Tuesday, October 04, 2011


“You were serious about dat?” Joe Pesci in “My Cousin Vinny”
By Dissent, October 3, 2011
Sue Dremman reports that a lawsuit has been filed against Stanford Hospital & Clinics and its former vendor, Multi-Specialty Collection Services, LLC. You can read about it on Palo Alto Online. This is one of those cases where I really do view a breached entity as a victim because SHC seems to have done everything right but they’ll still take the reputation hit and incur costs.
Keeping in mind that this is just SHC’s side of the story and we have yet to hear from MSCS:
Stanford officials said Multi-Specialty Collection Services, a California company, provided business and financial support to the hospitals. Multi-Specialty was operating under a contract that specifically required it to protect the privacy of the patient information. The hospital sent the data to Multi-Specialty in an encrypted format to protect its confidentiality.
A hospital investigation found that Multi-Specialty prepared an electronic spreadsheet from the data that had patient names, addresses and diagnosis codes. The company sent the spreadsheet to a third person who was not authorized to have the information and who posted it on a website.
“This mishandling of private patient information was in complete contravention of the law and of the requirements of MSCS’s contract with SHC and is shockingly irresponsible. SHC regrets that its patients’ confidentiality was breached and is committed to protecting the health and privacy of all of its patients,” the hospital said.
Read more on Palo Alto Online.


Probably not that big an increase. I'll bet they just didn't look for or notice most of them in earlier years...
GAO: Federal network security breaches spike 650 percent
October 3, 2011 by admin
Aliya Sternstein reports:
Reports of network security incidents at federal agencies have soared 650 percent during the past half-decade, jeopardizing the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive government information, federal auditors charged in a congressionally mandated report.
The most prevalent types of cyber events included infections from malicious code — 30 percent of incidents; violations of acceptable use policies; and intrusions into networks, applications and other data resources, states a Government Accountability Office report released on Monday.
Read more on NextGov.
[From the NextGov article:
The main reason agency computers are vulnerable to contamination is departments have failed to implement security controls, according to the audit. Agencies do not always adequately train personnel responsible for system security, regularly monitor safeguards, successfully fix vulnerabilities or resolve incidents in a timely fashion.


I would expect nothing less. After all, this is what they said they didn't do, but then said they did, but then blamed on the users.
suraj.sun sends word that a recent Facebook patent application details specific methods for tracking its users while they're using other websites. Michael Arrington pointed out over the weekend that this follows explicit statements from Facebook employees that the social networking giant has "no interest in tracking people." Quoting the Patent Application:
"In one embodiment, a method is described for tracking information about the activities of users of a social networking system while on another domain. The method includes maintaining a profile for each of one or more users of the social networking system, each profile identifying a connection to one or more other users of the social networking system and including information about the user. The method additionally includes receiving one or more communications from a third-party website having a different domain than the social network system, each message communicating an action taken by a user of the social networking system on the third-party website. The method additionally includes logging the actions taken on the third-party website in the social networking system, each logged action including information about the action."

(Related) “It's the user's fault that they didn't opt-out of the feature they didn't know about, but we were kind enough to opt them into...”
How To Avoid Appearing In Social Ads In Facebook & LinkedIn
… A social advertisement works in a very straightforward way: if you, by a coincidence or whatever reason, have liked a Facebook page or ad, your friends will see your “like” next time they see the same advertisement. You might feel comfortable with that, however most people are not aware of the fact that by simply “liking” something (and thus expressing a passive form of appreciation), they also start recommending the same thing to their friends. LinkedIn launched a somewhat similar form of social advertising this summer.
Another disturbing thing is that in both systems, you find yourself automatically “opted-in” the social advertising system. Yes, you can opt out, but only if you know about the system and can spend a little effort and a few minutes of your time to do a quick research on how to disable it for your profile. So here’s a quick guide for those who feel they don’t want to participate in social advertising at LinkedIn and Facebook.


Microsoft did what?
U.S. Privacy Laws Also Extend to Noncitizens
October 3, 2011 by Dissent
Tim Hull reports:
A federal law that protects the privacy of emails and other electronic communications extends to foreign nationals, the 9th Circuit ruled Monday, allowing Microsoft to protect the emails of an Indian citizen accused of fraud in Australia.
Read more on Courthouse News.
What’s particularly nice about this case is that it was Microsoft that made the motion to quash. I love it when businesses try to protect consumer’s privacy – in this case, by asserting that ECPA protected the privacy of noncitizens as well as citizens.


The parallel with the beeper is that someone has to actually follow the beeps – very similar to following the car. With GPS, you bug the car and go have coffee while it records everything.
Privacy advocates’ amicus brief in United States v. Jones
October 3, 2011 by Dissent
CDT has uploaded the amicus brief filed by itself, EFF, Matt Blaze, Andrew J. Blumberg, Roger L. Easton, and Norman M. Sadeh in United States v. Jones, a case that asks whether a warrant is required under the Fourth Amendment to attach a GPS device to a vehicle.
You can read the brief here. As I understand it, there seems to be two main arguments in their brief: (1) that GPS is not equivalent to beeper technology, which simply augments an officer’s sensory capabilities; and (2) the massive amounts of detailed information compiled automatically by GPS systems violates the public’s sense of still having some reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
Briefs, documents, and more background on the case can be found on SCOTUSblog.


Should all these questions be addressed before using the technology? (I'd say no.)
With Shooting Caught On Officer’s “Chest-Cam,” Tech Precedent To Be Set
The rising number of cameras recording activity on the street and on the job makes for an interesting new set of problems. I examined a few in my Surveillant Society post, and one has just emerged that could set a serious precedent for the application of tech in criminal cases.
On September 25, an Oakland police officer pulled over a car and the suspect got out and fled. The officer chased him, and during a struggle the suspect was shot and killed.
… It would be another sadly typical escalation with a lethal end, except that the officer in question had at some point flipped on his “chest-cam,” a relatively recent development in policing where a Flip-type pocket cam (in this case a Vievu model) is attached to the uniform and turned on under certain circumstances. The presence of this camera is leading to a few potentially major legal questions given the stakes of the case
First, when are officers required to activate the camera?
Second, how is the footage handled?
Can the officer in question view the footage before giving a statement?
At what level should this kind of tech decision be legislated?


It's not lying, it's enhancing the truth!
"Torrent Freak has an interesting interview with a former private investigator who was hired to track people who pirated software and movies. He relates some of the tactics used to make evidence more appealing to police, the media and lawmakers. He said, 'We discussed the formula for extrapolating the potential street value earnings of "laboratories" and we were instructed to count all blank discs in our seizure figures as if they were potential product. Mr. Gane also explained that the increased loss approximation figures were derived from all forms of impacts on decreasing cinema patronage right through to the farmer who grows the corn for popping.' Regarding the head of AFACT, the article notes, 'Gane understood that the media was an essential tool towards AFACT's goal of getting tougher copyright legislation in place. And for this purpose, it was a good idea to bend the truth a bit.'"


This could be a serious pain in the posterior..
"The Patent Examiner blog has the incredible story of Innovatio IP, a patent troll that recently acquired a portfolio of patents that its lawyers (what, you think there are any employees?) appear to believe cover pretty much any Wi-Fi implementation. They've been suing coffee shops, grocery stores, restaurants and hotels first — including Caribou Coffee, Cosi, Panera Bread Co, certain Marriotts, Best Westerns, Comfort Inns and more. ... The lawyer representing the company, Matthew McAndrews, seems to imply that the company believes the patents cover everyone who has a home Wi-Fi setup, but they don't plan to go after such folks right now, for 'strategic' reasons."


Isn't this covered in “Economics for Politicians who want to Do Something?”
Minimum wage harming job opportunities for young


The latest “convergence” makes Cable TV vulnerable... (Remember the IBM ad that claimed every song by every artist would be available on demand? Extend that to any media...)
Google paying $100 million for YouTube content, report says
Google is taking aim at the cable industry by putting up $100 million to develop original content for dozens of new YouTube channels, according to a Wall Street Journal report.
… The report comes as competition heats up for consumers' entertainment dollars. Amazon and Dish Network recently announced forays into streaming content to challenge Netflix, which has been experiencing a subscriber backlash after a price increase in its DVD-and-streaming plan.
As part of its Kindle Fire unveiling last week, Amazon announced it was bundling its new tablet computer with a free one-month subscription to Amazon Prime, which gives customers access to more than 11,000 movies and TV shows for $79 a year. The week before, Dish unveiled the "Blockbuster Movie Pass," a bundle of services that offers streaming video and discs and games by mail to existing customers for $10 a month.


The future is so yesterday...
INFOGRAPHIC: Got The Internet? Then Never Leave Home Again
Our infographic today comes from College At Home and shows all the different things you can do online which allows you to never leave your home.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)