Group items tagged

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

Big Brother may be at it again. Behavioral advertising - the tracking of consumer's Internet surfing activity to create tailored ads - has triggered an intense legal controversy that has law firms scrambling to stay on top of a burgeoning practice. Attorneys say that behavioral advertising is raising privacy, litigation and regulation fears among consumer advocates, the electronic commerce and advertising industries and legislators. Law firms are busy helping companies come up with a transparent way of letting consumers know that their online activities are being tracked and possibly shared. "Lawmakers and companies are having a tough time keeping up with this new frontier of Internet privacy issues, and there is growing consumer unrest about behavioral advertising, leading in some cases to consumer rebellion," said Lisa Sotto, a partner and head of the privacy and security data group in the New York office of Richmond, Va.-based Hunton & Williams. "Consumers find this type of tracking intrusive, and businesses are starting to take the consumer reaction seriously," she said. The buzz over behavioral advertising has been building since congressional hearings that were held last year, during which Congress called on Internet service providers (ISPs) to testify about a highly controversial advertising practice known as "deep-packet inspection." The practice gives companies the ability to track every Web site consumers visit and provides a detailed look at everything they're doing, such as where they're going on vacation, who is going, how much they spent on the trip and what credit card was used. But then came the first class action targeting behavioral advertising, filed against Foster City, Calif.-based NebuAd Inc., an online advertising company accused of spying on consumers from several states and allegedly violating their privacy and computer security rights. The lawsuit specifically alleges that NebuAd engaged in deep-packet inspection. Valentine v. Ne

Consumer Sentiment rose up by 1.8 points in early January to 61.9%, compared with market expectations for a slight decline to 59.0%. Despite this surprising gain, sentiment is still 8.4 points below its September level and 21.0% below its year ago level. The current level remains well below its recessionary average of the past 50 years. Current Conditions slipped by 0.3 points to 69.2%. This is 5.8 percentage points below its September level and 26.7% below its year ago level. Consumer Expectations jumped by 3.2 points to 57.2%. Nevertheless, they are still 10.0 percentage points below their September level and 16.0% below their year ago level. Bottom Line: Consumer sentiment climbed in early January. However, sentiment had collapsed in October in reaction to the intensification of the financial and credit market turmoil. Overall assessments of the economy, as well as assessment of current conditions and consumer expectations, are still significantly below their September level and well below their year ago levels. Thus, despite this month's increase, household assessments of the economy are still mired at recessionary levels. The causes of consumers' pessimism are also dampening real consumer spending.

Big Brother may be at it again. Behavioral advertising -- the tracking of consumer's Internet surfing activity to create tailored ads -- has triggered an intense legal controversy that has law firms scrambling to stay on top of a burgeoning practice. Attorneys say that behavioral advertising is raising privacy, litigation and regulation fears among consumer advocates, the electronic commerce and advertising industries and legislators. Law firms are busy helping companies come up with a transparent way of letting consumers know that their online activities are being tracked and possibly shared. "Lawmakers and companies are having a tough time keeping up with this new frontier of Internet privacy issues, and there is growing consumer unrest about behavioral advertising, leading in some cases to consumer rebellion," said Lisa Sotto, a partner and head of the privacy and security data group in the New York office of Richmond, Va.-based Hunton & Williams. "Consumers find this type of tracking intrusive, and businesses are starting to take the consumer reaction seriously," she said. The buzz over behavioral advertising has been building since congressional hearings that were held last year, during which Congress called on Internet service providers (ISPs) to testify about a highly controversial advertising practice known as "deep-packet inspection." The practice gives companies the ability to track every Web site consumers visit and provides a detailed look at everything they're doing, such as where they're going on vacation, who is going, how much they spent on the trip and what credit card was used. But then came the first class action targeting behavioral advertising, filed against Foster City, Calif.-based NebuAd Inc., an online advertising company accused of spying on consumers from several states and allegedly violating their privacy and computer security rights. The lawsuit specifically alleges that NebuAd engaged in deep-packet inspection. Valentine v. Ne

Heartland Payment Systems CEO discusses breach, previews speech Not a week had passed after the announcement of what some have described as the largest data breach ever, when the CEO of Heartland Payment Systems, Robert Carr, began calling for better industry cooperation and new efforts directed at preventing future breaches. Recently, Carr announced that trials will begin late this summer on an end end-to-end encryption system Heartland is developing with technology partners. It is expected to be the first system of its kind in the U.S. The company is also pushing for an end-to-end encryption standard. At the upcoming Practical Privacy Series in Silicon Valley, Carr will discuss the Heartland breach and the role industry, including privacy professionals, must play to prevent future breaches. Here's a preview: IAPP: Many companies have experienced breaches. What made yours different? Ours was different because we are a processor and had passed six years of PCI audits with no problems found. Yet, within days of the most recent audit, the damage had begun. IAPP: Did you have a chief privacy office or a privacy professional on staff before your breach? Do you now? Ironically, when we learned of the Hannaford's breach, we hired a Chief Security Officer who started just three weeks before the breach began. IAPP: In the era of mandatory breach reporting, what is the trajectory of consumer reaction? As a processor it is difficult to really know this. Our customers are merchants who accept card payments. IAPP: Do you think consumers will become numb to breach notices? I believe that many are numb to so many intrusion notices. IAPP: Are breach notices good public policy? Do the notices provide an incentive for companies to change or improve practices? I don't think so. Nobody wants to get breached and the damage caused by a breach is sufficient reason for most of us to do everything we can to prevent them. IAPP: What has Heartland done differentl

A very heated reaction has followed the interview I conducted yesterday with Robert Carr, CEO of Heartland Payment Systems. One reader even said the resulting Q&A made his "blood boil." Why the outrage? Because Carr did something a lot of people find unacceptable. He threw someone else under the proverbial bus for his company's failure to keep customer credit and debit card numbers out of evil hands. Specifically, he thrust an angry finger at the QSAs who came in to inspect the security controls Heartland had in place to meet the requirements of PCI security. In the article, [Heartland CEO on Data Breach: QSAs Let Us Down] Carr said, "The audits done by our QSAs (Qualified Security Assessors) were of no value whatsoever. To the extent that they were telling us we were secure beforehand, that we were PCI compliant, was a major problem. The QSAs in our shop didn't even know this was a common attack vector being used against other companies. We learned that 300 other companies had been attacked by the same malware. I thought, 'You've got to be kidding me.' That people would know the exact attack vector and not tell major players in the industry is unthinkable to me. I still can't reconcile that." That one comment brought down the house, and not in a favorable way. "I just read Bill Brenner's interview with Heartland Payment Systems' CEO Bob Carr and truthfully, my blood is boiling," Mike Rothman, SVP of strategy at eIQnetworks and chief blogger at Security Incite wrote in a counterpoint piece CSOonline ran today. "Basically, he's throwing his QSA under the bus for the massive data breach that happened under his watch. Basically, because the QSA didn't find anything, therefore he should be off the hook. I say that's a load of crap."

"Bankers are playing with fire by increasing risk when taxpayer tolerance with financial bailouts has worn perilously thin, the International Monetary Fund warned. Managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn reckons bankers may be in the throes of a "Mardi Gras" party of renewed speculation ahead of a looming regulatory crackdown. Yet the return of their old habits is dangerous. If a new financial crisis occurred in a few years" time, the public would be unwilling to support another round of massive bailouts, he told the Confederation of British Industry. Democracy itself could be threatened if banks went back to taxpayers with their caps in their hands. "In an atmosphere of increasing optimism, we see signs of old habits coming back. Risk-taking is on the rise," said Strauss-Kahn. "Right now, regulatory uncertainty is throwing up some perverse incentives. For example, it might be encouraging a risk-taking culture -- a Mardi Gras effect whereby financial institutions party now in expectation of lean times to come. "Clearly, this is dangerous, not least for emerging markets. And we may run out of time -- if we wait too long to implement these reforms, it might be too late." A second wave of rescues may simply not get through national legislatures, he added: "The political reaction would be very strong, putting some democracies at risk." IMF figures show the aftershocks of the 2008 crisis are far from over, with firms recognising only half of their losses worldwide. Yet despite the fragility of the financial sector, there is mounting evidence that traders are making hay before tougher regulatory standards come into force. Investment banking profits have soared this year, as firms make the most of ultra-low interest rates, money-printing operations and huge government bond issuance programmes. Strauss-Kahn argued countries need to act quickly to remove "regulatory uncertainty" -- ensuring bankers do not make the most of the current confusion over future standards

US senators have drafted legislation that would give the federal government unprecedented authority over the nation's critical infrastructure, including the power to shut down or limit traffic on private networks during emergencies. The bill would also establish a broad set of cybersecurity standards that would be imposed on the government and the private sector, including companies that provide software, IT work or other services to networks that are deemed to be critical infrastructure. It would also mandate licenses for all individuals administering to strategically important networks. The bill, which is being co-sponsored by Senate Commerce Committee chairman John Rockefeller IV and Senator Olympia Snowe, was expected to be referred to a senate committee on Wednesday. Shortly after a working draft of the legislation began circulating, some industry groups lined up to criticize it for giving the government too much control over the internet and the private companies that make it possible. "This gives the president too much power and there's too little oversight, if there's any at all," said Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It gives him the power to act in the interest of national security, a vague term that has been broadly defined." Nojeim was pointing to language in the bill that permits the president to "order the limitation or shutdown of internet traffic to and from any compromised federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network" after first declaring a national cybersecurity emergency. A separate provision allows the executive in chief to "order the disconnection of any federal government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security." "It applies to any critical infrastructure," Nojeim added. "Surely, the internet is one." The bill would also require NIST, or the National Institute of Standards and Techn