Group items tagged

MPs have today launched an investigation into the use of snooping technology by ISPs which allows them to profile customers for advertisers and throttle or block specific types of traffic. An inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Communication will examine issues such as the emergence of Phorm's profiling system, and the restriction of bandwidth available to specific applications such as BitTorrent. Both activities are reliant on Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology. "Now the Internet is part of daily life, concerns are increasingly raised about a wide range of online privacy issues," the group said in a background statement. "Should there be changes to individual behaviour? Should companies be pressed to prioritise privacy issues? Or is there a need for specific regulations that go beyond mere 'data protection' and address privacy directly?" The inquiry will also consider the impact of DPI technology on ISPs' "mere conduit" protection from liability for illegal traffic such as child pornography and copyright-infringing filesharing.

The recent U.S. stimulus bill includes $18 billion to catapult the health industry toward the world of electronic health records. This is sure to light a fire under every hungry security vendor to position itself as the essential product or service necessary to achieve HIPAA compliance. It should also motivate healthcare IT professionals to learn where their sensitive data is located and how it flows. To be sure, with federal money allocated through 2014 for the task of modernizing the healthcare industry there will be many consultant and vendor businesses that will thrive on stimulus money. Healthcare is unique in that storage of electronic health records is highly distributed between primary care physicians, specialist doctors, hospitals, and insurance/HMO organizations. Information has to be efficiently shared among these entities with great sensitivity towards patient privacy and legitimate claims processing. Patients want to prevent over zealous employers from performing unauthorized background checks on medical history; claim processors want to prevent paying fraudulent claims arising from targeted patient identity theft. The bill has two provisions which turn this into a tremendously challenging plan, and a daunting task for securing patient data: * Citizens will have the right to monitor and control use of their own health data. This implies a large centralized identity and access control service, or perhaps a federated network of patient registration directories. Authenticated users will be able to reach into the network of health databases audit use of their data and payment history. * Health organizations suffering loss of more than 500 patient records must publicly disclose the breach, starting with postings on the government's Health and Human Services website. This allows related organizations to trace the impact of the breach throughout the healthcare network, but care must be taken not to disclose vulnerabilities in the system to intruders

There were only two of us on the graveyard shift. "If it's not locked up," a colleague at my first newspaper declared as he snatched a folder of papers from our boss' desk and strode towards the office copying machine, "Xerox it." (Old-tongue for photocopy.) That was long before CDs, and USB drives and, certainly, iPods, but the lesson was the same. If you are stupid about protecting company information, shame on you. I guess that's the message behind the "revelation" released in a survey this week that the majority of people who leave their jobs, voluntarily or otherwise, are taking company information with them. Lots of it. My reaction was the same as when I watched my fellow journalist grab and copy whatever it was that had been so carelessly left in the open. I shrugged. (We are by nature an overly curious species, and that overrides our normally dominant ethics gene.) Data Loss Risks During Downsizing conducted by the Ponemon Institute and sponsored by Symantec, was apparently designed to test the hypothesis that in this dire economy (ominous music in background), former employees are going to take important company information out the door. And, in fact, the poll of 945 former employees who left their jobs or were dismissed in the last 12 months showed that 59% stole company data. What kind of data? Email lists, non-financial business information and customer information, including contact lists. Not the secret formula for Coke, not the clinical trial reports on a cure for cancer, no insider information on proposed mergers and acquisitions. Not even a few thousand credit card numbers. Hardly worthy of shock and dismay. This is what a lot of people do when they leave jobs. Are they supposed to? No. Is it wrong? Yeah, but it's sort of like cheating on taxes. Folks rationalize it in a variety of ways, or it just doesn't weigh heavily enough on their conscience to set off an internal alarm. Most of the people who took data - 79% â

It is hard work looking for a job, Matt Sawyer said. "Well with the economy being down right now, it's pretty hard," said Sawyer. Like most job hunters, Matt is posting his resume on various online job sites. But you have to be careful when sending out your personal information over the Internet, privacy expert Pam Dixon said. "The problem is, if you don't use it correctly, it can come back to haunt you," she said. Dixon runs the World Privacy Forum and warns job hunters to be cautious with their personal information when posting their resume. "In fact any competent job site will give you the option of hiding your personal information," said Dixon. Scam artists have been known to steal personal information from resumes and use it to apply for credit. That is why Dixon said you should only include your first initial and last name, no full names, when writing your resume. She also said not to include your phone number or address. Dixon said you should create an email address that is temporary and just use it for your job search. Dixon said scam artist will even call people from their resume and ask for detailed information like a copy of their driver's license or social security number or even their credit card information. The scammers will claim it's for a background check but it's only to steal from the job seeker. Matt admits if he was approached for a job he might give away too much information. "I think when people first get that call and they're real excited about it, they might just jump into it and go ahead and do it," he said.

When it comes to online privacy, we all appreciate the risk of publicizing juicy factoids such as incriminating photos or credit card numbers. But few of us realize a subtler threat: In abundance, innocuous, everyday data can divulge sensitive information as well. Some questions shouldn't be asked. Employers, for instance, generally are not allowed to discriminate based on marital status, sexual orientation and so on. But our growing digital footprint is threatening our ability to dodge inappropriate inquiries. Through data mining, employers, insurers, advertisers and others can infer the answers to private questions without even asking. They need two things: a heap of personal data, and the techniques to crunch it. Both are readily available. People generate and share more information than ever before. Besides consciously generated Web content such as blogs, Facebook profiles and YouTube videos, a steady stream of data is exchanged in the background. Companies track our searches, browsing and shopping behavior. Personal electronic devices can silently disclose our location while we post status updates and photos to the Web. All this seems innocent enough - and the more others do it, the safer we all feel. After all, what's one more Twitter update among millions?

Abortion has long been a misguided litmus test for the Supreme Court - but privacy rights?

Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor's views on abortion and privacy rights are coming into the spotlight as attention turns to her confirmation. NARAL Pro-Choice America is urging senators to make sure Sotomayor is questioned on Roe v. Wade and privacy rights during her confirmation hearings. President Barack Obama is pro-choice, but Sotomayor's views are not known. The White House was asked yesterday if the president asked Sotomayor about abortion or privacy rights. A spokesman says the president did not specifically ask that question. The discussion comes as supporters and opponents of Sotomayor's nomination are taking their message to the airwaves. A coalition of liberal groups has unveiled a television advertisement in favor of Sotomayor's confirmation touting her extensive resume, while a conservative group calling itself the Judicial Confirmation Network has put out its own ad, charging Sotomayor will push a liberal agenda based on her gender and racial background. The White House is hoping Sotomayor will get the green light before the Senate goes on recess in August. Republicans are signaling they will not delay Sotomayor's confirmation, but will scrutinize her legal philosophy and some of her past decisions as a judge.

Look for almost a dozen consumer groups and privacy advocates to launch a full-court press on targeted behavioral advertising and online privacy on Capitol Hill next week. According to a source, those groups on Sept. 1 will release a background paper, letters to House members and other documents to make their case for stronger government oversight of online marketing targeted to kids. "A growing number of child advocacy and health groups have called on the FTC and Congress to prohibit the behavioral targeting of both children and teens, next week, many leading consumer and privacy groups will send a letter to congressional leaders calling for similar safeguards," confirms Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. Chester saidd that 10 groups will be involved in the push, and that they will be "pressing Congress to write legislation that truly protects consumer privacy, but enables online marketing to flourish in a more responsible fashion." The effort comes as Congress prepares to return from its summer break. House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.) has made an online privacy bill a legislative priority in this session of Congress.

"A key, centrist digital rights group is set to put out a report calling for strong federal privacy laws and guidelines to regulate the growing tracking and targeting of Americans online. It argues that the self-regulation approach that industry fights for just hasn't worked. The online ad industry has "historically failed to fully implement its self-regulatory principles," according to the 34-page draft report by the Center for Democracy and Technology. CDT is a centrist D.C. group that works with and is substantially funded by the tech industry, including companies like Facebook, Google and AOL that are deeply invested in targeted ads. "Recently revised self-regulatory principles still fall short (.pdf) even as written," charges the draft, obtained by Wired.com. These tough words spearhead a new tactic for a group more used to convening inside-the-Beltway tech policy forums than launching ACLU-style send-outraged-e-mail campaigns. The CDT, which splintered off from the rabble-rousing Electronic Frontier Foundation 15 years ago, is also planning to launch a "Take Back Your Privacy" campaign on Thursday, designed to garner support for its call for comprehensive federal privacy legislation. Dozens of tech firms, known and obscure, record users' behaviors as they interact with search engines, blogs, e-commerce sites and even government websites. The tracking goes on in the background with little knowledge by consumers and even less oversight from government authorities. The tech industry - like others subject to potentially blunt-forced government regulation - has argued that policing itself was enough to prevent egregious privacy intrusions that could proliferate without any real chance individuals would even be aware of them."

Contrary to initial reports, Social Intelligence doesn't store seven years worth of your social data. Rather it looks at up to seven years of your history, and stores nothing.

Why employers should actually perform background checks.

A former Texas lottery worker was arrested while training for a new job Tuesday - his fourth with the state - and charged with illegally "possessing" personal information on 140 lottery winners and employees, including their names and Social Security numbers. Joseph Mueggenborg was still working for the Lottery Commission in 2007 when he allegedly took the information, which was discovered last year on a state computer at the Comptroller of Public Accounts where he later was employed. He was fired and the information was turned over to criminal investigators. When arrested Tuesday, however, the computer analyst was training for yet another job, at the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. Travis County prosecutor Jason English said it was "concerning" that the man was still working for the state after being fired by the comptroller. Susan Stanford, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, said the department was unaware Mueggenborg had been fired and was under investigation when he was hired as a systems analyst three weeks ago. He was receiving job-related training at the time of his arrest, she said. The department has secured Mueggenborg's computer and begun a forensic study.