jump to navigation

Mobile Privacy October 12, 2012

Posted by Heather Mark in InfoSec & Privacy, Laws and Leglslation, privacy.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

Smartphones have changed the way we interact with our world.   They’ve introduced a new level of convenience, but they’ve also introduced a new potential threat to our privacy.    As consumers, we should be informed about the choices that we make on our smartphones and how they might impact us.  For example, I upgraded my iPhone to iOS 6 this afternoon. (I know. I’m a little late on that one.)  Anyway, when I was done I got two prompts.   The first asked if I wanted to enable location services.  I said yes, knowing that meant that 1) I could use the “find my phone” app, as well as many other apps that come in handy for a frequent traveler, and; 2) that it meant that Apple would have access to my location data.  The next prompt suggested that Apple could improve its products and services if I just allowed my phone to send occasional reports to headquarters.  That one I declined.  I don’t necessarily want Apple to have access to all of my activities on my smartphone.

Now, I’m not naive enough to believe that my simple selection means that I have safely secured my data and mobile behavior entirely.  There are companies that are taking advantage of the fact that privacy laws have not kept pace with technology.  We know for example, that there are companies that offer device fingerprinting services for fraud prevention that also happen to sell mobile device behavior analytics to marketers.  Consumers don’t have any way of knowing that their behavior is being tracked and they have no way to opt out.

This week, Sen. Franken (D-Minn) and Sen. Blumenthal (D-Conn) introduced a bill designed to protect mobile privacy.  The Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011 is meant to protect consumer privacy by informing users of how and with whom their location data is shared.  There are four primary requirements of the bill.  Distilled to their basics, those requirements are:

1) Gain consumer consent before collecting location data

2) Get consumer consent before sharing that data

3) Assist in understanding and investigating crimes that involve the misuse of location data

and

4) create criminal penalties for those that abuse location services or use so-called “stalking apps.”

While I applaud the move to ensure that mobile users are protected from entities divulging their location without the knowledge or consent of the consumer, I wonder if the law goes far enough in protecting consumer privacy.  What about those device fingerprinting activities?  Do you think the proposed bill goes far enough? Too far?  What would you like to see in terms of mobile privacy protection?

Privacy, Social Media, and Legislation September 29, 2012

Posted by Heather Mark in InfoSec & Privacy, Laws and Leglslation.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

This week marks the opening of a new chapter in the rocky marriage of privacy and social media.  California has passed two laws related to the protection of privacy on social media platform.

In SB1349, the state prohibits public or private post-secondary educational institutions from requiring students to provide the organization with access to the student (or student groups) social media sites.  Nor can the student or group be forced to divulge information contained on those sites.

AB 1844 is similar in nature, but applies to employers.  Specifically, the bill “would prohibit an employer from requiring or requesting an employee or applicant for employment to disclose a username or password for the purpose of accessing personal social media, to access personal social media in the presence of the employer, or to divulge any personal social media. This bill would also prohibit an employer from discharging, disciplining, threatening to discharge or discipline, or otherwise retaliating against an employee or applicant for not complying with a request or demand by the employer that violates these provisions.”

These bills are interesting in that they address a core concern around privacy and labor laws as they relate to social media.  Employers (and potential lenders) are prohibited from making decisions based upon race, gender, religion, politics, sexual orientation.  Most of this information, though, is available on individuals’ private social media profiles.  Amid increasing reports of employers requiring prospective employees to turn over credentials or access their sites in view of the employer, privacy advocates were becoming increasingly, and rightly, concerned that the rights of individuals to protect their personal lives from employers were being diluted.  These actions on the part of California serve to protect those rights.  Frankly, these actions can also protect employers and schools from being accused of discriminatory behavior by not providing them access to this information, which would otherwise be unavailable to them.

It will be interesting to see how quickly other states follow the lead that California has set.  Recall that California was the first state to pass a breach notification law and we now have 46 such laws nationwide.  So the question, to me, is when, not if, we are going to see the trend take shape.

 

 

 

Because I Said So September 23, 2012

Posted by Heather Mark in cybersecurity, Industry News, InfoSec & Privacy, Laws and Leglslation, Politics.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

Last week, Democratic leaders made some minor news when they sent a letter to President Obama suggesting that he issue an executive order on Cybersecurity.  Their position is that, since Congress seems to be at loggerheads over the issue, the president should take the opportunity to force action by issuing an Executive Order.  In fact, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano told a congressional committee that just such an order was in its final stages.  So what might we see in this forthcoming order?

According to reports, the order will attempt to regulate sixteen “critical” industries.  The guidelines will be voluntary, after a fashion.  Compliance with the standards may determine eligibility for federal contracts.  The White House has not made any secret about its intentions on Cybersecurity.  In fact, the White House website lists  “Ten Near Term Actions to Support Our Cybersecurity Strategy.”  Brevity prevents me from getting into a deep discussion about those actions here, but you can read them and draw your own conclusions.

The questions remain, however – 1) how stringent (read intrusive) will the requirements be?; 2) Will they be relevant to the threats in the landscape?; 3) How will compliance be policed? and 4) How much additional cost are we potentially adding our already stretched budgets?

Another question that merits examination is whether or not the standards will be redundant.  Many industries are already straining under the weight of a variety of infosec requirements – whether industry-regulated or government mandated?  Will another layer of regulation mean increased efficacy of data protection strategies and mandates or will it be just another layer of red tape?

 

 

 

“The Fortress Mentality & Data Compromises” – Chris & Heather Mark in August 2012 TransactionWorld Magazine July 31, 2012

Posted by Chris Mark in cybersecurity, Data Breach.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

This month’s TransactionWorld magazine includes an article by me (Chris Mark) titled: “The Impact Of the Fortress Mentality and Today’s Compliance Strategies”.  The article discusses, among other things, the Global Payments breach, PCI DSS compliance, and provides an overview and opinion on today’s focus on compliance with static standards as opposed to risk based information security.  One important note. I neglected to send an updated BIO to the editor so it still references my position at ProPay.  I have not worked at ProPay for over a year 😉  You can read more about my company Mark Consulting Group at www.MarkConsultingGroup.com.

Heather Mark is also in this month’s TransactionWorld with an article titled: “After the Compromise: Incident Response Plans and Mitigating the Damage”  Heather speaks about data compromises and provides good insight into strategies companies can employ to minimize the impact of such breaches.

“Let’s Talk Data Security” – Heather Mark in July 2012 Greensheet & TransactionWorld July 9, 2012

Posted by Chris Mark in cybersecurity, Data Breach, Laws and Leglslation, News, PCI DSS.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Heather Mark is interviewed in the July 2012 issue of Greensheet in the article titled: “Expert Advice on Security Defense and Planning”.    The article discusses strategies for preventing and dealing with data breaches with the payment card industry.    Additionally, Heather has an article in TransactionWorld titled: “New School vs. Old School: Security and Emerging Technologies”.  You can catch Heather’s articles every month in Transaction World Magazine.

%d bloggers like this: