Legislation aimed at protecting the privacy rights of car owners is drawing objections from auto manufacturers and Progressive Insurance, which hopes to introduce a program in Washington state that charges drivers based partly on how and when they drive.\n\nThe American Civil Liberties Union of Washington is pushing for the legislation, which would require automakers and other companies to inform car owners of the presence of devices that record information about their driving habits.\n\nThat includes event data recorders, or black boxes, installed on most newer cars, as well as electronic equipment such as GPS devices and OnStar, the wireless subscription service from General Motors.\n\nIn addition to requiring notification, a bill sponsored by state Sen. Claudia Kauffman, D-Kent, would clarify that vehicle owners are the owners of the data. With a few exceptions, a court order or the owner's permission would be required in order for a third party to obtain it.\n\nCarrie Tellefson, a lobbyist for Progressive Insurance, testified last week at a House Transportation Committee hearing that Substitute Senate Bill 5574 would prevent the insurance company from introducing its pioneering MyRate insurance program into Washington.\n\nProgressive Insurance first tested the idea of usage-based insurance in 1999. The company introduced the current plan, called MyRate, in 2004 and now offers it in nine states, including Oregon.\n\nCustomers who agree to opt into the program plug a device into their car's onboard diagnostic system, usually somewhere under the dashboard near the steering column. The device records information about how, when, and how much the car is driven, and wirelessly transmits the data back to Progressive's servers.\n\nCustomers are either rewarded with a discount or penalized with a higher rate depending on the information collected.\n\nThe discount can be as much as 30 percent, and the surcharge up to 9 percent.\n\nCustomers can go online and look at perso

Every day for one hour, Olympic-level athletes all over the world have an appointment they cannot break. The swimmer Dara Torres, a 12-time Olympic medalist, squeezes her hour into training, running errands and caring for her 3-year-old daughter. The curler Nicole Joraanstad schedules her hour at dawn, but says it often interrupts her sleep. The Olympic decathlon champion Bryan Clay makes himself available at night, when he is most likely to be home with family. Since Jan. 1, Olympic-level athletes have had to schedule their daily availability - hour and place - three months in advance so drug testers can find them, according to new World Anti-Doping Agency rules. And violating those rules can have serious repercussions. Three missed drug tests within an 18-month period during an athlete's appointed hour count as a positive drug test and can result in a one- to two-year ban from competition. Because the element of surprise is crucial to effective testing, athletes are also subject to random out-of-competition tests at any time. And they are tested at competitions. Jacques Rogge, the president of the International Olympic Committee said, "Sports today has a price to pay for suspicion." But some athletes say the rules have gone too far. "It's absolutely too much," Torres said in a telephone interview. "Why make this more cumbersome when we do so much already? We're at the point where we have to find a middle ground." Never before has there been so much protest regarding out-of-competition testing. Athletes in nearly every sport as well as organizations like FIFA, soccer's international governing body, have publicly criticized the doping agency's regulations. At least one lawsuit challenging the rules is in court. Sixty-five Belgian athletes, including the world-class Quick Step cycling team and its star Tom Boonen, filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that the new rules violate European privacy laws.

The country's largest office products store sold a returned computer hard-drive on clearance containing hundreds of personal files on it - a move privacy experts say violates key provisions of a privacy law requiring businesses to safeguard personal information of customers. The transaction occurred recently at a Staples Business Depot store in Ottawa, one of about 300 across the country. When the purchaser booted up the Maxtor mini, he found hundreds of files on the external hard drive. The files, totalling about 400, belonged to Jill Vickers, a retired political science professor from Carleton University. They included some research papers already in the public domain, but some were sensitive documents. "It is especially of concern to me as the files contain some 20 years of reference and assessment letters which are confidential documents," said Vickers, who recently purchased a new computer system for her home that initially included the Maxtor backup drive. When her son, who was tasked with transferring her files to the drive, noticed the daily automatic backup function was not functioning properly, he returned it to Staples. He thought he had deleted the files. "Even though it's not in my possession, it's my data. They should wipe it clean," Vickers said of Staples. Canwest News Service last week provided Staples with the model and serial number of equipment, as well as the receipt for the clearance purchase. A company spokeswoman said it required more time to gather the facts to comment on the specific incident. "We will continue to look into this," said Alessandra Saccal. In a statement, she reiterated, "privacy of any kind is of great concern to us, that is why we have procedures in place to clear any items with memory before being resold."

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

Google will unveil new privacy measures today that will give consumers more control over behavioral targeting. Now, when Google serves banner ads on outside publishers' sites, the ads will include links that provide more information explaining why they were served. Clicking through will lead to details about the company's behavioral advertising program, which categorizes consumers as interested in particular types of goods or services based on the sites they visited. The program is only in beta for now, but once Google signs up publishers, consumers will be able to view the categories they have been placed in--such as "interested in travel"--and also tell Google to remove them from whatever buckets they wish. Consumers also will be able to opt out of the program permanently via a browser plug-in. Or, if people want to receive ads for certain types of products, they can edit their profiles to reflect that--in effect, opting in to particular types of ads. Google's new measures come at a time when online behavioral targeting is facing increased scrutiny. Last month, two Federal Trade Commissioners warned that the online advertising industry could face new laws if it didn't take steps to self-regulate on privacy issues. Recently, Google rival Yahoo announced enhancements to its privacy policies. Among other changes, Yahoo said it would allow consumers to opt out of behavioral targeting on its own site. Google's move drew praise from the Interactive Advertising Bureau's Mike Zaneis, vice president for public policy. "It's really a consumer empowerment tool, which is great," he said. "It's one more example of how industry is competing on the privacy issue, to the benefit of consumers--and also to the benefit of businesses."

New Jersey lawmakers are considering new legislation that would require Facebook, MySpace and others to police social networking sites for offensive posts or else face potential consumer fraud lawsuits. But some lawyers say that even if the measure is enacted, it's not likely to have much impact on social networking sites because the federal Communications Decency Act immunizes such sites from lawsuits based on material posted by users. The bill is part of state Attorney General Anne Milgram's Internet safety initiative. "The social networking site safety act is intended to deter cyber-bullying and the misuse of social networking Web sites," the Office of Attorney General said in a statement about the measure. "The bill empowers users of social networking sites to take steps to stop harassment or exploitation." Last year, Milgram garnered headlines by launching a fraud investigation of gossip site JuicyCampus.com -- where users frequently posted insults about college students -- but no legal action resulted. (That site folded last month for financial reasons.) Attempts to rein in cyberbullying might be politically popular, but this type of state effort to regulate global Web sites is also likely to prove useless, say cyber lawyers. "We need to recognize that legislating on the Internet can't be done on a state-by-state basis," said Parry Aftab, an expert on Web safety and cyber-abuse. "We can't have a different law in each state."

The European Commission has prepared a set of questions and answers as well as a flowchart to help companies understand when they can and when they cannot send personal data abroad. The European Union's Data Protection Directive protects the personal data of EU citizens from abuse and misuse. Organisations have a duty to protect it, and that means ensuring that it is not sent to countries with poor data protection. The Directive says that data can be sent to another country "only if... the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection". Only a handful of countries have been deemed acceptable destinations for data by the European Commission. Those are Switzerland, Canada, Argentina, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the US, when the data's treatment is in the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles of the US Department of Commerce The advice has been prepared by the Data Protection Unit of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security at the European Commission. It is designed particularly to help small and medium sized companies to understand the law when it comes to transferring personal data outside of the European Economic Area (EEA). The guidance points out that in order for a transfer to be legal, data has to be properly handled in the first place according to the data protection laws of the country where the processing organisation is established. If the transfer is to a country not listed as having adequate data protections in place, a transfer can still take place, the guidance says, but only if "the data controller offers 'adequate safeguards with respect to the protection of the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and as regards the exercise of the corresponding rights'," says the guidance, quoting the Directive. "These safeguards may result from appropriate contractual clauses, and more particularly from standard contractual clauses issued by the Commission," it sai

Consumers save their e-mail and documents on Google's data centers, put their photos on Flickr and store their social lives on Facebook. Now a host of companies including Amazon and Microsoft wants government agencies to similarly house data on their servers as a way to cut costs and boost efficiency. But federal officials say it's one thing to file away e-mailed jokes from friends, and another to store government data on public servers that could be vulnerable to security breaches. The push toward "cloud computing," so named because data and software is housed in remote data centers rather than on-site servers, is the latest consumer technology to migrate to the ranks of government. Companies such as Amazon and Salesforce, which do not typically sell services to the government, want a piece of the business. Google opened a Reston office last year to sell applications such as Google Docs to federal employees. Silicon Valley-based Salesforce, which has focused on selling to corporations, established a team dedicated to government contracting. Microsoft spent $2.3 billion in 2007 to build data centers for cloud computing, and IBM, Sun Microsystems and HP want to provide the government cloud.

The authorities in Brussels fired a warning shot across the bows of online advertisers today, signalling new rules to combat surfer profiling and breaches of privacy in the interests of commercial gain. In the strongest denunciation of the conduct of online advertisers, Meglena Kuneva, the European commissioner for consumer affairs, argued that personal data has become "the oil of the internet and the new currency of the digital world". She warned that surfers' privacy rights were being abused by the amassing of personal information and its supply to advertisers who targeted individuals who were often unaware of what was happening. "From the point of view of commercial communications the world wide web is turning out to be the world wild west. This could be very damaging," Kuneva told a meeting of industry professionals and analysts in Brussels. "Consumer rights must adapt to technology, not be crushed by it. The current situation with regard to privacy, profiling, and targeting is not satisfactory." The commissioner outlined European laws regulating the protection of privacy, commercial contracts, and countering discrimination, and indicated that the regulations were failing to keep up with the pace of developments on the internet. She called on the online advertising industry to come up with a voluntary code of conduct to protect consumer and privacy rights, but clearly signalled that the EU authorities would probably have to legislate to prevent abuses. The volume of personal data collected on the internet was growing exponentially and was increasingly being used for commercial purposes by tracking surfers' browsing habits, using cookies, and making the information available for individual profiling and targeting of consumers, she said.

The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) is ineffective and major payment processing infrastructure improvements are needed to secure credit and debit card transactions, lawmakers said Tuesday. The House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, Science, and Technology, part of the House Committee on Homeland Security, held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday to examine the effectiveness of PCI DSS. "The bottom line is that if we care about keeping money out of the hands of terrorists and organized criminals, we have to do more, and we have to do it now," said U.S. Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), who chairs the subcommittee. "The payment card industry and issuing banks need to commit to investing in infrastructure upgrades here in the United States." Clarke called on the industry to implement encryption on its credit and debit card processing networks and said the deployment of chip and PIN technology could significantly reduce the amount of stolen payment data. Chip and PIN technology is used in Asia and Europe. The technology replaces the magnetic strip on the back of a card and adds a four-digit personal identification number (PIN) to confirm a payment.

From the Heartland data breach to the new Massachusetts data protection law, privacy is the hot topic in business and government. In an exclusive interview, Peter Kosmala, assistant director of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), discusses: The top privacy topics in business and government; How organizations are tackling these issues; The potential impact of state and federal privacy legislation; The value of the Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP) credential. Kosmala oversees product management for the IAPP with specific oversight of distance learning products, privacy certifications and industry awards programs. He also manages business development efforts between the IAPP and peer organizations in the information security, information auditing and legal compliance arenas as well as organizations based in the Asia-Pacific region. The IAPP, based in York, Maine, was founded in 2000 with a mission to define, promote and improve the privacy profession globally. Kosmala oversees product management for the IAPP with specific oversight of distance learning products, privacy certifications and industry awards programs. He also manages business development efforts between the IAPP and peer organizations in the information security, information auditing and legal compliance arenas as well as organizations based in the Asia-Pacific region. The IAPP, based in York, Maine, was founded in 2000 with a mission to define, promote and improve the privacy profession globally.

Is your company keeping information secure? Are you taking steps to protect personal information? Safeguarding sensitive data in your files and on your computers is just plain good business. After all, if that information falls into the wrong hands, it can lead to fraud or identity theft. A sound data security plan is built on five key principles: * Take stock. Know what personal information you have in your files and on your computers. * Scale down. Keep only what you need for your business. * Lock it. Protect the information in your care. * Pitch it. Properly dispose of what you no longer need. * Plan ahead. Create a plan to respond to security incidents. To learn more about how you can implement these principles in your business, play our interactive tutorial. You'll see and hear about practical steps your business can take to protect personal information. After you experience the tutorial, we hope you'll take advantage of the other resources on this site to educate your employees, customers, and constituents. Order copies of our brochure, Protecting Personal Information: A Guide for Business, or publish an article on information security in your newsletter, magazine, or website. All of the information on this site is in the public domain; we hope you'll share it freely.

Taking genetic tests to assess potential health risks could mean cheaper medical insurance even if the results are not disclosed, a senior industry executive has told The Times. Customers who take personal DNA scans will pay lower premiums because insurers believe that they encourage a healthier lifestyle, according to Gil Baldwin, the managing director of Norwich Union Healthcare. The advent of tests for DNA variants that affect common disorders such as diabetes and heart disease has prompted fears of discrimination and the creation of a "genetic underclass" who cannot buy cover. Mr Baldwin insisted that his company did not see genetics as a tool for cherry picking low-risk customers but as a way of helping them to manage and reduce their risk of disease with the aim of lowering costs for both parties. In an interview with The Times, he said that people who take genetic screening are likely to act on the results and therefore present a much better risk profile. Insurers will reflect this in premiums, regardless of whether results are disclosed.

Complimentary Webinar: Managing Data Breach Litigation You are cordially invited to attend a complimentary Webinar hosted by Debix Titled: Managing Data Breach Litigation. Proskauer Rose, Partner, Tanya Forsheit, will discuss recent developments in data breach litigation and other privacy class actions. Tanya also will discuss lessons to be learned from recent decisions and what these court opinions mean for companies facing privacy litigation. Kroll Ontrack, Senior Managing Director, Alan Brill, will provide lessons learned from the field on litigation strategies. The presentation will include practical tips on avoid litigation, getting litigation dismissed or in the unfortunate scenario of a lawsuit, winning strategies. Debix, VP of Emerging Technologies, Julie Fergerson has been working with data breached organizations for over 10 years and will moderate the call.

When the CISO asks to speak to you with that look on his face, you know the news isn't good. We were contacted by one of our third-party vendors, whom we had hired to do analysis on our website traffic. It appears that we have been passing sensitive information to them over the Internet. This sensitive information included data, such as customer names, addresses and credit card information. Because we are a public company, there are many regulatory guidelines that we have to follow like Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) and the Payment Card Industry's (PCI) data security standard. Fortunately for us, our vendor has retained a copy of everything that we have sent to them. Unfortunately for us, it was six months of information totaling over a terabyte. Since our website is international, the legal department needed to obtain outside council to assist us in this matter. It will be a few days until I receive the data from the vendor.

Symantec may not be concerned about the much-discussed Conficker virus, but the company is now dealing with an incident involving its own data security. Two weeks ago, the BBC published an investigative report in which reporters, working with an India-based middleman, bought credit-card information obtained from a Symantec call center. Cris Paden, a spokesman for the Cupertino, Calif., security-software firm, said it sent warning letters to the slightly more than 200 customers affected by the theft. It began an internal investigation immediately after being notified by the BBC. "We believe this was an isolated incident," Mr. Paden said, "but as the investigation continues, we will promptly notify any additional customers affected by the situation and will take appropriate action to protect their interests." In a letter to New Hampshire's attorney general, Symantec said, "We have no evidence that the credit card information of any United States resident was actually compromised." Mr. Paden added that to his knowledge, none of the stolen credit cards were used before their owners canceled them.

Hartmut Mehdorn's days as the boss of German rail operator Deutsche Bahn look to have come to an end as the embattled executive offers his resignation amid a damaging, ongoing data privacy scandal. Mehdorn said he was offering to go because the "destructive debates" over his future were damaging the company. "I have made an offer to terminate my contract with the supervisory board chairman," Mehdorn said Monday, March 20, at a press conference to announce Deutsche Bahn's annual financial results. "I assume that a successor will be appointed before the summer holidays" begin in July. Mehdorn, who has run the state-owned firm since 1999, has been under increasing pressure ever since it was revealed earlier this year that Deutsche Bahn accessed confidential staff data as far back as 1998.

Two companies that collect, analyze and sell prescription information are mounting a Supreme Court challenge to New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation law making doctors' prescription writing habits confidential. In an appeal filed March 27, IMS Health Inc. of Norwalk, Conn., and Verispan LLC of Yardley, Pa., tell the high court that the law violates their First Amendment right to free speech in pursuit of their business. The law, aimed at thwarting hard-sell tactics by drug companies to doctors, makes it a crime for pharmacies and others to transfer information disclosing a doctor's prescribing history if the information could be used for marketing of prescription drugs in New Hampshire. Patients' names are not included in the data. The companies say that the ruling by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston that upheld the law's constitutionality could be broadly applied to newspaper publication of stock market information and many other services that gather large amounts of information. The money made by selling the information to drug makers, the companies say, allows them to provide the same material to researchers and humanitarian organizations at little or no cost. The law first took effect in 2006. The following year, U.S. District Judge Paul Barbadoro in Concord ruled in the companies' favor and said the law violated the First Amendment. Another federal judge subsequently ruled against a similar law in Maine, relying heavily on the New Hampshire decision. But the 1st Circuit overruled Barbadoro, calling the law a valid step to promote the delivery of cost-effective health care. "Even if the Prescription Information Law amounts to a regulation of protected speech - a proposition with which we disagree - it passes constitutional muster," the court said. "In combating this novel threat to cost-effective delivery of health care, New Hampshire has acted with as much forethought and precision as the circumstances permit and the

A 10-month cyberespionage investigation has found that 1,295 computers in 103 countries and belonging to international institutions have been spied on, with some circumstantial evidence suggesting China may be to blame. The 53-page report, released on Sunday, provides some of the most compelling evidence and detail of the efforts of politically-motivated hackers while raising questions about their ties with government-sanctioned cyberspying operations. It describes a network which researchers have called GhostNet, which primarily uses a malicious software program called gh0st RAT (Remote Access Tool) to steal sensitive documents, control Web cams and completely control infected computers. "GhostNet represents a network of compromised computers resident in high-value political, economic and media locations spread across numerous countries worldwide," said the report, written by analysts with the Information Warfare Monitor, a research project of the SecDev Group, a think tank, and the Munk Center for International Studies at the University of Toronto. "At the time of writing, these organizations are almost certainly oblivious to the compromised situation in which they find themselves." The analysts did say, however, they have no confirmation if the information obtained has ended up being valuable to the hackers or whether it has been commercially sold or passed on as intelligence. Although evidence shows that servers in China were collecting some of the sensitive data, the analysts were cautious about linking the spying to the Chinese government. Rather, China has a fifth of the world's Internet users, which may include hackers that have goals aligning with official Chinese political positions.

Fraud on the Internet reported to U.S. authorities increased by 33 percent last year, rising for the first time in three years, and is surging this year as the recession deepens, federal authorities said on Monday. Internet fraud losses reported in the United States reached a record high $264.6 million in 2008, according to a report released on Monday from the Internet Fraud Complaint Center, run by the FBI and the National White Collar Crime Center. Online scams originating from across the globe -- mostly from the United States, Canada, Britain, Nigeria and China -- are gathering steam this year with a nearly 50 percent increase in complaints reported to U.S. authorities in March alone. "2009 is shaping up to be a very busy year in terms of cyber-crime," the report's author, John Kane, told reporters in a telephone briefing. Last year's losses compared with $239.1 million in 2007 and dwarfs the $18 million of losses of 2001.