Iowa state lottery’s IT security boss hacked his employer’s computer system, and rigged the lottery so he could buy a winning ticket in a subsequent draw.
On Tuesday, at the Polk County Courthouse in Des Moines, Iowa, the disgraced director of information security was found guilty of fraud.
Eddie Tipton, 52, installed a hidden rootkit on a computer system run by the Multi-State Lottery Association so he could secretly alter the lottery’s random number generator, the court heard. This allowed him to calculate the numbers that would be drawn in the state’s Hot Lotto games, and therefore buy a winning ticket beforehand.
Working with outside computer forensic experts, we have confirmed that the laptop may have contained confidential information. We believe based on that investigation that the laptop contained personally identifiable information, including names, addresses, telephone numbers and social security numbers. The laptop did not contain driver’s license numbers but may have contained certain financial information and/or medical records of individuals. We have no reason to believe that the laptop was stolen for the information it contained. We also have no information indicating that this information has been accessed or used in any way.
Journalists have been accused of invading privacy, threatening national security, and breaching copyright by publishing such stories, and their sources might lose their jobs, their freedom, or even their lives. So how should reporters and editors decide whether to publish and how much to redact? And what technical know-how do they need to protect whistleblowers?
in Antitrust Law Journal No. 1 (2015)
Many people view Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis’s 1890 work, The Right to Privacy, as the starting point for the consumer privacy laws in the United States. Warren and Brandeis’s concerns about the ability of technology to invade the private sphere continue to resonate today, 125 years later. The technology encroaching on privacy now is, of course, the Internet – or, to be more precise, the technologies that permit the tracking and aggregation of individual consumers’ online behavior and that support the many services that financially sustain the broader Internet ecosystem. As was the case in Warren and Brandeis’s day, numerous proposals have surfaced for how to defend expectations of personal privacy while still realizing the benefits of commercialized technology. Those defending free market principles argue that the best solution is little-to-no government intervention – consumer demand for privacy will create a market for privacy protections. Other commentators propose increased governmental scrutiny of the collection and use of consumer data online, and some even advocate unifying the competition and consumer protection laws to examine privacy through a competition lens. We focus this paper on evaluating this last proposal.
This article proceeds in three main parts. We begin with the historical development of privacy protections in the United States and the tension between privacy concerns and the growing value of consumer data in the digital arena. Next, we explore how the agencies and courts have applied the FTC Act and antitrust law in this area over the years and the reasoning behind the bifurcation of the FTC Act into separate spheres of competition and consumer protection law. This explains the historical separation of privacy as a consumer expectation from commercialized privacy and data. Third, we synthesize analytical factors from the historical approaches to privacy and offer them as guidance for distinguishing between competition and consumer protection issues at the intersection of competition law, consumer protection law, and privacy
A person who “pocket-dials” a third party during a conversation does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Sixth Circuit ruled.
A panel determined that widespread knowledge of accidental calling and the availability of preventative measures mean that an individual on the receiving end of such a call does not violate privacy laws by recording the conversation. [Translation: If you screw up your security, don't ask the court for retroactive protection. Bob]
The central government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right under the Constitution.
Central government’s arguments came when a Bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar and also composed of Justices SA Bobde and C Nagappan was hearing several petitions challenging the decision of some states to make Aadhaar cards compulsory for a several benefits such as salary, PF disbursements and marriage and property registration.
“Right to privacy is not a fundamental right under our Constitution. It flows from one right to another right. Constitution makers did not intend to make Right to Privacy a fundamental right. There is no fundamental right to privacy so these petitions under Article 32 should be dismissed,” Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi argued, adding that the Right to Privacy could be invoked to scrap the Aadhar scheme.
The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal has unanimously overturned a controversial decision that confined police use of surveillance devices to prosecuting the most serious offences, such as murder, terrorism and organised crime.
The judgment, handed down early this month, clears the way for listening devices to be used to obtain admissions from suspects for any indictable offence, even if they have asserted their right to silence.
- Visit your Web & App Activity page.
- In the top right corner of the page, touch Menu > Download searches.
- Choose Create Archive.
- When the download is complete, you’ll get an email confirmation with a link to the data.