and Earthlink couldn't offer a better deal than the telcos themselves. And the plan was largely abandoned in 2003 by the Federal Communications Commission on the theory that the country is better served by encouraging competition

In the paradises of broadband - Japan, South Korea and Sweden - nearly everyone can surf far faster and far cheaper than anyone in the United States. What is their secret sauce and how can we get some? The short answer is that broadband deployment in those countries was spurred by a combination of heavy government involvement, subsidies and lower corporate profits that may be tough for the economic and political system in the United States to accept. Those countries have also tried to encourage demand for broadband by paying schools, hospitals and other institutions to use high-speed Internet services. Sweden has built one of the fastest and most widely deployed broadband networks in Europe because its government granted tax breaks for infrastructure investments, directly subsidized rural deployment, and, perhaps most significantly, required state-owned municipal utilities to create local backbone networks, reducing the cost for the local telephone company to provide service. Japan let telecommunications companies write down about one-third of their investment in broadband the first year, rather than the usual policy, which requires them to spread the deductions over 22 years. The Japanese government also subsidized low-cost loans for broadband construction and paid for part of the wiring of rural areas.

Mary Kay Hoal tried everything she could to keep her daughter off of MySpace. She put password locks on the computer and blocked the site. Still, her daughter found ways to log on. Hoal's concerns stemmed from statistics that showed 29,000 registered sex offenders were on MySpace, one out of every five kids are sexually solicited online, and nine out of ten children are exposed to pornography online. When she looked for alternative safe sites for kids, she found none, so she decided to do something about it. Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here Click Here! The result is www.yoursphere.com, the only social networking site for kids and teens that's backed by the Federal Trade Commission through the site's Privacy Vaults approval. The site's Chief Technology officer worked at the California Department of Justice tracking anonymous online sex offenders, as well as the Megan's Law database. Moreover, it requires verified parental consent for a minor to join. Other features include: -- Requires verifiable parental consent to join -- Confirms the identity of the parent providing consent -- Confirms that the parent or guardian providing consent is not a registered sex offender -- Is exclusively for kids and teens through age 18. -- Exceeds COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines for protecting kids online through our approval by Privacy Vaults Inc. -- Whose policy is "no creepers allowed" -- lurkers are removed and banned. -- No fake profiles. (No one is anonymous on Yoursphere.com) "The bottom line is that we're the only place in the online world that that has taken extraordinary measures to help ensure the safety of its members and meets or exceeds standards set by the government," Hoal said. "Our opinion is that if it's a behavior that is illegal, immoral or unacceptable offline, then it's unacceptable online." About Mary Kay Hoal After researching the disturbing la