Group items tagged

NEW YORK With increasing amounts of personal information liable to float around in cyberspace, consumers are deciding whether their data is safe in the hands of some public- and private-sector entities. A BBC World News America/Harris Poll finds a mixed verdict, with social-networking sites faring especially badly. In polling conducted last month, adults were asked to say how much trust they have in various sectors "to handle your personally identified information (such as credit-card information, contact information and so forth) in a properly confidential and secure manner." The poll's best scores went to "health providers, such as doctors and hospitals," with 20 percent of respondents expressing "a great deal of trust" and 55 percent "some trust" in these. Nineteen percent voiced "not much trust" and 7 percent "no trust at all" in this sector. At the bottom of the rankings were "social-networking sites (like Facebook or MySpace)," with 5 percent expressing a great deal of trust and 18 percent some trust in these. Thirty-one percent said they had not much trust and 46 percent no trust at all in these sites to safeguard personal information. (Whether people should direct their distrust to themselves for posting such information there in the first place is a question the survey didn't address.) Respondents were also wary of "search and portal sites (like Google or Yahoo!)" when it comes to keeping personal information secure: Ten percent voiced a great deal of trust, 39 percent some, 29 percent not much and 22 percent no trust at all. Even the federal government fared (slightly) better, with 13 percent expressing a great deal of trust, 41 percent some, 28 percent not much and 18 percent none. The scores were more positive for "banks and brokerage companies": 15 percent a great deal of trust, 43 percent some, 28 percent not much and 13 percent none. That was roughly on a par with the ratings for "my e-mail provider": 14 percent a great deal, 48 percent some, 27 p

What companies do you trust to guard your privacy? According to a Wednesday study from the Ponemon Institute and TRUSTe, eBay is the most trusted company for privacy, followed by Verizon and the U.S. Postal Service. Facebook, meanwhile, cracked the study's top ten for the first time. To reach its conclusions, Ponemon and TRUSTe first polled more than 6,000 adults on their "most trusted" brands. An expert review panel then compared those results against the companies' privacy statements, notices, to what levels they accessed account information, their cookie management, in- and out-of-network data sharing practices, and the availability of customer service staff. Of the top 10 companies, seven of them were technology-related. The entire list includes eBay, Verizon, the U.S. Postal Service, WebMD, IBM, Procter & Gamble, Nationwide, Intuit, Yahoo, and Facebook. "With the banking industry at the center of a national financial crisis, it's no surprise to see a loss of trust reflected in the rankings of even those top performers on this list," Dr. Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute, said in a statement. "Meanwhile, the continued strong showing of e-businesses such as eBay, WebMD, Yahoo, and Facebook seems to demonstrate consumers' growing comfort with doing business online."

The enormous international focus on privacy is growing more urgent in the face of business and government pressure to get the economy moving again and restore trust in our most basic institutions. To help rebuild trust and bolster bottom lines in a down market, it pays to prioritize privacy. The time is right to make smart investments in an organization's privacy professionals-the experts in the eye of the storm that must work collectively to find the right solutions to privacy challenges. The IAPP, which now boasts 6,000 members across 47 countries, is convening its annual Privacy Summit in Washington DC from March 11-13, 2009-the largest and most global privacy event in the world. Attendees will have the unique opportunity to interact with privacy regulators from Canada, France, Spain, Israel, the UK, Italy, the U.S. and the experts who help shape their policies across 60 different educational and networking sessions. Keynote speakers include Frank Abagnale (of Catch Me if You Can fame), one of the world's most respected authorities on forgery, embezzlement and secure documents as well as internationally renowned security technologist Bruce Schneier. The Future of Privacy Forum will be strongly represented at this year's Summit. Jules Polonetsky and Chris Wolf will be co-presenting a session entitled Cheers & Jeers: Who is Doing Privacy Right and Who Deserves Detention. Jules and Chris will also cover Behavioral Advertising Secrets: What Your Marketing and IT Team Didn't Think You Needed to Know. Both topics should be big draws for the expected 1500 attendees at the Summit! It's this sort of event that advances our profession and helps privacy professionals work together to reclaim trust. Registration is open and we look forward to seeing you in DC.

The software vendor's commissioned research will be revealed during a panel discussion with leaders from the California Office of Privacy Protection, Intel, and MySpace. Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2009, is Data Privacy Day, and to mark the occasion, Microsoft is participating in a panel discussion in San Francisco with privacy experts from the California Office of Privacy Protection, the Center for Democracy and Technology, Intel (NSDQ: INTC), and MySpace. Better this week than last, when Heartland Payment Systems and Monster.com disclosed major malware-driven data breaches that promise privacy headaches or worse for affected account holders. It is such incidents that worry Peter Cullen, Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT)'s chief privacy strategist, because of the impact they can have on consumer trust. "Trust is becoming increasingly important," he said. That's why Data Privacy Day exists. Microsoft and other organizations recognize that without trust, the online economy only gets worse for everyone. Cullen explained that Data Privacy Day represents a global opportunity for organizations and individuals to come together to discuss how to better educate consumers about data privacy issues. One way to advance the discussion, Cullen said, was to commission some research, which Microsoft did in two cities, in California and Texas. "We wanted to understand how different segments of consumers, from teens to professionals to boomers, thought about privacy," he said. "There were some rather interesting results that came out of this." "Our hypothesis is that across these three segments, there would be different ways of thinking about these things," said Cullen. "We were really surprised to learn there's a large degree of similarity in the way people think about privacy."

Consumers trust friends' opinions and access them on the go while shopping. 40% accessed social media via mobile phones. 37% of US social media users trust what friends and family say about brands or products on social media, compared to only 10% trust in strangers.

Traditionally, we trust doctors with confidential information about our health in the knowledge that it�s in our own interests. Similarly, few patients object to the idea that such information may be used in some form for medical research. But what happens when this process is subject to scrutiny?How explicit does our consent have to be? Since the introduction of the Data Protection Act 1998 medical researchers have raised concerns over the increasing barriers they face to accessing patient data.These concerns have heightened amongst some researchers since the passing of the Human Tissue Act 2004 introduced in the wake of the Alder Hey and Bristol Royal Infirmary scandals. When scientific advances are unraveling the secrets of DNA and the decoding of the human genome has opened up substantial new research opportunities.Clinical scientists and epidemiologists argue that the requirements being placed upon them are disproportionate to the use they are making of either datasets or tissues samples and, besides, their work is in the public interest.At the heart of the debate lie key questions over trust and consent and how these can best be resolved.To complicate things, it is no longer just medical researchers, but also public health bureaucrats who are keen to have access to our data.Quasi-official bodies have been charged with persuading individuals to change their behaviour and lifestyles in connection with all manner of issues such as diet, exercise, smoking and alcohol consumption.Social Marketing � the borrowing of commercial marketing techniques in the pursuit of 'public goods' � is in vogue amongst public health officials. Empowered by advanced data collection and computing techniques, armed with the latest epidemiological research, and emboldened by a mission to change unhealthy behaviour, public health officials are keen to target their messages to specific 'market segments' in most need of advice.Are government researchers abusing patients' trust? Can an

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

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

A Swiss insurance worker lost her job after surfing popular social network site Facebook while off sick, her employer said Friday. The woman said she could not work in front of a computer as she needed to lie in the dark but was then seen to be active on Facebook, which insurer Nationale Suisse said in a statement had destroyed its trust in the employee. "This abuse of trust, rather than the activity on Facebook, led to the ending of the work contract," it said. The unnamed woman told the 20 Minuten daily she had been surfing Facebook in bed on her iPhone and accused her employer of spying on her and other employees by sending a mysterious friend request which allows access to personal online activity. Nationale Suisse rejected the accusation of spying and said the employee's Facebook activity had been stumbled across by a colleague in November, before use of the social network site was blocked in the company.

Three out of four Americans believe that individuals are responsible for protecting their own privacy online. That's the bottom line of a new survey conducted by TRUSTe, a company that certifies the compliance of websites with privacy standards and statements. Nonetheless, The New York Times reports that the Federal Trade Commission is trying to put more responsibility on website operators: Last month, the F.T.C. revised its suggestions for behavioral advertising rules for the industry, proposing, among other measures, that sites disclose when they are participating in behavioral advertising and obtain consumers' permission to do so. One F.T.C. commissioner, Jon Leibowitz, warned that if the industry did not respond, intervention would be next. "Put simply, this could be the last clear chance to show that self-regulation can -- and will -- effectively protect consumers' privacy," [FTC commissioner Jon] Leibowitz said, or else "it will certainly invite legislation by Congress and a more regulatory approach by our commission." Behavioral advertising, which records individual users' Web usage by inserting cookies into their browsers and keeping a log of where they go and what they do, is the most high-profile privacy issue today. Google-owned DoubleClick is tracks Web users across many sites, combining them into one profile at DoubleClick's end to be used for ad targeting. Some survey respondents use cookie-deleting browsers and anonymizing software to thwart tracking systems. Privacy advocates, TRUSTe, and the FTC all strongly encourage companies to post meticulous privacy statements for online visitors, and to follow them to the letter. Still, only 15 percent of TRUSTe's survey respondents said they actually read privacy statements.

"If you're concerned about Google retaining your personal data, then you must be doing something you shouldn't be doing. At least that's the word from Google CEO Eric Schmidt. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC, sparking howls of incredulity from the likes of Gawker. But the bigger news may be that Schmidt has actually admitted there are cases where the search giant is forced to release your personal data. "If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities." There's also the possibility of subpoenas. And hacks. But if any of this bothers you, you should be ashamed of yourself. According to Eric Schmidt. Gawker highlights the irony of Schmidt's typically haughty proclamations. After all, this is the man who banned CNet for a year after the news site published information about him it had gleaned from, yes, Google. But the larger point here is that Schmidt isn't even addressing the issue at hand. Per usual. When the privacy question appears, Google likes to talk about the people asking the questions. But the problem lies elsewhere: with the millions upon millions blissfully unaware of the questions. If you're concerned about your online privacy, you can always put the kibosh on Google's tracking cookies. You can avoid signing in to Google accounts. And, yes, you can avoid using Google for anything Eric Schmidt thinks you shouldn't be doing. But most web users don't even realize Google is hoarding their data. CNBC asks Schmidt: "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" But he answers by scoffing at those who don't trust Google at all. Not that you'd expect anythin

But what do consumers think about behavioral advertising? Our research uncovered a variety of consumer privacy perspectives on behavioral advertising, some expected, some, surprising. Here are my five, high-level research takeaways: 1. In the absence of education, consumers assume the worst

"A new study from the Pew Charitable Trust has found that every one of the credit cards offered by the country's 12 largest credit card issuers are bad deals for consumers and have practices the Federal Reserve has defined as "unfair or deceptive." The Trusts' Health Group's Safe Credit Cards Project, titled STILL WAITING: "Unfair or Deceptive" Credit Card Practices Continue as Americans Wait for New Reforms to Take Effect also compared credit union card programs and found them sharply better. "Although credit unions control only a small portion of credit card outstandings, comparisons between credit union and bank product models illustrate options available to consumers and potential benchmarks for future regulatory rulemaking efforts," the organization said. The observed credit unions presented a distinct alternative to credit card pricing and other practices of the observed banks, the report said. "In July 2009, median advertised interest rates on cards from the 12 largest credit unions were between 9.90 and 13.75% annually, depending on a consumer's credit profile-approximately 20% lower than comparable bank rates," the report said. "Meanwhile, credit union penalties were generally less severe than those of banks." "

Two things to remember as you prepare to file your taxes: If you get an e-mail from the IRS, it's probably a scam. And don't forget the stamp. As the April 15 tax filing date nears, online tax-related scams tend to ratchet up, experts say. If you're not careful, you could lose a lot more than just the refund. "Filing your taxes online is extremely convenient, however if you want to maintain the privacy of your data, you need to ensure that you are connecting to the proper Web site, that the connection is using encryption, and that your computer is free from any malware. If any of these components are compromised then your data is not safe," Ryan Barnett, director of application security research for Breach Security, said on Friday. "This would be like going to an ATM machine to withdraw money and allowing everyone around you to see your PIN number as you punch it in," he added. Not only do people have to take precautions in storing and transmitting their data over the Internet, but they also have to be wary of social engineering-type ruses that scammers use to trick people into giving out their sensitive data. Probably the most common type of tax season scam is the fake IRS phishing e-mail. These e-mails will either claim to be a tax refund or an offer to help file for a refund, settle tax debt, or other aid. (Not long ago, scammers were offering economic stimulus payments, even before the plan was approved.) They will provide a link to a Web site where the visitor is prompted to type in personal data like a Social Security number. Don't trust it, experts say.

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

More consumers are growing comfortable with online behavioral targeting, perhaps as a result of an increase in familiarity, but the majority remain uneasy with the practice. That's according to a new study conducted by TNS on behalf of the privacy group Truste. For the study, consumers were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: "I am comfortable with advertisers using my browsing history to serve me relevant ads, as long as that information cannot be tied to my name or any other personal information." Twenty-eight percent of respondents agreed, up from 24% who agreed when the same study was conducted last year. At the same time, 51% said they disagreed that they were comfortable with anonymous behavioral targeting. While that figure represents a slim majority, it's down from last year, when 57% of respondents said they disagreed. At the same time, more respondents than in the past now say they delete cookies. Almost half--48% of survey respondents--said they erase cookies at least weekly, up from 42% last year. It's not clear how much overlap there is between the respondents that regularly delete cookies and those who say they're uncomfortable with behavioral targeting. Colin O'Malley, vice president of strategic business at Truste, attributed the increase in the proportion of consumers who said they were comfortable with behavioral targeting to increased publicity over the issue. He said the recent attention to the issue in the mainstream media has helped to increase transparency. He added that the increased cookie erasures showed that consumers want to be able to manage their experience. "Cookie deletion is just one more indication that consumers are seeking tools to increase their level of control," he said.

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

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

One of the more interesting panel discussions at the IDC Cloud Computing Forum on Feb 18th in San Francisco was about managing the complexities of security, privacy and compliance in the Cloud. The simple answer according to panelists Carolyn Lawson, CIO of California Public Utilities Commission, and Michael Mucha, CISO of Stanford Hospital and Clinics is "it ain't easy!" "Both of us, in government and in health, are on the front-lines," Lawson proclaimed. "Article 1 of the California Constitution guarantees an individual's right to privacy and if I violate that I've violated a public trust. That's a level of responsibility that most computer security people don't have to face. If I violate that trust I can end up in jail or hauled before the legislature," she said. "Of course, these days with the turmoil in the legislature, she joked, "the former may be preferable to the later." Stanford's Mucha said that his security infrastructure was built on a two-tiered approach using identity management and enterprise access control. Mucha said that the movement to computerize heath records nationwide was moving along in fits and starts, as shown by proposed systems likeMicrosoft (NSDQ: MSFT)'s Health Vault and Google (NSDQ: GOOG)'s Personal Health Record. "The key problem is who is going to pay for the computerized of health records. It's not as much of a problem at Stanford as it is at a lot of smaller hospitals, but it's still a huge problem." Mucha said that from his perspective security service providers in the cloud and elsewhere are dealing with a shrinking security parameter or fence, which is progressing from filing cabinets, to devices, to files, and finally to the individual, who under the latest Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rules has certain rights, including rights to access and amend their health information and to obtain a record of when and why their Protected Health Information (PHI) record has bee

A third (34 per cent) of discarded hard disk drives still contain confidential data, according to a new study which unearthed copies of hospital records and sensitive military information on eBayed kit. The study, sponsored by BT and Sims Lifecycle Services and run by the computer science labs at University of Glamorgan in Wales, Edith Cowan University in Australia and Longwood University in the US, also found network data and security logs from the German Embassy in Paris on one purchased drive. Researchers bought 300 drives from eBay, other auction sites, second-hand stalls and car boot sales. A disk bought on eBay contained details of test launch routines for the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defence) ground to air missile defence system. The same disk also held information belonging to the system's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, including blueprints of facilities and personal data on workers, including social security numbers. Lockheed Martin denies that the disk came from it. The arm manufacturer has launched an investigation that aims to uncover just how the sensitive data might have been wound up on the disk. Two discs bought in the UK apparently came from Lanarkshire NHS Trust, including patient medical records, images of X-rays and staff letters. Lanarkshire NHS Trust runs the Monklands and Hairmyres hospitals. In Australia, the exercise turned up a disk from a nursing home that contained pictures of actual patients and their wound photos, along with patient details. A hard disk from a US bank contained account numbers and details of plans for a $50bn currency exchange through Spain. Details of business transactions between the bank and organisations in Venezuela, Tunisia and Nigeria were also included. Correspondence between a member of the Federal Reserve Board and the unnamed banks revealed that one of the deals was already under scrutiny by the European Central Bank, and that federal investigators were also taking an interest. Yet anothe

Urging Privacy Protections with Health IT Privacy safeguards are needed if funds are to be provided for implementation of health IT systems in economic stimulus package. At today's news conference, the Coalition for Patient Privacy is releasing a letter sent to Congress advocating for the inclusion of privacy safeguards with any funding given to implement health IT systems in the proposed economic stimulus package. In the letter, the bipartisan coalition, representing over 30 organizations, individual experts and the Microsoft Corporation, welcomes the renewed commitment in Congress to protecting consumers over special interests, but makes clear that trust is essential to health IT adoption and participation, and only attainable with privacy protections. The coalition is calling on Congress to "A.C.T.", by providing: accountability for access to health records, control of personal information, and transparency to protect medical consumers from abuse. Consumer trust is essential to health IT adoption and participation, and only attainable with privacy safeguards. Through these three tenets, implementation of health IT is not only attainable, but would protect the right to privacy for consumers, employees, and providers.

Distrust of corporations remains high among American consumers three-plus years after the nation's financial crisis, with a majority (64 percent) saying it's harder for U.S. companies to gain their trust today than it was a few years ago.

"The attempted attack on a Detroit-bound flight last week, along with the events preceding and following it, has provided a snapshot of the ongoing struggle to balance civil liberties and national security. President Obama on Tuesday admitted a "systemic failure" on multiple levels in the run-up to the attempted bombing. Suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was in a terror database of more than a half-million people but was not on a "no-fly" list. The administration has initiated a review of airport security and the watch-list system in the wake of the failed plot. But so far, analysts say what happened is emblematic of the struggle between privacy and security interests. "It's just (an) inability to understand the right way to strike the balance that's at fault," said constitutional attorney David Rivkin. Airlines don't have access to the government's comprehensive terrorist database. They screen travelers based on the smaller, "no-fly" list."

Perhaps this is more a question of trust (not privacy) versus security. Do we really trust our government and its agents to handle private information securely?