Group items tagged

In honor of this day, the California Office of Privacy Protection--the first governmental privacy office in the nation--has created a presentation which you can download from their Web site at www.privacy.ca.gov. It's called "Secure Your Computer to Protect Your Privacy," and it explains why computer owners should use Internet firewalls, install and maintain anti-virus and anti-spyware software, and keep their operating systems and applications up to date to protect themselves from malicious attacks. The state privacy office offers lots of other information on how Californians can protect themselves and their data. You can visit their Web site, call them toll-free at (866) 785-9663, or go Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. to the main San Francisco Public Library, where Joanne McNabb, the state's privacy chief, is scheduled to appear on a panel with representatives from Microsoft, Intel, the Center for Democracy and Technology, MySpace and Teen Angels. The panel is free and is part of an international effort to raise awareness about privacy practices and privacy rights

Privacy is a central element of the FTC's consumer protection mission. In recent years, advances in computer technology have made it possible for detailed information about people to be compiled and shared more easily and cheaply than ever. That has produced many benefits for society as a whole and individual consumers. For example, it is easier for law enforcement to track down criminals, for banks to prevent fraud, and for consumers to learn about new products and services, allowing them to make better-informed purchasing decisions. At the same time, as personal information becomes more accessible, each of us - companies, associations, government agencies, and consumers - must take precautions to protect against the misuse of our information. The Federal Trade Commission is educating consumers and businesses about the importance of personal information privacy, including the security of personal information. Under the FTC Act, the Commission guards against unfairness and deception by enforcing companies' privacy promises about how they collect, use and secure consumers' personal information. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Commission has implemented rules concerning financial privacy notices and the administrative, technical and physical safeguarding of personal information, and it aggressively enforces against pretexting. The Commission also protects consumer privacy under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

Overview Privacy is a fundamental human right. It underpins human dignity and other values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important human rights of the modern age.[1] Privacy is recognized around the world in diverse regions and cultures. It is protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in many other international and regional human rights treaties. Nearly every country in the world includes a right of privacy in its constitution. At a minimum, these provisions include rights of inviolability of the home and secrecy of communications. Most recently written constitutions include specific rights to access and control one's personal information. In many of the countries where privacy is not explicitly recognized in the constitution, the courts have found that right in other provisions. In many countries, international agreements that recognize privacy rights such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights have been adopted into law. Defining Privacy Of all the human rights in the international catalogue, privacy is perhaps the most difficult to define.[2] Definitions of privacy vary widely according to context and environment. In many countries, the concept has been fused with data protection, which interprets privacy in terms of management of personal information. Outside this rather strict context, privacy protection is frequently seen as a way of drawing the line at how far society can intrude into a person's affairs.[3] The lack of a single definition should not imply that the issue lacks importance. As one writer observed, "in one sense, all human rights are aspects of the right to privacy."[4]

Privacy & security are individual rights and responsibilities, not just corporate or governmental responsibilities. Reliance on technology is bound to fail without motivation for all involved to find mutual benefits.

Identity theft and security is always in the spotlight through the constant stream of news stories about companies losing confidential customer or client data, such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, health histories and so forth. These "breaking news" stories now seem to happen so frequently that we scarcely pay attention to them unless, of course, we are directly impacted by them. They have, however, heightened the public awareness and have even spawned new identity protection businesses. Information technology companies rightly react to this by developing new technologies to improve security and eagerly market these to CIOs as a way to protect the personal information of their customers and clients. While we should use these appropriately, we can't rely just on technology for identity protection. While some of these security incidents involve someone hacking into a system, many involve a human failing. Examples include a laptop with confidential information being lost or stolen and employees e-mailing sensitive data to their personal e-mail accounts so they can work on it from home.

Stop identity theft with the identity theft protection services! Get to know the advantages and the disadvantages of identity theft prevention and equip yourself with how to prevent identity theft. Protect your privacy and information with the identity theft protection.

"A federal law designed to prevent employers and health insurers from discriminating against an individual based on their genetic predisposition to disease took effect late last month, signaling a new era where intermingling genetic advances and privacy concerns create new challenges in health care. But left out of the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, commonly known as GINA, were privacy protections for individuals seeking long-term care, disability and life insurance coverage. Each of those areas was left up to the individual states. At least 10 states regulate the use of genetic information in long-term care insurance. But in California, privacy protections were left to expire by lawmakers in January 2008. Mark Billingsley, spokesman for state insurance commissioner Steve Poizner, said in an e-mail that there "appears to be a giant loophole" in California's insurance code regarding long-term care insurance and genetic privacy protections. He said he couldn't identify a single provision in the state code that would preclude a private insurer from requesting such a test for underwriting purposes. "

Is the price to safeguard America's information systems and networks on a collision course with efforts to rescue the economy? One would hope not, but the $789 billion stimulus package that contains nearly $10 billions for IT-related projects offered very little for cybersecurity. Still, the president sees protecting government and private-sector information systems as crucial to the economic vitality of the country. So, when Acting Senior Director for Cyberspace Melissa Hathaway hands the President her recommendations on securing the nation's information infrastructure later this month, a sharper picture should emerge on how much money the government will need to spend to do just that. What Price Security? The government isn't a spendthrift in protecting its IT networks; it earmarked $6.8 billion a year on cybersecurity this fiscal year, up from $4.2 billion five years ago, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. But is that enough? Appropriating money to find new and innovative ways to protect our critical information infrastructure doesn't seem to be a government priority, at least not yet. Of the $147 billion the government planned to spend on all types of research and development this fiscal year, only $300 million or 0.2 percent was slated for cybersecurity, according to the Securing Cyberspace in the 44th Presidency report issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. By comparison, the budget contained five times as much money $1.5 billion for nanotechnology R&D.

Data security represents both a new market opportunity to sell insurance coverage and a new risk - especially for independent insurance agencies that may not be compliant with data security laws or have plans in place to protect their own companies from data breaches. While data security is an evolving issue, failing to protect data can have a huge financial impact on a company. The average total per-incident cost of a data security breach was $6.65 million, compared to an average per-incident cost of $6.3 million in 2007, according to the "U.S. Cost of Data Breach Study" conducted by data protection company PGP Corp. and information management research firm The Ponemon Institute. The PGP/Ponemon study indicated that data breach incidents cost U.S. companies $202 per compromised customer record in 2008, meaning that companies incur additional costs with an abnormal churn in lost customers. More than 84 percent of data breach cases in 2008 involved organizations that had more than one data breach. And, more than 88 percent of all cases in the study involved insider negligence. The cost of lost business continued to be the most costly effect of a breach, averaging $4.59 million or $139 per record compromised. Lost business now accounts for 69 percent of data breach costs, up from 65 percent in 2007, compared to 54 percent in the 2006 study. "After four years of conducting this study, one thing remains constant: U.S. businesses continue to pay dearly for having a data breach," said Dr. Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of The Ponemon Institute. "As costs only continue to rise, companies must remain on guard or face losing valuable customers in this unpredictable economy." Includes video: Data Security Creating Insurance Agent Sales Opportunities

The California State Senate approved today SB 20, legislation by State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), which aims to strengthen existing privacy protection laws for California consumers. The new law builds on legislation authored by Simitian in 2002 that requires a business or government agency that incurs a data breach to provide notice to the individual(s) whose information was compromised. More than 40 states have adopted similar legislation since that time, largely based on the California measure. "No one likes to get the news that information about them has been stolen," said Simitian, "but when it happens, people are entitled to get a notice they can understand, and that helps them decide what to do next." "The premise is simple," added Simitian. "What you don´t know can hurt you. Ignorance is not bliss. And you can´t protect yourself if you don´t know you´re at risk." Simitian said his latest proposal (SB 20), "is designed to make a good law even better." California´s current security breach notification law (AB 700, Simitian -2002) requires notice to consumers when their information has been compromised, but does not require data holders to provide any standard set of information about the nature of the breach. SB 20 will enhance consumer knowledge about security breaches by requiring that the notification contain specified information, including the type of personal information breached and the date of the breach.

By now, many employees are uncomfortably aware that their every keystroke at work, from email on office computers to text messages on company phones, can be monitored legally by their employers. What employees typically don't expect is for the company to spy on them while on password-protected sites using nonwork computers. But even that privacy could be in jeopardy. A case brewing in federal court in New Jersey pits bosses against two employees who were complaining about their workplace on an invite-only discussion group on MySpace.com, a social-networking site owned by News Corp., publisher of The Wall Street Journal. The case tests whether a supervisor who managed to log into the forum -- and then fired employees who badmouthed supervisors and customers there -- had the right to do so. The case has some legal and privacy experts concerned that companies are intruding into areas that their employees had considered off limits. "The question is whether employees have a right to privacy in their non-work-created communications with each other. And I would think the answer is that they do," said Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment expert and partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP in New York. The legal landscape is murky. For the most part, employers don't need a reason to fire nonunion workers. But state laws in California, New York and Connecticut protect employees who engage in lawful, off-duty activities from being fired or disciplined, according to a report prepared by attorneys at the firm Proskauer Rose LLP. While private conversations might be covered under those laws, none of the statutes specifically addresses social networking or blogging. Thus, privacy advocates expect to see more of these legal challenges. In February, three police officers in Harrison, N.Y., were suspended after they allegedly made lewd remarks about the town mayor on a Facebook account. The officers mistakenly thought the remarks were protected with a password, but city officials view

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

IT and business both understand the need to protect regulated customer and business data -- so long as they're in business, analysts say. Here's a look at how some folding businesses are falling short protecting data and the possible liabilities for the IT group and CIO. From HIPPA to Sarbox, a slew of regulations to protect customer and employee data force CIOs to step lively to comply. The punishment for failure to do so is costly and even dire. But once a company folds-and more are folding every week given the economy-what happens to that data? Who in the business and IT could be hit by the splatter if it all hits the fan? "Certain companies have been disposing of records containing sensitive consumer information in very questionable ways, including by leaving in bags at the curb, tossing it in public dumpsters, leaving it in vacant properties and/or leaving it behind in the offices and other facilities once they've gone out of business and left those offices," says Jacqueline Klosek, a senior counsel in Goodwin Procter's Business Law Department and a member of its Intellectual Property Group. "In addition, company computers, often containing personal data, will find their ways to the auction block," she adds. "All too often, the discarded documents and computer files will sensitive data, such as credit card numbers, social security numbers and driver's licenses numbers. This is the just the kind of data that can be used to commit identity theft." Discarded and unguarded data is now low-hanging fruit for criminal harvesters and corporate spies. "Recent client activity supports that competitors are beginning to buy up such auction devices specifically with the intention of trying to salvage the data," says James DeLuccia, author of IT Compliance & Controls. "Hard drives are being removed and sold online, or whole servers are sold via Craigslist and Ebay." In some cases, the courts insist data be sold during a bankruptcy. "Company servers, once I restore

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

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme court announced its refusal to hear appeals against the banning of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), effectively killing the bill. The American Civil Liberties Union called it "a clear victory for free speech," having fought the bill for ten years claiming it infringed on a website's freedom of speech. I've always advocated that it is the responsibility of parents to monitor their children's online activity. There are a ton of Web filtering and parental control applications available, many for free such as Blue Coat's K9 Web Protection. Especially with the country in the shape it's in now, my personal opinion is that the government has more pressing issues to attend to than babysitting children online. COPA was first passed in 1998, and made it illegal to display any pornographic material on a Web site without an access code or proof of age message. However, state courts began challenging the bill immediately, claiming it was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment. Instead, it was ruled that parental controls should be used by individual families to block unwanted content, rather than the government determining what can and cannot be seen by all. (COPA was killed, not COPPA - Children's Online Privacy Protection Act)

On Wednesday, February 11, 2009, the Data Protection Working Party, an independent European advisory body on data protection and privacy, released its Working Document 1-2009 (.pdf) on pre-trial discovery for cross border civil litigation. The Working Document attempts to reconcile the tension between U.S. discovery rules and the European Union's Directive 95/46/EC (.pdf), which outlines the EU's privacy requirements. What follows is a summary of the Working Document and an analysis of how it begins to bridge the gap between U.S. discovery rules and the European privacy framework. The Working Document offers guidance to EU data controllers responding to U.S. discovery requests. As the Working Document explains, those controllers often find themselves in a bind. On the one hand, U.S. law allows for broad discovery, which may require a controller to provide, or "process," personal data of customers or employees. On the other hand, Article 7 of EU Directive 95/46 limits a member state's authority to process such data. Under Article 7, a member state may process personal data only if one of six identified grounds for processing applies. The Working Document considers the Article 7 grounds most likely to supply a legitimate basis for compliance with a discovery request - namely 1) consent, 2) necessary for compliance with a legal obligation, and 3) necessary for the purposes of a legitimate interest, where such interests are not "overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject." Recognizing that the "interests of justice would be served by not unnecessarily limiting the ability of an organisation to act to promote or defend a legal right," the Working Document suggests that the third basis - necessary for the purposes of a legitimate interest - will often provide a ground for processing data in response to a U.S. discovery request.

Over the past six months, many of us have become desensitized to the staggering number and size of layoffs that continue to occur almost daily. But the reality for the IT industry is that layoffs have a different effect on those of us in the industry whose mission it is to protect the company's reputation, intellectual property, confidential data (both electronic and hard copy) and business operations. Knowledge Center contributor Gregory Shapiro outlines seven steps IT professionals can take to protect their company's data before a layoff is implemented. Unlike individual employee terminations, which are customarily unannounced and immediate, layoffs present a larger threat to corporations because they leave the door open to both intentional and unintentional data loss, leakage and integrity problems. When employees sense impending layoffs or are told in advance and kept on for a limited time to transition, that is when rumors and panic consume the employees. It's then that the company's sensitive data can be compromised. For this reason, the strategy for any corporation planning a layoff should include setting policies and making sure practices are in place to secure their sensitive data now. Steps to protect company data before a layoff is implemented

Ironic

A new report from the Progress & Freedom Foundation says that officials in some states want to pass legislation that would extend the Children Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) from covering children under 13 to covering teens until they're 18. COPPA, which became law in 1998, requires verifiable parental consent before a child under 13 can provide personally identifiable information to a Web site that caters to children. Expanding the law to cover teens till they're 18, according to the report, would "require Web sites to obtain more information about both minors and their parents, which runs counter to the original goal of the Act: protecting the privacy of minors." Ultimately, say the authors, "this would actually make minors less 'safe online.'" In this podcast, the report's co-author, PFF Senior Fellow Adam Thierer, explains the original COPPA law and why, in his opinion, the expanded law could have a chilling effect on the free speech rights of minors. The podcast runs 11:30

The Federal Trade Commission today approved a final consent order settling claims that CVS Caremark violated customers' privacy and the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) when it failed to dispose of records properly last year. Earlier this year, CVS Caremark agreed to settle FTC charges that it failed to take reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect the sensitive financial and medical information of its customers and employees, in violation of federal law. In a separate but related agreement, the company's pharmacy chain also has agreed to pay $2.25 million to resolve Department of Health and Human Services allegations that it violated HIPAA regulations. "This is a case that will restore appropriate privacy protections to tens of millions of people across the country," said FTC chairman William Kovacic following the settlement. "It also sends a strong message to other organizations that possess consumers' protected personal information. They are required to secure consumers' private information." Under the final consent order, CVS Caremark is required to rebuild its security and confidentiality program, which will be audited every two years for the next 20 years. The HHS settlement requires the company to develop a new training program to instruct employees on how to handle patient data.

One of my predictions for last year was that privacy would be a growing concern among mainstream users. I didn't repeat that prediction this year, but perhaps I should have. The reason? Apparently, younger web users seem to care more about privacy controls. Or at least, they use them more. According to Facebook chief privacy officer Chris Kelly, more teenagers than adults use privacy controls on the social network, at a rate of 60% to about 25-30%. That's surprising given the conventional wisdom that younger Internet users tend not to care about the privacy of their data. A recent study from Computer Associates confirms that many teens are at least somewhat concerned with online privacy. That study showed that 79% of teens aged 13-17 who are members of a social networking site like MySpace or Facebook protect their profiles from the general Internet in some way (i.e., only allow friends or friends of friends to view their information). Profiles on Facebook, of course, are automatically protected from viewing by the Internet at large, but protecting them from the rest of your network requires additional steps. That teens are more likely to utilize Facebook's granular privacy controls points to one of two things that lead to the same conclusion: 1. Teens care more about online privacy than adults, or, 2. Teens are simply more aware of social networking privacy controls than adults.