Group items tagged

A consumer reporting agency that failed to properly screen prospective customers and, as a result, sold at least 318 credit reports to identity thieves, has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law. Under the settlement, the company and its principal must ensure that they provide credit reports only to legitimate businesses for lawful purposes, use a comprehensive information security program, and obtain independent audits every other year for 20 years. The settlement also imposes a $500,000 penalty but suspends payment due to the defendants' inability to pay. According to the FTC, the defendants use sensitive financial data from other consumer reporting agencies to create reports that landlords use to assess potential renters. These reports contain consumers' names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, bank and credit card account numbers, credit histories, and other personal information. The Commission alleges that the company failed to properly screen new customers. The company allegedly requested only publicly-available information from applicants seeking credit reports, and it did not request supporting documentation to establish that an applicant was actually a landlord renting property. As a result, identity thieves posing as property owners were given an account with unlimited online access to credit reports, and the account was used to access at least 318 reports containing sensitive personal information. The FTC charged the defendants with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by furnishing credit reports to persons who did not have a permissible purpose to obtain them, and by failing to maintain reasonable procedures to prevent such impermissible disclosures and to verify their customers' identities and how they intended to use the information. The agency also charged them with violating the FTC Act by failing to employ reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect sensitive consumer inform

The loss of personally identifiable information, such as an individual's Social Security number, name, and date of birth can result in serious harm, including identity theft. Identity theft is a serious crime that impacts millions of individuals each year. Identity theft occurs when such information is used without authorization to commit fraud or other crimes. While progress has been made protecting personally identifiable information in the public and private sectors, challenges remain. GAO was asked to testify on how the loss of personally identifiable information contributes to identity theft. This testimony summarizes (1) the problem of identity theft; (2) steps taken at the federal, state, and local level to prevent potential identity theft; and (3) vulnerabilities that remain to protecting personally identifiable information, including in federal information systems. For this testimony, GAO relied primarily on information from prior reports and testimonies that address public and private sector use of personally identifiable information, as well as federal, state, and local efforts to protect the security of such information. GAO and agency inspectors general have made numerous recommendations to agencies to resolve prior significant information control deficiencies and information security program shortfalls. The effective implementation of these recommendations will continue to strengthen the security posture at these agencies. Identity theft is a serious problem because, among other things, it can take a long period of time before a victim becomes aware that the crime has taken place and thus can cause substantial harm to the victim's credit rating. Moreover, while some identity theft victims can resolve their problems quickly, others face substantial costs and inconvenience repairing damage to their credit records. Some individuals have lost job opportunities, been refused loans, or even been arrested for crimes they did not commit as a result of identit

The loss of personally identifiable information, such as an individual's Social Security number, name, and date of birth can result in serious harm, including identity theft. Identity theft is a serious crime that impacts millions of individuals each year. Identity theft occurs when such information is used without authorization to commit fraud or other crimes. While progress has been made protecting personally identifiable information in the public and private sectors, challenges remain. GAO was asked to testify on how the loss of personally identifiable information contributes to identity theft. This testimony summarizes (1) the problem of identity theft; (2) steps taken at the federal, state, and local level to prevent potential identity theft; and (3) vulnerabilities that remain to protecting personally identifiable information, including in federal information systems. For this testimony, GAO relied primarily on information from prior reports and testimonies that address public and private sector use of personally identifiable information, as well as federal, state, and local efforts to protect the security of such information. GAO and agency inspectors general have made numerous recommendations to agencies to resolve prior significant information control deficiencies and information security program shortfalls. The effective implementation of these recommendations will continue to strengthen the security posture at these agencies. Identity theft is a serious problem because, among other things, it can take a long period of time before a victim becomes aware that the crime has taken place and thus can cause substantial harm to the victim's credit rating. Moreover, while some identity theft victims can resolve their problems quickly, others face substantial costs and inconvenience repairing damage to their credit records. Some individuals have lost job opportunities, been refused loans, or even been arrested for crimes they did not commit as a result of identit

The latest phishing scam on Facebook has raised the question yet again as to whether the social networking site is dropping the ball on security measures and properly responding to privacy complaints. Facebook faced consumer fraud charges was investigated by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in 2007 for allegedly responding too slowly to user complaints about harassment, pornography, or nudity from the social networking site. As a result, Facebook agreed to settlement requirement requiring it to respond to such complaints within 24 hours. But in a recent string of phishing attacks in which hackers have broken into a user's Facebook account and hit up his or her friends for money with the online chat tool, pretending to be stranded or robbed, a complaint has emerged that the privacy team at Facebook hasn't responded to users in a timely manner. Mark Neely, a Sydney-based management consultant, became aware that his Facebook account was hacked when friends called him to see if he was all right - the hacker had contacted them via Facebook chat saying that Neely had been robbed at gunpoint in London and would need them to wire him money so he could return to Australia. Neely says he filled out two online complaint forms and e-mailed the privacy team at Facebook, but it took them more than 40 hours to respond to him. In the meantime, his friends continued to call him about being contacted by the hacker. Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt disputes Neely's figure, saying it only took 30 hours to respond. "In this case, we have restored access to the account to the rightful owner, are identifying the means by which the account was compromised (likely malware), and building in technical protections in the Facebook system to address this particular type of scheme," Schnitt said

Still think that today's computer viruses and other malware come from some maladjusted teen out to vandalize your PC to make a name for himself? Think again. The persistent myth is a holdover from days long gone, and it's important to dispel it if you want to know what you're up against-and how to protect yourself. The splashy worms and malicious viruses that clogged entire networks and indiscriminately wiped hard drives are essentially gone. Today, it's all about cash-and lots of it. If there's a way to use evil software to make money, whether it means taking over a PC to send pharmacy-advertising spam, or stealing financial logins and credit card info, or even hacking game accounts, it's out there in some form. There's even a thriving online black market that sells everything from software kits to roll-your-own malware to spam services using infected PCs to reams and reams of credit card data stolen by keylogger malware. It's most important to get rid of this myth in order to get rid of the idea that you can usually tell whether you're infected by obvious signs like big pop-ups or suddenly missing files. Malware writers today work to keep infections as quiet as possible for as long as possible so that they can continue to make money. But it's also important to keep in mind that today's online crooks have become very creative in figuring out how to make money with their malware. Stolen Webmail accounts have been used to send messages to the account's contact list asking for money transfers. Popular online games such as World of Warcraft are a huge target, with thieves raiding hacked accounts to sell the items or in-game currency for real money. So don't assume that there's no risk using an untrusted PC as long as you don't log onto your bank.

IT directors are adding multiple layers of protection to their networks and constantly upgrade those measures to adjust for new threats. Is this good? Is the Internet too broken to fix? Is there a better path to enterprise network security? One option is a new "gated community" Internet, where users give up their freedoms and anonymity for safety. My initiation to the Internet and the World Wide Web occurred in 1994 in a large meeting room at an Atlanta hotel. Most of the 100 or so seats were empty. Those in attendance seemed fairly rabid about this new network and took exception to one speaker's prediction that the Web would become a major marketing vehicle. "Not gonna happen," said one attendee. "We'll spam them into submission if they try. We won't let this become commercialized." I kind of chuckled to myself. Those early adopters were mainly concerned with protecting the Internet from commercialization and marketing. Security was not even part of the discussion. Now, it is threatening to dismantle the Internet as a communication and commerce tool. Cyber attacks on U.S. government computer networks increased a reported 40 percent in 2008, according to data from the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team. More than 100 million credit card accounts at Heartland Payment Systems were compromised last year. In November, the Pentagon suffered from a cyber attack in the form of a global virus or worm that spread rapidly throughout a number of military networks, and caused the agency to ban the use of external storage devices, such as flash drives and DVDs. And this is just the tip of the Internet security Relevant Products/Services iceberg. Enterprise networks are being used to launch phishing Relevant Products/Services and other Internet scams, such as the Conficker worm that infected 12 million computers late last year. IT directors everywhere are adding multiple layers of protection to their networks and constantly having to upgrade those measures to adjust fo

Educating consumers about what behavioral targeting is and is not up to, deep within the cookies of their browser, seems to be a bit like alternative energy development. Pretty much everyone says the industry should be doing more about it, and yet it is hard to see where and with whom it starts. Most online materials related to BT are pitched to one end of the value chain, marketers. It's not clear to me that most of the companies in this space are even comfortable talking directly to consumers, let alone taking the time to develop an accessible language to describe their process. Specific Media controls the BehavioralTargeting.com domain and uses it to educate marketers about its methods. Even the Wikipedia entry for this field is really an explanation for advertisers. This is understandable, since most people who are familiar with the term likely come from the industry. But it seems to me the industry misses an opportunity to practice more often, and in more places, what it knows ultimately needs to be done. You guys need to find better, clearer, simpler ways to explain what it is you are doing in our browsers -- and why you are doing it. And what are the real benefits and risks a consumer incurs by tacitly agreeing to your presence? Isn't every possible point of contact with a suspicious consumer a teachable moment? In an earlier post, I recounted how I struck some retargeting gold when FetchBack tagged and remarketed me during my travels online. An opt-out option is clearly available at the front page of the FetchBack site. Unfortunately, from there you either opt-out (kick over to the Network Advertising Initiative site) or click into a long scrolling privacy policy that doesn't actually get around to explaining retargeting until a few screens down.

The following is an excerpt from the book The Truth About Identity Theft. In this section of Chapter 11: Social Engineering (.pdf), author Jim Stickley explains how easy it really is to hack a password. People often ask me how hard it is to hack a password. In reality, it is rare that I ever need to hack someone's password. Though there are numerous ways to gain passwords on a network and hundreds, if not thousands, of tools available to crack encrypted passwords, in the end I have found that it is far easier to simply ask for them. A perfect example of this type of attack was a medium-sized bank that I was testing recently. The bank's concern was related to the new virtual private network (VPN) capabilities it had rolled out to a number of its staff. The VPN allowed staff to connect directly to their secured network while at home or on the road. There is no doubt that a VPN can increase productivity, but there are some pretty major risks that can come with that convenience. The bank explained that the VPN was tied into its Active Directory server. For people who are not technical, basically this just means that when employees log in via the VPN, they use the same credentials they use to log on to their computer at the office. So I went back to my office, sat down, and picked up the phone. The first call I made was to find out the name of an employee in the IT department. I called the company's main line to the bank, pressed 0, and asked to speak with someone in the IT department. I was asked what I was calling about, so I told the employee I was receiving emails from that bank that seemed malicious. I could have used a number of excuses, but I have found that if you tie in an unhappy customer with a potential security issue, your call gets further up the food chain. In this case, I reached a man who I will call Bill Smith. I made up a story about the email, and after a few minutes, he was able to explain to me that I had called the wrong bank and it was actuall

Every time you get online, your privacy comes under attack. Whether it's an overbearing End User License Agreement, contact forms, or just website cookies, there are literally millions of ways that you can let your private information slip away online. One of the best ways to fight invasions of your privacy is to get informed and learn how to prevent it. Read on to find advice, organizations, and other resources that can help you keep your privacy safe online. Guides & Articles These resources have specific advice and information for protecting your online privacy. 1. EFF's Top 12 Ways to Protect Your Online Privacy: Read this guide from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to learn how you can protect private information online. 2. Frequently Asked Questions about Online Privacy: Get answers to questions about online privacy and safety from this resource. 3. Is Your PC Watching You? Find Out!: This article from CNN will help you figure out if your privacy is being violated through your PC. 4. Nameless in Cyberspace: Anonymity on the Internet: Find out why the right to anonymity online is so important to have by reading this article. 5. Consumer Privacy Guide: The Consumer Privacy Guide offers a variety of resources and information for protecting your privacy online. 6. This Email Will Self-Destruct: Learn about email security measures that you can take to protect your privacy. 7. Anti-Spam Resources: Visit this guide to learn how to stop receiving junk email. 8. All About Internet Privacy and Security: Read this guide to learn about security terms and Internet privacy settings. 9. Online Privacy: The Complete Guide to Protect You: WebUpon's guide discusses steps you can take to protect your online privacy. 10. Social Networking and Safety Online: Read this guide to learn how to practice common sense on social networking sites. 11. Internet privacy: Wikipedia's entry on Internet privacy offers a broad view at staying private o

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 Government Accountability Office issued another scathing report saying that federal agencies still don't do enough to secure government IT assets. "Persistent weaknesses in information security policies and practices continue to threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of critical information and information systems used to support the operations, assets and personnel of most federal agencies," Gregory Wilshusen, GAO director of information security issues, wrote in a 66-page report issued Friday. "Recently reported incidents at federal agencies have placed sensitive data at risk, including the theft, loss, or improper disclosure of personally identifiable information of Americans, thereby exposing them to loss of privacy and identity theft." In a written response accompanying the report, federal CIO Vivek Kundra said OMB is committed to the vision of a secure federal government, and are taking steps to make that vision a reality. OMB, he said, has initiated a review of the language in the current reporting instructions to identify and clarify confusion in the annual reporting. OMB also is working with the CIO Council and the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to improve guidance to agencies. The GAO report also said that nearly all of the 24 major federal agencies last year had weaknesses in information security controls. "An underlying reason for these weaknesses is that agencies have not fully implemented their information security programs," Wilshusen said. "As a result, agencies have limited assurance that controls are in place and operating as intended to protect their information resources, thereby leaving them vulnerable to attack or compromise."

1. You get what you pay for. 2. Americans do not take information or security as seriously as they do their love for profit & cost savings. If one does not value what they are trying to protect accurately, the investment one is prepared to make will always be insufficient. Then there are hindsight and rationalization (a.k.a. politicians) - Karl The Government Accountability Office issued another scathing report saying that federal agencies still don't do enough to secure government IT assets. "Persistent weaknesses in information security policies and practices continue to threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of critical information and information systems used to support the operations, assets and personnel of most federal agencies," Gregory Wilshusen, GAO director of information security issues, wrote in a 66-page report issued Friday. "Recently reported incidents at federal agencies have placed sensitive data at risk, including the theft, loss, or improper disclosure of personally identifiable information of Americans, thereby exposing them to loss of privacy and identity theft." In a written response accompanying the report, federal CIO Vivek Kundra said OMB is committed to the vision of a secure federal government, and are taking steps to make that vision a reality. OMB, he said, has initiated a review of the language in the current reporting instructions to identify and clarify confusion in the annual reporting. OMB also is working with the CIO Council and the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to improve guidance to agencies. The GAO report also said that nearly all of the 24 major federal agencies last year had weaknesses in information security controls. "An underlying reason for these weaknesses is that agencies have not fully implemented their information security programs," Wilshusen said. "As a result, agencies have limited assurance that controls are in place and operating as intended to protect their inf

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

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

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. this week unveiled what it says is the first coverage available to small and medium-sized businesses for losses from payment card data breaches. News of the policy came on the same day that a non-profit research organization reported that data breaches increased 47% last year. The idea behind the coverage, according to Brian Gerritsen, product director at Novato, Calif.-based Fireman's, is to give peace of mind to business owners who are diligent about complying with the Payment Card Industry data-security standard, or PCI, the card networks' uniform protection rules that all card acceptors are supposed to meet. "That's what we're really trying to insure against-business owners trying to do everything in their power to protect their customers' cardholder data, but still find themselves in a data-breach situation and out of compliance with the PCI standards or other security standards that may apply to them," he tells Digital Transactions News. To get the coverage, however, a merchant must clear a number of hurdles. An applicant must already have property or liability coverage from Fireman's as well as the company's general data-breach policy first offered in 2006. The new payment card coverage is an add-on to that earlier product. Coverage is available to retailers and most other card-accepting merchants, but not schools and hospitals, says Gerritsen. The insurer excluded the former because of their high rate of data breaches and the latter because they hold extremely sensitive medical and personal data. If breached, a covered merchant could recoup about $160,000 in resulting expenses. That includes up to $50,000 for a PCI-specific forensic investigation, system scans and software, and hardware upgrades to get card security up to snuff. The policy also provides up to $100,000, with a 5% deductible, for PCI fines-"contractual penalties" in industry lingo-and related costs such as chargebacks and issuersâ€

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

The FBI has used a secret form of spyware in a series of investigations designed to nab extortionists, database-deleting hackers, child molesters, and hitmen, according to documents obtained by CNET News. One suspect used Microsoft's Hotmail to send bomb and anthrax threats to an undercover government investigator; another demanded a payment of $10,000 a month to stop cutting cables; a third was an alleged European hitman who was soliciting for business from a Hushmail.com account. CNET News obtained the documents -- totaling hundreds of pages, although nearly all of them were heavily redacted -- this week through a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI. The FBI spyware, called CIPAV, came to light in July 2007 through court documents that showed how the bureau used it to nab a teenager who was e-mailing bomb threats to a high school near Olympia, Wash. (CIPAV stands for Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier.) A June 2007 memo says that the FBI's Deployment Operations Personnel were instructed to "deploy a CIPAV to geophysically locate the subject issuing bomb threats to the Timberline High School, Lacy, Washington. The CIPAV will be deployed via a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address posted to the subject's private chat room on MySpace.com."

To address important consumer privacy concerns associated with online behavioral advertising, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission today released a set of proposed principles to guide the development of self-regulation in this evolving area. Behavioral advertising is the tracking of a consumer's activities online - including the searches the consumer has conducted, the Web pages visited, and the content viewed - in order to deliver advertising targeted to the individual consumer"s interests. For more than a decade, the FTC has engaged in investigation, law enforcement, studies, and other privacy developments to protect consumers' privacy online. Concepts used to develop the principles emerged from the agency's longstanding privacy program and, more recently, from two conferences hosted by the FTC. In the fall of 2006, a three-day public hearing, "Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-ade," examined technology developments that could raise consumer protection policy issues, including privacy, over the next decade. This past November, building on the Tech-ade hearings, the FTC hosted a Town Hall entitled "Ehavioral Advertising: Tracking, Targeting, and Technology," to focus in on privacy issues raised by behavioral advertising. "The purpose of this proposal is to encourage more meaningful and enforceable self-regulation to address the privacy concerns raised with respect to behavioral advertising. In developing the principles, FTC staff was mindful of the need to maintain vigorous competition in online advertising as well as the importance of accommodating the wide variety of business models that exist in this area," according to its proposal "Behavioral Advertising: Moving the Discussion Forward to Possible Self-Regulatory Principles." The proposal states that behavioral advertising provides benefits to consumers in the form of free content and personalized advertising but notes that this practice is largely invisible and unknown to consumers. To address the

Profile Optimization True Story: I'm at a party a few months ago - not the usual raucous affair that us search and social media types get into but a full on wine and cheese extravaganza. The kind of shindig Republicans go to and then accuse Democrats of loving when they get up in front of a "Joe the Plumber" type crowd. But I digress… After far too much wine the discussion turned to crazy work environments and I naturally brought up the Fortress of Googletude and it's predilection for hallway scooter parking and riding. A fellow party-go-er who I'll call "Natasha" to protect her identity, nodded and said, 'Yes it's true, I've been there too!" This led to a long, room-clearing talk about search and social media, the kind of talk that true geeks engage in while their spouses go off to chat about politics and religion. Somewhere between bottles Natasha said to me "Have you seen Google People Search?" "Google what now?" I replied. She went on to describe an internally searchable database that the Google folks showed her of people sorted by interests and web habits, ready to be rolled out to advertisers at some point in the future. Thank goodness for the red wine clause in their NDA. Well the future arrived today, at least partially, with Google's announcement that behavioral targeting is being rolled out to the AdWords content network. As the Googlelords put it: "With interest-based advertising, you will be able to reach users based on your past interactions with them, such as their visits to your website. We'll also provide interest categories, such as "sports enthusiasts," so you can reach the audience of your choice. Whether your goal is to drive brand awareness or increase responses to your ads, these capabilities can help expand the success of your campaigns." This is a most effective riposte to the OPA's announcement of new, ludicrous banner ad standards - why futz around with annoying crap no-one will clic

We've all heard the argument before: "Why should you worry about the government looking into your personal records if you have nothing to hide?" Daniel J. Solove, an associate professor of law at The George Washington University Law School, analyzes that argument in a recently published paper titled "I've Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy." Solove argues that "the question assumes faulty assumptions about privacy and its value." Those who make the "nothing to hide" argument fail to understand the chilling effect that surveillance has on public discourse, the fact that small bits of private data (which an individual may not object to being uncovered) when put together form a larger and more intimate profile (which an individual may object to), and the mistake of having one's profile mistakenly associated with a group that is labeled as threatening. Here's an excerpt from the paper, which was published in the latest issue of the San Diego Law Review: [T]he problem with the "nothing to hide" argument is that it focuses on just one or two particular kinds of privacy problems - the disclosure of personal information or surveillance - and not others. It assumes a particular view about what privacy entails, and it sets the terms for debate in a manner that is often unproductive. It is important to distinguish here between two ways of justifying a program such as the NSA surveillance and data mining program. First is to not recognize a problem. This is how the "nothing to hide" argument works. It denies even the existence of a problem. The second manner of justifying such a program is to acknowledge the problems but contend that the benefits of the NSA program outweigh the privacy harms. The first justification influences the second, for the low value given to privacy is based upon a narrow view of the problem. The key misunderstanding is that the "nothing to hide" argument views privacy in a particular way - as a

Perhaps Mark Z is surprised that people actually read terms of service. Arrogant twit. He's a multi-millionaire who cares about the little people (stage direction: Mark Z looks sincerely into web cam as he wipes away tear with hundred dollar bill). Perhaps the Tweens don't understand what social networking sites really sell; looks like some grown ups started asking where all their personal information is going and when it might inconveniently show up in some ad campaign.

A couple of weeks ago, we revised our terms of use hoping to clarify some parts for our users. Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information. Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. Many of us at Facebook spent most of today discussing how best to move forward. One approach would have been to quickly amend the new terms with new language to clarify our positions further. Another approach was simply to revert to our old terms while we begin working on our next version. As we thought through this, we reached out to respected organizations to get their input. Going forward, we've decided to take a new approach towards developing our terms. We concluded that returning to our previous terms was the right thing for now. As I said yesterday, we think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective so we don't plan to leave it there for long. More than 175 million people use Facebook. If it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world. Our terms aren't just a document that protect our rights; it's the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service. Our next version will be a substantial revision from where we are now. It will reflect the principles I described yesterday around how people share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand. Since this will be the governing document that we'll all live by, Facebook users will have a lot of input in crafting these terms. You have my commitment that we'll do all of these things, but in order to do them right it will take a little bit of time. We expect to complete this in the next few we

"* 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. "

Cable operators will sit in the hot seat Thursday as Congress reviews their plans to roll out targeted advertising amid fears that consumer privacy could be infringed if the companies were to track and record viewing habits. The House subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet will hold a hearing that will look at new uses for digital set-top boxes, the devices that control channels and perform other tasks on the TV screen. Cable TV companies plan to use such boxes to collect data and direct ads more targeted to individual preferences. "We have recently called on Congress and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate cable's new interactive targeted TV ad system on both antitrust and privacy grounds," said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. He's concerned about Canoe Ventures, a consortium formed by the nation's six largest cable companies to oversee the rollout of targeted and interactive ads nationally. Chester worries that Canoe will track what consumers do in their homes. Currently, cable companies aim their ads based strictly on geography. Now, cable's goal is to take the Internet's success with targeted ads and transfer that to the TV medium. Thus, a household that watches a lot of Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel eventually could be targeted for theme parks promotions. This type of targeting is something broadcast TV can't do. For starters, Canoe plans to offer ads this summer that consider demographic factors such as age and income. Philadelphia-based Comcast Corp. and Cablevision Systems Corp. of Bethpage, N.Y., also have been testing or rolling out targeted ads outside the consortium. But cable operators are wary about being seen as trampling on consumer privacy and reiterate that they don't plan to target based on any personally identifiable information, such as someone's name and address. Canoe said it doesn't have plans this year to use set-top box data for ads. Instead, the first ads it pl