Showing posts with label allowed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label allowed. Show all posts
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Thursday, January 16, 2014
U.S. companies allowed to delay disclosure of data breaches
U.S. companies allowed to delay disclosure of data breaches
http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20140116&t=2&i=830102560&w=580&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=CBREA0F1J7H00
NEW YORK
People shop at a Target store during Black Friday sales in the Brooklyn borough of New York, November 29, 2013. Black Friday, the day following Thanksgiving Day holiday, has traditionally been the busiest shopping day in the United States.
Credit: Reuters/Eric Thayer
NEW YORK (Reuters) – A decade of lawmaking by U.S. states to ensure consumers are told when their data has been hacked still lets companies such as Target Corp wait weeks or even months to disclose security breaches.
Forty-six of 50 U.S. states have passed laws requiring disclosure, starting with California in 2002, but the laws vary in terms of when and how notice must be given, and most states allow for delays to investigate the intrusion.
Calls for federal action, including by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, have gone unheeded by Congress. And guidelines to safeguard investors in public companies also do not give clear guidance on timing and do not require disclosures that would compromise a company’s cyber security.
Consumer advocates have criticized Target, where data from 40 million credit and debit cards and 70 million other records containing customer information was stolen.
State attorneys general are probing the breach. Target says it acted quickly after taking defensive action.
“It’s a judgment call,” said Joseph DeMarco, a former head of the cyber crime unit at the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan, citing the time it takes for companies to find out what happened.
“A breach investigation could take weeks or months before you know enough to have a legal obligation to disclose.”
Target, the third-largest U.S. retailer, said on December 19 that hackers had stolen data from up to 40 million credit and debit cards of shoppers who visited its stores between November 27 and December 15.
Chief Executive Gregg Steinhafel said that Target made its announcement four days after it “confirmed that we had an issue.” The retailer has not said when it first learned of the break-in.
Then, on January 10, the company said the breach was bigger than initially thought: that hackers also stole personal information of 70 million customers.
Another retailer, Neiman Marcus, said last Friday that it was warned about a possible breach in mid-December and that an outside forensics firm confirmed the intrusion on January 1.
Both the Target and Neiman Marcus breaches were first revealed publicly by an independent blogger.
In addition, three other retailers suffered breaches during the holiday shopping season that have yet to be publicly disclosed, according to sources familiar with the attacks.
PATCHWORK OF LAWS
California was the first state to pass a law requiring disclosure of a hack, and its rules remain among the toughest.
The state requires notification when unencrypted personal information is reasonably believed to have been taken by an unauthorized person. The notices must describe the information at risk, give the date of the intrusion, say whether the notice was delayed, and provide the name and contact information for the company.
Still, California’s statute gives some leeway. It demands disclosure in “the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay,” taking into consideration law enforcement needs and time for the company to restore the integrity of its system.
“The first order of business regardless of any state law is to plug the hole, protect the user and then worry about reporting,” said Albert Gidari, a lawyer who has helped companies deal with dozens of security breach investigations and issue notices to consumers.
Only a handful of states require notice by a specific deadline. Florida, Vermont and Wisconsin, for example, give entities 45 days from the date of discovery. But even those states allow exceptions, such as when disclosure could hinder a police investigation.
Some states require that consumers be notified once certain types of information are accessed without authorization, while a greater number let companies evaluate the risk of identity theft and other harm to consumers in deciding whether to notify.
Susan Lyon-Hintze, another lawyer who works with victimized companies, said it was risky to disclose too early, which would tip off hackers to investigations. “That can actually lead to more harm for consumers in the long run,” she said. “They’ll shut down their operations and move onto the next company.”
PROTECTING SALES?
Jamie Court, president of Los Angeles-based public interest group Consumer Watchdog, said the timing of the Target and Neiman Marcus announcements raises questions about whether the retailers wrongly delayed telling consumers. He called on state attorneys general to look into whether companies failed to disclose their breaches to maintain sales over the holidays.
Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder said the company acted as quickly as it could. “As soon as we confirmed the point of access to our system, closed it and eliminated it, we moved swiftly through the notification process,” Snyder said in an email. Ginger Reeder, a spokeswoman for Neiman Marcus, denied its disclosure timing was influenced by sales considerations.
Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, who is helping to lead a coalition of more than 30 states probing the Target attack and possibly others, may look into whether Target unreasonably delayed its announcement.
“One of the issues we look at in data breach investigations is the timeliness and adequacy of notification to appropriate government authorities and to consumers,” the attorney general’s spokeswoman, Jaclyn Falkowski, said.
Penalties for failing to disclose breaches vary by state. Some have a maximum penalty for each attack and depend on how many people are affected. In Michigan, for example, fines can range up to $ 250 per failure and $ 750,000 per breach.
In 2011, health insurer WellPoint Inc agreed to pay Indiana $ 100,000 to settle a lawsuit the state attorney general filed under its data-breach notification law. WellPoint took months to notify consumers of a breach and failed to tell the attorney general, despite operating under a law that requires both “without unreasonable delay.”
According to Patrick Fowler, another lawyer who advises companies on security breaches, some states allow consumers to file lawsuits for unreasonable delays, while others leave it to the attorney general.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued guidelines in 2011 that public companies such as Target must follow in connection with cyber attacks. The SEC said the companies may need to tell investors if an attack occurred and its potential costs and other consequences.
Typically, the disclosures come in the company’s next filing, whether it is a quarterly or annual report.
But since the SEC guidance came out, “companies have tended to include generic risk factors rather than disclose specific incidents,” said Todd Hinnen, a former acting assistant attorney general at the U.S. Justice Department.
(Reporting by Karen Freifeld; Additional reporting by Ross Kerber and Jim Finkle in Boston; Editing by Eddie Evans and Steve Orlofsky)
Read more about U.S. companies allowed to delay disclosure of data breaches and other interesting subjects concerning Business at TheDailyNewsReport.com
Friday, December 27, 2013
FBI allowed informants to commit more crimes in 2012 than in previous year
AFP Photo / Emmanuel Dunand
The FBI allowed its informants to break the law in 2012 on even more occasions than it did the previous year, according to a new report.
In a letter sent to the US Justice Department, FBI officials revealed that their nationwide offices permitted at least 5,939 instances of law violations during 2012. The letter was obtained by the Huffington Post via a Freedom of Information Act request, and the numbers represent a five percent increase from 2011’s officially sanctioned crimes.
In August, a separate FBI report obtained by USA Today showed that informants were allowed to break the law at least 5,658 times in 2011, ranging from violations such as acts of violence and selling drugs to bribing government officials.
The new report did not categorize the types of crimes that were authorized, nor did it detail how many crimes were permitted by each field office.
Although the FBI does not consider these actions ideal, officials have said before that it is simply part of the process by which they investigate criminal organizations.
“It sounds like a lot, but you have to keep it in context,” former top FBI official Shawn Henry told USA Today in August. “This is not done in a vacuum. It’s not done randomly. It’s not taken lightly.”
When RT reported on the FBI-sanctioned crimes in 2011, we found that the FBI document indicated that the violations were Tier I and Tier II infractions.
According to the Justice Department, a Tier I violation is “any activity that would constitute a misdemeanor or felony under federal, state, or local law if engaged in by a person acting without authorization and that involves the commission or the significant risk of the commission of certain offenses, including acts of violence; corrupt conduct by senior federal, state, or local public officials; or the manufacture, importing, exporting, possession, or trafficking in controlled substances of certain quantities.”
Meanwhile, a Tier II crime covers the same range of crimes but is carried out only with the permission of a senior FBI field manager – not that of a federal prosecutor.
Ever since it was revealed that Boston mobster James “Whitey” Bulger was allowed to continue running his crime ring in exchange for other information, the FBI has been required to document the criminal activity it authorizes. But while the FBI has done this for over a decade, other law enforcement agencies – the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives – still do not.
Source: RT
End the Lie – Independent News
FBI allowed informants to commit more crimes in 2012 than in previous year
Monday, November 18, 2013
I noticed the story from the deaf man and his communication accessibility limitations. I thought I would share some, very shocking, news about why this man and so many others are unable to access simple programs. AT&T allowed Nigerian criminals access to a Federally subsidized service for the disabled. The FCC filed charges and demanded more than $40 Million to be returned for fraudulent billing along with almost $20 Million more in interest and fines. FCC documents: AT&T Settles TRS fraud
At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
- Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.
- Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.
- Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.
I noticed the story from the deaf man and his communication accessibility limitations. I thought I would share some, very shocking, news about why this man and so many others are unable to access simple programs. AT&T allowed Nigerian criminals access to a Federally subsidized service for the disabled. The FCC filed charges and demanded more than $40 Million to be returned for fraudulent billing along with almost $20 Million more in interest and fines. FCC documents: AT&T Settles TRS fraud
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
UK police allowed to continue inspecting seized materials of Greenwald"s partner
You must follow the link in the confirmation
email before you can log in.
Don’t forget to check your spam folder
The confirmation email has been sent
successfully!
UK police allowed to continue inspecting seized materials of Greenwald"s partner
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Public school is now officially a prison for your children; Parents not allowed to walk kids to class
(NaturalNews) There is something to be said for wanting to keep our children safe from harm. It’s as natural an emotion for a parent as there is. But at some point we have to ask ourselves as a society if we’re going to let abject fear take over our lives or if we’re going to stand up and overcome our fears by being proactive and solutions-oriented.
I’m talking in particular about new security policies implemented by a number of schools in North Texas, beginning this year. According to CBS Dallas-Fort Worth, new tradition-killing rules prohibit parents – parents, mind you – from walking their kids to the front door of their school.
Per CBS-DFW:
All of the extra security is in response to what happened nearly nine months ago at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. It was December of last year when a gunman opened fire at the school, killing 20 students and six adults.
You, parent – stay by the curb
In the Hurst-Euless-Bedford (HEB) Independent School District, the report said, parents will have only the first week to walk their young ones to class. The new “security” policy will go into effect after that. But that’s only because registration and enrollment is taking place that first week.
The new policy is just another way public schools are injecting themselves into the traditional parent-child relationship. This horrible policy is sending the message to kids that their parents can’t keep them safe – only the school can.
It’s upsetting more than a few moms and dads, and rightfully so.
“I really want to take my son to class. Since it’s his first time in school,” Tamera Moore told the local CBS affiliate. “They may have security, but I want to know where my kid is going at all times.”
Others are perfectly willing to allow their role to be subjugated.
“As long as I can see him walk in that building that will be fine. Because once he’s in that building they’ll take care of him,” Angela Shamblin said.
That’s right, mom. Just stay by the curb. We’ve got it from here.
Outsourcing our children’s safety
Refresh my memory – was it a parent that killed all those kids at Sandy Hook? No. I seem to recall it was some deranged little psycho who was most likely wigged out on prescription antidepressants.
More from CBS-DFW:
For years, parents were given clearance to walk their children directly to their classroom, if they wished. But enhanced security measures on public school campuses include the elimination of parents walking their children to classrooms, after the first week of school.
The Richardson ISD, for example, hasn’t allowed parents to walk students to classrooms for years.
HEB officials say it’s no big deal; they’re just doing what lots of other overreacting school boards are doing.
“It’s very busy on a campus first thing in the morning, dropping off kids arriving for the day,” said district spokesperson Judy Everett Ramos. “So, being able to know who’s in the building, who’s in front, who’s deeper into the building, is very important in keeping our kids safe.”
“It don’t surprise me a bit,” one parent said. “All the security going around, all the things going on, it doesn’t surprise me at all.”
It doesn’t surprise me either, it just disappoints me. When we have become a society that requires parents to outsource the safety of their children to others – especially unarmed school officials – something is deeply, deeply wrong. If anything, schools ought to be allowing armed parents to take their kids to class. That is a “security measure” with teeth.
Sources:
Have comments on this article? Post them here:
Hand Chain Saw – a must have Survival tool, with many uses.
NaturalNews.com
Public school is now officially a prison for your children; Parents not allowed to walk kids to class
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)