Is this an example of
“rapid response” by Target's BoD?
Target
CEO to Step Down Following Massive Data Breach
Target
Corp. announced on Monday that effective immediately, Gregg
Steinhafel
would step down from his positions as Chairman of the Target board of
directors, president and CEO, following the massive data breach late
last year that exposed millions of customer payment card numbers and
hurt company profits.
“Today
we are announcing that, after extensive discussions, the board and
Gregg Steinhafel have decided that now is the right time for new
leadership at Target,” a statement
from the Board of Directors said.
… Target
announced a significant new initiative as part of the company’s
accelerated
$100 million plan to move its REDcard portfolio to
chip-and-PIN-enabled technology and to install supporting software
and next-generation payment devices in stores.
… The
retail giant said that beginning in early 2015, its entire REDcard
portfolio, including all Target-branded credit and debit cards, would
be enabled with MasterCard’s chip-and-PIN solution. Eventually,
all of Target’s REDcard products will be chip-and-PIN secured, the
company said. The new payment terminals will be in all 1,797 U.S.
stores by this September, six months ahead of schedule.
Target
said late last month that it is still searching for a chief
information security officer (CISO) and a chief compliance officer.
[Not “replacements,” these are new positions.
Bob]
"Gentlemen do not
read other gentlemen's mail." That view of the world never
reflected reality and always makes me wonder what other strategic
tools Stimson failed to use.
If you missed the Munk
Debate on State Surveillance where Glenn Greenwald and Alexis
Ohanimoves were pitted against Alan Dershowitz and Michael
Hayden, you can watch it here.
If you want to skip over the opening quotes and clips to get to the
debate, fast forward around 27 minutes.
Be it resolved
state surveillance is a legitimate defence of our freedoms…
Related:
Funny how it only takes
a few hours for the volume of“interpretations” to exceed the
original report by an order of magnitude.
Jeff Kosseff of
Covington & Burling writes:
On
Thursday, the White House Big Data Working Group, led by senior
presidential advisor John Podesta, released a 79-page report that
outlines a number of key observations and recommendations for privacy
in both the private sector and government. Although the report does
not create binding law, it provides insight into the administration’s
priorities on a wide range of privacy and data security issues, from
government surveillance to data breaches. Below are some of the
most important themes to emerge from this report.
Read Jeff’s comments
on InsidePrivacy.
(Related)
From EFF:
Last
week, the White House released its report
on big data and its privacy
implications, the result of a 90-day study commissioned by President
Obama during his January 17 speech on NSA surveillance reforms. Now
that we’ve had a chance to read the report we’d like to share our
thoughts on what we liked, what we didn’t, and what we thought was
missing.
Read EFF’s comments
here.
As a non-lawyer, my
confusion is natural. Lawyers can parse “as many as six impossible
things before breakfast.”
Stewart Baker writes:
The
third-party doctrine of Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735
(1979), is getting a bad rap from libertarians of the left and the
right. Smith holds that the police don’t need a search warrant to
get information about me from a third party. If I keep a diary in my
desk drawer, the police must get a search warrant based on probable
cause if they want to read it. If I leave the diary with my mother
for safekeeping, though, the third party doctrine says that the
police only need to serve her with a subpoena to get it. The same is
true if I store the diary in the cloud with Google Drive or Dropbox.
If it were on my computer, the police would need a warrant to read
it; in the cloud, they don’t.
Read more on WaPo
The Volokh Conspiracy.
If my students learn
nothing else... (Video of robot that cheats)
How
To Win At Rock, Paper, Scissors
And finally, if you
have always wanted to know how to win at Rock, Paper, Scissors,
researchers from China think they have figured it all out. You may
not win every single time like the cheating robot in the video above,
but you should at least inprove your chances of winning.
This method for winning
at Rock, Paper, Scissors is called the “win-stay, lose-shift”
strategy. Ars
Technica pares the strategy down to its basics, while arVix has
the full
research paper [PDF link]. As it’s confusing I’ll probably
stick to choosing at random and losing more often than not as a
result.
Tools for teaching.
Create
Latex Documents with Lyx
Lyx is a free and
open-source document processor built on top of the Latex
typesetting system. It has the power of Latex, so it can be used
to create books, notes, theses, and academic papers. It is free and
is available for Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, UNIX and OS/2.
No comments:
Post a Comment