Google chief Eric Schmidt condemns Carrier IQ – Telegraph

Speaking at a Google-hosted conference on internet freedom in the Hague, Mr Schmidt criticised the software, which was installed by American operators on Android handsets.

He said that because Android, Google’s smartphone operating system, which runs on the majority of smartphones sold today, is an “open” platform, there was nothing his firm could do to restrict Carrier IQ’s software.

“Android is an open platform which means people can makes software for it that’s not very good for you,” Mr Schmidt said.

“This [Carrier IQ] appears to be one [such case], he added.

But he made it clear that Google does not approve of Carrier IQ’s methods. Its software is pre-installed and collects data in the background to report back to operators. Users are unable to disable it without completely wiping their smartphone.

“We certainly don’t work with them,” said Mr Schmidt, describing the software as a “keylogger”.

“And we certainly don’t support it,” he told an audience of journalists, government officials and democracy activists.

via Google chief Eric Schmidt condemns Carrier IQ – Telegraph.

Attorney General Holder Joins Cabinet Officials for the U.S. International Strategy for Cyberspace Announcement « USDOJ: Justice Blog

Speaking at the event, the Attorney General said:

Although we may approach the issue of cyber threats from different perspectives, we are united by our common goals: security, opportunity, openness, and prosperity.  We’re also bound by our shared values – and by our collective concerns.  The 21st-century threats we now face – to both our national and economic security – have no precedent.  They know no borders.  And they demand – not only our constant attention, but also a comprehensive, collaborative, and well-coordinated response.

In this new age of seamless global commerce and instant communication, we all stand to benefit – but only if the information technology being used to drive social, economic, and political progress is secure.  Unfortunately, for every technological or commercial quantum leap that we have made, criminals – and often entire international criminal syndicates – have kept pace.  Thefts of information that would have been impossible in an ink-and-paper world can now be carried out nearly undetected, from almost anywhere.

Today, in communities worldwide, cybercrime threatens the security of our citizens and the integrity of our markets – discouraging investments and stifling innovation; and – all too often – devastating businesses and individual lives.  If we are to meet the goals and responsibilities that we share – protecting public safety and personal privacy, fostering innovation and creativity, and stimulating economic growth – we need a new, cutting-edge framework for preventing and combating cybercrime.  One that’s nimble enough to fight complex, constantly evolving threats – but also strong enough to ensure that essential freedoms are upheld.

That’s precisely why the new International Strategy for Cyberspace is so important.

Today, with the unveiling of this strategy, we are signaling that – nearly a decade since the approval of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime – a new era of global collaboration, engagement, and vigilance has begun.

via Attorney General Holder Joins Cabinet Officials for the U.S. International Strategy for Cyberspace Announcement « USDOJ: Justice Blog.

Is Your Compliance Department Real and Alive? | Thomas Fox – JDSupra

Speaking at the IQPC 2010 Internal and Regulatory Investigations in Oil and Gas Conference, Nick Lumley, General Counsel of Centrica Storage, discussed how Centrica is using compliance policies and procedures as a business enabler. As a relatively new corporate entity, Centrica was able to create its own Code of Conduct and compliance culture within the past decade. Lumley emphasized that neither he nor the Company wanted a checklist culture of compliance but one that was vibrant within the Company.

One of the key items stressed by Lumley to make compliance vibrant was not only that a culture of compliance had to be real and alive within a company, but that the Compliance Department itself must also be real and alive. By this he meant that the Compliance Department had to be not only flesh and blood people that the rest of the company could relate to but the department had to be an active part of the company’s business.

via Is Your Compliance Department Real and Alive? | Thomas Fox – JDSupra.