Group items tagged

Federal Trade Commission staff today issued a report describing its ongoing examination of online behavioral advertising and setting forth revisions to proposed principles to govern self-regulatory efforts in this area. The key issue concerns how online advertisers can best protect consumers' privacy while collecting information about their online activities. Over the last decade, the FTC has periodically examined the consumer privacy issues raised by online behavioral advertising - which is the practice of tracking an individual's online activities in order to deliver advertising tailored to his or her interests. The FTC examined this practice most recently at its November 2007 "Behavioral Advertising" Town Hall. The following month, in response to public discussion about the need to address privacy concerns in this area, FTC staff issued a set of proposed principles to encourage and guide industry self-regulation for public comment. Today's report, titled "Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising," summarizes and responds to the main issues raised by more than 60 comments received. It also sets forth revised principles. The report discusses the potential benefits of behavioral advertising to consumers, including the free online content that advertising generally supports and personalization that many consumers appear to value. It also discusses the privacy concerns that the practice raises, including the invisibility of the data collection to consumers and the risk that the information collected - including sensitive information regarding health, finances, or children - could fall into the wrong hands or be used for unanticipated purposes. Consistent with the FTC's overall approach to consumer privacy, the report seeks to balance the potential benefits of behavioral advertising against the privacy concerns it raises, and to encourage privacy protections while maintaining a competitive marketplace. The report points ou

At last, my summer reading list is complete!

In what it described as an historic document, the National Institute for Standards and Technology issued a special report entitled Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. Special Publication 800-53, Revision 3, is historic in nature. For the first time, and as part of a continuing initiative to develop a unified information security framework for the federal government and its contractors, NIST has included security controls in its catalog for national security and non-national security systems in its latest revision, No. 3, of Special Publication 800-53. "The important changes described (in the publication) are part of a larger strategic initiative to focus on enterprise-wide, near real-time risk management; that is, managing risks from information systems in dynamic environments of operation that can adversely affect organizational operations and assets, individuals, other organizations, and the nation," Ron Ross, NIST's Federal Information Security Management Act implementation project leader, said in a message incorporated into the 220-page report. According to the document, the updated security control catalogue incorporates best practices in information security from the Department of Defense, intelligence community and civilian agencies to produce the most broad-based and comprehensive set of safeguards and countermeasures ever developed for information systems.

Perhaps Mark Z is surprised that people actually read terms of service. Arrogant twit. He's a multi-millionaire who cares about the little people (stage direction: Mark Z looks sincerely into web cam as he wipes away tear with hundred dollar bill). Perhaps the Tweens don't understand what social networking sites really sell; looks like some grown ups started asking where all their personal information is going and when it might inconveniently show up in some ad campaign.

A couple of weeks ago, we revised our terms of use hoping to clarify some parts for our users. Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information. Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. Many of us at Facebook spent most of today discussing how best to move forward. One approach would have been to quickly amend the new terms with new language to clarify our positions further. Another approach was simply to revert to our old terms while we begin working on our next version. As we thought through this, we reached out to respected organizations to get their input. Going forward, we've decided to take a new approach towards developing our terms. We concluded that returning to our previous terms was the right thing for now. As I said yesterday, we think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective so we don't plan to leave it there for long. More than 175 million people use Facebook. If it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world. Our terms aren't just a document that protect our rights; it's the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service. Our next version will be a substantial revision from where we are now. It will reflect the principles I described yesterday around how people share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand. Since this will be the governing document that we'll all live by, Facebook users will have a lot of input in crafting these terms. You have my commitment that we'll do all of these things, but in order to do them right it will take a little bit of time. We expect to complete this in the next few we

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is slated to vote Wednesday on legislation that would require strong security policies from firms that collect and store individuals' sensitive information and provide for nationwide notification in the event of a data breach. The bill was sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Rush, D-Ill., and was tweaked to win his panel's approval in June, but more revisions are expected.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is slated to vote Wednesday on legislation that would require strong security policies from firms that collect and store individuals' sensitive information and provide for nationwide notification in the event of a data breach. The bill was sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Rush, D-Ill., and was tweaked to win his panel's approval in June, but more revisions are expected.

The whole idea of privacy has become a joke. On one hand we have consumers who will give away their personal details to random Web sites (as well as to Mrs. Sikiratu Seki Adam, "a widow to Late Saheed Baba Adams") at the drop of a virtual hat, and on the other we have businesses losing personally identifiable information and transaction data with wild abandon … yes, I'm talking about you Heartland Payment Systems. (Heartland lost data on more than 100 million transactions although it is hardly alone - check out the data loss database at the Open Security Foundation). This widespread carelessness has compromised the privacy of tens of millions of consumers and businesses. While carelessness is the cause, what has allowed it to go unchecked are a number of factors: The Internet making transactions easier and faster; the systems we use on the Internet (particularly Windows PCs) being as secure as the First Little Pig's house of straw; organizations not taking security seriously enough; naive consumers; and inadequate regulation of the companies that hold private data. What got me thinking about this privacy void was a letter my wife received from Nordstrom Bank yesterday. My wife has a Nordstrom credit card and the company sent us, for what seems like the 1,000th time, its latest privacy policy. This version was one page of small text that more or less says what every other privacy notice from financial services companies say (we average about one of these "revised" policies every couple of weeks).

As arguments swirl over online privacy, a new survey indicates the issue is a dominant concern for Americans. More than 90 percent of respondents called online privacy a "really" or "somewhat" important issue, according to the survey of more than 1,000 Americans conducted by TRUSTe, an organization that monitors the privacy practices of Web sites of companies like I.B.M., Yahoo and WebMD for a fee. When asked if they were comfortable with behavioral targeting - when advertisers use a person's browsing history or search history to decide which ad to show them - only 28 percent said they were. More than half said they were not. And more than 75 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, "The Internet is not well regulated, and naïve users can easily be taken advantage of." The survey arrives at a fractious time. Debate over behavioral advertising has intensified, with industry groups trying to avoid government intervention by creating their own regulatory standards. Still, some Congressional representatives and the Federal Trade Commission are questioning whether there are enough safeguards around the practice. Last month, the F.T.C. revised its suggestions for behavioral advertising rules for the industry, proposing, among other measures, that sites disclose when they are participating in behavioral advertising and obtain consumers' permission to do so. One F.T.C. commissioner, Jon Leibowitz, warned that if the industry did not respond, intervention would be next. "Put simply, this could be the last clear chance to show that self-regulation can - and will - effectively protect consumers' privacy," Mr. Leibowitz said, or else "it will certainly invite legislation by Congress and a more regulatory approach by our commission." Some technology companies are making changes on their own. Yahoo recently shortened the amount of time it keeps data derived from searches. It is also including a link in some ads that explains how

Three out of four Americans believe that individuals are responsible for protecting their own privacy online. That's the bottom line of a new survey conducted by TRUSTe, a company that certifies the compliance of websites with privacy standards and statements. Nonetheless, The New York Times reports that the Federal Trade Commission is trying to put more responsibility on website operators: Last month, the F.T.C. revised its suggestions for behavioral advertising rules for the industry, proposing, among other measures, that sites disclose when they are participating in behavioral advertising and obtain consumers' permission to do so. One F.T.C. commissioner, Jon Leibowitz, warned that if the industry did not respond, intervention would be next. "Put simply, this could be the last clear chance to show that self-regulation can -- and will -- effectively protect consumers' privacy," [FTC commissioner Jon] Leibowitz said, or else "it will certainly invite legislation by Congress and a more regulatory approach by our commission." Behavioral advertising, which records individual users' Web usage by inserting cookies into their browsers and keeping a log of where they go and what they do, is the most high-profile privacy issue today. Google-owned DoubleClick is tracks Web users across many sites, combining them into one profile at DoubleClick's end to be used for ad targeting. Some survey respondents use cookie-deleting browsers and anonymizing software to thwart tracking systems. Privacy advocates, TRUSTe, and the FTC all strongly encourage companies to post meticulous privacy statements for online visitors, and to follow them to the letter. Still, only 15 percent of TRUSTe's survey respondents said they actually read privacy statements.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is planning to regulate online viral marketing that uses blogs and social networking sites. Marketers are spending billions worldwide to get the endorsements of key bloggers and groups on social networking sites. One tactic, used by Microsoft and others, is to send products to bloggers on 'long-term loans' on the understanding that they will comment about them on their sites. AdvertisementUnder the new regulations being proposed, such bloggers would be legally liable if they make untrue statements about the products or services. The companies too would face sanctions. "This impacts every industry and almost every single brand in our economy, and that trickles down into social media," Anthony DiResta, an attorney representing several advertising associations, told The Financial Times. This is the first revision of the rules on this kind of advertising by the FTC since 1980 and is needed, according to the organisation, because new forms of communication have opened up new fields to marketing. "The guides needed to be updated to address not only the changes in technology, but the consequences of new marketing practices," said Richard Cleland, assistant director for the FTC's division of advertising practices. " Word-of-mouth marketing is not exempt from the laws of truthful advertising." Advertisers are resisting the changes, however, which threaten a highly effective form of marketing new products and services. "Regulating these developing media too soon may have a chilling effect on blogs and other forms of viral marketing, as bloggers and other viral marketers will be discouraged from publishing content for fear of being held liable for any potentially misleading claim," Richard O'Brien, vice president of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, said in an advisory to the FTC.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is getting tough on online viral marketing using blogs and other social networking sites. The proposed rules would make bloggers legally liable if they make untrue statements about products or services. Companies would face sanctions, too, if they use blogs and social networking sites to make untrue claims. "This impacts every industry and almost every single brand in our economy, and that trickles down into social media," Anthony DiResta, an attorney representing several advertising associations, told vnunet.com. The rules have been a long time coming. It's the first revision of the FTC's advertising rules since 1980. New kinds of marketing have sprouted in the last 30 years, but this is the first time the FTC is paying attention to these kinds of advertising practices. Not everyone agrees that this is a good idea. Richard O'Brien, vice-president of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, told the website, "Regulating these developing media too soon may have a chilling effect on blogs and other forms of viral marketing, as bloggers and other viral marketers will be discouraged from publishing content for fear of being held liable for any potentially misleading claim."

Paperwork containing the personal medical information of at least 66 patients at Massachusetts General Hospital was lost this month when an employee apparently left it on an MBTA train. The hospital sent out letters last week to patients whose identities were included in the lost paperwork, telling them the information listed their names and dates of birth, and private medical information, including their diagnoses and the name of the provider with whom they met. The material constituted billing records for patients who attended the hospital's Infectious Disease Associates outpatient practice on Fruit Street on March 4. Deborah A. Adair, the hospital's privacy officer and director of health information services, said in a statement released yesterday that while the incident was regrettable, the hospital followed privacy laws by immediately alerting affected patients and authorities, including the state attorney general's office and the Department of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation. "[Hospital] police and security are thoroughly investigating this matter not only with an eye toward recovering the missing information but also toward making sure that this will not happen again," Adair said. "Our information privacy and security policies and procedures are among the strongest in the healthcare industry, but incidents such as this remind us that we must continue to review and revise them, as well as continue to educate our staff on best practices to avoid incidents such as this." According to hospital security reports, a manager in the infectious disease center's billing unit told supervisors that she left the paperwork on a Red Line train the morning of March 9. The manager said she had brought the paperwork home with her to work over the weekend and left the material sometime between 7:30 and 9 a.m. The Transit Police were notified, but the paperwork was not found.

More than 6 million current and former customers of online brokerage TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. will be able to benefit from the settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed over the theft of client contact information. Formal notice of a settlement agreement will be sent to people who used TD Ameritrade's services before mid-September 2007. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco approved a revised version of the settlement agreement earlier this month despite some misgivings about it. Last summer, Walker rejected an earlier version of the deal. Anyone who held an Ameritrade account or provided an e-mail address to the company before Sept. 14, 2007, could benefit from the lawsuit. The database that was breached included information on 6.2 million people. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit said they received unwanted e-mail ads about certain stocks. The ads appeared to be designed to manipulate the value of thinly traded stocks. Ameritrade officials and one of the lead plaintiff's attorneys, Scott Kamber, have said the data theft has not been linked to cases of identity theft. As part of the proposed settlement, the Omaha-based company will pay nearly $1.9 million in legal fees and cover the cost of one year of anti-spam service for the victims. Ameritrade also promised to better protect customer data. Those terms have not changed from the original proposed settlement. But the new agreement will more clearly state that Ameritrade customers were at risk of identity theft, and it will preserve customers' ability to pursue identity theft claims against Ameritrade. Most of the changes to the agreement happened because the Texas Attorney General's Office and a former named plaintiff objected to the previous deal. In his order, the judge questioned whether the settlement does enough to benefit Ameritrade clients whose information was stolen. "The court is particularly concerned that TD Ameritrade has agreed to pay the class counsel $1.87 million and yet the

NIST announces the release of the Initial Public Draft (IPD) of Special Publication 800-16, Revision 1, Information Security Training Requirements: A Role- and Performance-Based Model. This publication is now available for public comment. The comprehensive training methodology provided in this publication is intended to be used by federal information security professionals and instructional design specialists to design (1) role-based training courses or modules for personnel who have been identified as having significant responsibilities for information security, and (2) a basics and literacy course for all users of information systems. We encourage readers to pay special attention to the Notes to Reviewers section, as we are looking for feedback on the many changes we have made to this document.

"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."

"Part one of a two-part series: Facebook, the global phenomenon in Web-based social media, rolled out a massive overhaul of its privacy protection policies and technology this week-and in so doing may have drawn up a playbook for healthcare as well, industry experts say. The privacy upgrade gives its 350 million worldwide users increased control over who has access to some of, but not all, the information on their personal pages. These new, so-called "granular" controls-specifically those embedded in the site's "publisher" function, which enables a user to post new material to his or her Facebook pages-reach down to the level of discrete data elements. The new controls, for example, allow a user to restrict who gets to see each newly posted photo or typed comment"

Reform legislation is expected to be introduced this spring to update the Federal Information Security and Management Act, known as FISMA. A major complaint about FISMA is that complying with its rules does not necessarily guarantee departmental and agency information systems are secure. In this exclusive interview, Sen. Tom Carper, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security, discusses: Key provisions in the bill to improve ways to measure and determine the security of federal government information systems; Efforts to create a government-wide Chief Information Security Officer Council; His views on the most pressing cybersecurity challenges facing the nation: identity theft and the viability of financial institutions and threats by foreign nations to federal information systems.