Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

U.S. authorities announced what they believed to be the largest hacking and identity theft case ever prosecuted on Monday in a scheme in which more than 130 million credit and debit card numbers were stolen. Three men were indicted on charges of being responsible for five corporate data breaches in a scheme in which the card numbers were stolen from Heartland Payment Systems, 7-Eleven Inc and Hannaford Brothers Co, federal prosecutors said in a statement. The suspects also hacked two unidentified corporate victims, the U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey said in the statement. Prosecutors allege Albert Gonzalez, 28, of Miami, and two unnamed Russian coconspirators targeted large corporations by scanning the list of Fortune 500 companies and exploring corporate websites before setting out to identify vulnerabilities. The suspects would seek to sell the data to others who would use it to make fraudulent purchases, the statement said.

There are four "high risk" areas that aren't getting the attention they deserve as financial institutions work toward complying with the ID Theft Red Flags Rule, says a leading industry compliance expert. Many institutions have already complied with the regulation and have done their risk assessment to identify covered accounts and determined what red flags they need to be monitoring. But there are areas that should be considered "high risk" and aren't getting the attention they deserve from institutions, says Sai Huda, CEO of Compliance Coach. The Red Flags Rule is a risk-based regulation. As such, Huda says, compliance should be approached from a risk management and not a purely technical perspective, and institutions should ask these questions: * Which accounts are more at risk to identity theft? * Which red flags represent higher risk? * Which detection and response procedures are commensurate with the risks? * Which service providers pose greater risk? * What controls exist to mitigate the risks? The big question that most institutions have at top of mind is "What about enforcement?" Huda says the federal banking regulators are taking a risk-based, top-down approach when assessing institutions. "They are first assessing whether the [institution] has implemented a risk-based program and how it is overseeing compliance," he says. "If the program is risk-based and sound, they will limit their scope. If not, then they will dig deeper."

Difficult economic times can be the breeding ground for increased fraudulent activities. In July 2009, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (www.fincen.gov) published its 12th edition of The SAR Activity Review - By the Numbers. SARs (Suspicious Activity Reports) are one key aspect of FinCEN's efforts related to its responsibility for regulatory administration of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. Many different financial industries such as banks, credit unions, insurance companies, check-cashing services, broker/dealers, and casinos are required to complete and file SARs. According to FinCEN's press release on the SAR Activity Review, "The report reveals that of the 20 different violation types tracked, seven of the categories relate specifically to fraud and all seven showed an increase in SAR filings during the year. While these categories represent one-third of the possible violation types, they accounted for nearly half of the increase in total SAR filings from 2007 to 2008, with all of the fraud categories seeing double-digit increases in percentage of filings in 2008. These categories are: check fraud, mortgage loan fraud, consumer loan fraud, wire transfer fraud, commercial loan fraud, credit card fraud, and debit card fraud." Could any of this apply to you? Are your control and monitoring processes able to identify these examples of common patterns of suspicious activity that FinCEN has identified?

Weak security policies and practices in nearly all 24 major federal agencies in 2008 have resulted in exposing personally identifiable information of Americans, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). "An underlying reason for these weaknesses is that agencies have not fully implemented their information security programs," according to the GAO report, issued Monday. "As a result, agencies have limited assurance that controls are in place and operating as intended to protect their information resources, thereby leaving them vulnerable to attack or compromise." Federal agencies have reported some progress, providing awareness training for employees and testing system contingency plans, the GAO said. Still, employees with significant security responsibilities are not getting enough security training and known vulnerabilities remain wide open. The GAO conducts a periodic review of information security policies and procedures at federal agencies. Inspectors general review agency conformity to the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) and report their findings to Congress.

In order to comply with Canadian privacy law, Facebook must take greater responsibility for the personal information in its care, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada said today in announcing the results of an investigation into the popular social networking site's privacy policies and practices. "It's clear that privacy issues are top of mind for Facebook, and yet we found serious privacy gaps in the way the site operates," says Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart. The investigation, prompted by a complaint from the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, identified several areas where Facebook needs to better address privacy issues and bring its practices in line with Canadian privacy law. An overarching concern was that, although Facebook provides information about its privacy practices, it is often confusing or incomplete. For example, the "account settings" page describes how to deactivate accounts, but not how to delete them, which actually removes personal data from Facebook's servers. The Privacy Commissioner's report recommends more transparency, to ensure that the social networking site's nearly 12 million Canadian users have the information they need to make meaningful decisions about how widely they share personal information.

TSA terrorist watchlist changes affect travel industry, document coordination requirements, security & privacy concerns. Over-strengthening one set of regulations and ignoring others simply means that the terrorists will move to safer (for them) modes of attack.

The Transportation Security Administration is getting ready to take over responsibility from the airlines for checking passengers' names against terrorist watch lists, and is advising travelers to start booking airline tickets using their full name as it appears on their driver's license or passport.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) this month released preliminary recommendations that federal agencies -- and their contractors -- should follow to protect the confidentially of personally identifiable information (PII). U.S. government agencies should take a number of precautions when dealing with personal information residing in their organizations, according to the NIST document. The recommendations are intended to be for U.S. federal government agencies, and companies with which they work, but NIST said that other verticals may also find value in it. The report states that organizations should store only PII necessary to conduct business, develop an incident response plan for the event of a breach and encourage coordination for data-loss incidents among CIOs, information security officers and legal counsel.

Privacy is Dead. Long Live Privacy? at the 2007 Battle of Ideas conference hosted by the Institute of Ideas.New technology seems to have changed the meaning of privacy, affording individuals the possibility of sharing details of their hitherto private lives in unprecedented ways, from personal blogs to picture sharing and even 'social bookmarking'. For many of us, divulging intimate details of our private lives via social networking websites like MySpace and Facebook has become the norm. But information and communication technologies have also facilitated surveillance and data gathering by government and big businesses. While in some contexts we seem so ready to give up our privacy, in others we seem increasingly anxious to protect it.To what extent are new technologies responsible for the death of privacy? Are privacy concerns simply technophobic, or are we right to worry about a loss of control over personal information? Have new technologies and our enthusiastic adoption of them actually transformed our notions of public and private, and blown apart the wall dividing the two? Why do we worry about Tesco monitoring what we buy, when, according to Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy: 'You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it'? - IoI

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.

Opinion: Privacy columnist Jay Cline says the time is ripe for a global privacy standard to replace the hodgepodge of privacy principles that multinational businesses must cope with. The first step is to agree on what privacy really means. Whenever I've mentioned to chief privacy officers the idea of having a single set of privacy rules for their companies to abide by worldwide, their response has been unanimous: Bring it on. Why? The legal and technical costs of complying with an expanding patchwork of state, federal and foreign privacy laws are mounting for multinationals. Having one set of rules would improve the bottom line. Data-protection commissioners from many world governments are singing the same tune. At a November conference in London, they issued a communique urging the United Nations to launch an international privacy convention toward this end. > You and I as customers and employees would also benefit from one set of rules that we could come to know and understand - instead of the vast array of obtusely worded privacy notices that we see on Web sites and find in our mailboxes. It's hard to imagine a major constituency, outside of the Idaho and Michigan militias, that would be against the concept of a global privacy agreement, if it was properly worded. So, what's the holdup?

Yesterday, CBC radio's morning show, the current, featured Lessons From The Identity Trail co-author, Ian Kerr, who discussed the book and a number of contemporary challenges that privacy faces in light of emerging technologies with guest host, Nancy Wilson. Below is the the text of Nancy Wilson's introduction and a link to the podcast of the full length interview in segment #3 of the show. To some people the Internet is the world's biggest commons ... a global public square. For others, it's a realm of shadowy, anonymous figures hiding behind online aliases. But anonymity is becoming less and less a feature of life online. We aired a clip with one perspective on that trend, posted last May on the website, Mobuzz.tv. Taking responsibility for your actions on line may be just one way you relinquish privacy. Every day, millions of Canadians hop on the Internet to check their e-mail, chat with their friends on social networking sites, book a vacation or buy a gift. And each time they click on a purchase or post a picture, they give up a little bit of their privacy. With this explosion of information technology - there are those who warn that our anonymity and our right to privacy is in jeopardy. That's the premise of a new book called On The Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society. Academics, governments and private corporations around the world contributed to the book, which examines how technology is changing the nature of our private lives, and what it means to be "anonymous."

Point by Marcus Ranum THERE'S AN OLD SAYING, "Sometimes things have to get a lot worse before they can get better." If that's true, then breach notification laws offer the chance of eventual improvements in security, years hence. For now? They're a huge distraction that has more to do with butt-covering and paperwork than improving systems security. Somehow, the security world has managed to ignore the effect voluntary (?) notification and notification laws have had in other fields-namely, none.We regularly get bank disclosure statements, stock plan announcements, HIPAA disclosures, etc.-and they all go immediately in the wastebasket, unread.When I got my personal information breach notification from the Department of Veterans Affairs, it went in the trash too. Counterpoint by Bruce Schneier THERE ARE THREE REASONS for breach notification laws. One, it's common politeness that when you lose something of someone else's, you tell him. The prevailing corporate attitude before the law-"They won't notice, and if they do notice they won't know it's us, so we are better off keeping quiet about the whole thing"-is just wrong. Two, it provides statistics to security researchers as to how pervasive the problem really is. And three, it forces companies to improve their security. That last point needs a bit of explanation. The problem with companies protecting your data is that it isn't in their financial best interest to do so. That is, the companies are responsible for protecting your data, but bear none of the costs if your data is compromised. You suffer the harm, but you have no control-or even knowledge- of the company's security practices. The idea behind such laws, and how they were sold to legislators, is that they would increase the cost-both in bad publicity and the actual notification-of security breaches, motivating companies to spend more to prevent them. In economic terms, the law reduces the externalities and forces companies to deal with the true costs of

A few weeks ago, I was very relieved to find out I had passed the IAPP exam to be a "Certified Information Privacy Professional" or CIPP. I got this certificate and even a pin, which is more than I ever got for passing the bar exams of New York and California. So what exactly did I need to know to become a CIPP? To be certified in corporate privacy law, you're expected to know what's covered in the CIPP Body of Knowledge, primarily major U.S. privacy laws and regulations and "the legal requirements for the responsible transfer of sensitive personal data to/from the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions." You're also expected to pass the Certification Foundation, required for all three certifications offered by IAPP. That covers basic privacy law, both in the U.S. and abroad, information security principles and practices, and "online privacy," which includes an overview of the technologies used by online companies to collect information and the particular issues to be considered in this context. So what do you think? Should you be able to pass an all-objective, 180 question, three-hour exam (counting the CIPP and Certification Foundation exams together) on the above topics and be able to call yourself a "privacy professional"?

Google has released a more detailed privacy policy for its Google Books product, a move demanded in recent weeks by several critics of its settlement with publishers and authors. The company announced the new policy in a blog post late Thursday afternoon, saying it developed the policy following conversations with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Google had previously said it was unable to release a detailed policy because the Google Books product was incomplete due to the fact that the settlement allowing its Book Search project to display certain types of books has yet to be formally approved. However, criticism of Google's lack of detailed information on the subject appears to have forced its hand. "To provide all users with a clear understanding of our practices, and in response to helpful comments about needing to be clearer about the Books product from the FTC and others, we wanted to highlight key provisions of the main Google Privacy Policy in the context of the Google Books service, as well as to describe privacy practices specific to the Google Books service," wrote Jane Horvath, general privacy counsel for Google, in a blog post.

Look for almost a dozen consumer groups and privacy advocates to launch a full-court press on targeted behavioral advertising and online privacy on Capitol Hill next week. According to a source, those groups on Sept. 1 will release a background paper, letters to House members and other documents to make their case for stronger government oversight of online marketing targeted to kids. "A growing number of child advocacy and health groups have called on the FTC and Congress to prohibit the behavioral targeting of both children and teens, next week, many leading consumer and privacy groups will send a letter to congressional leaders calling for similar safeguards," confirms Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. Chester saidd that 10 groups will be involved in the push, and that they will be "pressing Congress to write legislation that truly protects consumer privacy, but enables online marketing to flourish in a more responsible fashion." The effort comes as Congress prepares to return from its summer break. House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.) has made an online privacy bill a legislative priority in this session of Congress.

The concept of mixed-mode surveys is nothing new, but it seems to be gaining traction in the research community. Among the issues pressing the use of mixed-mode survey designs are the need to reduce coverage bias, increase response rates and lower costs.

Many of us here in the United States believe our personal privacy is a Constitutional right. In fact, the word Privacy was not included in the US Constitution or in the Bill of Rights as originally passed.

The concept of privacy, or at least a few actions that relate to privacy were included in

"Facebook tightens security as it deals with the continuing fallout over changes to its privacy settings." ...Earlier on May 13, Facebook had a meeting where employees asked executives questions about privacy. Facebook officials would not comment on exactly what was said. "We have an open culture and it should come as no surprise that we're providing a forum for employees to ask questions on a topic that has received a lot of outside interest," a spokesperson said.

Hey Zuck! Privacy & security are NOT the same thing. Misdirection is not the response FB users are seeking.

Top attorneys for Microsoft and Google today reiterated their companies' support for tougher government rules to protect consumer privacy. But when it comes to the details, some watchdog groups say they are concerned that Web firms will continue to fight against specific provisions that would limit the ways they can collect and use people's information to serve more targeted ads. Today's panel discussion, held here at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference, revisited a longstanding policy debate over the government's role in online privacy. The talk ran along some familiar plotlines, with Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy thundering about the detailed personal profiles being assembled by advertising companies who are using neuroscience to manipulate consumer behavior, while industry representatives assured the audience that their data-collection practices are benign, not to mention essential to providing free content and services on the Internet. But this wasn't just an idle debate. Rep. Rick Boucher, the Virginia Democrat who chairs a House subcommittee on the Internet, is developing legislation that could seek to impose sweeping restrictions on behavioral targeting. A few blocks up Pennsylvania Avenue at the Federal Trade Commission, the principal regulatory agency with authority over online advertising, newly minted Chairman Jon Leibowitz has spoken often about the need for industry to get serious about privacy. "The FTC's central concern here is transparency, consumer control," said Jessica Rich, assistant director of the agency's privacy and identity protection division. "We don't think consumers really know what's happening with their data."

Advertisers are your friend, and the government is here to help. If consumers don't take responsibility for their data, then all the regulation in the World won't matter.