Group items tagged

Payment processor Heartland Payment Systems has been sued over a data breach it disclosed publicly on Inauguration Day last week. The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Trenton, N.J., alleges that Heartland failed to adequately safeguard the compromised consumer data, did not notify consumers about the breach in a timely manner as required by law, and has not offered to compensate consumers for costs they may incur in protecting themselves from identity fraud. In a statement that coincided with President Barack Obama's inauguration events, Heartland said the breach occurred last year but that it found evidence of the intrusion only in the previous week and immediately notified law enforcement and credit card companies. Heartland was alerted in late October to suspicious activity surrounding processed card transactions by Visa and MasterCard and hired forensic auditors who uncovered malicious software that compromised data in the company's network, said Robert H.B. Baldwin Jr., chief financial officer of Heartland, last week. The lawsuit seeks damages and relief for the "inexplicable delay, questionable timing, and inaccuracies concerning the disclosures" with regard to the data breach, which is believed to be the largest in U.S. history. Heartland executives have declined to specify how many consumers or accounts were affected. The company handles 100 million transactions per month for more than 250,000 merchants. The lawsuit, first reported by SearchSecurity news site, also accuses Heartland of negligence in taking more than two months to determine the existence and scope of the breach and criticizes the company for failing to identify which merchants were affected by the breach. The suit was filed on behalf of Woodbury, Minn., resident Alicia Cooper, who was notified last week by her credit union that a card associated with her account was included in the breach. It seeks class action status. A Heartland spokesman said the company could no

Taking genetic tests to assess potential health risks could mean cheaper medical insurance even if the results are not disclosed, a senior industry executive has told The Times. Customers who take personal DNA scans will pay lower premiums because insurers believe that they encourage a healthier lifestyle, according to Gil Baldwin, the managing director of Norwich Union Healthcare. The advent of tests for DNA variants that affect common disorders such as diabetes and heart disease has prompted fears of discrimination and the creation of a "genetic underclass" who cannot buy cover. Mr Baldwin insisted that his company did not see genetics as a tool for cherry picking low-risk customers but as a way of helping them to manage and reduce their risk of disease with the aim of lowering costs for both parties. In an interview with The Times, he said that people who take genetic screening are likely to act on the results and therefore present a much better risk profile. Insurers will reflect this in premiums, regardless of whether results are disclosed.

A coalition of privacy groups today urged the Obama Administration to defend California's landmark financial privacy law against the banking industry's legal efforts to overturn it. The US Supreme Court is currently considering taking up the banks' appeal of a 2008 decision by the 9th Circuit Court upholding almost all provisions of the Financial Information Privacy Act of 2003 (SB 1 - Speier). On March 9th, the Supreme Court invited the Obama Administration to voice its opinion on the California privacy law. The case is American Bankers Association v. Brown, Supreme Court Docket Number 08-730. Letters to President Obama and Solicitor General Elena Kagan were signed by The Consumer Federation of California, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, CALPIRG, Consumers Union, Consumer Action, The Older Women's League, The California Alliance for Retired Americans, and Chris Larsen, Propser Marketplace, and founder of Californians for Privacy Now, the organization that spearheaded a 2003 ballot initiative campaign that turned fierce banking industry opposition into acquiescence with SB 1. "This represents a defining moment for privacy rights" the letter states. We ask you to stand with consumers by telling the Supreme Court to reject the banks' appeal in Brown." Privacy advocates support the State of California's position in this legal matter, which is that there is no merit to the appeal filed by the American Bankers Association. At issue is whether federal laws preempt portions of California law that regulate the sharing of private consumer information within a financial institution's family of affiliates.

The private correspondence of millions of people who use social networking sites could be tracked and saved on a "big brother" database, under new plans being drawn up by the UK government. Ministers revealed yesterday that they were considering policing messages sent via sites such as MySpace and Facebook, alongside plans to store information about every phone call, e-mail and internet visit made by everyone in the United Kingdom. There was immediate uproar from opposition parties, privacy campaigners and security experts who said the plans were over-the-top and unworkable. There have long been proposals, following an European Union directive in the wake of the July 2005 bombings in London, for emails and internet usage to be tracked in order to guard against future terrorist attacks.

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 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

The Data Protection Directive is old-fashioned and out of date, a report published by the UK's privacy regulator the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has said. Commissioner Richard Thomas said that the European Union must change its legislation. The ICO commissioned RAND Europe to investigate whether or not 1995's EU Data Protection Directive was a good basis for Europe-wide data protection law. The research concluded that the law was flawed and needed to be updated. It found that the law must be clearer about what it seeks to achieve, that it should be better at forcing organisations to protect personal data in their charge, that it should encourage a more strategic approach to enforcement and that it does not deal well enough with the export of personal data outside the EU. Thomas said that the Directive, on which the UK's Data Protection Act is based, is outmoded. "The Directive is showing its age. Modern approaches to regulation mean that laws must concentrate on the real risks that people face in the modern world, must avoid unnecessary burdens, and must work well in practice," he said. "Organisations must embed privacy by design and data protection must become a top level corporate governance issue." RAND said that the Directive would be improved by its fundamental approach to ensuring data privacy being changed. It said that the law should focus on the protection of individuals and the security of their data, and not on the processes that lead to that. "The stronger, results oriented approach described in this report aims to protect data subjects against personal harm resulting from the unlawful processing of any data, rather than making personal data the building block of data protection regulations," said the report. "It would move away from a regulatory framework that measures the adequacy of data processing by measuring compliance with certain formalities, towards a framework that instead requires certain fundamental principles to be respected

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.

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

Privacy and civil liberties advocates are urging lawmakers working on the forthcoming economic stimulus package to ensure that any language to spur adoption of electronic medical records includes meaningful security safeguards. The American Civil Liberties Union, Consumer Action, the National Association of Social Workers, Patient Privacy Rights and others sent letters to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President-elect Barack Obama Wednesday asking them to ensure individuals can control the use of their medical records and protect them from what they believe is a thriving industry of firms that share and sell medical data. "We all want to innovate and improve health care, but without privacy our system will crash as any system with a persistent and chronic virus will," Patient Privacy Rights executive director Ashley Katz said at a Capitol Hill briefing. Katz said her group has been pleased with progress that the House Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means committees made last year.

Beyond PCI: Other Regulations to Look For in 2009 Just a few days ago, the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the National Credit Union Administration announced the enactment of comprehensive new rules regarding card practices. These rules, which will not take effect until July 1, 2010, impose restrictions on a number of controversial issuer practices, including interest rate increases, late fees and double-cycle billing. Many industry observers predict that the rules will result in less credit being made available, and on stricter terms, than has been the case over the last several years. These rules may not be the end of the matter. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), who in 2008 introduced the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008 (which sought to regulate many of the same practices as the then-proposed Fed rules), stated that she was disappointed in the delayed effectiveness of the Fed rules and promised to revive the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights in 2009 to, as she put it, "bridge the gap" between now and the effective date of the Fed rules.

The Federal Trade Commission is planning three public discussions, starting in December, devoted to technology and consumer privacy. According to the FTC, the roundtables will address topics such as social networking, cloud computing, online advertising and mobile marketing, the goal being "to determine how best to protect consumer privacy while supporting beneficial uses of the information and technological innovation." Behavioral advertising, in particular, has come under fire by privacy groups. Earlier this month, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Consumers Union and other related organizations called for stronger rules limiting what kinds of personal information are collected by marketers and how long they can hold on them.

On Friday, Brunswick, Maine-based heating and hardware firm Downeast Energy & Building Supply sent a letter notifying at least 850 customers that the company had suffered a data breach. Downeast sent the notice after discovering that hackers had broken in and stolen more than $200,000 from the company's online bank account. The attack on Downeast Energy bears all the hallmarks of online thieves who have stolen millions from dozens of other businesses, schools and counties over the past several months. In every case, the thieves appeared more interested in quick cash than in pilfering their victims' customer databases. Nevertheless, the intrusions highlight an additional cost for victims of this type of crime: complying with state data breach notification laws. "This is something new to us, fortunately, but we have responsibilities under Maine statute to report these things to our customers and employees," said the company's president, John Peters, in an interview with Security Fix. At least 44 other states and the District of Columbia have similar data breach notification laws. Sometime prior to September, attackers planted keystroke logging malware on Downeast's computer systems, and stole the credentials the company uses to manage its bank accounts online. Then, on or around Sept. 2, the hackers used that access to initiate a series of sub-$10,000 money transfers out of the company's account to at least 20 individuals around the United States who had no prior business with Downeast Energy. This type of crime is impossible without the cooperation of so-called "money mules," willing or unwitting individuals typically hired via Internet job search Web sites to act as "local agents" or "financial agents" responsible for moving money on behalf of a generic-sounding international corporation, legal experts say.The mules are then instructed to withdraw the cash and wire it via Western Union or Moneygram to fraud gangs overseas, typically in Eastern Europe.

A few weeks ago, I was very relieved to find out I had passed the IAPP exam to be a "Certified Information Privacy Professional" or CIPP. I got this certificate and even a pin, which is more than I ever got for passing the bar exams of New York and California. So what exactly did I need to know to become a CIPP? To be certified in corporate privacy law, you're expected to know what's covered in the CIPP Body of Knowledge, primarily major U.S. privacy laws and regulations and "the legal requirements for the responsible transfer of sensitive personal data to/from the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions." You're also expected to pass the Certification Foundation, required for all three certifications offered by IAPP. That covers basic privacy law, both in the U.S. and abroad, information security principles and practices, and "online privacy," which includes an overview of the technologies used by online companies to collect information and the particular issues to be considered in this context. So what do you think? Should you be able to pass an all-objective, 180 question, three-hour exam (counting the CIPP and Certification Foundation exams together) on the above topics and be able to call yourself a "privacy professional"?

"Ordering Pizza in 2015"

There are some security measures that are extremely intrusive and should only be used when there is good cause to suspect that an individual is a security risk. See-through body scanning machines are capable of projecting an image of a passenger's naked body. Passengers expect privacy underneath their clothing and should not be required to display highly personal details of their bodies such as evidence of mastectomies, colostomy appliances, penile implants, catheter tubes and the size of their breasts or genitals as a pre-requisite to boarding a plane.