|
|
|
archives If you want an RSS feed try this
Saturday, March 15, 2003BT uses Biometics to screen callers to it's billing centre
 ecommnet's suggestion for the silliest security measure we've come across in the last 12 months is BT's billing department's insistance that you sound like the person named on the bill. Earlier this year while making enquiries regarding a bill for an employee's SOHO account which was being invoiced to the company, Ms Lesley Young, my PA was told, ..I'm sorry I can't discuss Mr Holroyd's bill with you, you are obviously not Mr Clive Holroyd..! A discussion ensued between Lesley and the BT operator along the lines of Mr Holroyd was a man where as she wasn't and despite that fact that she had the bill, the account number, the telephone number the address and all the other usual credentials the BT operator still couldn't discuss anything to do with the account with her. In exasperation Lesley hands phone to yours truly saying 'I'll hand you over to him!'
Me: Hullo
BT: Ah yes Mr Holroyd what can I do for you ?
That'll BT's implementation of Biometric Security for you then.. we're going to nominate this in Privacy International's competiton. If you have any better suggestions or anecdotes please let us know.posted by Robert Campbell 7:09 PM e-mail as evidenceRead Seve Mason and Robert Campbell's article from the North East Chamber of Commerce business magazine 'Contact' on the subject of using e-mail as evidence and the need for email archiving. posted by Robert Campbell 6:31 PM Govt Request for comment
 The UK Government Home office has recently issued a consultation document CONSULTATION PAPER ON A CODE OF PRACTICE FOR VOLUNTARY RETENTION OF COMMUNICATIONS DATA. The paper deals with issues such as the conflict between obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act and the proposed requirements for data retention under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime & Security Act 2001 Part II . I was hoping that it would clear up the definition of what 'communications data' was but it's still unclear to me if it would apply to email as well as telephony communications. Closing data for comment is 3rd June 2003.posted by Robert Campbell 10:02 AM VISA fines the Bank not the HackersVisa USA have imposed undisclosed fines on one of the banks involved in the much publicized credit card hack. See the article Crackers gain sight of up to 5m credit cards as reported by The Register for the original details. It now seems that over 10million card numbers have been compromised across a variety of card companies not just Visa. The strange thing is Visa can't fine the transaction-processing company, only the acquiring bank, believed to be in this case the Provident Bank of Cincinnati on behalf of DPI Corporation of Omaha. Visa will not confirm who or how much they have been fined, their only public response at the moment is to state no ones accounts have been fraudulently hit as a result of the systems hack. . Well that's comforting then... posted by Robert Campbell 8:49 AM
|
