Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Trust us! (Many similarities to the TJX data spill?)

http://www.pogowasright.org/article.php?story=20070717161538875

Breach, undetected since '05, exposes data on Kingston customers

Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 04:15 PM CDT Contributed by: PrivacyNews News Section: Breaches

A September 2005 security breach that remained undetected until 'recently' may have compromised the names, addresses and credit card details of about 27,000 online customers of computer memory vendor Kingston Technology Company Inc.

The company began sending out letters to affected customers informing them of the incident last week. But it did not offer any details on how or when exactly the breach was discovered and how long the company may have waited to notify customers about the potential compromise of personal data.

Source - ComputerWorld



How many other organizations aren't bothering to check?

http://www.pogowasright.org/article.php?story=2007071717430672

La. Security Breach Exposes Thousands To ID Theft

Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 05:46 PM CDT Contributed by: PrivacyNews News Section: Breaches

It seems like a list without end -- thousands of student names, addresses, ZIP codes, birthdays -- and Social Security numbers.

In all, more than 80,000 names and Social Security numbers were accessible for perhaps as long as two years on an internal Internet website run by the Louisiana Board of Regents, the body that has oversight over HOW MANY students at WHICH universities.

Source - WDSU

Related - Statement from the Board Of Regents



Someone will learn about the First Amendment...

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18813

Conn. teen punished for Internet insult sues school officials

By The Associated Press 07.18.07

HARTFORD, Conn. — A Burlington teenager has sued two top school officials, saying they violated her constitutional rights by removing her as class secretary because she used offensive slang to refer to administrators on an Internet blog.

Avery Doninger, a 16-year-old student at Lewis Mills High School, wants to be immediately reinstated as class secretary. She also wants a new election for class officers for the upcoming school year, when she will be a senior, and a chance to give the campaign speech she was forbidden from giving to her classmates.

Doninger's mother, Lauren, filed motions for temporary and permanent injunctions on her daughter's behalf against Principal Karissa Niehoff and Region 10 Superintendent of Schools Paula Schwartz, according to court documents filed July 16 in New Britain Superior Court.

Niehoff removed Doninger as the class of 2008 secretary and banned her from running for re-election after discovering the teen called unnamed school administrators "douchbags" (sic) on an online journal.

Avery Doninger posted the message to www.livejournal.com, which is not associated with the school, from a home computer.

... "This is something that I felt was really necessary to stand up for, because you really have to stand up (for) the little things about democracy, the little things that make democracy really work in the big world," she said.

Several weeks after Avery Doninger posted the message in April, Niehoff demanded she apologize to the superintendent of schools, tell her mother about the blog entry, resign from the student council and withdraw her candidacy for class secretary, the lawsuit alleges.

She was the only candidate running for class secretary.

While Doninger apologized and reported the incident to her mother, she refused to resign. Niehoff then "administratively removed" her from the post, the lawsuit states.

Besides being banned from running for re-election, Doninger was barred from giving a speech to her school class, the lawsuit claims. Doninger and fellow students were also prohibited from wearing printed shirts supporting her free-speech rights.



I can surrender my inalienable rights?

http://www.pogowasright.org/article.php?story=20070718040437961

CA: Court OKs pat-down searches of 49er fans

Wednesday, July 18 2007 @ 05:40 AM CDT Contributed by: PrivacyNews News Section: In the Courts

A legal challenge to pat-down searches at San Francisco 49ers home games got a brush-off today from a state appeals court, which said the two fans who filed the suit had consented to the searches when they bought their season tickets.

In a 2-1 ruling, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco sidestepped the question of whether the pat-downs ordered by the National Football League in 2005 as an anti-terrorism measure are an invasion of privacy. Instead, the court said spectators waive their right to privacy when they show up for the games after learning about the searches.

Source - San Francisco Chronicle

Related - Law.com: Did a Federal Appeals Court Avoid Tackling the Real Issues Behind Football Fan's Lawsuit? (commentary)



I bet there are some unique cases here...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070718.LAW18/TPStory/TPInternational/?page=rss&id=GAM.20070718.LAW18

African legal judgments go online

'Ordinary people in the region will benefit if the law is open and judges can be held accountable,' Constitutional Court justice says

STEPHANIE NOLEN July 18, 2007

... The bulk of the material now available on http://www.saflii.org is South African, but Mr. Mafukidze and the librarians and information technology experts with whom he works are quickly adding judgments and law reports from other countries.



Miles today, location, speed, times tomorrow? (Save more by using my patented “Little old lady from Pasadena” hack to 'adjust' the numbers. Also helps with speeding tickets. “As you can see your honor, I was only driving 13 MPH when I passed that Ferrari...))

http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/13/autos/gmac_onstar_insurance/index.htm?section=money_mostpopular

Big Brother can save you money

Car insurers explore ways to track drivers so they know whom they can charge less.

By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com staff writer July 17 2007: 2:20 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A new discount plan from GMAC Insurance gives a discount on premiums to drivers of General Motors vehicles with the OnStar service if they let the insurer track the number of miles they drive.



An article yesterday suggested that security software should stop this. Perhaps they lied? (At least the FBI doesn't need to break into the house any longer.)

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9746451-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

FBI remotely installs spyware to trace bomb threat

Posted by Declan McCullagh July 18, 2007 1:00 AM PDT

The FBI used a novel type of remotely installed spyware last month to investigate who was e-mailing bomb threats to a high school near Olympia, Wash.

Federal agents obtained a court order on June 12 to send spyware called CIPAV to a MySpace account suspected of being used by the bomb-threat hoaxster. Once implanted, the software was designed to report back to the FBI with the Internet Protocol address of the suspect's computer, other information found on the PC and, notably, an ongoing log of the user's outbound connections.

... While there's been plenty of speculation about how the FBI might deliver spyware electronically, this case appears to be the first to reveal how the technique is used in practice. The FBI did confirm in 2001 that it was working on a virus called Magic Lantern but hasn't said much about it since. The two other cases in which federal investigators were known to have used spyware--the Scarfo and Forrester cases--involved agents actually sneaking into offices to implant key loggers.

An 18-page affidavit filed in federal court by FBI Agent Norm Sanders last month and obtained by CNET News.com claims details about the governmental spyware are confidential. The FBI calls its spyware a Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier, or CIPAV.

... News.com has posted Sanders' affidavit and a summary of the CIPAV results that the FBI submitted to U.S. Magistrate Judge James Donohue.



A better analysis than I offered...

http://techdirt.com/articles/20070717/103522.shtml

RIAA Says It Shouldn't Have To Pay Legal Fees Because Woman Didn't Settle; Judge Says Think Again

from the a-new-low dept

Despite the RIAA's astounding legal gymnastics and its questionable -- if not illegal -- investigative techniques, it typically finds a way to wiggle out of paying the legal bills of anybody it has sued in its misguided legal campaign against record labels' customers. Though there's been a few exceptions, the group's strategy of dropping cases when people notice their flimsy evidence seems to generally shield them from having to pay costs. That's a real problem, since it makes it very easy, and relatively cheap, for the RIAA to abuse the legal system by filing thousands of suits, then suffer no repercussions when it drops them after they're exposed as bogus. [Good strategy though... Bob] Hopefully, though, that's starting to change, as more judges become aware of the RIAA's tactics, or at least pay attention to the facts of its cases. A judge in Oklahoma has now ordered the RIAA to pay $70,000 in legal fees to an Oklahoma woman, after tossing out the group's suit against her earlier this year. In this case, the RIAA didn't make a very good impression on the judge by claiming that they shouldn't have to pay the defendant's legal bills because she could have avoided being sued, had she "appropriately assisted their copyright infringement investigation and litigation" -- which means had she given in to their bullying and accepting one of their generous settlement offers. That's absolutely ridiculous, as the judge noted, since it steamrolls a defendant's right to defend themselves against bogus suits. It's up there with the RIAA's promise in another case not to incorrectly sue a woman a second time, as long as they didn't have to pay her legal bills for the first time they wrongly sued her. The RIAA has gotten away for far too long with bending the legal system to fit its desires; hopefully those days are coming to an end.



How much market penetration do the video services have?

http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1529

3 Out of 4 U.S. Internet Users Streamed Video Online in May

Average American Video Streamer Watched More than 2.5 Hours of Video Online

No comments: