Privacy, Data Protection & Information Management – Page 27

Oracle’s Point-of-Sale division targeted by professional hackers

Aug 17 2016

By Cameron Abbott and Rebecca Murray

Oracle confirmed last week that its security was breached by a Russian organized cybercrime group infamous for hacking retailers and banks. Alarmingly, Oracle’s MICROS point-of-sale credit card payment system was one of the systems targeted in the attack. While the impact of the breach is still being investigated, the attack could have had wide impact. MICROS is one of the top three point-of-sale vendors worldwide and sells point-of-sale systems used at more than 330,000 cash registers globally.

It has been reported that Oracle became aware of the breach after its staff discovered malicious code on the MICROS customer support portal and systems. It is thought that the hackers installed malware on the troubleshooting portal in order to capture customers’ credentials as they logged in. Usernames and passwords could then be used to access customer accounts and remotely control MICROS point-of-sales terminals.

The attack has been linked to crime gang, Carbanak Gang, which has been accused of stealing more than $1 Billion from banks and retailers in the past. These guys clearly know what they are doing.

Sour Apple blasts the Banks for application to ACCC

Aug 10 2016

By Cameron Abbott and Rebecca Murray

Last month we reported that three of Australia’s largest banks had collectively launched an application to the ACCC seeking permission to negotiate with Apple Inc. to install their own electronic payment applications on iPhones.

Apple has submitted a scathing response to the ACCC, warning that allowing the banks to negotiate will compromise the iPhone handset’s security, reduce innovation and blunt Apple’s entry into the payments market in Australia. Read Apple’s submission to the ACCC here.

Apple expressed particular concern about security risks, claiming that providing simple access to NFC antenna by banking applications would fundamentally diminish the high level of security of Apple devices. This concern is not unwarranted as it was recently revealed that hackers have found ways to intercept contactless mobile payments in Samsung’s latest Galaxy smartphones. While Samsung refuted this in a recent blog post, an attached Samsung FAQ revealed that it is possible for an attacker to skim a smartphone’s payment token and make fraudulent purchases.

Hackers to take the blame for Census?

Aug 10 2016

By Cameron Abbott and Rebecca Murray

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) says that the 2016 online census form was subject to “four Denial of Service attacks,” which prompted the ABS to shut down its Census website as a security precaution on Tuesday night. Read the ABS’s media release here.

While the ABS maintains that 2 million forms were successfully submitted and safely stored, thousands of Australians were prevented from taking part in the Census due to the website crash. The ABS has revealed that it believes that the attacks came from overseas and were a deliberate attempt to sabotage the census. However, we are wondering if the entire Australian population accessing the website at the same time might look like a Denial of Service attack in its own right! If ever a system should have been robust enough to cope with such an attack it was this one.

Attorney-General George Brandis has stated that the security measures in place were “more than sufficient to protect individual privacy” and that “the cyber security operations centre has been engaged overnight…and is investigating the matter.”

Was Mickey Mouse hacked?

Aug 02 2016

By Cameron Abbott and Rebecca Murray

Disney Interactive has notified users of its Playdom Forum that hackers have stolen personal information, which could put their privacy and online security at risk. The hackers acquired usernames, email addresses, and passwords for playdomforums.com accounts as well as IP addresses. Disney has not disclosed how many users have been affected, although the forum is said to have over 350,000 members. Read Disney Interactive’s statement here.

What Pokémon ‘needed’ to know about you

Jul 22 2016

By Cameron Abbott and Rebecca Murray

The hugely popular Pokémon GO app is at the centre of privacy and security concerns after recent media reports noted that its installation required access to a significant amount of users’ personal information. This prompted Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim to make enquiries with the developer of the app, Niantic Labs, to “ensure the personal information of users is being managed in accordance with the Australian Privacy Act.” Read the OAIC statement here.

Available on iOS and Android platforms, the smash-hit game uses augmented reality technology and your smart-phone GPS and camera to display fictional Pokémon which users then aim to find and capture.

Privacy concerns arose after users noted that installing the iOS version of the app required full access to users’ Google accounts. In response, Niantic Labs reported that the access was requested erroneously and that Google would reduce Pokémon GO’s permission to only the basic profile data that it needs. Niantic and Google have since corrected the permissions. Read Niantic’s statement here.

Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim warned that the security scare was a “timely reminder that people need to read the privacy policies of all smartphone apps before signing up. This way people can make an informed decision about if they want to use an app.” However, we will wager that 99% of people just click “accept”.

Brexit and Data Protection

Jul 20 2016

Linked article by Andrew W. Gilchrist, Arthur Artinian, Andrew R. Danson, Philip J. Morgan, Daniel L. Clyne

As part of K&L Gates continued coverage of the issues raised by Britain’s exit of the EU (see our dedicated Brexit Hub here), our European colleagues have made an assessment of the post-Brexit landscape with respect to UK’s data protection laws.

Although there will be no immediate impact (given it is expected that it will take at least 2 years before any Brexit is finalised), companies should begin to consider what legal framework may apply in the post-Brexit world. For more information, please see here.

Microsoft welcomes big win against government information requests

Jul 19 2016

By Cameron Abbott and Simon Ly

Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a previous lower court decision and found in favour of Microsoft in a long running dispute over a government information request.

In 2014, the US government successfully received a warrant for email records sought in connection with a drug case. Microsoft refused to comply with the orders and was subsequently found to be in contempt of court. However, the Court of Appeal has now ruled that the US government could not force Microsoft to hand over customer emails stored in an offshore server in Ireland because, amongst other things, the Stored Communications Act did not intend to legislate to allow for such warrant provisions. This decision comes hot off the heels of the EU-approved Privacy Shield, and it will be interesting to see how a similar decision will be dealt with moving forward in light of this regime.

This represents a big win for Microsoft and the tech sector more broadly as service providers now have a basis for maintaining the position of protecting its users’ privacy. This decision also highlights that legal regimes are territorial notwithstanding the global nature of new technology offerings.

To read Microsoft’s news release following the decision, please see here.

EU-US Privacy Shield certifications to open in August

Jul 14 2016

By Cameron Abbott, Simon Ly and Rowena Baer

As a follow up to our latest blog post, the European Union and European Commission yesterday announced that the Privacy Shield arrangement has been adopted.

Companies wanting to utilise the Privacy Shield for their Trans-Atlantic data transfers are able to apply for certification with the U.S. Department of Commerce from 1 August 2016, with the US and EU to brief companies on the application process later this week.

For a legal perspective and analysis of the Privacy Shield, please see our colleagues’ report here.

To keep up to date and for an overview of the changes, please see here.

EU-US Privacy Shield approved

Jul 12 2016

By Cameron Abbott, Rob Pulham, Simon Ly and Rowena Baer

When the Safe Harbour arrangements were struck down the EU and US worked to create a replacement and flesh out the details of this new arrangement (see our last article on this issue here). We have all been somewhat nervously watching to see if the new ‘Privacy Shield’ would get final approval amid some criticism from some quarters. Good news, last Friday the EU member states on the Article 31 Committee voted to approve a revised Privacy Shield.

The new arrangement provides a welcome measure of certainty for businesses whose Trans-Atlantic data transfers have been left in legal limbo since the European Court of Justice declared the longstanding Safe Harbor Framework invalid in October 2015.

The European Commission has released a statement expressing their confidence in the adoption of the new Privacy Shield, noting that the new pact is “fundamentally different” from its predecessor. The new Privacy Shield imposes “clear and strong obligations on companies handling the data and makes sure that these rules are followed and enforced in practice”.

International tech industry groups have also praised the move as a win for both consumers and businesses as the pact provides robust consumer privacy protections. Voicing their support of the Privacy Shield, Microsoft released a detailed blog post on how the Privacy Shield is progress for privacy rights, declaring that the regime is an “important achievement for the privacy rights of citizens across Europe, and for companies across all industries that rely on international data flows to run their businesses and serve their customers”.

Whilst we are still at the early stages, companies should begin assessing the Privacy Shield’s impact on their existing agreements and also more broadly their data strategy, keeping in mind that the regime relates only to EU-US data transfers. In particular, consideration should be given to the transitional arrangements in the Privacy Shield. Companies should also be aware of the potential challenges to this regime (and related issues post-Brexit) as there is concern about the shelf life of the Privacy Shield.

For more information, please see the EU’s page here and the US’s page here.

Agreed changes to EU-US Privacy Shield strengthens data transfer pact

Jun 28 2016

By Cameron Abbott and Giles Whittaker

The US and the European Union reportedly reached an agreement on the language of a key data transfer pact, including clearer limits on U.S. surveillance and stricter rules for companies holding information of Europeans. The updated EU-US Privacy Shield was sent to EU member states, who are expected to vote on the proposal in July. The revised data transfer pact is said to include stricter cross-border data-handling rules for companies using Europeans’ information for targeted online advertising, and also has detailed the specific condition under which U.S. government intelligence services would collect data in bulk and the safeguards on how the data is used.

Meanwhile, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President and Head of International Affairs Myron Brilliant urged the EU’s member states to quickly sign off on the updated version, saying that the new framework for trans-Atlantic data transfer is critical for companies on both sides of the pond.

Further information regarding the report by Reuters can be read here.

Catagory:Privacy, Data Protection & Information Management