Another third party vendor. Did they comply with
WalMart's required security?
Ahmad Hathout and David Berman report:
Walmart Canada is investigating a potential breach of customer credit card data after one of its websites operated by a third party was compromised.
[…]
A source close to the situation told The Globe and Mail that as many as 60,000 customers could be affected.
According to Walmart’s website, PNI Digital Media operates its online photo centre.
Read more on Globe
and Mail.
[From
the article:
… the company has disabled the website and its
mobile applications and notified the Office of the Privacy
Commissioner of Canada.
Walmart said it has “no reason to believe” its
Walmart.ca and Walmart.com destinations or its in-store transactions
have been affected.
There are techniques that Anthem could have used
to confirm that their data was used, but they might view that as
counter productive.
On Thursday, I had this exchange with
@dapnwmomster on Twitter:
So hackers pull off mammoth hacks like #Anthem
and #OPM
but none of the data have misused? Is that what we're really supposed
to believe?
@PogoWasRight
Many Anthem customers had their info used by hackers filing false tax
returns - the identity protection they provided FAILED.
@dapnwmomster
I'm not sure how plaintiffs can prove the info used in fraudulent
filings was from Anthem given numerous other breaches.
Today, J.K. Wall has a report on Indianapolis
Business Journal that pretty much reiterates what I had suggested:
Anthem continues to claim that there is no evidence of ID theft due
to their breach, and it’s going to be challenging for plaintiffs’
attorneys to show that any fraud was due to that breach. Wall starts
out by reporting:
Anthem Inc.’s massive data breach reported early this year is now generating real cases of identity theft, according to allegations in a small but growing number of lawsuits filed across the country.
Twenty-six people who have sued the Indianapolis-based health insurer claim they were victims of fraud, with most saying fraudulent tax returns were filed in their names using information obtained from Anthem. It had 78.8 million current and former customers’ records stolen by hackers from Dec. 10 to Jan. 27.
And right there is the first thing that would make
me suspicious: why would there be only 26 cases of fraud if 80
million people’s information stolen for criminal purposes? I’d
expect a lot more. A lot. Much more than the “hundreds more”
one attorney suggests will join the law suit.
But Anthem maintains it’s not the source of its customers’ troubles. That’s based on weekly reports it receives from the FBI, which is checking the black market to see if anyone is selling information from the Anthem hack.
“As part of the ongoing investigation regarding Anthem’s cyber attack, the FBI has been routinely monitoring for fraudulent activity related to this incident,” Anthem spokeswoman Kristin Binns wrote in an email. “Despite allegations to the contrary, there is no evidence that the cyber attackers have shared or sold any individuals’ data; and there is no evidence that fraud has occurred against any individuals who could have been impacted.”
Even if people suspect or believe that the Anthem
breach is responsible for any woes they or their minor children have
experienced, connecting the
dots from the breach to the problems will be a serious hurdle in
litigation.
Read more on the Indianapolis
Business Journal.
Not sure of the strategic value here, but I'll be
interested in following the story.
Daily Pakistan reports:
For the first time, ‘tracking chips’ will be installed in (sic) the feet of 1,600 terror suspects in Punjab province after Eidul Fitr to monitor their movements.
There are some 1,600 terror suspects on the list of the Fourth Schedule in Punjab. The Fourth Schedule defines a terror suspect as a “person who is concerned in terrorism or he belongs to a proscribed organisation”.
“The Punjab government has decided in principle to start electronic surveillance of 1,600 Fourth Schedulers by installing tracking devices on their ankles (commonly known as ankle-band) so that their movements can be monitored,” a spokesman for the provincial Counter-Terrorism Department told the media on Friday.
Read more on Daily
Pakistan.
So my new website about Donald Trump's brain
(TheBigEmpty.com) would not be anonymous? I'd be sued immediately by
“The Donald” – the publicity would be enormous!
Privacy advocates, public interest groups and even
some celebrities are raising alarms about a proposal that could limit
the ability of some website owners to disguise themselves.
The issue has caught fire over the past few months
as an obscure organization that manages the Internet's domain name
system was inundated with comments about a proposal that could bar
commercial websites from using proxies to register their web
addresses.
… “Whatever the interest in unmasking an
anonymous speaker, free speech interests demand the preservation of
opportunities for anonymous speech,” Public Knowledge, the Open
Technology Institute and the Center for Democracy and Technology
argued in joint public comments.
Individuals and businesses are currently allowed
to hide their identity, physical location and other personal contact
information behind proxies in the public “WHOIS” directory that
stores information online about the owners of every registered
website domain name.
Proxies can be used by anyone registering a
domain, from a lawmaker gearing up for a presidential run who does
not want to tip off the press, to a blogger posting unpopular views
online. The proxy service comes standard with many of the major
domain registrars like GoDaddy.
Innovative or inevitable? I'd say the latter.
Federal
agencies test new “release for one, release to all” FOIA policy
by Sabrina
I. Pacifici on Jul 11, 2015
Reporters
Committee on Freedom of the Press – Adam Marshall, July
9, 2015: “With little public fanfare, seven federal agencies
have announced a controversial trial program of publishing documents
responsive to most Freedom of Information Act requests online. Under
the program, known as a “Release-to-One is Release-to-All”
policy, any member of the
public will presumably have access to the result of almost any FOIA
request. Few other details were released in a brief
announcement posted on several agency websites. It remains to be
seen whether there will be a delay between sending responsive
documents to the requester and posting them for the general public,
or whether requesters will simply be sent a link to a public website
that already hosts the documents. Agencies participating in the
six-month pilot include the
Environmental Protection Agency, the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, and
certain components of the Department of Defense,
the
Department of Homeland Security, the
Department of Justice, and the
National Archives and Records Administration.
In order to mitigate privacy concerns, the
announcement states that “participating
agencies will not post online responses to requests in which
individuals seek access to information about themselves.”
I don't see how the logistics would work unless we
shipped the chickens in old oil tankers.
US chicken
and seafood processed in China – returned for sale stateside
by Sabrina
I. Pacifici on Jul 11, 2015
Food
Safety News – “Thanks to our Change.org petition
(307,000-plus signatures and rising), millions of Americans have
learned that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is about to
allow U.S chickens to be sent to China for processing and then
shipped back to the U.S. for human consumption. This arrangement is
particularly alarming given China’s appalling
food safety record and the fact that there
will be no on-site USDA inspectors in those plants. In
addition, American consumers will never know that chicken processed
in China is in foods like chicken soup or chicken nuggets because
there’s no requirement to label it as such… According to the
Seattle
Times, domestically caught Pacific salmon and Dungeness crab are
currently being processed in China and shipped back to the U.S., all
because of significant cost
savings…”
I keep trying to make sense of this industry.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/10/why-taylor-swift-will-not-fight-with-youtube.html?__source=google|editorspicks|&par=google&google_editors_picks=true
Why Taylor
Swift will not fight with YouTube
Taylor Swift has become the poster child for
defending the rights of all artists from tech giants like Apple
and Spotify,
who are looking to give away music through their free streaming
services.
… Swift's disapproval of Apple's decision is
not the first time she openly expressed her feelings about the
music-streaming industry. Late last year, Swift also pulled her
music from Spotify in an effort to stress the negative ramifications
of free streaming on the future of the music business.
But there is one platform in which Swift does not
have "Bad Blood": YouTube.
… So why is YouTube receiving seemingly
preferential treatment?
The simple answer is, the economics of YouTube
make more sense for the 25-year-old and other artists looking to
protect their future revenue, because YouTube videos serve a major
promotional purpose. On YouTube, Swift is able to monetize her
videos in more ways than Spotify and Apple can provide.
For my students, all of whom will use Windows 10.
… The guide is titled "Starting to use
Windows 10" and helps Windows users find out everything new in
the operating system.
I want my students to speak the truth, just not to
me.
No comments:
Post a Comment