You need to demonstrate harm. Spending money to
prevent harm is part of everyday risk management. How could you show
that something Home Depot did (or didn't do) resulted in a specific,
uniquely identifiable risk that you needed to take specific actions
to avoid?
David Allison reports that Home Depot is seeking
dismissal of a lawsuit filed by financial institutions by arguing
that the financial institutions haven’t demonstrated any concrete
injury traceable to Home Depot:
Home
Depot goes to on say that “No individual bank alleges any harm that
it specifically incurred as a result of the Home Depot data breach,
and the majority of the types of damage the banks seek to recover are
expenses voluntarily
incurred to protect against possible future harm.”
The
home improvement giant adds that “the banks’ complaint should be
dismissed because the banks have not stated a single actionable claim
against Home Depot.”
To
read Home Depot’s complete response to the financial institutions’
lawsuit, click
here.
Read more on Atlanta
Business Chronicle.
My favorite kind of moron.
In Congress, bad policy ideas are like vampires:
They are very hard to kill because they’re always somehow coming
back from the dead. Such is the case with this year’s iteration of
the Senate’s “cybersecurity information sharing” legislation,
the Cybersecurity
Information Sharing Act (CISA), offered by the chairman of the
Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC).
The bill has been roundly criticized
by a wide range of privacy and civil liberties groups, many of whom
view the legislation as a de facto surveillance bill. Even though an
attempt to attach CISA to the annual National Defense Authorization
Act failed
last month, rumors persist on Capitol Hill that CISA will rise from
the dead in July and get another shot on the Senate floor, with the
recent and massive hack
of the Office of Personnel Management’s databases being used to
justify
moving forward with the bill.
Double Secret law? Like Dean Wormer treats Animal
House (and in this case, the Animal Senate)
Alex Newman writes:
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and the group Republicans Overseas Action are planning a lawsuit against the Obama administration’s Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service, the latest effort to stop a deeply controversial scheme known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) that turns constitutional privacy protections upside down. Represented by a leading constitutional attorney, Senator Paul is taking aim at a barrage of pseudo-treaties — so-called “Intergovernmental Agreements” (IGAs) — negotiated by the administration with foreign governments and dictatorships under FATCA to share personal data. Critics contend that the information-sharing agreements and the statute itself are unconstitutional for numerous reasons.
Read more on The
New American.
Interesting. Has nothing to do with reality. Go
figure...
Unisys
Security Insights – Report for US
by Sabrina
I. Pacifici on Jul 2, 2015
“Consumers
in the U.S. are most concerned about data breaches at retailers and
government agencies. U.S. consumers indicated relatively lower
levels of concern about data breaches at other organizations such as
airlines, healthcare and telecom companies. Interestingly, the
perceived threat of data breaches is low for banks and utilities,
possibly reflecting traditional high levels of trust in the security
of these organization
- 44 percent American respondents are most concerned about their personal data held by retailers, as many consumers seem to be losing trust in retail data security owing to recent high profile breaches.
- Concerns about unauthorized access to personal data held by U.S. government agencies is somewhat high (39 percent), also possibly due to the recent publicized breaches.
Perceptions concerning the effectiveness of
biometrics on personal devices are mixed in the U.S. About one-third
view biometrics as effective, while a similar proportion is unsure.”
Very Zen headline, very loud communication, very
annoying students? Why it probably won't spread much beyond China.
How to Use
a Texting App Without Sending a Text
Voice messaging—or sending short audio clips
instead of text messages—has taken China by storm. Step on a
Beijing subway and you’ll see people barking into their phones
intermittently, as if they’re using walkie-talkies.
… In theory, voice messaging (also known as
“push-to-talk”) should be popular everywhere. Rather than
fumbling with a tiny pixelated keyboard, users simply press a button
and speak. [Have you ever
seen a Chinese keyboard? Bob] Typos are an
impossibility, because the recipient gets a recording, not text. You
can free up your other hand, and watch where you’re going—much
safer than texting while you walk (or drive).
Not just for my programming students. Good advice
translated to any area of study.
10 Tips To
Becoming A Better Programmer
A cautionary tale for ALL my students.
Paper –
Internet searching not a substitute for knowledge
by Sabrina
I. Pacifici on Jul 2, 2015
“Searching the Internet for information may make
people feel smarter than they actually are, according to new research
published by the American Psychological Association. “The Internet
is such a powerful environment, where you can enter any question, and
you basically have access to the world’s knowledge at your
fingertips,” said lead researcher Matthew Fisher, a fourth-year
doctoral candidate in psychology at Yale University. “It
becomes easier to confuse your own knowledge with this external
source. When people are truly on their own, they may be
wildly inaccurate about how much they know and how dependent they are
on the Internet.” In a series of experiments, participants who
searched for information on the Internet believed they were more
knowledgeable than a control group about topics unrelated to the
online searches. In a
result that surprised the researchers, participants had an inflated
sense of their own knowledge after searching the Internet even when
they couldn’t find the information they were looking for.
After conducting Internet searches, participants also believed their
brains were more active than the control group did. The research was
published
online in the Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General.”
No comments:
Post a Comment