Group items tagged

As if banks didn't have enough on their plates with compliance and regulation on the federal front, come May 1, they will have to be mindful of strict new rules coming from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts around data security. The Massachusetts Data Security Regulations are perhaps like no other in terms of their depth and scope. During a teleconference, attorneys from the privacy and data security practice of the law firm Goodwin Procter (Boston) described this very detailed, all-encompassing set of rules designed to keep consumers' personal data safe. They go beyond the rules of other states and the federal government that simply require companies to notify their customers of theft of their personal information. "Personal information," for the purposes of the regulation, is described as someone's first and last name or first initial and last name, in combination with Social Security Number, driver's license number or financial account number. At its core, the regulation states that companies, including banks, that handle the personal data of a Massachusetts resident must show they have in place a comprehensive, written information security program with heightened security procedures around how this information is handled. The rules also extend to entities' service providers and the degree to which they too much show they comply with the Massachusetts rules of handling data on residents. Companies have until May 1 to amend their vendor contracts to reflect this and until Jan. 1, 2010 to certify their vendors comply. Furthermore, companies must comply with these rules even if they do not have a single office in the Bay State or if they are in an already heavily regulated industry, like financial services. As long as customers in businesses' databases reside in Massachusetts, those companies are affected by the rules. According to partner Deborah Birnbach, this is some of the most intrusive legislation as it relates to the operation of businesses. "It requires

As if you needed another sign that times are tough, here's a fairly reliable measure: The number of cases handled by the advertising industry's best-kept secret -- self-regulation -- are on the rise. Last year the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus handled 214 cases, up 22% from 2007. And in 2008 ad challenges, in which one advertiser challenges a competitor's claim, rose 31% to 81 cases. Why the increased activity? It's a deadly fight for share of market out there, and in down times advertisers tend to revert to hard-hitting comparative advertising. NAD's purpose is to substantiate these kinds of attack ads, and it can do it faster and cheaper than litigation can. The Federal Trade Commission seems to like the idea of letting advertisers settle their own disputes. When the National Advertising Review Council, the body that sets the policies and procedures for the NAD to enforce, started 38 years ago, then-FTC Chairman Bob Pitofsky wasn't an early convert. "If the truth be known," he said 10 years ago, "there was some skepticism about how the whole thing would work. The FTC had been burned time and time again by unkept promises of self-regulation by other industries. But this group has proved the skeptics wrong. Today, advertising has the best self-regulatory system of any industry in the country." The outgoing chairman of the FTC, William Kovacic, is also a fan. But the current crop of FTC commissioners don't seem as convinced, although they seem somewhat willing to give self-regulation a chance. In issuing guidelines for online behavioral advertising, FTC Commissioner Jon Leibowitz said the industry needs to do a better job of "meaningful, rigorous self-regulation, or it will certainly invite legislation by Congress and a more regulatory approach by our commission."A joint industry task force quickly seized on that statement as an endorsement for self-regulation, and said it supported FTC's goal of a "comprehensive and eff

A New Jersey credit-card processor disclosed a data breach that analysts said may rank among the biggest ever reported. Heartland Payment Systems Inc. said Tuesday that cyber criminals compromised its computer network, gaining access to customer information associated with the 100 million card transactions it handles each month. The company said it couldn't estimate how many customer records may have been improperly accessed, but said the data compromised include the information on a card's magnetic strip -- card number, expiration date and some internal bank codes -- that could be used to duplicate a card. Heartland, of Princeton, N.J., processes transactions for more than 250,000 businesses nationwide, including restaurants and smaller retailers. Avivah Litan, an analyst at research company Gartner, called it the largest card-data breach ever, based on her conversations with industry executives. Previously, the largest known breach occurred when around 45 million card numbers were stolen from retail company TJX Cos. in 2005 and 2006. Robert Baldwin, Heartland's president and chief financial officer, said it was too early to say how many records were accessed and that calling it the largest-ever breach would be "speculative." Representatives of Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc. alerted Heartland to a pattern of fraudulent transactions on accounts the processor handled sometime last fall, Mr. Baldwin said. But an internal investigation and audits failed to detect a security breach. Last week, however, a forensic investigator discovered evidence of the breach. Mr. Baldwin said Heartland was targeted with malicious software that was "light-years more sophisticated" than malevolent programs commonly downloaded from the Internet.

"Temporary workers brought in to help during the busy holiday shopping season can sometimes pose a data security risk for companies. Retailers that hire temporary help need to keep a watchful eye on them to reduce the risk of data compromises, said Bob Russo, general manager of the PCI Security Standards Council. The council oversees the implementation of mandatory security standards for protecting credit and debit card data across the payment industry. With many retailers hiring temporary workers to handle extra business, vigilance is key, Russo said. "Management needs to hover at this time of the year, especially with temps," he said. Temporary workers who handle credit card data or are involved in any form of payment processing need to follow appropriate security procedures. Proper access controls also need to be in place to prevent temporary workers from gaining access to other systems, he said."

We paused, we talked, and even though we were in a scary situation with imperfect information, we made a thoughtful decision fast." That's as good a description of powerful leadership - and powerful living - in the twenty first century as I can imagine.

"The inspector general of the National Archives and Records Administration is investigating a potential data breach affecting tens of millions of records about U.S. military veterans, Wired.com has learned. The issue involves a defective hard drive the agency sent back to its vendor for repair and recycling without first destroying the data. The hard drive helped power eVetRecs, the system veterans use to request copies of their health records and discharge papers. When the drive failed in November of last year, the agency returned the drive to GMRI, the contractor that sold it to them, for repair. GMRI determined it couldn't be fixed, and ultimately passed it to another firm to be recycled. The incident was reported to NARA's inspector general by Hank Bellomy, a NARA IT manager, who charges that the move put 70 million veterans at risk of identity theft, and that NARA's practice of returning hard drives unsanitized was symptomatic of an irresponsible security mindset unbecoming to America's record-keeping agency."

"Lora Bentley spoke with Anzen analysts Megan Brister and Jordan Prokopy via e-mail regarding behavioral advertising - what companies are doing, what regulators want to do and what we, as advertising consumers, need to know. With their coworker Miyo Yamashita, the analysts recently wrote a guest opinion for IT Business Edge. Bentley: Why are so many concerned about privacy when it comes to behavioral advertising? What is it about the Internet that convinces consumers that information they share there is not being used? Brister and Prokopy: Most concerns stem from the lack of transparency around data disclosure practices. While consumers may value a Web site's product and service offerings, they are generally unaware that businesses share their information with an extensive group of other businesses in order to deliver targeted advertising. This group includes news Web sites, advertising networks, profiling services, and Web analytics providers, to name a few. As Pamela Jones Harbour, a Commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), discussed at the FTC Roundtable earlier this week, there is an asymmetry between consumer perceptions and business realities. Once consumers are informed of businesses' data handling practices, they will want to have more control over how businesses manage their information. As we discuss in our article, some businesses engaged in online behavioral advertising have been slow to adopt transparent consumer data management policies. This is a concern particularly for vulnerable groups, such as minors or non-English speaking consumers, because they may not understand legally written policies. Consumer advocacy groups argue that without knowledge and control over the collection, use, and disclosure of data, Web sites may misuse or expose sensitive data about consumers' health, lifestyles and finances."

"Despite concerns from some privacy groups and U.S. lawmakers about behavioral advertising, most large advertising networks generally comply with a set of privacy and data-handling standards adopted by the Network Advertising Initiative a year ago, the NAI said in a report released Wednesday." ...NAI, whose members include Google, Yahoo and Advertising.com, should be praised for doing a compliance report after skipping it for several years, said Ari Schwartz, vice president and chief operating officer CDT. However, the group should consider using a third party to audit compliance of its privacy guidelines, instead of having NAI staff do the audits, he said. In addition, while NAI members appear to be following most of the guidelines, some of the privacy safeguards are "weak," including the data retention standard, he said. "There's no maximum for data retention -- they just have to state what their data retention policy is," Schwartz added. The NAI report doesn't lessen the need for new privacy laws, Schwartz said. Several online advertising networks are not members of NAI, and the recent public pressure has led to the NAI updating 8-year-old guidelines last year and issuing a compliance report for the first time in several years, although the group had promised regular reports, he said. "It seems that when there's regulatory pressure, they actually do comply with what they said they were going to do," he said. "We certainly wouldn't want to see any regulatory pressure lifted."

Worth a read. The story changes quite a bit from the top to bottom of the story.

"A CEO who publicly posted his Social Security number on billboards and TV commercials as part of a campaign to promote his company's credit monitoring services was the victim of identity theft at least 13 times, a news report says. The Phoenix New Times reported that Todd Davis, CEO of LifeLock Inc., which is based in Tempe, Ariz., was victimized numerous times by identity thieves who apparently used his Social Security number to commit various types of fraud. Davis has previously admitted that he was the victim of an identity theft once in 2007, when a man in Texas used his Social Security number to take out a $500 loan which wasn't repaid and ended up being handled by a collection agency. The New Times reported that Davis has been a victim of similar ID theft at least a dozen more times."

Might not want to put much stock in Lifelock.

"On January 20, 2009, Heartland Payment Systems reported discovering malicious software in its payment processing system, a security breach of potentially massive magnitude given that the company's handles 100 million transactions per month for more than 250,000 businesses. While the monetary and data loses following from the penetration of Heartland's systems -- the compromise that lasted for months -- are still being determined, the financial impact on Heartland's stock price alone was devastating. " The breach, in conjunction with the economic downturn, led to the loss of about $500 million in shareholder value, more than three-quarters of the company's market capitalization, two months after the news was announced. And then there's the cost of more than several dozen breach-related lawsuits filed against the company this year and related expenses. According to slides presented in August at a National Retail Federation Conference by Robert O. Carr, Heartland's founder, chairman and CEO, the breach cost the company $32 million in legal fees, fines, settlements, and forensics during just the first half of the year.

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

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

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

Here's the paper's abstract: This paper presents a novel technique for authenticating physical documents based on random, naturally occurring imperfections in paper texture. We introduce a new method for measuring the three-dimensional surface of a page using only a commodity scanner and without modifying the document in any way. From this physical feature, we generate a concise fingerprint that uniquely identifies the document. Our technique is secure against counterfeiting and robust to harsh handling; it can be used even before any content is printed on a page. It has a wide range of applications, including detecting forged currency and tickets, authenticating passports, and halting counterfeit goods. Document identification could also be applied maliciously to de-anonymize printed surveys and to compromise the secrecy of paper ballots.

As they play in the global information economy, U.S companies stash away more data than they can handle effectively. The six-part 2009 New Data Center series opens with a look at how they're coping with the escalating problem.

Legal woes may be next for Heartland Payment Systems, a payment processor that reported a major security breach this week. Depending on the results of the ongoing investigation, Heartland is likely to face the threat of litigation from issuing banks, merchants and consumers, says Scott Vernick, an attorney with Fox Rothschild LLP in Philadelphia, who specializes in data theft cases. "The businesses that use Heartland as a credit card processor, as well as thousands of consumers, will be anxiously watching for any negative impact, including harm to their business reputations, and the real possibility of identity theft or fraud," says Vernick. The fact that Heartland's systems were certified as being fully in compliance with data handling rules, called the PCI standards, raises questions about the efficacy of such standards. Hannaford Brothers grocery chain was likewise fully PCI compliant when it had 300 stores hacked and 4.3 million record swiped..... "This latest incident shows how, despite companies being compliant with regulations such as PCI, they are still a long way from being secure," says Mike Rothman, senior vice president of strategy at elQnetworks.

Exactly one week after the Heartland Payment Systems (HPY) breach was first announced to the public, the first lawsuit has been filed against the payments processor. The class action lawsuit filed Tuesday by Chimicles & Tilellis LLP of Haverford, PA in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of Woodbury, MN resident Alicia Cooper, asserts that Heartland "made unreasonably belated and inaccurate statements concerning the breach." The complaint says Heartland does not appear to be offering any credit monitoring services or other relief to consumers affected by the breach. Chimicles & Tilellis' complaint also says in addition to the questionable timing of the announcement of its breach, (Read Heartland Class Action suit PDF) "there are materially misleading statements and omissions in Heartland's public description of the breach and its consequences." Heartland announced the breach in a press release on the same morning of President Barack Obama's inauguration. The law firm says it is suing on behalf of consumers whose sensitive financial information was compromised in the data breach at Heartland. The complaint raises a claim pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and asserts causes of action for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of contracts to which Plaintiffs and Class members were intended third party beneficiaries, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The payments processor did not disclose how many credit card account numbers were compromised as a result of the breach. Heartland is the fifth largest payment processor in the country and handles 100 million transactions per month for more than 250,000 small retailers, gas stations, restaurants and other small and midsized companies. The suit also states that Heartland only became aware of the breach after it was notified of patterns of fraudulent credit card activity by VISA and MasterCard. "Analysts have stated that the fact that Heartland did not detect th

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

Heartland Payment Systems, the sixth-largest payments processor in the U.S., announced Monday that its processing systems were breached in 2008, exposing an undetermined number of consumers to potential fraud. Meanwhile, Forcht Bank, one of the 10 largest banks in Kentucky, told its customers it would begin reissuing 8,500 debit cards after being informed by its own card processor of a possible breach. In the case of Heartland, while the company continues to assess the damages inflicted by the attack, Robert Baldwin, the company's president and CFO, says law enforcement has already noted that the attack against his company is part of a wider cyber fraud operation. "The indication that it is tied to wider cyber fraud operation comes directly from conversations with the Department of Justice and the U.S. Secret Service," Baldwin says. The company says it believes the breach has been contained. Heartland, headquartered in Princeton, NJ, handles approximately 100 million transactions per month, although the number of unique cardholders is much lower. "It is still a question as to the percentage of the data flow they were able to get," Baldwin says, adding he would not speculate on the number of cards potentially exposed. Specifics surrounding when the breach occurred are still being analyzed. But Baldwin says two forensic auditing teams have been working on the breach analysis and investigation since late 2008, after Heartland received the notification from Visa and MasterCard. The investigation began immediately after the credit card companies told Heartland they saw suspicious activity surrounding processed card transactions. Described by Baldwin as "quite a sophisticated attack," he says it has been challenging to discover exactly how it happened.

Enterprise employees frequently use social networking tools, most notably Web-based applications. It's no surprise more organizations are wondering what happens if social networking data becomes relevant to an e-discovery investigation. How does an enterprise go about discovering and assessing Web 2.0 data? How responsible is an organization, legally speaking, for the information that's out there in the Web 2.0 world? What risks arise from e-discovery as it relates to Web 2.0 data, and how can you mitigate them? In this tip, we will look at e-discovery as it relates to Web 2.0 and consider the strongest options for minimizing risks to the organization. E-discovery basics We begin with a quick look at what e-discovery is and how it can create risk. Essentially, e-discovery is the electronic extension of the legal process of discovery, which Wikipedia defines as "the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party through the law of civil procedure can request documents and other evidence from other parties or can compel the production of evidence by using a subpoena or through other discovery devices, such as requests for production and depositions." If you're an IT person, not a lawyer, it's important to note that the rules governing the discovery process now require plaintiffs to address all electronically stored information or ESI. In other words, if your organization faces litigation, it will have to deal with the issue of e-discovery, which will entail a whole lot more than turning over some old emails. Depending upon your role in the organization, the first you may hear of this is a "notice of litigation" with perhaps a "litigation hold directive" containing a "preservation directive." Here is a generic e-discovery request below. Apart from a few limiting factors, such as subject matter, named persons and a specified time period, the scope of such a notice is likely to be broad; blame standard procedure, not some high-powered attorney pushing his or her lu

This tip is part of SearchSecurity.com's Data Protection School lesson, E-discovery and security in the enterprise. Visit the E-discovery and security in the enterprise lesson page for additional learning resources. Most information security pros have a handle on the major data types found in their environments, but they also know that there is a whole lot more data lurking around the edges. These unknown data types can include documents used by individuals, or whole applications owned by departments that have quietly become essential to the business. Most of the time, focusing on the squeaky wheels is an acceptable strategy; if there's no "squeak" then there's no need to worry. But when it comes to litigation, and especially managing the electronic discovery process, what you don't know can hurt you. There are four major types of data in use today: paper documents; structured data sets, like databases; semi-structured applications, like email and image stores; and unstructured repositories, like file servers. Comprehending the vast volume of these varied records can be a challenge for everyone involved, which includes information technology, records management, legal staff, and even the data owners themselves. But since almost all business information is stored in digital formats today, electronic storage systems are the most popular target for the discovery motions filed as part of legal proceedings. It is most efficient for a litigator to head straight for your email, spreadsheets and applications, looking for what they term electronically stored information (ESI). Making matters worse for IT administrators, new rules for civil litigation enacted at the end of 2006 (called the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or FRCP) have pushed up the timetable of electronic discovery. What was once a delayed and informal process has become much more structured, with lawyers meeting to discuss available ESI, typically just a few weeks after legal action commences. When l