Showing posts with label data. Show all posts
Showing posts with label data. Show all posts

Saturday, April 5, 2014

Raytheon"s Riot Program Mines Social Network Data Like a Google for Spies

At The Daily News Source, 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 The Daily News Source and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, The Daily News Source 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


The Daily News Source 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 The Daily News Source.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to The Daily News Source 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 The Daily News Source 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.


The Daily News Source 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. The Daily News Source"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.



var addthis_config = "data_track_clickback":false,"data_track_addressbar":false,"data_track_textcopy":false,"ui_atversion":"300";
var addthis_product = "wpp-3.5.9";



Raytheon"s Riot Program Mines Social Network Data Like a Google for Spies

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Data Shows 15-20 Percent of ACA Enrollees Haven"t Paid Premiums

Blue Cross Blue Shield has data that shows 15 to 20 percent of Americans that are signed up for Obamacare have not paid their premiums, making the actual number of sign-ups closer to 6 million.

National Journal reports that 80 to 85 percent of people who enrolled with the insurance company through the Obamacare exchanges paid their first month’s premium. The rest have not paid, meaning they are not actually covered under any insurance plan.


Other insurance companies have reported similar numbers, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.


“Insurance companies… tell us from their initial customers it’s somewhere between 80, 85, some say it’s as high as 90 percent have paid so far,” Sebelius said. “Lots of companies have different timetables for when their new customers have to send their first payment. You are not fully enrolled until you pay your premium.”


National Journal estimates that if the national average of non-paying Obamacare enrollees is between 80 and 85 percent, the overall number of Americans covered under the Affordable Care Act is between 5.7 and 6 million — not the 7.1 million that have reportedly signed up.


On Thursday, the Obama administration announced the final day to enroll in an insurance plan through the Obamacare exchanges will be April 15. People who started to fill out an application online are being granted the extension to complete the process.


“For those in line on the 31st, we encourage consumers to finish the process as soon as possible,” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services spokesman Aaron Albright said, the Wall Street Journal reports.


“They must complete their enrollment by no later than the 15th for coverage this year.”


The later deadline is seen by some Obamacare critics as a way to get more people to sign up for healthcare plans, since there will not be a way to verify if someone actually tried to sign up before the March 31 deadline.


Deadlines to sign up for plans have been fluid since the website rollout last fall. The deadline to get coverage for Jan. 1 was changed from Dec. 15 to Dec. 23, and then the March 31 date became a soft deadline.


Open enrollment for 2015 is set to begin Nov. 15, a change from the initial date of Oct. 15.


Related Stories:


© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.




Newsmax – America



Data Shows 15-20 Percent of ACA Enrollees Haven"t Paid Premiums

Friday, March 28, 2014

Congressman: President̢۪s Push To End Data Collection, Will Actually Increase Collection


posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 09:49 AM




“It actually expands the scope of collection, of unconstitutional collection. It is called the “End Bulk Collection Act.” It is like we are in some dystopian future where government calls a bill something that has the opposite affect of what title is.” says Rep. Amash.


The major point brought up by the Congressman is that despite the name “End Bulk Collection”, the bill does not to end collection of data, rather it shifts the responsibility of collection from the NSA to private phone companies.


“They are going to transfer where the phone data is collected so that it is not stored by the government but it is instead stored by the phone companies. Where it is stored is not really the main problem.”




Congressman: President’s Push To End Data Collection, Will Actually Increase Collection

Seems like every bill in Congress now is named exactly opposite what it does.


Dystopian future in deed.


I cry for my country.




AboveTopSecret.com New Topics In Breaking Alternative News



Congressman: President’s Push To End Data Collection, Will Actually Increase Collection

Friday, March 7, 2014

New Hampshire House Passes Bill to Ban Use of Warrantless Data

At A Political Statement, 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 A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement 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

A Political Statement 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 A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement 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 A Political Statement 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.

A Political Statement 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. A Political Statement"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.


New Hampshire House Passes Bill to Ban Use of Warrantless Data

Sunday, February 16, 2014

Germany, France to mastermind European data network – bypassing US


Germany
Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and France’s President Francois Hollande (R) (Reuters / Francois Lenoir)


Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande will review plans to build up a trustworthy data protection network in Europe. The challenge is to avoid data passing through the US after revelations of mass NSA spying in Germany and France.


Merkel has been one of the biggest supporters of greater data protection in Europe since the revelations that the US tapped her phone emerged in a Der Spiegel news report in October, based on information leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.


Earlier, France learned from reports in Le Monde that the NSA has also been recording dozens of millions of French phone calls, including those of the French authorities. According to the report, in just one month between December 10, 2012 and January 8, 2013, the NSA recorded a total of 70.3 million French phone calls.


Meanwhile, according to the Snowden revelations, the German Chancellor’s mobile phone has been on an NSA target list since 2002 and was codenamed “GE Chancellor Merkel.” The monitoring operation was allegedly still in force even a few weeks before US President Barack Obama’s visit to Berlin in June 2013.


Washington has denied it monitored Merkel’s personal phone, insisting that its surveillance practices are focused on threats to national security, namely terrorism. Merkel, who grew up in East Germany, where phone tapping was common practice, compared the NSA’s spying to that of the Stasi secret police in the former German Democratic Republic, and accused the US of a grave breach of trust. According to polls, the Germans have lost confidence in the US as a trustworthy partner, and a majority of Germans consider Edward Snowden a hero. It’s believed that his revelations have hit Berlin particularly hard since Germany is not a member of the so-called “Five Eyes’ intelligence alliance which includes NSA-equivalent agencies in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, exchanging intelligence with each other on a regular basis.


In the wake of the revelations about US global spying activities, the German government has made it mandatory for ministers to use encryption on their phones to secure their communications against intrusion. Berlin has also prohibited the use of iPhones for official business, as they are not compatible with encryption.


France and Germany have been seeking bilateral talks with the United States to discuss the issue of the snooping, with Merkel’s government pressing for a “no spying” agreement with Washington. Negotiations on an anti-spying agreement began in August 2013, but the US has been reluctant to sign such a deal, Süddeutsche Zeitung reported in mid-January, citing a Federal Intelligence Service (BND) employee as saying: “We’re getting nothing.”


Merkel, who is due to visit France on Wednesday, said in her weekly podcast that she disapproved of companies such as Google and Facebook, basing their operations in countries with low levels of data protection, while in reality being active in countries with high data protection.


“Above all, we’ll talk about European providers that offer security for our citizens, so that one shouldn’t have to send emails and other information across the Atlantic. Rather, one could build up a communication network inside Europe,” she said.


Hollande’s office said France agrees with Berlin’s proposals, Reuters reported, citing an official as saying: “Now that the German government is formed, it is important that we take up the initiative together.”


Source: RT





End the Lie – Independent News



Germany, France to mastermind European data network – bypassing US

Saturday, February 15, 2014

This week in the War on Workers: Teachers protest "data walls" that shame students

Rally with

Over the past year, grade school students in the low-income city of Holyoke, Massachusetts, have faced having their names and standardized test scores posted in classrooms on “data walls,” for all their classmates to see. Horrible, right? But it shouldn’t be unexpected, as educational policy pushes standardized tests to the center of what goes on in schools, and as test scores are used for ever more punitive purposes. The story of how the data walls came to light is  particularly revealing, though.

Teachers and parents, outraged about the data walls, went to a school committee meeting to complain; at the meeting, the schools superintendent insisted that students’ names should never be used, and suggested that he’d be cracking down on individual teachers who were doing this bad thing. That contradicted testimony from a parent, Paula Burke, who said she’d directly requested that the superintendent “send a clear directive to ALL principals and teachers regarding the sharing of private student information,” but “This has not been done.” But it raised the very real possibility that teachers would be scapegoated for a practice to which they had first drawn attention. But then, Sarah Jaffe reports:


In response to his comments, the teachers released copies of a PowerPoint presentation given to teachers and paraprofessionals for kindergarten (yes, kindergarten) through third grade at Kelly Elementary School in Holyoke on October 11, 2013—at which Superintendent Paez delivered the welcoming remarks. The slides, provided to In These Times by teacher activists, clearly show sample data walls with students’ first names and in some cases, last initials.


Yes, the practice that the superintendent was all disapproving of in front of reporters and the school committee was drawn directly from a training he introduced. Whoopsies! But if teachers weren’t organized to fight back against practices that hurt their students and retaliation against themselves, this would be a different story. Already, the decks are stacked against teachers fighting back:

“The data walls really speak to a bigger problem,” Kaeppel says. The battle against data walls is just one fight in a broader war—everywhere, testing is replacing teaching time, and test scores are used to pressure students, to determine whether teachers can keep their jobs, and to rate schools as successes or as “failures,” with dire consequences. [Teacher Agustin] Morales points out that his students in Holyoke spend 27 days out of the 180-day school year taking standardized tests rather than learning. [...]

The constant exhaustion means that the union must prove to its members that a fight is worth the effort. That’s why [Educators for a Democratic Union, a progressive caucus within the Massachusetts Teachers Association] is trying to build solidarity through concrete victories—like the effort to fight the data walls in Holyoke. Kaeppel, who was one of [Barbara] Madeloni’s students at UMass, says that it seemed like a winnable fight to the Holyoke EDU members and their supporters from outside of the district, and has served to catalyze some parent support. Administrators, she says, assume that the lower-income parents in Holyoke are not involved with their kids’ schooling and won’t challenge school practices, but they got a surprise when parents and teachers spoke together at the school committee meeting.



But however outgunned by test-crazy politicians and billionaires, teachers and parents are there, in kids’ lives. The need to fight back is so obvious.

(Disclosure: My father is a member of EDU and has been involved in the campaign against Holyoke data walls. And background: I’ve written about Barbara Madeloni in the past.)


Continue reading below the fold for more of the week’s labor and education news.




Daily Kos



This week in the War on Workers: Teachers protest "data walls" that shame students

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Utah legislator proposes a bill to sever water supply to massive NSA data center

At Those Damn Liars, 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 Those Damn Liars and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars 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

Those Damn Liars 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 Those Damn Liars.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars 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 Those Damn Liars 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.

Those Damn Liars 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. Those Damn Liars"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.


Utah legislator proposes a bill to sever water supply to massive NSA data center

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Blame big data for "slut" label


How does a woman get a letter from her bank, and it’s addressed to “A Slut?” Or a man whose daughter died in an auto accident get a promotion addressed to “Daughter Killed In Car Crash/Or Current Business?”


Two cases in the past few weeks have shed a light on a silent industry that makes billions slurping up, slicing off and reselling every digitized data point about our lives, from the DVDs we buy to our own private griefs.


Forget whether the NSA is going to snoop your data; direct marketers have already got it, and they’re not always taking the best care of it.


Last week, Lisa McIntire’s mom texted her to say a Bank of America credit card offer had arrived at her house for her daughter. It was sent by Golden Key International, an honor roll society McIntire had joined, which is also an affiliate marketer for Bank of America. The letter was addressed to “Lisa Is A Slut McIntire.”


“I don’t know what is going on, but having my mom receive mail addressed to “Lisa Is A Slut McIntire” is wildly not acceptable,” McIntire, a San Francisco-based freelance writer, tweeted along with photos of the letter.


“We take full responsibility,” Golden Key spokeswoman Melissa Leitzell told NBC News. She said that since McIntire joined in 2000, her account had been modified five times between 2004 and 2008. Four of those times the modifications occurred using her login, but in 2007, one of them was by a Golden Key customer service representative. That person hasn’t worked for Golden Key since fall 2007, said Leitzell.


When marketers are dealing with hundreds of millions of people’s personal records, there’s bound to be errors, especially when humans are involved, said Steven Sheck, president of MailingLists.com, a mailing list broker.


“You can hire somebody who is mentally unfit and does this for their own personal gains,” he said, adding that maybe the person did it to get a twisted thrill. For whatever reason, McIntire’s entry became vandalized.


Typically companies screen their mailings lists for bad addresses and bad words, but “slut” somehow made it through.


A misanthropic employee’s rogue keystrokes aren’t the only thing customers are never supposed to see on their “special offers.”


“You can hire somebody who is mentally unfit and does this for their own personal gains.”



As much as they can, marketers buy and repackage every form you fill out, every “fun” survey you take, and every site you visit. Every time you make a blip on the data grid, someone is trying to harvest it, attach it to your name, and collate it with everything else the database knows about you. Marketers buy this information to send out targeted letters and emails and phone calls, saving on overhead by narrowing down their efforts to likely prospects.


Customers usually don’t know why they’re getting pitched. Then there are the slip-ups.


In late January, Mike Seay, a 46-year old unemployed man from Illinois whose daughter recently died in an automobile accident, received a letter from OfficeMax. It was addressed to “Mike Seay/Daughter Killed in Car Crash/Or Current Business.”


OfficeMax apologized to the family and said it had upgraded its filters to flag inappropriate information. The office supplies retailer said that it had rented the list from a third-party provider and that it hadn’t targeted those customers based on personal information.


But that doesn’t mean Seay isn’t on such a list.


‘Critical moments’ list
Pam Dixon, founder of the World Privacy Forum, has testified before the Senate about the increasing invasiveness of direct marketing lists. “The parents landed on what’s called a ‘critical moments’ list,” she said. “If you’re recently widowed, divorced, lost a child … diagnosed with a fatal mortal illness, that event will land you on one of those lists.”


For some macabre marketers, that sheet of names represents an array of promising buyers.


So the entry field for a list called “daughter killed in car crash,” somehow got mingled into the business name and Seay received his unnerving junk mail, said Dixon.


Sheck offers a more benign explanation. Often database entries contain a comments section, he said. A data entry worker, “might have put in “daughter killed in crash” to try to be nice to this person if talking on the phone, or to give them a discount,” he said.


Though Seay’s daughter’s death was public and had been reported in the news, that it was considered a commoditizable piece of information represents a startling new frontier for privacy, or the lack thereof.


“Data brokers collect information from public data, from transactional data, everything you buy,” said Dixon. And Increasingly, even more sources are getting trawled to “append” it to your basic name, address and age profile, including Facebook. “If you have not locked down a social media profile … it’s getting scraped,” she said.


In her research, she found you could buy lists for people who suffer from cancer and Alzheimer’s, and even rape victims. In one case, insurance companies bought lists of people with genetic illnesses. In another, a credit bureau sold data, including Social Security numbers and drivers’ licenses, to a company connected to a ring of identity thieves.


“Once you’re on these lists, you don’t know where it goes,” said Dixon.


First published February 10 2014, 11:25 AM






Blame big data for "slut" label

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Insight: Republicans still seen falling behind in election data wars




WASHINGTON Fri Feb 7, 2014 1:17am EST



The Republican party information table is seen at a Romney/Ryan office as volunteers get in their last efforts the day before election day in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin November 5, 2012. REUTERS/Darren Hauck

The Republican party information table is seen at a Romney/Ryan office as volunteers get in their last efforts the day before election day in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin November 5, 2012.


Credit: Reuters/Darren Hauck




WASHINGTON (Reuters) – When Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney in the 2012 U.S. presidential election, many political strategists saw it as a triumph of the Obama team’s technological prowess, allowing it to identify likely Democratic voters and get them to the polls.


It was a sore point for Republicans, who came out of that election vowing to nullify the Democrats’ advantage in gleaning information from voter databases and social media to find potential supporters.


More than a year later that still has not happened. According to interviews with a dozen strategists from both parties, Democrats appear set to maintain their technological edge, potentially boosting their prospects in the 2014 midterm elections just as other factors – such as President Obama’s sliding popularity – are likely to favor Republicans.


It is not that the Republicans are not trying.


The Republican National Committee is spending “tens of millions of dollars,” spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski says, to “change the culture of our data and digital program” with new data analysis teams in Washington and Silicon Valley. Meanwhile, independent conservative groups funded by big-money donors such as the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch continue to have their own digital teams, typically focused more on issues – such as opposing Obama’s healthcare overhaul – than on individual candidates.


But in a reflection of some of the divisions between the Republican Party’s most conservative members and its more moderate establishment, campaigns and other groups often do not share information about voters and tactics.


And even as party leaders are aggressively pursuing a new digital game plan, Republican strategists acknowledge that some conservative candidates and their supporters remain wary of changing tactics they have used for years, such as reaching voters through television ads and door-to-door campaigning without much help from analyses of voter databases.


Some Republicans’ skepticism was fueled in 2012 by the embarrassing failure of the Romney campaign’s ORCA project, a data system that was designed to help get conservative voters to the polls and improve communication between campaign offices. ORCA crashed on Election Day, potentially harming Republican turnout.


“There’s a fundamental cultural problem” in how Republicans have dealt with technology in recent elections, said Vincent Harris, a Republican digital strategist who this year is helping candidates such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.


“Democrats are still a couple (election) cycles ahead of us,” Harris said.


OBAMA’S DIGITAL ‘GURUS’


The Democrats’ digital advantage is fueled largely by tools developed by Obama’s campaigns in 2008 and 2012 to identify likely Democratic voters, persuade them to vote and encourage their friends to do the same.


Using databases built from such information, digital teams can design and target ad campaigns and online outreach efforts through social media and emails to specific groups.


The Democrats’ efforts are further boosted by a network of dozens of former Obama technology aides who have formed consulting companies that, while independent of one another and the party, share information and strategies with each other and with clients, including many campaigns.


During the past year, this Democratic network helped the successful campaigns of Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh.


Now, several of Obama’s former digital and data staffers are turning their sights on 2014 races, some of which pose large hurdles for Democrats.


They include Teddy Goff, a former digital director for Obama’s 2012 campaign. Goff’s firm, Precision Strategies, has been hired by the campaign of Charlie Crist, the Republican-turned-Democrat and former Florida governor who is seeking to reclaim that job this fall in a battle against his successor, conservative Republican Rick Scott.


In Wisconsin, BlueLabs, which includes Obama 2012 data engineers Chris Wegrzyn and Daniel Porter, has gone to work for Mary Burke. She is the Democrat challenging conservative Republican Governor Scott Walker, who is seen by many Republicans as a potential presidential candidate.


Other firms led by Obama digital campaign veterans include 270 Strategies, which is led by the 2012 campaign’s battleground states director Mitch Stewart and national field director Jeremy Bird.


It has signed on to help Democrat Wendy Davis’ long-shot bid for Texas governor against Greg Abbott, the Republican attorney general in the mostly Republican state.


The 270 Strategies firm also is working for Ready for Hillary, the political action committee supporting a possible presidential run by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016.


The Democratic digital and data teams are coy about discussing their tactics and strategies, but Republican digital specialists say they have seen enough of them to recognize a gulf between each side’s capabilities.


Ned Ryun, founder of Republican campaign technology company Voter Gravity, pointed to the 2013 race for Virginia governor as an example of Republicans’ struggles with voter data.


McAuliffe defeated conservative Republican Ken Cuccinelli in the politically divided state, a big win for Democrats at a time when Obama’s administration was under fire for problems with the rollout of Obamacare.


“The Cuccinelli campaign was going door-to-door using paper and pen” while collecting voter data, Ryun said. “When I asked what happened to the data, their guy just shrugged his shoulders.”


When campaigns do not retain or share data, Ryun said, it hurts candidates’ ability to persuade voters, and information that a campaign obtains cannot be used by future candidates.


A ‘WAKEUP CALL’


So will the digital advantage of the Democratic Party and its friends make a big difference in the 2014 elections?


Probably only in tight races, analysts said. These could include those featuring vulnerable Senate Democrats such as Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. The four Democratic senators are crucial to Democrats’ efforts to keep control of the Senate, where Republicans need to gain six seats to take over the chamber.


The embattled Democratic incumbents will benefit from their party’s continued investment in data operations, analysts in both parties said. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has launched an effort to increase turnout in the senators’ states, and plans to use voter data to mobilize people who otherwise might not vote in a midterm election.


Republicans are hoping their efforts to oust the senators will receive a big push from dissatisfaction with Obamacare and the first fruits of the RNC’s revamped digital program that the party hopes will be in high gear by the 2016 presidential election.


Money is not an issue, and Republicans are trying to close the expertise gap by both hiring more experts and increasing training.


“There was a wakeup call after 2012″ throughout the Republican Party, said Tim Miller, executive director of America Rising, an opposition research group for Republicans.


Even so, some Republican digital strategists say the party’s investment in a digital team at the RNC headquarters in Washington has not yet translated into much help for campaigns.


“I have a dozen clients with primary elections in two months, and early voting starts in two weeks. If I were waiting for people sitting inside the (Capital) Beltway for marching orders, I wouldn’t have done anything yet,” Harris said. “We have had to do this ourselves without a lot of help from the establishment.”


(Editing by David Lindsey, Martin Howell and Lisa Shumaker)






Reuters: Politics



Insight: Republicans still seen falling behind in election data wars

Insight: Republicans still seen falling behind in election data wars

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – When Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney in the 2012 U.S. presidential election, many political strategists saw it as a triumph of the Obama team’s technological prowess, allowing it to identify likely Democratic voters and get them to the polls.


Reuters: Top News



Insight: Republicans still seen falling behind in election data wars

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Louisiana, the most Racist & Polluted State in America. (Creole Data Report)


OMG! I am in rural Louisiana and when I tell you that Louisiana is a Grade A, Top Level Dump of Pollution, I am still not fully articulating the crimes, which are taking place in Louisiana.


When I say that Louisiana is off the charts racist, that is still an understatement. First of all, my sister lives in St Charles Parish, which is North of New Orleans and there are constant emissions from a Monsanto Plant, along with other chemical plants that are causing major birth defects in the citizens of that parish.


The local hospitals in New Orleans are routinely sterilizing women of color, in sneaky medical Nazi procedures, no matter of education/wealth level.


When I went through New Orleans, I not only saw major shipments of drugs and guns being moved by the FBI, local state officials and ATF into the Port of New Orleans but these drugs and guns are actually being allowed to flow into the streets of New Orleans, in an effort to fill a new FEMA Prison, which there is one in New Orleans and one in Plaquemines Parish (South of New Orleans).


The idea of having the federal and local government move drugs/guns into New Orleans appears to be in an effort to lock up blacks, maintain an apartheid-like city, where a few racist whites appear to hold all of the top government/law enforcement/DA jobs but also being used to shove working poor blacks out of New Orleans to make way for expensive condos.


Where nice New Orleans Style “Shot Gun” homes used to sit, now sits about 20 blocks of high-end, tasteless, Los Angeles Styled Condos, which are surrounded by decaying neighborhoods because all of the black owned business are being run out of the city by developers and people like Mayor Mitch Landrieu.


Now on to rural Plaquemines Parish (my home parish). The town is devastated by pollution from not just BP, but also from Chevron and Exxon.
I went to walk my family’s property to see where I could build a home and the US Army Corp of Engineers, which is really a front for private developers like Donald Trump and oil companies, claim that they need more land, in order to build levees but in reality there are no levees in lower Plaquemines but instead these racist fucks are taking land for oil drilling.


What the US Army Corp of Engineers is doing in lower Plaquemines (Empire, Sunrise,Buras) is taking land, building low level plateaus, creating artificial flood threats, handing over the land to oil companies and then trying to drive out the few remaining natives with so called flood insurance that cost over $ 20,000 a year in rural South East Louisiana.


In New Orleans, there were out of town construction companies that were paying black male workers less than whites, simply based on skin color because Gov. Mitch Landrieu wants to drive blacks out of New Orleans being that he gets a kick back from developers and gentrification projects.


I just started to get a boat together to go out into the bayou but on the East side of Plaquemines, the Wild Life and Fisheries are stealing oyster leases and giving it to white fishermen/oystermen, simply based on skin color. All of the oysters on my grandmother’s leases, in Buck’s Bay, were either polluted by BP or stolen by whites to seed their oyster leases and yet I am still waiting for compensation from the BP Claims Center, which is really designed to pay white attorney fees, while BP pockets the money.


All of this mumbo jumbo about BP paying out millions of dollars, is really a fraud being promoted by the local con, trailer trash media. They may have paid some people that amount of money, as a token payment, but most victims of the BP Oil Disaster haven’t been paid any victim funds. Even I have not been properly compensated by BP Claims, and I was going through US Attroney General, Eric Holder at the Justice Dept.


All of the property in lower Plaquemines, which was stolen by FEMA or Road Home Program, has been handed out to non-Louisiana natives or shady lawyers, politicians (like Billy Nungessor, Parish President and a Klansman promoted by Time Warner-CNN and Big Oil) that want to build homes for out of town sports fishermen or simply pocket stolen land from victims of Katrina aka US Army Corp.


The Plaquemines Parish Sheriff Dept, is yet another example of drug running and a hub for crime, which tends to happen when the Dept of Homeland Sec, hands out grants and Wall St Bankers team up with FEMA to build prisons…..because they need to create a crime problem, even if the town only has 100 people.


It appears that in Louisiana, they build prisons as a priority and then the local law enforcement agencies, parish civil servants and feds go about flooding drugs into areas, in order to create a crime problem.


I simply cannot afford to allow the oil companies, FEMA or US Army Corp to confiscate any more land and Plaquemines Parish cannot afford to host out of town fishermen nor cater to them, while the US Coast Guard harass native fishermen in the bayou.


The Coast Guard in Louisiana is supposed to inspect oil rigs for safety violations but in reality their main mission is to harass native fishermen/oystermen that are trying to make a living. Oil rigs (Chevron) not only has workers that do illegal fishing (out of season/no fishing limitations on amount of fish caught off oil rigs) but the oil companies are still very unsafe and have no respect for the environment.
In fact, since Big Oil and the Obama Admin set up an oil safety office, staffed by Big Oil’s People, the oil spills in the Gulf are going unreported. Even I could not find a way to apply for a position in these so called Oil Safety Admin Offices being that Big Oil staffed these offices with criminals and Meth Addicts, just like the MMS (Mineral Management Services).


What we need to do in Plaquemines, is ban all sports fishing, cease and desist the building of homes that host sports fishermen, ban the US Army Corp, get oil companies off of our land and close down all of these private hunting clubs, which I suspect are being built in an unauthorized manner on private property on the east side of Plaquemines. I DO NOT WANT PRIVATE HUNTING CLUBS ANY WHERE IN THE PARISH. THE ENTIRE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO HUNT ON THE PARISH LAND, LET ALONE HAVING THESE PARISH CROOKS BUILD PRIVATE HUNTING CLUBS ON LAND THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM NOR THE PARISH!


We need a global body that will either come in and arrest or assassinate all of these Parish “Presidents” and judges in Louisiana State; because they are guilty of racism and crimes against humanity.
Any oyster bedding grounds on the east side of Plaquemines must be closed down due to racism and the Wild Life and Fisheries needs to be abolished.


I am just trying to work out my remedies for these issues in La. State. I may have to try the UN again and have them come in and be the government or if I go to my global elite connections, all they will do is nuke D.C. because even they are tired of the trailer trash which hold political office in the US


Reagrds,
Nicolas DuPlessis
Buras, La.


Nations Largest Cocaine Smuggler Revealed: The DEA and Federal Government - http://www.libertariannews.org/2014/01/23/nations-largest-cocaine-smuggler-revealed-the-dea/


US Rep. quits over cocaine possession http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/01/27/348021/trey-radel-congress-cocaine/


Senator’s aide commits suicide after being arrested on child porn charges http://www.examiner.com/article/senator-s-aide-commits-suicide-after-being-arrested-on-child-porn-charges


Former Va. gov, wife indicted for corruption http://news.yahoo.com/former-va-gov-wife-indicted-corruption-092408233.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory


NY Times Article: ‘FBI Staged Terror Attacks’ http://wp.me/p1VZZi-3ic via @wordpressdotcom


Warren Buffet’s Oil Train Derails, Explodes, Burns – http://rosscalloway.com/2013/12/31/warren-buffets-oil-train-derails-explodes-burns/


Bill Clinton a sexual predator, Rand Paul says | TheHill http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/196439-rand-paul-bill-clinton-a-sexual-predator#.UuaemUP4ViY.twitter via @TheHill


Council OF Foreign Relations (idiotic 100 year old racist and senile wannabe global elite clowns & simpletons) Calls On Obama to �Befriend � Al-Qaeda Terrorist Group – http://www.infowars.com/cfr-calls-on-obama-to-befriend-al-qaeda-terrorist-group/




hollywoodilluminatidotcom



Louisiana, the most Racist & Polluted State in America. (Creole Data Report)

Monday, January 20, 2014

Who should we fear more with our data: the government or companies?

Who should we fear more with our data: the government or companies?
http://hits.theguardian.com/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.5/58198?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Aobama-nsa-reform-companies-spying-data%3A2029488&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Surveillance+%28News%29%2CInternet%2CData+protection+%28Govt.%2Findustrial+use+of+data%29%2CData+and+computer+security+%28safeguarding+computers+and+data+from+criminals%29%2CMarketing+and+PR%2CBarack+Obama+%28News%29%2CNSA&c5=Unclassified%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CUS+Elections%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CMarketing+Media&c6=Ana+Marie+Cox&c7=2014%2F01%2F20+03%3A54&c8=2029488&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=Ana+Marie+Cox%3A+On+politics+and+whatever&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=US&c65=Who+should+we+fear+more+with+our+data%3A+the+government+or+companies%3F&c66=Comment+is+free&c67=nextgen-compatible&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2FSurveillance


The masters of modern spycraft have learned the science of predicting human behavior from the masters of marketing


If civil libertarians who are disappointed with the proposals Obama outlined last week had to write a wish list for what kind of restraints they’d like to see on National Security Agency data-gathering, what might that include? Here’s an educated guess:


Individual Control: The right to exercise control over what personal data organizations collect from them and how they use it.
Transparency: The right to easily understandable information about privacy and security practices.
Focused Collection: The right to reasonable limits on the personal data that organizations collect and retain.
Accountability: The right to have personal data handled by organizations with appropriate measures in place to assure they adhere to the Bill of Rights.


Nevermind that the Obama administration has endorsed all of those rights. Almost two years ago, actually. What’s more, they got Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL to agree to observe them. The bad news: these rights apply only to web-browsing data gathered by companies that deploy “behavior-based marketing”. You know, the kind of tracking that means a search for “white wedding” will serve of ads for The Knot (even if you were looking for Billy Idol).


In February of 2012, the White House issued a white paper outlining a “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights” that is arguably more comprehensive than the one that’s supposed to rein in government. It outlined the rights above and tasked the Federal Trade Commission with enforcing them; the first concrete action was to be the development of a “Do Not Track” standard, allowing consumers to simply shake their electronic tail. So, second piece of bad news: The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights has been almost as ineffective at preventing data collection as the original.


In addition to everything else they know about us, the corporations that agreed to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights know that modern Americans feel significantly more discomfort about Big Shopping than they do about Big Brother. Even without a standardized “Do Not Track” feature, the percentage of internet users who opt out of tracking is growing rapidly. Among Firefox users, it went from around 4% at the time of the white paper to almost 12% a year later (14% among mobile users). Among all browsers, it’s about 8%. This may seem like a tiny percentage, but it’s enough of one that marketers are fighting every attempt to make opting out easier.


An astounding 71% of those polled say they are “very concerned” about “companies selling or sharing their information about them without their permission”. Imagine if those people knew there were, or are supposed to be, ways to prevent it.


Increasing awareness about marketers’ peeping and user attempts to escape it are probably why the consortium of “stakeholders” (media companies and privacy advocates) that was to come up with the “Do Not Track” standard actually voted to disband last fall. Marketers and developers would not give an inch, even on such seemingly simple issues as to where the “switch” to turn tracking off might be. Privacy advocates wanted it to exist as part of the browser installation, as much a part of the process as downloading the software itself. Developers and advertisers wanted it to be in the browser settings, next to the default homepage you probably haven’t changed.


When privacy advocates balked at that, a lawyer for the Digital Advertising Alliance soothed:


By putting it in a browser setting, you create a little bit of friction so that you make it simple enough for people who want to find it … But you don’t treat it as if it’s a matter of national security, because it’s not.



Of course, it is. Last month, the latest release of NSA documents showed that the agency uses exactly those cookies that “deliver and improve” our online experience to fish out individual users from the sea of data they collect and, further, to mark potential targets for “remote exploitation”.


This revelation obviously highlights the irony of the Obama administration’s agitation for consumer privacy; it should draw attention to a larger if more subtle issue as well: the synchronicity between how marketers think of us and how the government does.


Obama’s speech Friday repeatedly emphasized that the data the government collects is “bulk”. That probably goes over better than saying “mass”. “Mass” means you are swept up with everyone else; “bulk” implies your files are tossed haphazardly in a drawer. The way the program is supposed to work, he explained, is that we just have this huge file lying around and then, when the government finds out about a specific threat, and then they look at it.


Citizens are supposed to be comforted that the data is some huge impersonal block of numbers. It’s not data, it’s metadata! But the problem with mass data collection isn’t that those who have it can find out about any one individual’s private life, it’s that if you have enough data, you don’t have to find out about any one individual’s life.


Marketers have learned that more quickly than the government. Foot-dragging about “Do Not Track” aside, commercial interests don’t want to know about you, they want to know about people like you. One of the largest purveyors of consumer intelligence, BlueKai, has privacy protections that sound a lot like what Obama outlined Friday: they put a time limit on how long they track users and they keep all profiles anonymous (bulk!); they also limit the data available in the profiles (no financial data, no healthcare data, nothing about sex or religion). It is a form of metadata.


Their information is still incredibly valuable, because the data they collect and distribute isn’t intended to track a single person; it’s intended to help marketers find a group of people who can be coaxed into sharing a single interest – their product.


Massive amounts of data about millions of people allows commercial interests to sort users into categories, and then marketers can tailor that category’s online experience to push its members as firmly as possible in the direction of its product. No one’s privacy has been violated in the sense of having a secret revealed; it’s almost the opposite, and it’s almost worse: we’re being manipulated in a way that makes us less individual, less unique, less capable of having secrets to begin with.


The masters of modern spycraft have learned from the masters of marketing the science of predicting human behavior. One of the main reasons for “bulk” collection, one that seems less alarming on its surface, is to watch for patterns of behavior that indicate possible terrorist activity. But when an organization is sufficiently skilled at predicting human behavior, the next phase, almost inevitably, is to try to influence it.


We need to update our vision of what an Orwellian use of bulk data might be. We probably don’t have to worry about federal agents knocking down doors in the middle of the night. Tyranny can be a lot more insidious than that. It can be the limitation of options, the curbing of ambitions, or the gentle nudging forward down a path you thought you choose.





theguardian.com © 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds









Technology news, comment and analysis | theguardian.com


Read more about Who should we fear more with our data: the government or companies? and other interesting subjects concerning NSA at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Friday, January 17, 2014

Obama: Take NSA out of phone data storage


By Michael O’Brien, NBC News


President Barack Obama ordered changes to intelligence-gathering practices that would prevent the government from storing broad collections of phone and electronic communication data.  



President Obama admits to being skeptical of surveillance as a Senator from Illinois, but maintains the government program is necessary post Sept. 11.



The president advocated that those records be stored by a third party but did not offer specifics about where they would be kept.  He also proposed a new level of judicial approval for government access to those records. 


If adopted, the proposals represent a step back from the government’s claims to wide latitude in maintaining national security. 


“America’s capabilities are unique,” Obama said in the highly-anticipated speech at the Department of Justice. “That places a special obligation on us to ask tough questions about what we should do.” 


Yet Congress and the president’s Justice Department will play key roles in determining whether any of Obama’s proposals are enacted.  One revision the president proposed is under his control is halting any surveillance of  foreign leaders unless there are national security concerns involved.


The reforms represent a response of some of the most explosive revelations by fugitive contractor Edward Snowden, who made details of the NSA’s meta-data practices public last year.


Senior administration officials argued to reporters ahead of the president’s speech that there had been no abuses to the programs affected by the reforms. Obama ordered the changes, administration officials said, because they “present the risk of potential abuse.”


“The men and women of the intelligence community, including the NSA, consistently follow protocols designed to protect the privacy of ordinary people,” Obama said. “They are not abusing authorities in order to listen to your private phone calls, or read your emails. When mistakes are made – which is inevitable in any large and complicated human enterprise – they correct those mistakes.”


Effective immediately, the NSA will have to seek prior approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court before initiating new queries of bulk meta-data.


The president ordered the NSA and Attorney General Eric Holder to develop recommendations over the next 60 days as to how the program should be structured, and how meta-data should be stored. This window coincides with the late March deadline by which Congress must vote to re-authorize many intelligence practices anyway.


The proposal would also seek to add an element of transparency to the meta-data program by giving the FISA court more leeway to declassify its rationales for approving or rejecting the government’s data collection requests. Obama will also establish a group of outside advocates for the FISA court in hopes of more effectively protecting individuals’ privacy.


Obama’s speech in many ways intended to strike a balance between government prerogatives and civil liberties, and the difficulties of pinpointing the precise mixture between the two. 



President Obama assures Americans that the men and women working for the National Security Agency follow protocols to ensure the safety of citizens.



“Those who are troubled by our existing programs are not interested in a repeat of 9/11, and those who defend these programs are not dismissive of civil liberties,” he said. “The challenge is getting the details right, and that’s not simple.”


The president will also seek to reassure heads of states from allied nations that the United States will not seek to monitor their personal communications. This comes in response to revelations last year that the U.S. government had monitored the email of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, among other foreign leaders. A senior administration official said that the U.S. will not monitor the communications of heads of states from allied nations “absent a compelling national security purpose.”


Obama also took strides toward more clearly defining the nature of U.S. intelligence practices abroad without necessarily changing many of those practices. Obama explained that the U.S. only engages in data collection and surveillance abroad for the purposes of counterintelligence and counterterrorism, and to shore up cybersecurity and disrupt illicit transactions.


The president also emphasized that the United States’ intelligence practices isn’t used to suppress criticism or dissent or advantage American companies, nor does the U.S. randomly access foreigners’ emails at will.


Much of the manner in which the U.S. conducts surveillance and collects intelligence won’t change, though.


Obama didn’t heed some of the most significant of the 46 recommendations generated by the task force he empaneled last year to study potential changes to the national security and intelligence infrastructure. Though the change to how meta-data is stored was one of the panel’s recommendations, Obama will not separate the position of NSA director and the person in charge of monitoring U.S. Cyber Command.


The broader question is whether the reforms and constraints outlined on Friday by Obama will satisfy civil libertarians and broader criticism of the scope of U.S. surveillance.


Some of the revelations made public by Snowden and other self-proclaimed watchdog organizations have eroded domestic support for broad government surveillance. Fifty-six percent of Americans said in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that they’re concerned about government going too far in violating individuals’ privacy, a gradual shift from the days following 9/11, when the public was more willing to give the government broad latitude in the name of counterterrorism.


Congress could also prove disruptive to the president’s proposals. In how speech, Obama vowed to “consult with the relevant committees in Congress to seek their views, and then seek congressional authorization for the new program as needed.”


Though the administration can initiate some of the reforms immediately, others will require congressional reauthorization. If libertarian-minded lawmakers from both parties aren’t satisfied by Obama’s reforms – particularly those involving meta-data that will be developed in the coming months by Holder and the NSA – it could spark a fight on Capitol Hill about whether further constraints are needed on government surveillance practices.


“President Obama’s announced solution to the NSA spying controversy is the same unconstitutional program with a new configuration,” said Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian-Republican critic of the NSA. On CNN, he suggested that the scope of government surveillance must ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.


Such a fight would lay bare some of the odd political fault lines when it comes to national security issues, pitting hawkish Democrats and Republicans, joined together, against a handful of progressive Democrats and an ascendant, libertarian-minded wing of the GOP.


This story was originally published on






Obama: Take NSA out of phone data storage

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 Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:52pm EST



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. REUTERS/Eric Thayer

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)






Reuters: Business News




Read more about U.S. companies allowed to delay disclosure of data breaches and other interesting subjects concerning Business at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Sunday, December 29, 2013

NSA gets win in court over bulk data collection




  • NEW: The ruling makes it likely the Supreme Court will have to tackle the issue of privacy

  • A federal judge rules the NSA collection of phone metadata is legal

  • A different judge said last week the surveillance was likely unconstitutional

  • Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the surveillance



Washington (CNN) — The National Security Agency notched a much-needed win in court Friday after a series of setbacks over the legality and even the usefulness of its massive data collection program.


A federal judge in New York ruled the NSA’s bulk collection of data on nearly every phone call made in the United States was legal.





Gellman: Snowden’s mission accomplished





Obama addresses NSA reforms





Dennis Blair on anger towards NSA





Obama: I’m confident NSA isn’t snooping


The ruling contrasts with another ruling last week by a federal judge in Washington, who called the same program “almost Orwellian” and likely unconstitutional.


In his ruling Friday, U.S. District Judge William Pauley said the NSA’s bulk collection of phone records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act was legal. The program was revealed in classified leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.


“But the question of whether that program should be conducted is for the other two coordinate branches of government to decide,” said the ruling by Pauley, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.


The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the case, said it would appeal Pauley’s ruling.


“We are extremely disappointed with this decision, which misinterprets the relevant statutes, understates the privacy implications of the government’s surveillance and misapplies a narrow and outdated precedent to read away core constitutional protections,” said Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU’s deputy legal director.


Review: NSA snooping program should stay in place


President Barack Obama is examining a review of the surveillance efforts that recommended changes in how the NSA program was conducted. Obama said last week he would decide what to do about it in January.


Last week, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata — phone records of the time and numbers called without any disclosure of content — apparently violates privacy rights.


His preliminary ruling favored five plaintiffs challenging the practice, but Leon limited the decision only to their cases.


“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval,” said Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush. “Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.”


Leon’s ruling said the “plaintiffs in this case have also shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of a Fourth Amendment claim,” adding “as such, they too have adequately demonstrated irreparable injury.”


He rejected the government’s argument that a 1979 Maryland case provided precedent for the constitutionality of collecting phone metadata, noting that public use of telephones had increased dramatically in three decades.


Leon also noted the government “does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature.”


However, he put off enforcing his order barring the government from collecting the information, pending an appeal by the government.


A Justice Department spokesman said in response to Leon’s ruling that “we believe the program is constitutional as previous judges have found.”


Explosive revelations this year by Snowden triggered new debate about national security and privacy interests in the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks.


Snowden’s disclosures led to more public disclosure about the secretive legal process that sets in motion the government surveillance.


The NSA has admitted it received secret court approval to collect vast amounts of metadata from telecom giant Verizon and leading Internet companies, including Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo and Facebook.


The case before Leon involved approval for surveillance in April by a judge at a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that handles individual requests for electronic surveillance for “foreign intelligence purposes.”


Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of the 1970s, the secret courts were set up to grant certain types of government requests — wiretapping, data analysis and other monitoring of possible terrorists and spies operating in the United States.


The Patriot Act that Congress passed after the 9/11 attacks broadened the government’s ability to conduct anti-terrorism surveillance in the United States and abroad, eventually including the metadata collection.


In order to collect the information, the government has to demonstrate it is “relevant” to an international terrorism investigation.


However, the 1978 FISA law lays out exactly what the special court must decide: “A judge considering a petition to modify or set aside a nondisclosure order may grant such petition only if the judge finds that there is no reason to believe that disclosure may endanger the national security of the United States, interfere with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger the life or physical safety of any person.”


In defending the program, Gen. Keith Alexander, the NSA’s director, told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that “15 separate judges of the FISA Court have held on 35 occasions that Section 215 (of the Patriot Act) authorizes the collection of telephony metadata in bulk in support of counterterrorism investigations.”


Initially, telecommunications companies such as Verizon were the targets of legal action against Patriot Act provisions. Congress later gave retroactive immunity to those private businesses.


The New York ruling makes it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will have to tackle the issue of privacy and settle the dispute over the the NSA program.


For years, the courts have relied on a 1979 Supreme Court precedent that found privacy rights didn’t extend to personal information people give to third-parties such as the phone companies, which store basic data on calls made. The secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has relied on that ruling to periodically reauthorize the NSA phone data program.


But technology has come a long way since then; modern cell phones are in constant communication with phone towers and tell a lot more information about phone customers than old land line phones. And at least some justices may be ready to take on the issue again.


Ruling last year in an unrelated case, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the 1979 standard may be “ill suited to the digital age” because people reveal a lot more information in seemingly mundane tasks.


“It may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties,” she wrote.


CNN’s Bill Mears and Tom Cohen contributed to this report.




CNN.com – Politics



NSA gets win in court over bulk data collection