Data from dating website stolen and sold

28. April 2016

As BBC just reported the data of more than a million members of the dating website www.beauftifulpeole.com has been sold online. The traded data not only included the weight, height, job, and phone numbers of members but further more income, sexual preferences, smoking and drinking habits and relationship status. The firm stated that the data belonged to members, who joined before July 2015 and that no passwords or financial information were included.

The data has now been sold on the online black market, said security expert Troy Hunt, an Australian security expert, who runs the website HaveIBeenPwned.com, where people can verify whether their data has been leaked. Although he does not know exactly where or for how much money the data was sold, he stated that by selling data tens of thousands of dollars can be earned, bearing in mind that the data originally can cost as little as $300.

Chris Vickery, security researcher, told the BBC that the affected company acted quickly after notifying them that he had discovered it. However, the data had then already been sold. He went on by saying that “they published it openly to the world with no protection whatsoever”. This is a contradiction to the company’s statement that the content was from a test server. Therefore, Vickery added that “whether or not it’s in the test database makes no difference if it’s real data”. His analysis is further supported as a second researcher had identified the same weakness on the same day.

However in a statement BeautifulPeople said that “the breach involves data that was provided by members prior to mid-July 2015. No more recent user data or any data relating to users who joined from mid-July 2015 onward is affected”.

David Emm, principal security researcher at Kaspersky Lab commented on the stolen and sold data by summarizing “now it’s public, cybercriminals have the opportunity to use this information to steal personal identities or more” and added “unfortunately, once a breach of this nature has been made, there is not much that can be done.”

Emm went by giving the advise that “organisations need to take action and use more data, analytical insights and triangulation of multiple-identity proofing techniques to minimise the potential effects of identity theft for both the user and the businesses serving them”.

 

Category: USA
Tags:

FBI paid probably more than 1 Million for cracking San Bernardino iPhone

26. April 2016

NBC News reports that FBI Director James Comey might have disclosed how much the agency spent for cracking the iPhone of the San Bernardino attackers.

Comey commented on the case so that the organization paid “a lot, more than I will make in the remainder of this job, which is seven years and four months, for sure” at a security conference in London. He went on that it “was in my view worth it” and that the FBI will now be able to crack any other iPhone 5s with IOS 9 by using the developed software.

Based on this given timeframe and by multiplying his salary of $180,000 per year, NBC News comes to a figure of $1.3 million. However, there was no official comment on part of the FBI.

Category: USA
Tags: , ,

After the GDPR, the ePrivacy Directive as next step on the EU Agenda

The EU Parliament approved some weeks ago the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). As a next step, the EU Commission has launched a public consultation on the evaluation and review of the ePrivacy Directive, as part of the Digital Single Market Strategy proposed by the EU Commission in May 2015. The consultation started on the 12th April and will be open until the 5th July 2016.

The current ePrivacy Directive was initially adopted for the telecoms sector. However, most of the EU Member States have also extended its application to other sectors. This Directive is also known as “cookie law”, but it also regulates the confidentiality of communications, the obligation to notify data breaches, the scope and definition of unsolicited communications, etc.

The “update” of the ePrivacy Directive is necessary in order to achieve a higher harmonization at all levels, including the field of electronic communications, and to complement the GDPR. The head of unit for policy and consultation at the EU Data Protection Supervisor, Sophie Louveaux, unofficially stated that the modification of the ePrivacy Directive is a priority regarding privacy issues and that a “full coherence” between the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive should be achieved.

The legislative proposal for a new ePrivacy Directive is expected by the end of 2016.

UK Information Commissioner gives opinion on EU-U.S. Privacy Shield

25. April 2016

The UK Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, issued last week his opinion about the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. He criticized the reluctance of the U.S. authorities to make amendments on the agreement. On the 13th April, the Article 29WP also called American negotiators for clarification of some aspects of the Privacy Shield such as data transfers, the institution of the ombudsman or the justification for the collection of personal data, etc. Graham also remarked that the ECJ will also ask for clarification regarding these points and invited both American and European authorities to provide the required clarification.

On the other side, Stefan Selig, U.S. undersecretary of commerce for international trade, affirmed that the opinion issued by the EU Data Protection Authorities will be revised carefully. However, he believes that the current draft of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield achieves a balance of interests for both parties.

Graham also remarks the importance of reaching an agreement regarding international data transfers, so that the English DPA (ICO) can focus on providing support to organizations regarding the implementation of the GDPR that will be effective on the first half of 2018.

EU Parliament approved on Passenger Name Record

22. April 2016

Due to the fact that security specialists and the EU member states have pushed for European rules on Passenger Name Record (PNR) for years, the latest acts of terror in Europe just increased these requestes. These demands have been met by EU Parliament as it approved the bill concerning a more systematic collection, use and retention of data on international airline passengers on 14 April 2016.

However, a first attempt on implementing rules on the use of PNR was rejected in 2013 due to concerns about the necessity and scope of the proposal and its compliance with fundamental rights. The civil liberties committee then discussed a new draft text on PNR on 26 February 2015 and on 15 July 2015 this text was adopted. Safeguards were included ensuring the lawfulness of any use of the data, so that the data should only be used in order to fight terrorism and serious international crime. After negotianting EU Parliament and the Council reached a provisional deal on 4 December 2015. During a plenary session on 14 April 2016 the text was then approved by 461 votes to 179, with nine absentions.

Tech coalitions write open letter over US bill banning encryption

21. April 2016

A Tech group just wrote an open letter to US Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein, concerning their bill requiring all encryption to be breakable on command.

The mentioned letter starts by saying “We write to express our deep concerns about well-intentioned but ultimately unworkable policies around encryption that would weaken the very defenses we need to protect us from people who want to cause economic and physical harm.” and goes on by pointing out “unintended consequences”.

Reform Government Surveillance, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Internet Infrastructure Coalition, and the Entertainment Software Association have signed the letter. Those four represent most of the major internet and tech companies such as Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Netflix and Verisign.

At the same time an US survey from ACT concludes that 93 percent of peole being asked answered it is important that their data is secured and that 92 percent of people being asked support strong encryption on their devices.

 

Category: USA
Tags:

About 28,000 data protection officers are requiered to be appointed under the GDPR

20. April 2016

Article 37 of the GDPR states that data controllers and processors of personal information are required to appoint a data protection officer in cace:

(a)  The processing is carried out by a public authority or body (except courts); or

(b)  The controller’s or processor’s “core activities” require “regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale” or consist of “processing on a large scale of special categories of data.”

A data protection officer is able to be appointed by a group, public authorities or individual legal entity. Article 39 of the GDPR requires that a data protection officer is “designated on the basis of professional qualities and, in particular, expert knowledge of data protection law and practices”. Compliance, trainings on how to process data according to the law and the communication with the national authorities are part of the task area of a data protection officer.

Therefore, due to the GDPR organizations worldwide have to prepare for a number of new requirements in terms of data collection and processing. One particular requirement is that certain organizations will now have to appoint a data protection officer according to Arcticle 37 of the GDPR, as mentioned above. Research indicates the number of data protection officers required to be appointed under the GDPR will be about 28,000. This is an estimate based on official statistics regarding both public and private sector data controllers in the EU and taking further assumptions into account such assuming that US companies obliged to comply with the GDPR would also require a data protection officer, and of those companies who self-certified under Safe Harbor are likely included in that number.

Criticism at Google’s ‘right to be forgotten’ position

The New York Times reports that crisicism is raised among European data protection regulators and politicians on Google’s secretive process for deciding whose “right to be forgotten” cases end with a stricken link and whose do not. The lack of the company’s transparency is not the only concern regarding how a private organization has autonomy in these cases instead of the government. Furthermore, Google has ruled on double the amount of national authorities’ privacy judgments. “If Europe really wanted to regain control over personal data, giving Google this type of power is an odd outcome,” concluded Oxford University’s Luciano Floridi.

The criticism is also raised as a result of a general growing discontent from both European regulators and politicians due to the fact that national data protection agencies sometimes lack the financial, technical and human resources to handle the substantial increase of “right to be forgotten” requests, according to regulatory officials and legal experts.

Category: EU · USA
Tags: ,

Parliament finally approves of GDPR

15. April 2016

The European Union will have a new data protection regulation. After four years of ups and downs, the European Parliament came to an agreement on thursday in a plenary vote of support for the GDPR and the companion Data Protection Directive for policing and the judiciary.

The German MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht commented that “the General Data Protection Regulation makes a high, uniform level of data protection throughout the EU a reality,” and added that, “the regulation will also create clarity for businesses by establishing a single law across the EU. The new law creates confidence, legal certainty, and fairer competition.”

In order to give businesses and organizations time to adjust their compliance and data protection issues, the new GDPR will officially become effective in two years. The GDPR includes provisions such as the impositions of a clear and affirmative consent for processing personal data and a clear privacy notice. Further, there will be obligations concerning the breach of notification and the implementation of potential fines up to 4 percent of a company’s global annual turnover.

European Commission First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, Vice-President of the Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip, and Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality Vera Jourova welcomed the new regulation as it will “help stimulate the Digital Single Market in the EU by fostering trust in online services by consumers and legal certainty for businesses based on clear and uniform rules.” They went on commenting the Data Protection Directive for police and the judiciary, saying that it “ensures a high level of data protection while improving cooperation in the fight against terrorism and other serious crime across Europe.”

Therefore, in order to build public awareness of the reforms “the EU will launch public awareness-raising campaigns about the new data protection rules” Albrecht and Jourova, along with MEP Marju Lauristin commented and added that “the European Commission will work closely with member states, the national data protection authorities, and stakeholders to ensure the rules will be applied uniformly across the EU.”

Article 29 WP releases its opinion on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield

14. April 2016

The Article 29 WP, represented by the DPAs from the EU Member States, issued yesterday its opinion on the proposed draft of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield.

Background

Under the Safe Harbor framework, personal data transfers from the EU to the U.S. have been carried out since the year 2000. In October 6th, 2015, the ECJ declared this framework invalid, as it considered that it did not ensure enough safeguards regarding the protection of personal data from EU citizens. In February 2016, the EU Commission and several American Authorities drafted the new framework that shall replace the Safe Harbor Agreement. The draft has been now analyzed by the EU DPAs, who remark the necessity to clear and define some concepts.

Critical aspects of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield identified by the Article 29 WP

The Article 29 WP does not believe that, in general terms, the current draft of the Privacy Shield ensures a level of data protection equivalent to that in the EU. The most relevant aspects of the published document could be summarized as follows:

  • Data retention periods are not defined in any of the principles of the framework. This means that companies could keep personal data even if they do not renew their Privacy Shield membership. This contravenes the principle of data retention limitation according to EU data protection legislation.
  • The scope and definition of the purpose limitation concept is described under the notice, the choice and the data integrity and purpose limitation principles. However, in each of these principles is the purpose limitation principle differently defined, what leads to an inconsistent definition of this concept.
  • Also the concept of onward transfers has been critically analyzed by the Article 29 WP. Under this principle, Privacy Shield members may legitimately carry out data transfers to third parties. This involves the risk that the recipient of the data does not ensure the same level of data protection as stipulated according to the EU data protection legislation.
  • The redress mechanism available for EU data subjects may be too complex for the data subjects themselves. The Article WP29 recommends that the local DPAs represent the data subjects or act as intermediaries so that they can exercise their rights in Europe.
  • Finally, the Privacy Shield includes certain guarantees regarding the surveillance activities by U.S. authorities. However, the massive collection of personal data from EU citizens is not fully excluded. Regarding this, the institution of the Ombudsman has been created. According to the Article 29 WP, its functions and legitimation are not sufficiently defined.

The Working Party has requested the EU Commission to clarify these aspects and adopt the corresponding solutions, so that the Privacy Shield ensures an equivalent level of data protection to that in the EU. Particularly, it has recommended to introduce a glossary of terms in the “Privacy Shield FAQ” and a review of the Privacy Shield draft after the GDPR becomes effective, in order to ensure that the Privacy Shield reflects the level of protection reached by the GDPR.

What next?

Since the opinion of the Article 29 WP is not binding, the EU Commission could proceed further with the approval of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. However, it will consult a Committee of representatives of the EU Member States before issuing its final decision. Until a final decision is reached, the mechanisms to carry out international data transfers are limited to Binding Corporate Rules and Standard Contractual Clauses.

Pages: Prev 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
1 19 20 21 22 23 24