... EU citizens' data stored on US servers is not protected from access by a third party.

According to a report commissioned by the EU and carried out by the Centre for European Policy Studies, America's so-called Patriot Act gives US authorities the legal right to access foreign citizens' data stored within US borders.

Commenting on the report, European Parliament member Jan Philipp Albrecht insists that "this study is absolutely not about generating panic." 

According to Mr Albrecht, most users don't even know where their data is stored. 

"It's a simple fact that the US data protection law only applies to US citizens." "But there are special laws that target the surveillance of non-US citizens", he added.

"This happens when sensitive data from big companies, like Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter and Facebook, are made available to US authorities for investigations." 

Thilo Weichert, data protection commissioner for the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein is also concerned at the power wielded by the US over EU citizens' data.

Mr Weichert has been following the implications of this development closely for more than two years, while pushing Facebook to allow its users to remain anonymous.

"The long arm of US law stretches as far as Europe," he said.

Read the original unabridged Deutche Welle article.

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

... place the internet under the authority of the ITU.

The USA, however, argues that placing the internet under UN control would undermine the freewheeling nature of cyberspace, which promotes open commerce and free expression, and could give a green light for some countries to crack down on dissidents.

Objectors to this seismic change claim that some authoritarian states will back the move, and that most major Western nations will oppose it. If that's the case when it comes to the final vote, the balance of influence will lie in the hands of delegates from the developing world.

According to James Lewis, director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies: "The most likely outcome is a tie, and if that happens there won't be any dramatic changes, although that could change if the developing countries make a big push."

Mr Lewis conceded, however, that "there is a lot of discontent with how the internet is governed and the US will have to deal with that at some point".

He accepted that there is still an overwhelming perception that the US owns and manages the internet. Opponents, he says, "have a powerful argument" to create a global authority to manage the internet. He added: "We need to find some way to accommodate national laws in a way that doesn't sacrifice human rights."

Terry Kramer, the special US envoy for the talks, has outlined Washington's position opposing proposals by Russia, China and others to expand the ITU's authority to regulate the internet.

Speaking at a recent forum Kramer opined: "The internet has grown precisely because it has not been micro-managed or owned by any government or multinational organisation. There is no internet central office. Its openness and decentralisation are its strengths."

Read the original unabridged Times of India article.

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

... mobile companies sharing consumers' location information without their permission.

Consumers have flocked to location-based mobile apps that offer services for everything from driving directions to finding the nearest burger bar.

But according to the GAO's report, a majority of consumers are unaware that many mobile app developers and wireless carriers also share or sell their mobile tracking data to third parties.

The report also notes that despite recommendations by industry associations and privacy advocates for formal mobile industry guidelines, these have not been consistently implemented.

The report was commissioned by Senator Al Franken [Democrat-Minnesota], chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on privacy, technology and the law, following a number of hearings on mobile privacy issues.

The US initiative parallels that already under way in the European Union.

Read the original unabridged AdWeek article.

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

... those using iPhones, iPads, Android devices and other systems.

The DNS Changer Working Group [DCWG], an ad hoc group of IT experts, includes members from organizations such as Georgia Tech, Internet Systems Consortium, Mandiant, National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance, Neustar, Spamhaus, Team Cymru, Trend Micro, and the University of Alabama.

DNS Changer is a piece of malware discovered back in 2007 and is estimated to have covertly infected millions of computer worldwide.

It intercepts websites visited by the web browser, redirecting the users from the site they had chosen to visit to servers under the control of cybercriminals. These servers were then used to push web ads to the user, earning the malware miscreants millions of dollars in the process.

Last year, however, the FBI, working in conjunction with the Estonian police, seized the servers used by the cybercriminals and broke up the crime ring behind the operations.

But the servers used by the criminals were kept online so as to not disrupt the web activities of those infected - although they no longer serve up ads.

Running these web servers isn’t cheap, and so the plug will be pulled on them come July 2012. However, because systems infected with DNS Changer have had key settings changed in order to redirect their web browsing through these servers, once the latter go offline, the internet will become unavailable for anyone using an infected system.

Back in January of this year the DCWG estimated that some 450,000 systems were still infected with DNS Changer.

To check if your system has been violated and infected with DNS Changer, click here [no software will be downloaded to perform the check].

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

... observed that self-regulation "appears to be working towards" a more draconian end: a do-not-track option for consumers, although he suggested congressional interest offered an extra incentive.

Says Leibowitz: "We are confident that consumers will have an easy-to-use and effective 'do not track' option by the end of the year because companies are moving forward expeditiously to make it happen and because lawmakers will want to enact legislation if they don't."

The latest version of the Firefox browser already allows users to switch-off browsing histories and tell websites "I do not want to be tracked."

Reports Philly.com: "The FTC perceives there to be a need for broad privacy legislation and specific protections to address problems such as lax data security and the activities of data brokers - companies that, without the consent or even knowledge of most consumers, collect and traffic in the data we leave behind as we travel through virtual and brick-and-mortar worlds."

The FTC report recommends that companies be held responsible for what it called "privacy by design," defined as practices that "build in privacy at every stage of product development."

Like the new Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights announced by President Barack Obama last month, the FTC's framework focuses on the transparency of information-handling practices and on consumer expectations that arise from the context in which personal information is requested.

Ioana Rusu, regulatory counsel at Consumers Union, said expectations about privacy were routinely confounded by the data-brokerage industry, in which little-known companies such as Axciom collect and trade data about consumers. Information from brokers can be used directly for marketing or combined with data from other sources to build more detailed profiles of individual consumers.

To quote Rusu: "The FTC is basically saying it's really problematic that entities that have no real relationship with consumers are amassing huge amounts of information about them. The consumer doesn't have any way of controlling that information, or even knowing that it exists or what it's being used for."

Consumers' expectations are also at the heart of a lawsuit against Google filed in Philadelphia last week. The suit contends that people who use Google's online services or who own mobile devices based on its Android operating system are being harmed by a new, unified privacy policy that Google implemented on March 1.

The suit says Google seeks to boost its online advertising revenue by mingling data from the dozens of free services it offers, such as its search engine, Gmail, and YouTube.

The suit argues: "Google's new privacy policy is nothing more than Google's effort to garner a larger market share of advertising revenue by offering targeted advertising capabilities that compete with or surpass those offered by social networks, such as Facebook, where all of a consumer's personal information is available in one site."

A Google spokesman declined to comment on the suit, saying the company [famed motto: "Don't be evil"] had not yet had time to review it. But Google, which says it has made few changes in its underlying data-handling practices, has criticized other class actions prompted by its unified policy.

"We believe these cases are without merit, and we intend to defend them vigorously," Google said in response to the earlier suits.

"Our updated privacy policy makes our privacy practices easier to understand, and it reflects our desire to create a seamless experience for our signed-in users. We undertook the most extensive notification effort in Google's history, and we're continuing to offer choice and control over how people use our services."

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

... "a long battle as to how exactly the new policies will take shape".

Secretary Bryson, however, was in even-handed mode, focusing on the need to protect consumers and encourage the growth of responsible online commerce. "Millions of Americans", he said, "shop, sell, bank, learn, talk and work online. Online retail sales are now nearing $200 billion annually in the US ... yet we have all seen stories of consumer data being lost, compromised, or stolen."

Continued Bryson: "Privacy and trust online has never been more important to both businesses and consumers. More and more consumers are concerned about their information being used only as intended."

The proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights will help protect consumers’ personal data, provide businesses with better guidance on how to meet consumers’ privacy expectations, and ensure that the Internet remains a strong platform for commerce, innovation, and growth. It includes seven basic protections that consumers should expect from companies:

1. Individual control in what kinds of data companies collect.
    
2. Transparency in how those companies plan to use that data.
    
3. Respect for the context in which that data is provided and disclosed.
    
4. Secure and responsible handling of that data.
    
5. Ability of consumers to access and ensure the accuracy of their own data.
    
6. Reasonable limits on the personal data that online companies try to collect and retain.
    
7. And accountability for companies to have strong privacy measures in place at all times.

The Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration will convene businesses, consumer groups, and other stakeholders to work toward consensus on codes of conduct based on this blueprint. 

The Commerce Department also envisions that the privacy blueprint will be of great interest internationally. According to Bryson: "We plan to support broad cooperation and consensus on this issue. After all, e-commerce is global by its nature. Overall, this as an important step towards fostering a culture of trust and respect for privacy among America’s businesses and consumers."  

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

... the 2013 inauguration either of a new president or incumbent Barrack Obama, leading some to some fear that Fitch is playing politics as well as economics.

Fitch's move was triggered by last week's failure of a special congressional committee to agree on at least $1.2 trillion in deficit-reduction measures.

According to Fitch, that failure makes it unlikely any meaningful deficit plan will be adopted next year, increasing the fiscal burden on the next administration that will be elected in late 2012.

In a statement Fitch said: "The negative outlook reflects Fitch's declining confidence that timely fiscal measures necessary to place US public finances on a sustainable path and secure the US AAA sovereign rating will be forthcoming", adding that the chance of a downgrade right now is "slightly greater than 50 percent".

The news had little market impact, as a negative outlook from Fitch was widely expected.

"What it shows is that Fitch is putting the US on warning that this [the party-political bickering over reducing the budget deficit] cannot go on forever," opines Michael Yoshikami, chief investment strategist at California-based YCMNET Advisors.

"The markets already assumed this was going to happen. It would be different if it was a downgrade but a negative outlook is not the end of the world."

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

... and the beneficial knock-on effect on retailers' and manufacturers' bottom lines.

Proposed November 16, the rules mark the latest step in a lengthy campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption. They would build on the administration's ambitious standards that raise average gas consumption to 35.5 mpg over five years ending with the 2016 model year.

The latest standards would be phased-in starting with the 2017 model year.

When he disclosed his intent in July, President Barack Obama was flanked by executives from thirteen major automakers and the head of the United Auto Workers Union, signaling their broad support for the final proposal.

With exemptions and other provisions, actual mileage may be about 42 mpg for cars, with significantly lower requirements for light trucks, including minivans, SUVs and full-size pickup trucks.

The standards demand a substantial leap from the 2011 model-year average of 27.8 mpg and environmentalists praised the proposed new rules.

"These standards are the biggest single step any nation has taken to fight global warming," said Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign at the Center for Auto Safety. "You will see most 2025 cars and light trucks getting the mileage of today's Prius and Ford Escape hybrid. Most of the changes will be under the hood."

Carmakers have backed both the current and the proposed standards, but the National Automobile Dealers Association [NADA] criticized the proposed rules for adding a claimed additional $3,000 to average vehicle prices by 2025.

Wails NADA: "This regulation gambles that millions of consumers will be able to afford thousands more for generally smaller, more expensive vehicles that may not meet their needs.  This policy is contrary to what most consumers are actually buying today, despite the wide availability of more fuel-efficient models."

But the administration asserts that the new fuel economy standards won't push Americans to drive smaller vehicles and pointed out that truck and SUV makers are already working to manufacture far more fuel-efficient versions of their current models.

Moreover, the new, combined sets of fuel economy standards will save Americans more than $1.7 trillion at the pump, according to administration estimates - equating to about $8,000 per vehicle. The standards also would reduce the nation's oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day — "enough to offset almost a quarter of the current level" of oil imports.

Another claimed benefit is that heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by 6 billion metric tons over the life of the programs, according to Federal estimates.

The new standards will be open for public comment for 60 days after being published in the Federal Register. The administration said the Environmental Agency and the Transportation Department will also hold public hearings nationwide.

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

.... an unfair or deceptive practice. According to respresentative Barton, 'supercookies' should be "outlawed." 

In a joint statement Barton and Markey declare: "We believe the usage of supercookies takes away consumer control over their own personal information, presents a greater opportunity for the misuse of personal information, and provides another way for consumers to be tracked online."

Some consumers have long tried to avoid online tracking by deleting their HTTP cookies. But the new "supercookie" techniques rely on storing information in files that aren't erased when users delete their HTTP cookies.

For instance, analytics company KISSmetrics stored data about users in ETags, which reside in the browser cache and can be used to respawn deleted HTTP cookies. Until KISSmetrics revised its practices in August, the only way of avoiding ETag tracking was by deleting the browser cache or installing a program called AdBlock.

Flash cookies, which are stored in a different place in the browser than HTTP cookies, are an older form of supercookies.

Quantcast, Clearspring and Say Media's Video Egg recently paid a total of $3.4 million to settle privacy lawsuits stemming from their alleged use of Flash cookies.

Since when Adobe has made it easier for surfers to delete Flash cookies.

FTC officials have previously criticized the use of Flash cookies, but the commission has never brought an enforcement action regarding supercookies.

It's not clear whether courts or regulators would rule that using a hard-to-delete tracking technology is illegal.

But according to Justin Brookman, director of the Center for Democracy & Technology's Consumer Privacy Project, there is a good argument that tracking people by methods other than traditional cookies is a deceptive and unfair practice. "Using another means to track just seems like a means to evade user choice," he stold Online Media Daily.

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.

... "Businesses that are engaged in responsible privacy practices today ought not to face any additional burdens."

Weitzner added: "You can have stronger privacy law, clearer rules, clearer principles established in law, without the costs and downsides of a traditional regulatory structure."

An administration-wide white paper is expected this fall.

Lawrence Strickling, the NTIA's administrator (the agency is part of the Commerce Department) suggested to Congress in March it should enact a "consumer privacy bill of rights" that would mandate broad privacy protections.

Some possibilities include requiring companies to describe the purpose for which they're collecting data, and keeping it secure once collected.

Weitzner outlined something very similar at the Aspen conference: "I think the government has a key role in articulating what consumer rights ought to be," he argued.

"The strength of our system is that we iterate quite a bit in trying to answer those questions [rather than] a fixed set of regulations, and then scratch our heads for ten years and worry whether they're the right ones."

Government agencies including the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission have existing authority to police privacy violations. As do state attorneys general -- who have used state laws to extract concessions both from Facebook and Amazon.com.

Class action lawsuits, such as one filed against Apple, also tend to have a strong deterrent effect.

Victor Nichols, ceo of data broker Experian North America, who spoke earlier in the day, warned of over-zealous Federal regulation of companies' data collection and use practices.

This, he alleged, can interfere with economic growth. "We all understand that laws and regulations cannot move as fast as businesses can in response to consumer need," he said.

"Industry self-regulation therefore provides the flexible approach ... providing consumers with the transparency and choice that they need."

Dispassionate industry practitioners would not necessarily agree with Mr Nichols' relaxed philosophy vis-à-vis self-regulation.

Factual data only is sourced from the original attributed article. The data is then enhanced by additional research and comment.