Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Risk

6/27/2006
06:53 PM
Patricia Keefe
Patricia Keefe
Commentary
50%
50%

Upping The Ante On Data Collection

So much about the overall issue and recent incidents of data loss are astounding, it's hard to know where to start. One good place is the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, which offers up some sobering statistics on stolen data: Since Feb. 15, 2005 there has been over 200 data breaches (with some companies starring as repeat offenders) affecting the data of 88,399,953 individuals. At least - that's what's been report

So much about the overall issue and recent incidents of data loss are astounding, it's hard to know where to start.

One good place is the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, which offers up some sobering statistics on stolen data: Since Feb. 15, 2005 there has been over 200 data breaches (with some companies starring as repeat offenders) affecting the data of 88,399,953 individuals. At least - that's what's been reported.Outrageously, Congress meanwhile, has been dragging its feet and blowing hot and cold on the data protection issue for over a year. The intelligence community has supposedly quashed two pending bills while reports have emerged that law enforcement makes use of data brokers, who everyone knows tend to obtain their data illegally, often through a form of impersonation called pretexting. (Heck, I'm surprised data brokers don't just pay people to steal corporate laptops. It would be cheaper, and apparently, easier.) A congressional hearing held on the practice of data brokering meanwhile, was shocked, just shocked to conclude last week that there is no data that can be kept private! Having established the obvious, I'm sure they'll probably go back to sleep.

Meanwhile, on the corporate side, I don't know who is more arrogant: AIG for waiting three months before starting to notify the roughly 97,000 consumers whose personal data was exposed following the theft of a company laptop in March, or AT&T for informing it's video and online customers that it can do anything it wants with the data it has collected on those users.

In the case of AIG, I am not sure how the insurer plans to rationalize this egregiously late notification, but let's hope they aren't confusing it with some aborted notion of customer service. Three months is a lifetime in personal identification theft.

As for AT&T, it once again brings to the surface the long nagging issue of just whose data is it anyway?

Is data about you - your medical, educational, professional and financial records; what you read, watch and drive; where you travel, what you buy and where you wander online - is this your data, or does it belong to the companies that collect it - one way or the other?

In a June 7 editor's note, I called for a uniform bill of consumer data rights, as well as a uniform agreement on best practices for companies and law enforcement to follow in the event of a data breach. (By the way, I'm not the only one who thinks we need something like this. A week ago a dozen companies banded together under the umbrella of the Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum, and issued a call to Congress to pass a comprehensive federal consumer privacy law that would cover the handling of personal data.

The group is looking for a "legal framework" that will straddle the line between protecting consumers from inappropriate collection and misuse of personal information, and allowing legitimate companies to use data on people in conducting business.

I would love to know their definition of "using data on people in conducting business." But hey, it's a start. It's just a matter of time before people start suing the pants off corporations for either collecting the data in the first place, not protecting it adequately or not monitoring who they are making it available to. The CPLF members are just looking ahead, and maybe this is the kick in the pants Congress needs. Let's hope so.

Back to my data rights bill and the issue of data ownership, that is the one key ingredient I left out. Which got me to thinking. If Congress is right, and of course it is, that we have no prayer of keeping any of our personal data private, and since it's obvious that we can not stop legitimate and illegitimate collectors and buyers of our data - maybe it's time to consider royalties.

That's right - data royalties. Every time someone accesses or collects a piece of your data - they have to pay you for it. Everyone else is trying to make money off it, so why not cut the public in on a piece of the action? What is the fair market value of all this data anyway? It's got to be worth something - too many people are trying too hard - legally and illegally - to collect it and use it.

As silly as it may seem, the motive behind this suggestion is not. It is high time the public got something of value back from the wholesale invasion of our privacy besides spam, junk mail, spying and identity theft. And if it's not going to be protection, well than money just might be the way to go.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...