Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

A national security panic spread through the Internet yesterday after a report by The Wall Street Journal suggested "terabytes" of classified data on the F-35 Lightning II had been stolen by hackers. Today the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin responded to the allegations saying they are untrue, and I believe them. Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "I'm not aware of any specific concerns." That's a key phrase. Lockheed Martin--the F-35 superjet's primary contractor--also commented "We actually believe The Wall Street Journal was incorrect in its representation of successful cyber attacks on the F-35 program." And the company's CFO Bruce Tanner added "I've not heard of that, and to our knowledge there's never been any classified information breach." While it's easy to argue that these responses are merely a smokescreen to save political face, the language is much more direct than a plain old "no comment." Typically, companies protect themselves in this sort of situation by denying the existing or potential hackers any public information on the success or failure of hack attempts, obscuring the level of secrecy of any stolen data. In the F-35 case it looks like the denials are much firmer, and that suggests the developers of the JSF are confident in their security systems. It's an echo of alleged data leaks via F-35 contractor BAE Systems last year, that were later withdrawn due to lack of evidence that leaks had occurred. Government and defense contractor computer networks face a pretty continuous rate of hack attempts. As a result such companies have even more stringent data security protocols in place than normal organizations. They're still not absolutely impervious to hacking, of course, as no such system ever is. So that's why the most highly classified data--critical to the super-secret offensive and defensive capabilities of hardware like the F-35--is typically stored on computers that have an extremely low-tech "air gap firewall". They're not co

Former Booz Allen Hamilton management consultant Melissa Hathaway's much anticipated 60-day review of U.S. cybersecurity policy is scheduled to hit President Obama's desk this Friday. All eyes of the tech security community will be watching. It will signal what approach Obama will take in the complicated task of stemming cyber threats. Obama has said he will make the Internet safer for citizens and businesses, while playing catchup to China and Russia who are far ahead in the cyberwarfare arms race. "We're trying to do cybersecurity in a democracy," says Leslie Harris, President and CEO of the Center for Democracy & Technology. "Doing cybersecurity in China, my guess, is a lot easier." CDT held a press briefing this morning at which it warned that a cybersecurity bill, introduced earlier this month by Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va, and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, is the first of several that likely will be proposed once Hathaway's review is out. Harris said CDT agrees with a provision in the Rockefeller-Snowe bill that would create a cabinet-level cybersecurity adviser reporting directly to President Obama, but questions some of the extraordinary federal enforcement powers that could be created. CDT says it doesn't want citizens' civil liberties trampled upon. CDT general counsel Greg Nojeim gave Hathaway high marks for keeping her review process relatively open, in contrast to the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy. "So far the White House review team gets high grades on transparency," Nojeim said. Hathaway has held closed briefings in the past several weeks with Congressional committees, industry groups and privacy organizations, said Nojeim. "But the real test will be whether their recommendations reflect a commitment to transparency in the execution of the program," said Nojeim.

Like this http://cheaptravelbooker.com Like this http://cheaptravelbooker.com like this http://killdo.de.gg travel,hotel,fun,hotel new,new offer,hotel best,best hotel,hotel travel,seo,backlinks,edu,gov,ads,indexing,bookmark,killgoggle,gogglesuck,goggle bookmark,kill goggle,yahoo,bing,indexing,quality links,linkwell,traffic boster,index best

Here's the paper's abstract: This paper presents a novel technique for authenticating physical documents based on random, naturally occurring imperfections in paper texture. We introduce a new method for measuring the three-dimensional surface of a page using only a commodity scanner and without modifying the document in any way. From this physical feature, we generate a concise fingerprint that uniquely identifies the document. Our technique is secure against counterfeiting and robust to harsh handling; it can be used even before any content is printed on a page. It has a wide range of applications, including detecting forged currency and tickets, authenticating passports, and halting counterfeit goods. Document identification could also be applied maliciously to de-anonymize printed surveys and to compromise the secrecy of paper ballots.

(PDF) Information security is a critical consideration for any organization that depends on information systems and computer networks to carry out its mission or business. It is especially important for government agencies, where the public's trust is essential. The dramatic expansion in computer interconnectivity and the rapid increase in the use of the Internet are changing the way our government, the nation, and much of the world communicate and conduct business. Without proper safeguards, they also pose enormous risks that make it easier for individuals and groups with malicious intent to intrude into inadequately protected systems and use such access to obtain sensitive information, commit fraud, disrupt operations, or launch attacks against other computer systems and networks.

Overview Privacy is a fundamental human right. It underpins human dignity and other values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important human rights of the modern age.[1] Privacy is recognized around the world in diverse regions and cultures. It is protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in many other international and regional human rights treaties. Nearly every country in the world includes a right of privacy in its constitution. At a minimum, these provisions include rights of inviolability of the home and secrecy of communications. Most recently written constitutions include specific rights to access and control one's personal information. In many of the countries where privacy is not explicitly recognized in the constitution, the courts have found that right in other provisions. In many countries, international agreements that recognize privacy rights such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights have been adopted into law. Defining Privacy Of all the human rights in the international catalogue, privacy is perhaps the most difficult to define.[2] Definitions of privacy vary widely according to context and environment. In many countries, the concept has been fused with data protection, which interprets privacy in terms of management of personal information. Outside this rather strict context, privacy protection is frequently seen as a way of drawing the line at how far society can intrude into a person's affairs.[3] The lack of a single definition should not imply that the issue lacks importance. As one writer observed, "in one sense, all human rights are aspects of the right to privacy."[4]

We've all heard the argument before: "Why should you worry about the government looking into your personal records if you have nothing to hide?" Daniel J. Solove, an associate professor of law at The George Washington University Law School, analyzes that argument in a recently published paper titled "I've Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy." Solove argues that "the question assumes faulty assumptions about privacy and its value." Those who make the "nothing to hide" argument fail to understand the chilling effect that surveillance has on public discourse, the fact that small bits of private data (which an individual may not object to being uncovered) when put together form a larger and more intimate profile (which an individual may object to), and the mistake of having one's profile mistakenly associated with a group that is labeled as threatening. Here's an excerpt from the paper, which was published in the latest issue of the San Diego Law Review: [T]he problem with the "nothing to hide" argument is that it focuses on just one or two particular kinds of privacy problems - the disclosure of personal information or surveillance - and not others. It assumes a particular view about what privacy entails, and it sets the terms for debate in a manner that is often unproductive. It is important to distinguish here between two ways of justifying a program such as the NSA surveillance and data mining program. First is to not recognize a problem. This is how the "nothing to hide" argument works. It denies even the existence of a problem. The second manner of justifying such a program is to acknowledge the problems but contend that the benefits of the NSA program outweigh the privacy harms. The first justification influences the second, for the low value given to privacy is based upon a narrow view of the problem. The key misunderstanding is that the "nothing to hide" argument views privacy in a particular way - as a

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?

In October 2001, the Bush administration took an administrative action that would prove sadly symptomatic of its rule. John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, issued a memorandum warning against casual release of information to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. Such releases, Ashcroft said, should be made "only after full and deliberate consideration of the institutional, commercial and personal privacy interests that could be implicated." In case anyone missed the point, Ashcroft added that any bureaucrat who said no to such a request could "be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis." It goes without saying that Ashcroft did not promise any such defense of government employees who released information under the terms of the act. If cavalier disregard of the law and the public's right to hold its government accountable were hallmarks of the recently departed administration, we can only hope that President Obama's response signals a new approach. One of his first presidential acts was to issue a memo to federal agencies on the Freedom of Information Act. It opens by quoting former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' pronouncement that sunlight is the "best of disinfectants" and continues by trumpeting the act as "the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open government." Where Ashcroft searched for excuses to withhold information, Obama directed all agencies to "adopt a presumption" in favor of releasing it.

Across the country, many major-college athletic departments keep their NCAA troubles secret behind a thick veil of black ink or Wite-Out. Alabama.Cincinnati. Florida. Florida State. Ohio State. Oklahoma. Oregon State. Utah. They all censor information in the name of student privacy, invoking a 35-year-old federal law whose author says it has been twisted and misused by the universities. Former U.S. Sen. James L. Buckley said it's time for Congress to rein in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which he crafted to keep academic records from public view. A six-month Dispatch investigation found that FERPA, as it's commonly called, is a law with many conflicting interpretations. And that makes it virtually impossible to decipher what is going on inside a $5 billion college-sports world that is funded by fans, donors, alumni, television networks and, at most schools, taxpayers.