Monster.com | Consumer Alert | Job search privacy — According to the job site Monster.com, its users’ IDs and passwords, email addresses, names, phone numbers, and some “basic demographic data” were compromised in a data breach. Monster notified victims of the security breach through its web site on Friday, January 23, 2009. It is unclear how many people this notice impacts, as Monster.com did not give an estimate. In press reports, however, Monster has admitted that the breach is global, with Asia Pacific and Eastern Europe being spared. Job seekers’ information can be used like a road map for criminal ventures, including identity theft, phishing and spamming. User passwords, which Monster.com says were compromised in this breach, are especially valuable as they can potentially be used to access other sites or email accounts, especially if a person regularly uses the same passwords. The World Privacy Forum has published a consumer alert about this data breach with tips for victims. This data breach also impacts USAjobs.com, the government job search site affiliated wiith Monster.com.

School privacy | FERPA — In May 2008 the World Privacy Forum submitted detailed comments on proposed changes to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act regulations (FERPA). The FERPA regulations are the rules that control how schools treat and release student information. The final FERPA regulations have now been published and reveal that the World Privacy Forum comments had a positive impact. The new regulations agreed with WPF’s comment that if a school requests a Federal tax return from a parent, that the parent has the right to redact all financial information from the form, and affirmed that the school does not have a requirement to ask for the tax form in the first place. The regulations also agreed with the WPF comment that the risk of re-identification of published student information is cumulative, and made recommendations that educational institutions take into account all releases of student information it has made, not just new releases.

GINA – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act — In comments regarding the recently passed GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act), the World Privacy Forum said that some aspects of GINA need clarification to enhance privacy. The comments focus on a number of privacy issues the RFI raised, including model privacy notices and the issue of what the GINA statute calls “incidental collection” of genetic information. Currently, GINA states that some kinds of information are exempted from being considered as regulated for medical underwriting purposes. For example, medical information gleaned about patients for underwriting purposes from medical databases is regulated. But medical information gleaned about patients for underwriting purposes from, for example, marketing lists containing robust patient information may be unregulated if the law is not clarified in the regulatory process. The World Privacy Forum urged HHS and the Department of Labor to substantially clarify what constitutes “incidental collection,” and urged the agencies to consider lists containing identifiable patient information to be considered in the same category as a “medical database.”

Genetic privacy — The World Privacy Forum presented a talk at the World Congress in Washington D.C. today on the intersection between genetic privacy and marketing, and on genetic issues and medical identity theft. The presentation exposed the list marketing activities surrounding health care data, and examined how the current loopholes in the recently passed Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) would not necessarily ease issues with incidental collection and use of genetic information.

In response to a Request for Information (RFI) from U.S. federal agencies regarding the recently passed GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act), the World Privacy Forum filed a detailed response with suggestions on what aspects of GINA need clarification. The comments focus on a number of privacy issues the RFI raised, including model privacy notices and the issue of what the GINA statute calls “incidental collection” of genetic information. Currently, GINA states that some kinds of information are exempted from being considered as regulated for medical underwriting purposes. For example, medical information gleaned about patients for underwriting purposes from medical databases is regulated. But medical information gleaned about patients for underwriting purposes from, for example, marketing lists containing robust patient information may be unregulated if the law is not clarified in the regulatory process. The World Privacy Forum urged HHS and the Department of Labor to substantially clarify what constitutes “incidental collection,” and urged the agencies to consider lists containing identifiable patient information to be considered in the same category as a “medical database.”