FTC Asked to Review Stealth Collection of Consumer Data

April 11, 2010

Calling for an investigation into companies conducting stealth collection of consumer data, the Center for Digital Democracy, US PIRG and World Privacy Forum have filed a complaint with the FTC today.

At issue are the recent developments in online profiling and behavioral targeting that now enable massive commercial aggregation of consumer’s information without your knowledge or consent, and the threat these actions represent to your privacy.

This data aggregation merges each individual’s online browsing and purchasing behavior plus any comments or actions you’ve taken on social networking or other sites (for Gmail users, this includes analysis of your email content), and combines this with your credit information, your age, location, income, whether you own a home, any criminal records, voting records, etc.

In short, advanced data collection companies aggregate all available online (including mobile devices) and offline information about you as an individual, and then sell it to whomever is bidding.

The sale of your specific information is often done in real time, where advertisers bid for the ability to direct a message at an individual Web surfer at the very moment they are doing something online that the advertiser is interested in. These trades take a breathtakingly short 50 milliseconds to complete.

These business practices affect virtually every individual – whether you’re an internet user or not

Some of the companies listed in the filing you’ll have heard of – and it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Google is listed first in the filing. But most of the companies you don’t even know exist: PubMatic, TARGUSinfo, MediaMath, eXelate, Rubicon Project, AppNexus, Rocket Fuel, Rapleaf, and more.

Consider the numbers

The filing includes the following statistics. Yahoo’s Right Media Exchange processes 9 Billion transactions daily. MediaMath serves more than 13 billion transactions daily. TARGUSinfo delivers more than 62 Billion transactions a year. PubMatic processes more than 100,000 data transactions per second. The Rubicon Project has information on ‘more than 500 million unique internet users”. BlueKai provides “actionable data” on over 200 million retail, travel, education and financial product shoppers – and they give buyers access to over 10,000+ combinations of intent, demographic, lifestyle, B2B data, and additional segments.”

That’s your information whizzing by

Extolling the virtues to businesses of Real-Time Bidding (RTB) for individual consumer’s access, the filing cites Pubmatic’s “Understanding Real-Time Bidding from the Publisher’s Perspective (Feb 2010). This material states that RTB “is the fastest growing segment of U.S. online advertising…With RTB, advertisers have the great level of transparency available on the individual user in real-time… Having greater transparency…provides great insights to advertisers, but it is the difference in how media [your information] is bought and sold with real-time bidding is the game changer…” RTB “can buy impressions [advertising space] to reach specific users or reject them as the [ad] campaign is in progress.” In another report PubMatic states that “RTB allows advertisers to reach the right user, in the right place, at the right time – and assign an individual value to a particular ad impression.” If you’re the ideal candidate, PubMatic earns more.

The filing also quotes the chief revenue officer at eXelate’s comments to ClickZ News, “Who a user is is becoming more important than where they are.” Then he highlighted the types of data that are particularly valuable to advertisers, such as information on household income, interests and purchase intent.

Excerpts from Instant Ads Set the Pace on the Web,” New York Times, 11 Mar. 2010, and included in the filing further highlight this point: “Now, companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft let advertisers buy ads in the milliseconds between the time someone enters a site’s web address and the moment the page appears. The technology, called real-time bidding, allows advertisers to examine site visitors one by one and bid to serve them ads almost instantly….’It’s a lot about being able to get to the right users, but it’s also about passing on certain instances where we don’t think you’re in the market, based on what you’ve been doing in the past hour..”

While advertisers are having a heyday with your information, your privacy is evaporating

It’s easy to see how all these advances in consumer information collection help businesses, and there is an argument to be made that these advances benefit consumers by providing more relevant advertising – but at what cost to privacy? And who gave permission?

You have no idea what information has been collected about you, where that information has been aggregated – or to whom it has been sold. (there’s a whole separate issue about whether the information aggregated about you is actually your information at all, or whether, for example, your good name has been associated with someone else’s criminal record). You don’t even know if you somehow gave ‘permission’ along the way as the so-called ‘privacy protections’ in place for consumers are frequently ineffective or misleading.

This filing is critically important to your privacy

As individuals, trying to fight large enterprises you’ve never heard of, to wrest control of information about you that don’t even know they have, is virtually impossible. And, should you be successful at one point in time, there is no assurance that it will last.

This point was driven home to me when I demanded my phone number be removed from a large aggregator’s search result. After the hassle of figuring out what it would take to have it removed and then getting it deleted, I was informed that there was no assurance that the same information wouldn’t be supplied to them from another ‘data source’ and therefore be displayed in the future, so the onus was on me to check and repeat the process as needed.

So while the company agreed to remove the info, they would not honor my request to filter out the information should it be supplied to them the future. It took less than a week to again find my number in their search results.

It is only through concerted efforts, like this one that consumers have a chance of dictating their own privacy and safety boundaries. My hat is off to the Center for Digital Democracy, US PIRG and World Privacy Forum for their dedication to our collective rights.

I urge each of you to support this filing, and to urge the FTC to take clear, consumer friendly action.

Read the full filing here

Linda

Comments Off | Linda's Blog | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Linda Criddle

Putting the FCC National Broadband Plan into Action

March 17, 2010

In connection with the FCC’s unveiling their National Broadband Plan this morning, Tony Bradly, of PC World, interviewed Linda Criddle to get her take. The entire article can be found here Putting the FCC National Broadband Plan into Action.

To add some additional perspective, Linda has inserted the excerpts from the PC World article, and with her comments:

A statement from Linda Criddle, President of the Safe Internet Alliance, applauds the FCC broadband plan, but also urges a strong focus on consumer safety. “The FCC’s own survey found that nearly half of those Americans who remain offline do so in part because they fear “all the bad things that can happen on the Internet.” Among those who are already online, the survey found that 65 percent strongly agree there is too much pornography and offensive material on the Internet. And 57 percent strongly agree that it is too easy for their personal information to be stolen online, while 46 percent strongly agree that the Internet is too dangerous for children.”

That online safety fears are a primary factor in nearly half of those polled who do not use the internet is dismaying. There are real risks that consumers need to be aware of and have the skills to master, there are security tools that need to be in place on every internet enabled device, and there are privacy precautions that need to be taken. That said, the fear mongering of programs like “To Catch a Predator” and the sensationalizing of tragic internet crimes has created a ridiculously skewed view of risks in many consumers minds.

If we used the same ‘shock factor’ reporting demonstrated by some opportunistic reporters – and internet safety companies and advocates pushing their own agendas – to report traffic accidents it would look something like this: 40,000 people DIE on our road annually!! Millions more Injured! Stay off Roads!

As we seek to address the very real safety issues we do have, we cannot allow sensationalism and fear to keep consumers from joining the internet.

Responding to the question of whether the National Broadband Plan is needed, I responded with the following:

The Safe Internet Alliance’s Criddle agrees that the United States is in danger of leaving a portion of the population on the wrong side of the digital divide. She also stresses user awareness education for those just joining the online community. “The FCC is creating an initiative to teach digital literacy skills, but those need to encompass digital safety skills such as recognizing a phishing scam or teaching consumers to identify how information leaks, and avoid posting personal information in public access websites. These skills should also be driven home in public service announcements and public awareness campaigns.”

We will be a nation where the divide between the haves and have-nots will widen if we do not ensure that every citizen has the skills and opportunity to leverage all the great things the internet offers. But access and education must go hand in glove. We don’t hand a teen the keys to the car and thrust them onto the freeway with no skills to defend themselves or understanding of how to be responsible to others.

The internet is no different. It is an incredibly powerful tool that requires skilled use for successful experiences. We must have practical, internet safety training based on teaching the skills needed to protect consumers’ devices, understand how to identify exploits, learn how to maintain personal privacy in a connected world, and how to be a responsible digital citizen.

This information should NOT be wrapped in fear, nor moralizing. Consumers are entitled to define their own level of morality online, as they do offline, for themselves and their families within the constraints of the law.

This education needs to be specifically customized to be relevant to different consumer segments. This means that what students in the third grade learn isn’t the same as what students in high school learn. It means that safety messaging targeting parents and youth isn’t the same material as what is provided to seniors or adults who are looking to protect themselves. It means education needs to be accessible to new immigrants who lack internet skills to help bring them, and their families, into the digital society as productive members.

I am very encouraged by the inclusion of safety considerations in the National Broadband Plan, and am optimistic about the opportunities to see this focus take on a broader role as the framework matures. I urge you to get involved. The regulations being created through this process will directly impact each and every internet user.

Linda

Comments Off | Linda's Blog | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Linda Criddle

FCC Should Enhance Online Safety While Expanding Broadband Access, Safe Internet Alliance Urges

March 17, 2010

As the FCC prepares to submit its updated National Broadband Plan to Congress next Wednesday (3/17), the Safe Internet Alliance urges the commissioners to make enhancing the safety of Americans’ online activity an integral part of the drive to expand access to the 93 million Americans who currently lack it.

Among the roughly one quarter of U.S. adults who lack Internet access, minorities, the disabled,  and the elderly are disproportionately represented. The offline population is on average poorer and less educated than the online majority — who are themselves quite worried about online safety risks. The FCC needs to take concrete steps to bolster online safety education, safety within the infrastructure of online services and increased safety enforcement measures to ensure that consumers are equipped with the highest possible level of safety along with access.

The perceived need for enhanced Internet security is strong among U.S. internet users. According to a new Financial Times/Harris Poll 81% of Americans are concerned about the amount and security of personal online data that can be accessed by cybercriminals and hackers. 62% say social sites like Facebook and Twitter make many people vulnerable to cyber attacks. 61% of Americans are concerned about the amount and security of personal online data that can be accessed by search engines.

Concern about the lack of safety online is so high among consumers who do not use the internet, that it is a barrier to adoption for 47% of non-adopters who worry “about all the bad things that can happen on the internet” according to the FCC survey Broadband Adoption and Use in America. 65% strongly agree there is too much pornography and offensive material on the internet. 57% strongly agree that it too easy for their personal information to be stolen online. And 46% strongly agree that the internet is too dangerous for children.

We urge the FCC to address these anxieties by stimulating robust efforts on three fronts: education, infrastructure and enforcement.

On the education front, ISPs should be encouraged to provide site specific, easily discoverable safety information, in Spanish as well as English, on their websites, with material targeted  to specific demographic groups – not just kids and parents, but seniors, adults, and those with unique risks. Safety messaging should also be placed as ‘just-in-time’ content next to registration fields.

Public service announcements and public awareness campaigns should teach core self-protective measures such as recognizing a phishing scam or teaching consumers to identify how information leaks, and avoid posting personal information in public access websites.

The FCC should also encourage service providers to enhance their services’ infrastructure to include robust security and safety functionality – such as built-in antivirus software and family safety settings – for all accounts. ISPs should be encouraged to innovate and seek competitive advantage on the safety front — and emphasize that innovation in their marketing.

Enforcement efforts should include improving technology to identify and respond to abuses as they occur, as well as providing parents with filtering tools and providing information enabling them to monitor and set clear rules for children’s use.

Linda

Comments Off | Linda's Blog | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Linda Criddle

EU Warns Google Again About Street View

March 7, 2010

Data privacy regulators in the European Union have told Google that they need to warn people before sending cameras out into cities to take pictures for its Street View maps.  They also suggested that the company reduce the amount of time they keep the original images to 6 months (currently these are kept for 1 year).

In a statement, Google said its need to retain Street View images for one year is “legitimate and justified,” and that they already post notification on their Web site about where its Street View cameras are clicking. Additionally, in an effort to reduce privacy concerns, Google Street View now uses special software to blur pictures of faces and car license plates.

EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding said that Europe had “high standards for data protection” and that she expected that “all companies play according to the rules of the game.”

This isn’t the first time Google’s Street View has raised ire in Europe. Last April, a human chain was formed in one English village to stop Google’s camera van. Also last year, Greece told Google to halt plans of photographing Greek streets until better privacy safeguards are provided, Germany demanded that Google erase footage of faces, house numbers, license plates and individuals who have told authorities they do not want their information used in the service, and the Swiss Sued Google over Street View Functionality.

If YOU find Street view invasive, read my blog How to Remove Images of Your Home from Google’s Street View

Tags: data privacy, internet safety, EU, Google,

Linda

Comments Off | In The News | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Linda Criddle

Misguided Bill Wants to Stop Predators on Social Networking Sites

March 2, 2010

California state Senator George Runner has proposed a bill that would ban convicted sex offenders from creating profiles on social networking sites. This is similar bills passed in New York, Illinois, and to several being considered in several other states.

While these laws sound like motherhood and apple pie, they are misguided and will not accomplish the objective. The intent behind this law is easy to understand. We need to address public safety in the face of sharply increasing numbers of registered sex offenders. The issue is how best to accomplish this.

Unfortunately, this law fails to consider fundamental distinctions between what constitutes a social network, how this law balances the punishments meted to sex offenders vs. other types of serious online criminals, the problematic issues around which individuals become labeled as sex offenders, and so on.

The term ’social network’ is undefined

Making it a felony for sexual predators to join social networking sites that are designed for children and teens, for dating, or specifically designed to meet vulnerable people is one thing, but this law takes an entirely undifferentiated and draconian approach by including all sites with any social networking functionality.

Amazon.com and eBay, for example, are social networks that enable people to have profiles, post comments, and more. Sites that enable job searches like LinkedIn and Monster.com are social networks, (see How the Web Has Changed Job Searching for more on the critical role social networks play in job hunting).

Support sites for sex offenders, sites that facilitate communication with family members, sites that allow comments such as newspapers, sites sharing information on products, hobbies, music, and so on, are all social networking sites. Moreover, the dynamic nature of the web is driving ever more sites to enable social interactions.

As the law now stands, it will make it more difficult for sex offenders to find jobs, apartments, or get support to help prevent re-offending, according to the Center for Sex Offender Management, a project of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept of Justice. Their research found that steady employment and support are key factors in reducing recidivism risks; the unintended consequence of the law may actually be an increase in the risks posed to society.

Lawmakers need to spend more time considering the differences in social networking sites and, at a bare minimum, craft laws with a more precise definition of what types of social sites should be illegal for sex offenders.

Sex offenders are one type of criminal threatening consumers online

Given the intent of the law is to protect innocent individuals online, shouldn’t this law also ban other types of serious criminals that use social networking sites to facilitate their crimes – like scammers, stalkers, ID thieves, and so on? While the Internet is predominantly a safe and positive place for users of all ages, Internet criminals wreak considerable harm, stealing consumers’ life-savings, their identities, and in some cases killing victims they met online. Sex offenses are heinous crimes, but should murderers get lesser penalties?

The vast majority of convicted sex offenders did not use social networks (or the Internet) in the commission of their crimes. This law assumes that though most sex offenders did not use social networks to find or groom their victims, they will do so in the future. If the individual did not use social networking sites, is it reasonable to ban them?

The changes add fuel to the debate over how sex offenders are defined

Changing the law to prohibit sex offenders from using social networking sites does not alter the scope of who is labeled a “sex offender”, but it has reignited the debate over how broadly the label is applied. There is broad concern that the law as it stands is unjust because it does not differentiate between serial child rapists, and for example, a person caught three times relieving him/herself behind a tree. Public indecency for a third or subsequent conviction labels a person as a sex offender. Some are inappropriately caught under this label and they do not deserve to have their names and photos exposed on sex offender registries, or to be shunned by society.

The problem worsens as we look across states. Many states dump the sex offender label on individuals as diverse as rapists, pedophiles, exhibitionists, and teens that had consensual sex, or that sent explicit images of themselves to a boy/girlfriend, etc. Surely, no one believes these are equivalent behaviors, or that those caught in these varying circumstances should be treated equally.

The law also fails to take into account the varying likelihood of re-offense. Despite public anxiety, research shows that different categories of sex offenders pose widely different degrees of risk of re-offending.

According to the Center for Sex Offender Management, a project of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept of Justice, recidivism rates can be high for some types of sex offenders but even with elevated risk levels they strongly caution against viewing them as a homogeneous group.

Highlighting the disparity in recidivism rates among segments of sex offenders, Marshall and Barbaree (1990) found in their review of studies that the recidivism rate for:

  • Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
  • Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
  • Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
  • Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.

Beyond categorizing sex offenders by the type of offense they committed, a complex set of variables determine who, within each category, is likely to re-offend. Factors include whether the offender received treatment, the age of the offender, whether they are employed, the type of sexual deviance, their psychological stability, whether they are substance abusers, and so on. The current one-size-fits all policy towards those labeled simply doesn’t fit.

The issues I’ve listed about this particular approach do not pretend to cover other aspects like legality, jurisdiction, enforceability, etc. that will surely be wrestled over, but they should raise concern in the minds of the public as to the justness of this law.

Indeed, in a 2008 brief on state sex offender management policies, Thomas MacLellan, program director for the justice and public safety program of the National Governors Association, outlined challenges facing states. “People try to do the right things, but states don’t always have the capacity to look at all the research,” he said. “A lot of decisions will be made on consensus.”

There are sexual predators using the Internet to find new victims, and the intent to help protect individuals from such offenders online is good. This particular legislation however will not achieve that goal.

Linda

Additional Resources:

Comments Off | Linda's Blog | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Linda Criddle

Huge Gaps Exist in Internet Safety Education

March 1, 2010

Staysafe Online released today a new study on the state of  U.S. K‐12 Cyberethics, Cybersafety and Cybersecurity Curriculum, and it’s a sobering read.

15 years after the Internet went mainstream, America’s young people still are not receiving adequate instruction in the use of digital technology and cyberspace navigation in a safe, secure and responsible manner and are ill-prepared to address these subjects, according to the study.

Among the study findings:

  • There is strong agreement on the need to teach online skills: Nearly all technology coordinators (100%), school administrators (97%), and teachers (95%) agree cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity curriculum should be taught in schools.
  • Confusion reigns on where the responsibility for internet skills education lies. Teachers (72%) and technology coordinators (58%) are most likely to think parents are primarily responsible for teaching children to use computers safely and securely, while school administrators (51%) are most likely to think teachers/schools are primarily responsible.
  • Who teaches the teachers? The lack of clarity over who should teach internet skills  may be due in large part to the lack of training teachers have received on these subjects. Over three quarters of teachers have spent less than six hours on any type of professional development education related to cyberethics, cybersafety and cybersecurity within the last 12 months.
  • More than half schools/school districts require content coverage in cyberethics cybersafety and cybersecurity – but that means nearly half of the schools don’t.
  • Integration of key cyberethics, -security, and -safety topics into everyday instructional activities is low. For example, only 27% of teachers taught about the safe use of social networks, only 18% taught about scams, fraud and social engineering, and only 19% taught about safe passwords in the past 12 months. Additionally, 32% of teachers indicated they had not taught cyberethics, and 44% of teachers had not taught cybersafety or cybersecurity.
  • Rather than teach skills and ethics, schools focus on blocking technologies. Over 90% of schools have installed digital defenses, like as filtering and blocking social network sites. Blocking technologies may help reduce exposure to online risks in school, and limit school’s liability, but they do not prepare students to act safely or responsibly when accessing the Internet in other locations.

Addressing the research findings, Jacqueline Beauchere, a Director in Microsoft Corporation’s Trustworthy Computing Group and the company’s representative to NCSA’s Board of Directors said, “Schools can be assisted via partnerships between public and private-sector entities. Such partnerships encourage information and idea-sharing and, most importantly, help give teachers the training they need and want so they can instruct their students about cybersecurity, cybersafety and cyberethics.  Microsoft supports efforts to provide teacher training, and is proud to be one partner, helping to provide K-12 educators across the U.S. the resources they need and the training they seek.”

The ramifications of this gap in internet education not places our youth at risk today, but has a long term impact in how well situated the US will be to compete in the global economy moving forward.

“The study illuminates that there is no cohesive effort to provide young people the education they need to safely and securely navigate the digital age and prepare them as digital citizens and employees,” said Michael Kaiser, Executive Director of the National Cyber Security Alliance.  “Unfortunately, we are not meeting the needs of schools, teachers, or students.  President Obama in his Cyberspace Policy Review released last year specifically calls for a ‘K-12 cybersecurity education program for digital safety, ethics and security.’ Now is the time for a national consensus to move forward to achieve that goal.”

Amen.

Linda

Comments Off | Linda's Blog | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Linda Criddle

Net Neutrality – Freedom of Speech or Corporate Heist?

February 23, 2010

The battle lines are sharpening over the question of “Net Neutrality” as FCC hearings and decisions loom. But what is really driving this push to change the status quo, and what’s really at stake for consumers?

Shakespeare got it wrong. In today’s world, a rose by any other name does not smell as sweet.  Politicians and lobbyists alike understand that how a proposal is named makes a world of difference. Associate a rallying cry with a motherhood-and-apple-pie name and your opponents are immediately cast in a negative light. For example, to vote against the Deleting Online Predators Act implied that one was voting for online predators – no matter that the proposal was misguided. What elected official can defend against that allegation in a 10-second sound bite?

The name ‘Net neutrality’ is equally deliberate and equally loaded – who wants to stand up and say I’m for Internet discrimination? Behind the guise of neutrality and a freedom-of-speech talking point are very powerful companies pushing for regulations that benefit their companies’ financial interests to the detriment of other companies’ financial interests. And, rather than have free market forces apply as they do rather admirably today, these companies’ are lobbying heavily to get regulators to stack the deck in their favor.

Online service providers and content creators want their services to be accessible to consumers (and get all the advertising revenue associated with their services) without having to collaborate with, or having to share proportional revenue with, network operators and carriers. They want to be able to use as much bandwidth as they choose to stream content, without having to pay more to do so.

Leading the opposition to the proposed legislation, Kyle McSlarrow, CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association scoffed at allegations that ISPs are harming free speech. He summed it up by saying “Internet Service Providers do not threaten free speech; their business is to enable speech and they are part of an ecosystem that represents perhaps the greatest engine for promotion of democracy and free expression in history.”

Why you should care about this battle between industry titans

Supporters of regulation claim they are protecting your freedoms, which begs a response to a few questions. From what attacks against your freedom of speech do you need protection? And, what unintended or punitive consequences might the proposed legislation cause?

Two incidents are used as freedom-of-speech cautionary tales by Net Neutrality supporters, but the very fact that there are only two cases to cite erodes rather than supports their position.  What other industry, or set of mega-companies, can claim so few missteps?  Certainly not the companies now crying foul.

In fact, given the restrictions content and services websites impose on your freedom of speech, their choice of waving the First Amendment banner is curious. The Terms of Use of any online services or content company make it abundantly clear that they assert the right to block your access, delete your content, or take other measures at their discretion if you do not comply with their limitations on your freedom of speech.

To be clear, I think establishing Terms of Use that restrict the actions and speech allowed on a website is an entirely appropriate corporate choice. Yet for companies to have these ‘anti-freedom-of-speech’ policies in place, while complaining that the terms and conditions Internet access providers have set limit your freedom of speech is absurd.

With only a couple of incidents in years of network management, Net Neutrality opponents point out that the requested regulations will impose government control on a problem that does not exist. I will go a step further and say large portions of the proposal look like an old sleight-of-hand trick – asking consumers to look in one direction while the real action is happening behind the scenes in a classic corporate coup.

The ideological, or financially motivated, pull towards more regulation sidesteps three key points:

  1. We have experienced an unprecedented blossoming of the Internet under the FCC’s historical policy of minimal regulation.
  2. Consumers have choices. There is healthy competition between Internet providers indicating that capitalism is working well within the industry. Competing in this space are cable TV, fiber optics cable, and telephone cable operators, Wimax and similar technology providers, along with wireless cellular networks, and satellite companies. This diversity of players is our best guarantee of a continued open and innovative Internet. None has the near monopoly position that some leading Net Neutrality supporters enjoy.
  3. Government bodies move slowly and are ill prepared to manage a nimble, competitive industry that must react and innovate quickly to compete not only nationally, but internationally. That needs to be able to offer increased speed, services, and safety in a competitive manner.

It does not take a genius to understand that if we want ever-faster transmission speeds and the ability to access ever-greater volumes of rich content, someone has to pay for the infrastructure and support required to provide it.  Right now, those costs are shared by consumers and the companies who want to send high volumes of content over Internet access provider’s networks.

The Net Neutrality proposal aims to change this revenue model by prohibiting carriers from placing bandwidth limits or adding usage fees to companies that are straining their bandwidth. However, it is unreasonable for companies who are raking in ad revenues to be able to freeload off the companies that built – and continue to bear the costs of maintaining – the networks.

If Internet providers have their hands tied by Net Neutrality regulations, what happens to network innovation? If you use considerably less bandwidth as you surf online, why shouldn’t you have the choice to pay less for your service? If companies can change drive legislation absolving them from paying for their Internet access, it leaves consumers to bear these costs.

Though the name Net Neutrality was carefully crafted, I recommend a different catchphrase: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Linda

Comments Off | Linda's Blog | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Linda Criddle

Talking and Driving, a Dangerous Mix

January 23, 2010

The New York Times has compiled a great series of articles on the use of mobile phones while driving. It is a list worth perusing as distracted drivers, particularly those under 30, continue to wreak havoc on the roads.

For a listing of state-by-state cell phone driving laws, go to the Governors Highway Safety Association’s Cellphone Driving Laws Page.

Also, check out my previous blogs:

Linda

Comments Off | In The News | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Linda Criddle

$100 Billion-A-Year Medical Care Fraud

January 17, 2010

Healthcare fraud is big business. Last year scammers and organized crime groups bilked an estimated $100 billion last year according to a new article Health care: A ‘goldmine’ for fraudsters from CNNMoney.com.

Medical Identity theft is the most lucrative aspect of the medical fraud business, and the most common method of gaining access to personal medical records is when someone with legitimate access to the data sells the information to criminals. But that’s changing.

According to the CNN article “Increasingly, criminal groups are hacking into digital medical records so that they can steal money from the $450 billion, 44-million-beneficiary Medicare system — making the government, by far, the “single biggest victim” of health care fraud, according to Rob Montemorra, chief of the FBI’s Health Care Fraud Unit.”

To learn more about the risks you face when your medical records go online, see my blogs:

While the government is the “single biggest victim”, every individual whose records are stolen will feel the pain.

The most common way scammers and criminals make their money is by sending in false bills to insurance companies and Medicare for medicines, equipment, in-home health care, or treatments that were not prescribed or requested.  Criminals also ‘resell’ an individual’s medical records to an uninsured person in need of medical care.

While the aim of the criminals behind medical ID theft and fraud is to steal money, the tampering with your medical information can place you at serious risk if doctors base medical decisions about your care on the falsified information in your file.

The government isn’t the only one footing the bill. In addition to the indirect costs to the government and insurance companies that every consumer pays for medical fraud, the average cost to an individual victim of medical ID theft was close to $1,200 according to Javelin Strategy & Research, a research firm specializing in trends in security and fraud initiatives. Javelin’s research also found that in 2008 the average incident of health care identity fraud netted the criminal $19,000, which is four times the earnings of overall ID theft.

In addition to the risk to your medical records, these thieves also gain access to the information that accompanies your records – including your name, address, phone number, social security number, insurance company, and more – placing you at high risk for traditional ID theft as well.

Stay vigilant

Always check your insurance benefits statements to see if there are charges or claims that are not yours. Notify your insurance company if your financial ID has been stolen, and notify your financial institutions if your medical ID has been stolen.

Linda

Comments Off | In The News | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Linda Criddle

1.5 Million Unencrypted Medical Records “Lost”

November 29, 2009

Medical insurance giant Health Net apparently waited 6 months to notify authorities of the breach of 1.5 million consumer and physician’s medical records.

The breach occurred in a Health Net office in Connecticut, but consumers in Connecticut are not the only group exposed; HealthNet also provides services in Arizona, California, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington State.

According to an article by the Health Information Trust Alliance Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal reaction to the belated notification was severe, “I am outraged and appalled by Health Net’s huge loss of personal financial and medical information and its failure to swiftly inform authorities and consumers. This information vanished six months ago, but Health Net is only now informing authorities and consumers, an inexcusable and inexplicable delay. Health Net’s incomprehensible foot-dragging demonstrates shocking disregard for patients’ financial security, as well as loss of their highly sensitive and confidential personal health information.”

Blumenthal went on to say “Another day, another data breach, but companies still don’t get it: personal information is like cash and should be guarded with equal care. Casual and cavalier attitudes toward data protection and breaches are intolerable and must stop. I will fight to compel companies to fully safeguard personal information, quickly inform consumers of breaches and properly protect them when losses occur.”

Health Net’s inaction is inexcusable… and far too common. Personal health records have become a hot new and lucrative target for hackers and ID thieves as more medical data has been dumped online without appropriate security precautions.

Learn more about the scope of personal data record theft and why the notification rules for personal health record breaches aren’t going to work by reading my blogs:

Stay vigilant.

Linda

Comments Off | In The News | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Linda Criddle

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,703 other followers