ТОП просматриваемых книг сайта:
(ISC)2 CISSP Certified Information Systems Security Professional Official Study Guide. Mike Chapple
Читать онлайн.Название (ISC)2 CISSP Certified Information Systems Security Professional Official Study Guide
Год выпуска 0
isbn 9781119786245
Автор произведения Mike Chapple
Жанр Зарубежная компьютерная литература
Издательство John Wiley & Sons Limited
In 2002, California passed SB 1386 and became the first state to immediately disclose to individuals the known or suspected breach of personally identifiable information. This includes unencrypted copies of a person's name in conjunction with any of the following information:
Social Security number
Driver's license number
State identification card number
Credit or debit card number
Bank account number in conjunction with the security code, access code, or password that would permit access to the account
Medical records
Health insurance information
In the years following SB 1386, other states passed similar laws modeled on the California data breach notification law. In 2018, 16 years after the passage of SB 1386, Alabama and South Dakota became the last two states to pass data breach notification laws.
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 In April 2000, provisions of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) became the law of the land in the United States. COPPA makes a series of demands on websites that cater to children or knowingly collect information from children.Websites must have a privacy notice that clearly states the types of information they collect and what it's used for, including whether any information is disclosed to third parties. The privacy notice must also include contact information for the operators of the site.Parents must be provided with the opportunity to review any information collected from their children and permanently delete it from the site's records.Parents must give verifiable consent to the collection of information about children younger than the age of 13 prior to any such collection. Exceptions in the law allow websites to collect minimal information solely for the purpose of obtaining such parental consent.
Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 Until the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA) became law in 1999, there were strict governmental barriers between financial institutions. Banks, insurance companies, and credit providers were severely limited in the services they could provide and the information they could share with each other. GLBA somewhat relaxed the regulations concerning the services each organization could provide. When Congress passed this law, it realized that this increased latitude could have far-reaching privacy implications. Because of this concern, it included a number of limitations on the types of information that could be exchanged even among subsidiaries of the same corporation and required financial institutions to provide written privacy policies to all their customers.
USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 in direct response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, DC. The PATRIOT Act greatly broadened the powers of law enforcement organizations and intelligence agencies across a number of areas, including when monitoring electronic communications.One of the major changes prompted by the PATRIOT Act revolves around the way government agencies obtain wiretapping authorizations. Previously, police could obtain warrants for only one circuit at a time, after proving that the circuit was used by someone subject to monitoring. Provisions of the PATRIOT Act allow authorities to obtain a blanket authorization for a person and then monitor all communications to or from that person under the single warrant.Another major change is in the way the government deals with internet service providers (ISPs). Under the terms of the PATRIOT Act, ISPs may voluntarily provide the government with a large range of information. The PATRIOT Act also allows the government to obtain detailed information on user activity through the use of a subpoena (as opposed to a wiretap).Finally, the USA PATRIOT Act amends the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (yes, another set of amendments!) to provide more severe penalties for criminal acts. The PATRIOT Act provides for jail terms of up to 20 years and once again expands the coverage of the CFAA.The PATRIOT Act has a complex legislative history. Many of the key provisions of the PATRIOT Act expired in 2015 when Congress failed to pass a renewal bill. However, Congress later passed the USA Freedom Act in June 2015, which restored key provisions of the PATRIOT Act. The provisions expired again in March 2020 and, as of the time this book went to press, had not yet been renewed. The future status of PATRIOT Act surveillance is now in doubt.
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is another specialized privacy bill that affects any educational institution that accepts any form of funding from the federal government (the vast majority of schools). It grants certain privacy rights to students older than 18 and the parents of minor students. Specific FERPA protections include the following:Parents/students have the right to inspect any educational records maintained by the institution on the student.Parents/students have the right to request correction of records they think are erroneous and the right to include a statement in the records contesting anything that is not corrected.Schools may not release personal information from student records without written consent, except under certain circumstances.
Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act In 1998, the president signed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act into law. In the past, the only legal victims of identity theft were the creditors who were defrauded. This act makes identity theft a crime against the person whose identity was stolen and provides severe criminal penalties (up to a 15-year prison term and/or a $250,000 fine) for anyone found guilty of violating this law.
Privacy in the Workplace
One of the authors of this book had an interesting conversation with a relative who works in an office environment. At a family gathering, the author's relative casually mentioned a story he had read online about a local company that had fired several employees for abusing their internet privileges. He was shocked and couldn't believe that a company would violate their employees' right to privacy.
As you've read in this chapter, the U.S. court system has long upheld the traditional right to privacy as an extension of basic constitutional rights. However, the courts have maintained that a key element of this right is that privacy should be guaranteed only when there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” For example, if you mail a letter to someone in a sealed envelope, you may reasonably expect that it will be delivered without being read along the way—you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other hand, if you send your message on a postcard, you do so with the awareness that one or more people might read your note before it arrives at the other end—you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Recent court rulings have found that employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while using employer-owned communications equipment in the workplace. If you send a message using an employer's computer, internet connection, telephone, or other communications device, your employer can monitor it as a routine business procedure.
That said, if you're planning to monitor the communications of your employees, you should take reasonable precautions to ensure that there is no implied expectation of privacy. Here are some common measures to consider:
Clauses in employment contracts that state the employee has no expectation of privacy while using corporate equipment
Similar written statements in corporate acceptable use and privacy policies
Logon