The private correspondence of millions of people who use social networking sites could be tracked and saved on a "big brother" database, under new plans being drawn up by the UK government. Ministers revealed yesterday that they were considering policing messages sent via sites such as MySpace and Facebook, alongside plans to store information about every phone call, e-mail and internet visit made by everyone in the United Kingdom. There was immediate uproar from opposition parties, privacy campaigners and security experts who said the plans were over-the-top and unworkable. There have long been proposals, following an European Union directive in the wake of the July 2005 bombings in London, for emails and internet usage to be tracked in order to guard against future terrorist attacks.

Profile Optimization True Story: I'm at a party a few months ago - not the usual raucous affair that us search and social media types get into but a full on wine and cheese extravaganza. The kind of shindig Republicans go to and then accuse Democrats of loving when they get up in front of a "Joe the Plumber" type crowd. But I digress… After far too much wine the discussion turned to crazy work environments and I naturally brought up the Fortress of Googletude and it's predilection for hallway scooter parking and riding. A fellow party-go-er who I'll call "Natasha" to protect her identity, nodded and said, 'Yes it's true, I've been there too!" This led to a long, room-clearing talk about search and social media, the kind of talk that true geeks engage in while their spouses go off to chat about politics and religion. Somewhere between bottles Natasha said to me "Have you seen Google People Search?" "Google what now?" I replied. She went on to describe an internally searchable database that the Google folks showed her of people sorted by interests and web habits, ready to be rolled out to advertisers at some point in the future. Thank goodness for the red wine clause in their NDA. Well the future arrived today, at least partially, with Google's announcement that behavioral targeting is being rolled out to the AdWords content network. As the Googlelords put it: "With interest-based advertising, you will be able to reach users based on your past interactions with them, such as their visits to your website. We'll also provide interest categories, such as "sports enthusiasts," so you can reach the audience of your choice. Whether your goal is to drive brand awareness or increase responses to your ads, these capabilities can help expand the success of your campaigns." This is a most effective riposte to the OPA's announcement of new, ludicrous banner ad standards - why futz around with annoying crap no-one will clic

Web sites that strip personally identifiable information about their users and then share that data may be compromising their users' privacy, according to researchers at the University of Texas at Austin. They took a close look at the way anonymous data can be analyzed and have come to some troubling conclusions. In a paper set to be delivered at an upcoming security conference, they showed how they were able to map out the connections on public social networks such as Twitter and Flickr. They were then able to identify people who were on both networks by looking at the many connections surrounding their network of friends. The technique isn't 100 percent effective, but it may make some users uncomfortable about whether they should allow their data to be shared in an anonymous format. Web site operators often share data about users with partners and advertisers after stripping it of any personally identifiable information such as names, addresses or birth dates. Arvind Narayanan and fellow researcher Vitaly Shmatikov found that by analyzing these "anonymized" data sets, they could identify Flickr users who were also on Twitter about two-thirds of the time, depending on how much information they have to work with. "A lot of the time people will share information online and they'll expect that they are anonymous," Narayanan said in an interview. But if their identity can be ascertained on one social network, its possible to find out who they are on some other network, or at least make a "strong guess," he said.

As the National Security Council works on its comprehensive review of federal cybersecurity programs for President Obama, it is going to great lengths to consider privacy and civil liberty issues, some Congress members said Thursday. The House Cybersecurity Caucus on Thursday met with Melissa Hathaway, the acting senior director for cyberspace for the National Security and Homeland Security Councils, who is conducting for the administration a 60-day cybersecurity review. Rep. James Langevin (D-R.I.), co-chair of the House Cybersecurity Caucus, said Hathaway has been meeting with privacy and civil liberties groups to receive their input on how to reform cybersecurity. Those issues are "a forethought rather than an afterthought," he said. "Because these are such powerful tools (to grant federal authorities to regulate cyberspace), we're going to have to have the buy-in of the public and have their support." While the Senate is working on its own plan for White House-run cybersecurity efforts, Langevin said Hathaway's assessment may ultimately suggest a strategy with a stronger emphasis on inter-agency efforts. Langevin said it is still unclear whether Hathaway will recommend that a new office for cybersecurity should be created within the Executive Office of the President--a move some senators are pushing for. Certainly, though, policy will have to come from the White House. "This is going to have to be an ongoing strategy of collaboration and cooperation directed out of the White House," Langevin said. "But there won't be one king, so to speak, at the end of the day. The chief information officers at the departments and agencies are still going to have a role to play."

Top House and Senate Democrats are working on legislation that would prevent online marketers from sharing Web-surfing information unless Internet users allowed them to. That's according to House Communications, Technology and the Internet Subcommittee chairman Rick Boucher (D.-Va.), who told Multichannel News that such a bill was in the works and was one of his top legislative priorities. The issue of online behavioral marketing has gained traction recently, spurred by privacy concerns and by media companies' need to find new ways for advertisers to reach aggregated audiences at a time of fragmented viewing and multiplying delivery platforms. Boucher's predecessor atop the committee, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), held a hearing last fall on the issue and helped quash a test by ad-tracking company NebuAd and cable operator Charter Communications. In an interview, Boucher said he was teaming with Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), ranking member of his subcommittee, and Joe Barton (R-Texas), ranking full committee member, on a bill that would apply "across the board" to behavioral advertising and data collection by Web sites. "The goal would be to give the Internet user a sense that information about him that is collected by Web sites is well understood by the user, so he has an opportunity to know what is collected," Boucher said. "He would then have an opportunity to act in a way that prevents that Web site using that information to market him personally, and an even broader opportunity to prevent the transfer of that information about him to third parties." Boucher envisions a combination of opt-in and opt-out requirements. "Opt-in would apply where the information is conveyed to third parties," he said, while "opt out would apply where the Web site that collects the information is using that information directly to market the customers from whom it is collected." Center for Digital Democracy executive director Jeff Chester was please

Educating consumers about what behavioral targeting is and is not up to, deep within the cookies of their browser, seems to be a bit like alternative energy development. Pretty much everyone says the industry should be doing more about it, and yet it is hard to see where and with whom it starts. Most online materials related to BT are pitched to one end of the value chain, marketers. It's not clear to me that most of the companies in this space are even comfortable talking directly to consumers, let alone taking the time to develop an accessible language to describe their process. Specific Media controls the BehavioralTargeting.com domain and uses it to educate marketers about its methods. Even the Wikipedia entry for this field is really an explanation for advertisers. This is understandable, since most people who are familiar with the term likely come from the industry. But it seems to me the industry misses an opportunity to practice more often, and in more places, what it knows ultimately needs to be done. You guys need to find better, clearer, simpler ways to explain what it is you are doing in our browsers -- and why you are doing it. And what are the real benefits and risks a consumer incurs by tacitly agreeing to your presence? Isn't every possible point of contact with a suspicious consumer a teachable moment? In an earlier post, I recounted how I struck some retargeting gold when FetchBack tagged and remarketed me during my travels online. An opt-out option is clearly available at the front page of the FetchBack site. Unfortunately, from there you either opt-out (kick over to the Network Advertising Initiative site) or click into a long scrolling privacy policy that doesn't actually get around to explaining retargeting until a few screens down.

It's unclear whether a report being prepared for President Barack Obama on federal information security preparedness will support recent calls for the creation of a new cybersecurity office within the White House, two lawmakers said last week. Instead, the report may recommend a more collaborative and cooperative strategy among federal agencies on the issue of cybersecurity without a single agency or department in charge, they said. Members of the U.S. House Cybersecurity Caucus met with Melissa Hathaway, acting senior director for cyberspace for the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council. Hathaway, who is conducting a 60-day review of federal cybersecurity preparedness on behalf of the president, Thursday presented a status report to members of the caucus. Speaking with reporters after the briefing, Rep. James Langevin (D-R.I.), co-chair of the caucus, and Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), chairwoman of a subcommittee within the Committee on Homeland Security, said it was unclear yet what Hathaway might recommend. Rather than "include another structure" within the White House, there may be a call for an increase in staffing within the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in a bid to improve its current role of overseeing government cyberaffairs, said Langevin. Chances are "there will not be one king," he said. Langevin co-chaired a commission at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan think tank, that has called for the creation of a centralized cybersecurity office in the White House to be named the National Office for Cyberspace. The new office could combine the National Cyber Security Center (NCSC) and the Joint Interagency Cyber Task Force, two existing agencies that are handing cybersecurity today. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also called for a new office dedicated to cybersecurity within the White House. Calls have been prompted by what is perceived as the inability of the U.S. De

The use of data in the online world is being governed by the rules of the "Wild West," the European Commission will argue this week, in the clearest warning yet to Internet companies to curb how they use the information they collect on users. With concern growing over the amount of data gathered by the biggest players on the Internet, the comments will challenge the industry to agree on new principles for its use - or face a clampdown. Meglena Kuneva, the European consumer affairs commissioner, will argue that basic consumer rights are being violated by companies that profile and target consumers, according to a draft of a speech seen by the International Herald Tribune. "From the point of view of commercial communications," the draft speech reads, "the World Wide Web is turning out to be the world 'Wild West."' Kuneva is to deliver the speech to a meeting of around 200 industry and consumer representatives on Wednesday. Her comments reflect the anxiety of regulators on both sides of the Atlantic about the commercial use of information garnered through online tracking made possible via "cookies" - small files dropped into users' computers by the Web sites they visit. These cookies help companies take note of users' habits and can be sold to advertisers to help them target their marketing efforts. But their use raises serious questions about who knows which sites we visit and what they do with that information. In the United States, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Jon Leibowitz, warned recently that, if the industry does not show it can protect users' privacy, it will invite legislation from Congress and a more regulatory approach from the F.T.C.

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.

Emily Riley of Forrester Research presented a lot of data during her keynote presentation at today's OMMA Behavioral Conference but one point she made seemed rather salient to me: many of those marketers and data firms involved in behavioral targeting seem to skip over social media as a source of information. They might look at the data surrounding the usage of those sites but they seem to rarely do any actually monitoring, let alone interacting there. It reminded me of an experience I had with my wife. We once lived in a building where we didn't have much interaction with our neighbors, very little beyond an occasional wave in the hallway. We could, however see their mail mixed with ours and our landlord's. My wife began to notice that the landlord and our neighbor were starting to get similar envelopes from law firms. I, being the incurious mail sorter I am, didn't really think much of it. She, on the other hand, was convinced that one of them must be suing the other and was able to spin out some fairly detailed scenarios based on other clues from the hallway, the presence of exterminators one day, the thickness of paint on the front door etc. One day I encountered our neighbor in the hallway and did my customary wave. "Oh by the way," He said, "We're moving out next week." Oh really? He then regaled me with the entire story which involved a variety of things including an exterminator, paint thickness, and law firms. My wife and I were both able to glean essentially the same information. However if I had approached him and said, without any warning, "I bet you and our landlord are having one heckuva legal squabble," he probably would have punched me in the nose. I also believe that the ease with which I was able to get the whole story out of him suggests that had we interacted more it would have been I scooping my wife and not the other way around. These two approaches to gathering information are akin to the difference between following

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.

Ask a room full of security practitioners for a list of security settings that'll make Internet Explorer (IE) safe to use and you'll either hear laughter or advice to get a new browser like Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Safari or Google Chrome. Even as Microsoft has worked diligently to improve security in its troubled browser, especially in IE7 and the newly-released IE8, security pros simply don't trust it. Most have turned to alternative browsers, especially Firefox. [See: Microsoft Releases IE8, Stresses Security] But the intoxication security pros find in Firefox and the other alternatives comes with a big hangover. When one wakes up from an evening of online adventuring on one of the alternative browsers, the painful reality is that they will never be able to get away from IE completely. The obvious reason is that IE is so tightly integrated into the Windows operating system, though some industry voices have called on Microsoft to divorce it from the OS. [See: Security Expert: Microsoft Should Sever IE from Windows] "We aren't going to be able to get away from IE in the corporate world anytime soon," said Christopher Mendlik, a threat analyst at Wachovia. Besides the tight integration with Windows, there's the simple reality that some business applications will only work when used in IE. At CSOonline and other media outlets, for example, the programs used to post content online tend to be allergic to non-IE browsers. Those who have no choice but to use IE have turned to a number of coping mechanisms.

Congress has been dithering over the adoption of a federal data security breach notice law for the last several years without coming to an agreement on a national standard for reporting breaches in the security of personal and financial data, but on February 17, data breach notice provisions applicable to health information were signed into law as part of the HITECH Act provisions of the massive economic stimulus legislation, H.R. 1 (111th Cong., 1st Sess. Feb. 17, 2009). Beginning no later than September 16 of this year, "covered entities" under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) will be required to give notice of breaches in the security of protected health information, and "business associates" of HIPAA-covered entities will be required to report such breaches to the covered entities. §13402(a) & (b). Currently, California and Arkansas are the only states that require that notification be given in the case of a breach in the security of medical or health insurance information. The HIPAA Privacy Rule currently does not contain a requirement that individuals be notified in the event of such as breach. However, some covered entities interpret the existing HIPAA Privacy Rule requirement that covered entities mitigate harmful effects of uses or disclosures of health information in violation of either the Privacy Rule or the entity's policies and procedures as suggesting that such notice be given, and many covered entities currently provide such notification.

A defunct payment gateway has exposed as many as 19,000 credit card numbers, including up to 60 Australian numbers. The discovery by a local IT industry worker was made by mistake and appears to be caused by a known issue with the Google search engine, in which the pages of defunct web sites containing sensitive directories remain cached and available to anyone. The cached data, viewed by iTnews, includes 22,000 credit card numbers, including CVVs, expiry dates, names and addresses. Up to 19,000 of these numbers could be active. Most are customers in the US and Britain although some are Australian. The credit card numbers are for accounts held with Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Solo, Switch, Delta and Maestro/Cirrus. Within the address bars of the cached pages are URLs of companies, including UK retailers of laboratory supplies, sports and health goods, apparel, photo imaging and clothing.

I have an open question for the people who complain about the potential of advertising networks to track your behavior on the Internet: What is a better way? Some might say that all behavioral targeting should simply be banned. But if you don't think that showing Chevy ads to people looking for cars is equivalent to poisoning the peanut butter, we need a middle ground that explains to people what's going on and lets them decide what is acceptable. This is much harder than it sounds: Any one Web page you visit can have a dozen advertisements and invisible bits of code that each send information about you to different companies, each with different ways of using that data. The privacy policy of the site you are looking at - not that anyone reads privacy policies - can't even try to explain this to you, because the site owner doesn't even know what all of its advertisers are doing. I'm coming to the conclusion that each advertisement on a page has to speak for itself. That's implicit in the approach Google is taking for its new behavioral targeting system. It puts the phrase "Ads by Google" on all its advertisements. Click that link and you'll get some limited information about Google's targeting system and an ability to adjust some of the interests that Google is tracking. But Google's approach is presented in a way that glosses over what they are doing and discourages people from reading the disclosure and exercising control, says Joseph Turow, a marketing professor at the Annenberg School for Communication of the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Turow has developed a plan that is simpler and more comprehensive: Put an icon on each ad that signifies that the ad collects or uses information about users. If you click the icon, you will go to what he calls a "privacy dashboard" that will let you understand exactly what information was used to choose that ad for you. And you'll have the opportunity to edit the information or opt out o

The Federal Trade Commission had some sharp words for Internet advertising companies Thursday, saying that they simply are not disclosing how they collect information about users well enough. And the agency threatened that the industry had better get its act together - or else. Or else what? Well, that's a bit harder. The commission has limited ability to issue binding regulations on advertising practices, and the process is cumbersome. But if the agency were to say that its attempt over the last few years to have Internet companies voluntarily bolster their privacy standards has failed, it could encourage Congress to pass online privacy legislation. Indeed, two members of the commission - Pamela Jones Harbour, an independent, and Jon Leibowitz, a Democrat - issued statements saying that while they support the commission's action, they hope for further regulation and possibly legislation on the issue. What the commission issued Thursday was the final version of its principles for online behavioral advertising - that is, ads shown to you based on something you did in the past. The agency issued its first draft of these at the end of 2007 and spent more than a year digesting comments. These principles were meant to spur various Internet groups to create self-regulatory standards for their members. And one group, the Network Advertising Initiative, did publish new rules. The top recommendation was that users should be given clear notice about what information was collected and an easy way to tell sites to stop watching them. "What we observe is that, with rare exception, is not the rule for any Web sites," said Eileen Harrington, the acting director of the commission's bureau of consumer protection, in an interview Thursday. "It is far more commonplace to put the information in the midst of lengthy and hard-to-understand privacy policies."

Visa Inc.'s top risk management executive today dismissed what she described as "recent rumblings" about the possible demise of the PCI data security rules as "premature" and "dangerous" to long-term efforts to ensure that credit and debit card data is secure. Speaking at Visa's Global Security Summit in Washington, Ellen Richey, the credit card company's chief enterprise risk officer, insisted that despite recent data breaches at two payment processors, the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) "remains an effective security tool when implemented properly." Richey added that breaches such as the ones at Heartland Payment Systems Inc. and RBS WorldPay Inc. were shaping public opinion and obscuring what otherwise has been "substantial progress" on the security front over the past year. "I'm sure that everyone in this room has read the headlines questioning how an event of this magnitude could still happen today," Richey said, referring to the Heartland breach. "The fact is, it never should have" - and indeed wouldn't have if Heartland had been vigilant about maintaining its PCI compliance, according to Richey. "As we've said before," she continued, "no compromised entity has yet been found to be in compliance with PCI DSS at the time of a breach." Pointing to Visa's decision last week to remove both of the breached payment processors from its list of PCI-compliant service providers, Richey said that Heartland would face fines and probationary terms that were proportionate to the still-undisclosed magnitude of the breach. "While this situation is unfortunate, it does not make me question the tools we have at our disposal," she said of the PCI rules.

The theft in 2006 of an employee laptop that contained personal information on millions of veterans taught the Veterans Affairs Department some hard lessons. VA became "the poster child of data breaches," said Kathryn Maginnis, the department's associate deputy assistant secretary for risk management and incident response. As a result of that incident and several breaches that followed, the department developed a comprehensive incident response program and incident resolution team that evaluates all serious exposures of sensitive data. "We have a culture of report, report, report," Maginnis said at the recent FOSE conference in Washington. The incident response program received a perfect score last year in the VA inspector general's Federal Information Security Management Act audit, and Maginnis said she expects to get another perfect score this year. The department developed two in-house online tools to help track and evaluate incidents, said Amanda Graves Scott, director of the incident resolution team. The Formal Event Review and Evaluation Tool uses a 56-question questionnaire to determine the risk category of a data breach, and the VA Incident Response Tracking System automates a manual tracking process for information technology incident response.

Should responsibility for defending against cyberattacks be moved from the Dept. of Homeland Security to the military? Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton suggested as much at a Congressional hearing where he warned of U.S. vulnerability to cyberwarfar "across the spectrum." Such attacks "potentially threaten not only our military networks, but also our critical national networks," Chilton told a House Armed Services subcommittee, the Washington Post reported. As head of Strategic Command, the general isn't responsibel for defending civilian networks, just government computers. [Stratcom's responsibility is] "to operate and defend the military networks only and be prepared to attack in cyberspace when directed. I think the broader question is, who should best do this for the other parts of America, where we worry about defending power grids, our financial institutions, our telecommunications, our transportation networks, the networks that support them." Well, that's where the 60-day interagency overview of cybersecurity comes in. At the end of that, Chilton said, responsibility for protecting private sector networks may well fit under Stratcom's duties. So what impact in having the military at the center of cybersecurity? Importantly, it brings offensive ops into the defense game. And where the military is involved, can NSA be far behind? No. Operational control over both [offensive and defensive ops], Chilton said, has been delegated to Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the head of the National Security Agency. … NSA, according to Chilton, already has a role in information security, and the agency's support "has been instrumental in our efforts to operate and particularly to defend our networks," he said. Combining oversight of cyber defense and offense made sense, Chilton said, "because they're so interconnected. . . . As you consider offensive operations, you want to make sure your defense are up."

Since its inception, IT has focused on reducing costs through process automation and the implementation of applications. However, that is no longer enough to sustain competitive advantage in a rapidly changing world. Today, important business decisions depend on having up-to-date, trustworthy information. At the same time, you need to assess the internal and external risks involved in such decisions. This is not easy, which is why organizations need to build an Information Strategy to guide them