Tag Archives: internet

National Health Service Accounts For 30% of Security Breaches Among UK Organizations

Posted on by

NHS Data Revelations Bode Badly For NPflT

Dylan Sharpe, bigbrotherwatch.org, April 29, 1010

“When Big Brother Watch released our report into the security of confidential medical data – Broken Records – one of our arguments against the number of non-medical personnel having access to patient records was the huge incidence of data loss within the NHS.

Today that fear has been confirmed as – for at the least the second year running – the NHS has topped the list of UK organisations subject to the highest number of data breaches. As reported by the Health Service Journal:

More serious data breaches have taken place within the NHS than any other UK organisation, according to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

A total of 2897 breaches were reported, accounting for more than 30% of the total number, deputy commissioner David Smith told the Infosec security conference.

The NHS, which is currently introducing digital patient records, said that 113 incidents occurred due to stolen data or hardware, with a further 82 cases of lost data or hardware.

How can we be expected to have faith in the government’s new online programme, when the NHS is incapable of keeping our private data safe now?

The Summary Care Record will provide over half-a-million people with access to our medical records and therefore massively increase the chances of that data falling into the wrong hands.

This latest scandal provides further proof that if you are contacted by the NHS asking for permission to upload your medical records onto the database, take the opportunity and opt out.”

Robert Bolt On Reputation Versus Reality

Posted on by

At times I regret the loss of privacy and the vulnerability to slander that anyone who writes publicly has to face. It seems that no good deed goes unpunished by the mob that sees only upto the horizons of its own vulgar perspective.

Being a thief itself, it sees thieves in honest people. Being a liar itself, it calls what is patently truthful a lie. Motivated solely by venality and malice, it can see no other motivation in people who obviously struggle  to hew to their conscience, even when it endangers themselves.

How to escape slander without losing privacy to the envious, the malevolent, the pathological? You cannot. But you can consider your real audience, as Sir Thomas More suggests, in Robert Bolt’s fine play “A Man for All Seasons” (1960). More’s counsel addresses Richard Rich, an academic who despairs that the virtues of a great teacher can never be known beyond a small circle, but it’s advice that applies as well to anyone who has ever suffered from slander directed at them, when their actions were not only not dishonorable, they were more than ordinarily brave and honorable.

“MORE:  Why not be a teacher? You’d be a fine teacher.

Perhaps even a great one.

RICH: And if I was, who would know it?

MORE: You, your pupils, your friends, God. Not a bad public, that . . . Oh, and a quiet life.”

UK Passes Digital Economy Bill – Could Block Websites Over “Intent”

Posted on by

The Guardian reports the passage of the “digital economy bill” in the UK:

“The government forced through the controversial digital economy bill with the aid of the Conservative party last night, attaining a crucial third reading – which means it will get royal assent and become law – after just two hours of debate in the Commons.

However it was forced to drop clause 43 of the bill, a proposal on orphan works which had been opposed by photographers. They welcomed the news: “The UK government wanted to introduce a law to allow anyone to use your photographs commercially, or in ways you might not like, without asking you first. They have failed,” said the site set up to oppose the proposals.

But despite opposition from the Liberal Democrats and a number of Labour MPs who spoke up against measures contained in the bill and put down a number of proposed amendments, the government easily won two votes to determine the content of the bill and its passage through the committee stage without making any changes it had not already agreed.

Tom Watson, the former Cabinet Office minister who resigned in mid-2009, voted against the government for the first time in the final vote to take the bill to a third reading. However the vote was overwhelmingly in the government’s favour, which it won by 189 votes to 47.

Earlier the government removed its proposed clause 18, which could have given it sweeping powers to block sites, but replaced it with an amendment to clause 8 of the bill. The new clause allows the secretary of state for business to order the blocking of “a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright”.

The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming protested that this could mean the blocking of the whistleblower site Wikileaks, which carries only copyrighted work. Stephen Timms for the government said that it would not want to see the clause used to restrict freedom of speech – but gave no assurance that sites like Wikileaks would not be blocked.

Don Foster, the Liberal Democrats’ spokesman for culture, media and sport, protested that the clause was too wide-ranging: “it could apply to Google,” he complained, adding that its inclusion of the phrase about “likely to be used” meant that a site could be blocked on its assumed intentions rather than its actions.

The Lib Dem opposition to that amendment prompted the first vote – known as a division – on the bill, but the Labour and Conservative whips pushed it through, winning it by 197 votes to 40. The next 42 clauses of the bill were then considered in five minutes.

Numerous MPs complained that the bill was too important and its ramifications too great for it to be pushed through in this “wash-up” period in which bills are not given the usual detailed examination.

However the government declined to yield – although it had already done a deal with the Tories which meant that a number of its provisions, including clause 43 and the creation of independent local news consortia, would not be part of the bill.”

Facebook Charged With Violating Federal Laws

Posted on by

As I blogged earlier, Facebook’s policies and settings are themselves a problem, misleading users and indeed, abusers. It’s now being charged with violating federal privacy laws:

“Ten privacy organizations filed a complaint against Facebook Inc. to the Federal Trade Commission Thursday, arguing that recent changes to the social-networking company’s privacy policies and settings violate federal laws.

The complaint, spearheaded by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, was triggered by changes Facebook made in November and December. Those changes included recommending people set more of their information to be public rather than visible only to friends and treating new information, like a person’s gender and lists of friends, as “publicly available information” that Facebook may share with software developers who build services for Facebook users.

The complaint asks the FTC to investigate the practices and to require Facebook to restore previous privacy settings that allowed people to choose whether to disclose personal information.

A Facebook spokesman saidit “discussed the privacy program with many regulators, including the FTC, prior to launch and expect to continue to work with them in the future.”

The complaint is the latest sign of how privacy—or at least consumers’ perceptions about it—remains a problem for Facebook.”

Government Posts Highly Confidential Civilian Nuke Info on Internet

Posted on by

Oh dear. The blunderbuss in Washington strikes again. AP reports:

“WASHINGTON – The government accidentally posted on the Internet a list of government and civilian nuclear facilities and their activities in the United States, but U.S. officials said Wednesday the posting included no information that compromised national security.

However, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, questioned about the disclosure at a House hearing, expressed concern with respect to a uranium storage facility at the department’s Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tenn. The facility holds large quantities of highly enriched uranium, which if obtained can be used to fashion a nuclear weapon.

“That’s of great concern,” said Chu, referring to the Y-12 site. “We will be looking hard and making sure physical security of those sites (at Y-12) is sufficient to prevent eco-terrorists and others getting hold of that material.”

But later Chu told reporters that while the disclosure may be embarrassing “there’s no secret classified information that’s been compromised (and) the sites and everything are public knowledge” already available elsewhere.”

My Comment

The rest of the article, which refers to the material as “sensitive” and “highly confidential” and unavailable in one place anywhere else, seems to contradict the phlegmatic Mr. Chu.

But this is bureaucracy in action. Listen up, people. This is the lot that’s scaring you into thinking your safety is their number one priority. Right.  That’s why Congress has its underground bunker all fitted out and ready to go in case of some endgame fireworks.

And you have…what? A house. Oh yes. That paper-mache prefab box on which you’re upside down anyway…

That should be a real haven in case of a thermo-nuclear accident in the vicinity.

And I suppose you also have a great permanent job with fantastic medical coverage for you and all your little tots too, in case…just supposing, I mean…that said nuclear incident might have a teeny-weeny negative effect on your health.