Montreal Police will not confirm, but there is a report this morning they are going all out to try to recover sensitive information stolen from the private vehicle of a senior police officer, while he was attending a Christmas party.
The Journal de Montreal says the bag of Captain Patrice Vilceus was taken in a smash and grab near Union Street December 17.
The bag contained files and other confidential information regarding ongoing police investigations.
Under a proposed new law, Missouri cops will record a person’s race, their perceived sexual orientation, religion, disability and their English language proficiency!
Reams of data now show that “driving while black” is a real offense in the eyes of some Missouri officers and departments and it’s about to get worse!
Below are a some excerpts taken from the new law….
iv. Provide for the protection of the privacy of individuals whose data is collected by not providing to the public individual names and identifying information regarding the particular law enforcement officers who made the stops and the pedestrians, drivers, and passengers who were stopped.
Officers conduct what’s know as ‘threshold inquiries’ which allow them lots of
latitude to question (interrogate) a person(s).
Knowing the police world as intimately as I do, what they’re really saying is
question them about everything.
Once DHS took over our Police, everything’s changed.
Both the administrative law judge’s decision in LabMD and the Third Circuit’s recent decision in Wyndham, which we previously blogged about, put the FTC on notice that it cannot assume that in the wake of a security breach, allegedly inadequate data security will necessarily constitute an unfair practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Further, the FTC’s body of data security consent orders – basically private settlements of uncontested and unadjudicated cases (most of which also include deception claims), where the remedies include “fencing in” that goes beyond what the law requires – are merely indications of best practices and not some sort of “common law” as some have contended. Indeed, to treat consent orders as precedential would fly in the face of Congress’ purposeful curtailment of the FTC’s rulemaking authority under Mag Moss, as compared to the APA standards applicable to other federal agencies. Finally, the decisions suggest that the application of Section 5 unfairness authority to consumer privacy, especially in the context of interest-based advertising, is limited.
HIPAA compliance may not be enough.
Mandatory Spending in 2015
Discretionary Spending in 2015
Revenues in 2015