# data[].attributes.body
Privacy and health records

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Privacy and Security of EHRs
Leon Rodriguez | December 12, 2011

Health care is changing and so are the tools used to coordinate better care for patients like you and me. During your most recent visit to the doctor, you may have noticed your physician entering notes on a computer or laptop into an electronic health record (EHR). With EHRs comes the opportunity for patients to receive improved coordinated care from providers and easier access to their health information. It's a way to make it easier for everyone to be better informed and more involved in the patient's health care. However for many of us, EHRs also come with questions and concerns about the privacy and security of our health information. Who can access the information on my EHR? How can I see the information in my record and make sure it's correct? How is it protected from loss, theft and hacking? What should I do if I think my information has been compromised?

Many of you have heard of HIPAA- the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, which help keep entities covered under HIPAA accountable for the privacy and security of patients' health information. As a former health care lawyer, I know that many health care providers understand and abide by their obligations under the Privacy and Security Rules. Although EHRs allow providers to use information more effectively to improve the quality and efficiency of your care, they do not change the obligations providers have to keep your protected health information private and secure.

Following my recent appointment as OCR's Director, I had a number of conversations that made it apparent to me that many patients recognize some of the health privacy jargon such as "HIPAA" or "the Notice of Privacy Practices," but often do not know their rights under the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules - especially in terms of how these rules relate to EHRs.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule gives you rights over your own health information, regardless of its form. Whether your record is in paper or electronic form, under the Privacy Rule you have the right:

To see or get a copy of your medical record;

To request to have any mistakes corrected;

To get a notice about how your health information is used and shared;

To say how and where you want to be contacted by your health care provider; and

To file a complaint if you think any of these rights have been violated. One way to do this is through OCR's website: www.hhs.gov/ocr.

These rights are spelled out in the Notice of Privacy Practices that is given to you at your doctor's office or hospital. Your health plan may also send this notice to you in the mail.

Specific to protecting the information stored in EHRs, the HIPAA Security Rule requires that health care providers set up physical, administrative, and technical safeguards to protect your electronic health information. Some safety measures that may be built in to EHR systems include:

"Access controls" like passwords and PIN numbers, to help limit access to your information;

"Encrypting" your stored information. This means your health information cannot be read or understood except by someone who can "decrypt" it, using a special "key" made available only to authorized individuals;

An "audit trail," which records who accessed your information, what changes were made and when.

In certain circumstances, if your data is seen by someone who should not see it, federal law requires doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers to notify you of a "breach" of your health information. This requirement helps patients know if something has gone wrong with the protection of their information and helps keep providers accountable.

OCR works to help make sure your health information is kept private and secure by your health professionals. We are here to help you understand these rights, how you can take action if your rights are violated and how your health information is required to be safeguarded under the law. The first step is to know your rights. OCR's website has a wealth of information about your health information privacy rights and I encourage you to visit and explore our website: www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Privacy, Security, and Electronic Health Records - Health IT Buzz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Privacy and Security of EHRs Leon Rodriguez | December 12, 2011 Health care is changing and so are the tools used to coordinate better care for patients like you and me. During your most recent visit to the doctor, you may have noticed your physician entering notes on a computer or laptop into an electronic health record (EHR).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans have long been divided in their views about the trade-off between security needs and personal privacy. Much of the focus has been on government surveillance, though there are also significant concerns about how businesses use data. The issue flared again this week when a federal court ordered Apple to help the FBI unlock an iPhone used by one of the suspects in the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, in December. Apple challenged the order to try to ensure that security of other iPhones remained protected, and also to provoke a wider national conversation about how far people would like technology firms to go in protecting their privacy or cooperating with law enforcement.

Events have had a major impact on public attitudes on this issue. Terrorist attacks generate increased anxieties. For instance, the San Bernardino and Paris shootings in late 2015 had a striking impact. A Pew Research Center survey in December found that 56% of Americans were more concerned that the government's anti-terror policies have not gone far enough to protect the country, compared with 28% who expressed concern that the policies have gone too far in restricting the average person's civil liberties. Just two years earlier, amid the furor over Edward Snowden's revelations about National Security Agency surveillance programs, more said their bigger concern was that anti-terror programs had gone too far in restricting civil liberties (47%) rather than not far enough in protecting the country (35%).

At the same time, there are other findings suggesting that Americans are becoming more anxious about their privacy, especially in the context of digital technologies that capture a wide array of data about them. Here is an overview of the state of play as the iPhone case moves further into legal proceedings.
How people have felt about government anti-terror policies
Pew Research Center surveys since the 9/11 terrorist attacks have generally shown that in the periods when high-profile cases related to privacy vs. security first arise, majorities of adults favor a "security first" approach to these issues, while at the same time urging that dramatic sacrifices on civil liberties be avoided. New incidents often result in Americans backing at least some extra steps by the law enforcement and intelligence communities to investigate terrorist suspects, even if that might infringe on the privacy of citizens. But many draw the line at deep interventions into their personal lives.

For instance, our survey shortly after the 9/11 attacks found that 70% of adults favored requiring citizens to carry national ID cards. At the same time, a majority balked at government monitoring of their own emails and personal phone calls or their credit card purchases.

It should be noted that surveys have also found that people's immediate concerns about security can subside over time. In a poll conducted in 2011, shortly before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, 40% said that "in order to curb terrorism in this country it will be necessary for the average person to give up some civil liberties," while 54% said it would not. A decade earlier, in the aftermath of 9/11 and before the passage of the Patriot Act, opinion was nearly the reverse (55% necessary, 35% not necessary).

When The New York Times reported in late 2005 that President George W. Bush authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans, subsequent Pew Research Center surveys found that 50% of Americans were concerned that the government hadn't yet gone far enough in protecting the country against terrorism, and 54% said it was generally right for the government to monitor the telephone and email communications of Americans suspected of having ties with terrorists without first obtaining court permission. Some 43% said such surveillance was generally wrong. Quite similar numbers were found in a survey at when President Barack Obama took office in 2009.

Right after the Snowden revelations in June 2013, a Pew Research Center poll found that 48% of Americans approved of the government's collection of telephone and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts. But by January 2014, approval had declined to 40%.

And many Americans continue to express concern about the government's surveillance program. In an early 2015 online survey, 52% of Americans described themselves as "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about government surveillance of Americans' data and electronic communications, compared with 46% who described themselves as "not very concerned" or "not at all concerned" about the surveillance.
How people feel about corporate practices
As businesses increasingly mine data about consumers, Americans are concerned about preserving their privacy when it comes to their personal information and behaviors. Those views have intensified in recent years, especially after big data breaches at companies such as Target, eBay and Anthem as well as of federal employee personnel files. Our surveys show that people now are more anxious about the security of their personal data and are more aware that greater and greater volumes of data are being collected about them. The vast majority feel they have lost control of their personal data, and this has spawned considerable anxiety. They are not very confident that companies collecting their information will keep it secure.

In assessing public attitudes, context matters - and so does how the question is framed
One consistent finding over the years about public attitudes related to privacy and societal security is that people's answers often depend on the context. The language of the questions we ask sometimes affects the way people respond.

A recent Pew Research Center study showed that, in commercial situations, people's views on the trade-off between offering information about themselves in exchange for something of value are shaped by both the conditions of the deal and the circumstances of their lives. People indicated that their interest and overall comfort level in sharing personal information depends on the company or organization with which they are bargaining and how trustworthy or safe they perceive the firm to be. It also depends on what happens to their data after they are collected, especially if the data are made available to third parties, and on how long the data are retained.

A study in the wake of the Snowden revelations showed that there was notable change in public attitudes about NSA surveillance programs when questions were modified. For instance, only 25% favored NSA surveillance when there was no mention of court approval of the program. But 37% favored it when the program was described as being approved by courts. Similarly, characterizing the government's data collection "as part of anti-terrorism efforts" garnered more support than not mentioning this (35% favored vs. 26% favored).

Topics: Terrorism, National Security, Online Privacy and Safety, Surveillance

1. Lee Rainie is director of internet and technology research at Pew Research Center.

2. Shiva Maniam is a former research assistant focusing on U.S. politics and policy at Pew Research Center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Americans feel the tensions between privacy and security concerns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans have long been divided in their views about the trade-off between security needs and personal privacy. Much of the focus has been on government surveillance, though there are also significant concerns about how businesses use data.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In light of 2014's unsettling string of data breaches and cyber-attacks, the Obama Administration is ramping up efforts to strengthen America's cybersecurity and make it more difficult for hackers to damage our businesses, hurt our economy and threaten our freedom to information. On Tuesday, President Obama is expected to speak about cybersecurity in his State of the Union Address.

Adopted by more than 2.5 billion people in the first 20 years of its existence, the Internet permeates through every aspect of our corporate, personal and government lives. The Internet is easily one of the most democratic and disruptive inventions of the last century; it is the epitome of free speech.

Only two decades old, the Internet was unchartered legal territory, lacking firm regulatory standards and protection by international law. Further, the unprecedented demand for mobile devices (more people in the world have access to cell phones than toilets, according to the U.N.), further convolutes legal issues when it comes to Internet use and what is private and public information. This is disturbing since ninety percent of the world's data - your information and mine - was created in the last two years alone.
[ Also on Insights: Outpacing the Government: The 30-Day Rule in a Zero-Day Culture | Ready for What's Next? Envision a Future Where Your Personal Information Is Digital Currency ]
The Internet is widely perceived as a tool that has given voice to the voiceless, enabling individuals to author their own lives and to share their experiences with a vast network of people around the globe. The term "Internet revolution" refers to the birth of a new information era that has transformed the way we create and share content. And, rightly so.

If we want to make our societies, nations, and people more secure and allow for the Internet to drive the benefits of improving every aspect of life that it permeates through today - we must stand up to the challenge of protecting our data. And, we must act now.

Two key events will occur between 2015 and 2020 that will have critical implications for mankind.

The Next Five Billion

The next five billion people will come online, the majority from developing countries. Over time, they will transition from feature phones to smartphones. Personal privacy will be essential to ensuring their survival - both offline and online.

By 2025, Africa's iGDP (which measures the Internet's contribution to overall GDP) should grow at least five to six percent resulting in the improved delivery of health care, education and other public services, according to the McKinsey Global Institute. Large populations stand to benefit from Africa's accelerated digital development. And, for those in developing countries who regularly fight for Internet freedom and access, a breach in privacy or censorship to access critical information could be life-threatening.

Privacy and Internet freedom will be a matter of life and death to citizens of the developing world.

The Internet of Things Means More Data

If 90 percent of the world's data was created in the last two years, can you imagine what that statistic will look like in five years given more data moving online with the Internet of Things? The amount of our data stored online will expand exponentially.

Thus security and privacy protection will become even more necessary in the next five years as we continue to digitize every aspect of our lives - from fitness to home automation.

Unfortunately, what many Internet security and privacy companies offer today are solutions so complex and cumbersome that most consumers, and even some IT administrators, find them too complicated to use. A five-year-old can figure out how to watch a video on an iPad or make a call on an iPhone, but can a five-year-old figure out how to use security software? No.

The challenge for security companies is to create solutions that can be easily adopted into everyday life. As a government, we must support infrastructures and Internet policies that promote access and privacy. But how can the mobile industry build sustainable business models in areas where potential conflict is as sure as demand for connectivity? The answer will be making sure privacy and access are part of the equation at product inception and that policy and legislation account for privacy and access in the new Internet-driven world.

We must make security and privacy ubiquitous, simple, and understood by all. Only then will we be able to preserve one of the greatest innovations of the last century, the Internet, and allow our world to continue to develop, innovate, and prosper.
David Gorodyansky is co-founder of AnchorFree.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Privacy and Security in the Internet Age

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In light of 2014's unsettling string of data breaches and cyber-attacks, the Obama Administration is ramping up efforts to strengthen America's cybersecurity and make it more difficult for hackers to damage our businesses, hurt our economy and threaten our freedom to information. On Tuesday, President Obama is expected to speak about cybersecurity in his State...

# data[].attributes.body
For Mr. Harley

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The US and South Korea have agreed to deploy a controversial missile defence system, in the wake of intensifying threats from North Korea.

The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system will be deployed solely to counter the threat from Pyongyang, a statement said.

It is unclear exactly where it will be sited and who will have final control.

China, which has consistently opposed the plan, lodged a protest with the US and South Korean envoys.

China's foreign ministry said that the THAAD system will harm peace and stability in the region, despite its ability to detect and shoot down North Korean missiles.

"China expresses strong dissatisfaction and resolute objection to this", it said in a statement on its website.

What is the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD)?

Shoots down short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase of their flight

Uses hit-to-kill technology - where kinetic energy destroys the incoming warhead

Has a range of 200km and can reach an altitude of 150km

US has previously deployed it in Guam and Hawaii as a measure against potential attacks from North Korea

1. The enemy launches a missile

2. The Thaad radar system detects the launch, which is relayed to command and control

3. Thaad command and control instructs the launch of an interceptor missile

4. The interceptor missile is fired at the enemy projectile

5. The enemy projectile is destroyed in the terminal phase of flight

The launcher trucks can hold up to eight interceptor missiles.

The BBC's Korea Correspondent Stephen Evans says that Beijing fears the system's radars would be able to see far into its territory. China, the North's closest ally, supported the most recent UN sanctions after North Korean nuclear and missile tests.

Discussions between the two countries began in February after North Korea fired a long-range missile.

"South Korea and the US have made the joint decision to deploy the THAAD system as part of a defensive action to guarantee the security of the Republic of Korea," South Korea's Defence Ministry said on Friday.

It will be deployed "as soon as possible."

THAAD is "critical" to the US' defensive strategy, Lt. Gen Thomas S. Vandal of the US Eighth Army in South Korea told AP. He added that the North's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction required that the allies made sure that they could defend themselves.

The announcement comes after North Korea denounced US sanctions on Kim Jong-un, calling it an "open declaration of war", after the leader was accused of human rights abuses.

The US had put sanctions onto the leader for the first time, calling him directly responsible for violations in his country.

Pyongyang has warned that it will close down all diplomatic channels with the US unless the blacklisting is revoked, reported news agency Yonhap.

The measures freeze any property the individuals have in the US and prevent US citizens doing business with them.

"Under Kim Jong-un, North Korea continues to inflict intolerable cruelty and hardship on millions of its own people, including extrajudicial killings, forced labour, and torture," the Treasury statement said.

It estimates that between 80,000 and 120,000 prisoners are being held in North Korean prison camps where torture, sexual assault and executions are routine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The US and South Korea have agreed to deploy a controversial missile defence system, in the wake of intensifying threats from North Korea. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system will be deployed solely to counter the threat from Pyongyang, a statement said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Maybe you gotta catch 'em all, but you're not the only one with collection fever.

The developer of the wildly popular Pokemon Go, Niantic Labs, has full access to your Google account if you used it to log into the game from an iOS device. In response to reports of this all-you-can-eat data buffet, Niantic said in a statement that it's drastically limiting the access it requests going forward and that it didn't access anything beyond user IDs and email addresses.

"We recently discovered that the Pokémon GO account creation process on iOS erroneously requests full access permission for the user's Google account," the company said in a statement. "Once we became aware of this error, we began working on a client-side fix to request permission for only basic Google profile information, in line with the data that we actually access."

But for the time being, the full account permission could give Niantic access to all of your information, as well as the ability to post, delete and send things from your account. In other words, logging in with your Google account is a super effective way to hand over your email, contacts, photos, documents -- everything!

You'd have no way of knowing you granted all this access to begin with if you just downloaded the game and logged in with your Google account. To see whether you've entered a ghastly Pokemon panopticon, you'd have to go into your Google account settings and see which apps have full access. ( And you may be able to revoke access and keep playing.)

Google did not respond to a request for comment on this story and did not confirm exactly how much data Niantic would have been privy to with full account access if the problem hadn't been spotted.

"Google has verified that no other information has been received or accessed by Pokémon GO or Niantic," Niantic said in its statement. "Google will soon reduce Pokémon GO's permission to only the basic profile data that Pokémon GO needs, and users do not need to take any actions themselves."

Niantic Labs began as a group within Google and first made a splash with its game Ingress. Like Pokemon Go, the game encourages players to get outside and visit specific locations to progress. Niantic announced in August it would spin off into its own company. "We'll be taking our unique blend of exploration and fun to even bigger audiences with some amazing new partners joining Google as collaborators and backers," Niantic said in a statement.

Cybersecurity expert Adam Reeve detailed his experience of discovering that he'd granted full permission to his Google account to Pokemon Go in a blog post Friday. CNET writer Jason Cipriani independently experienced the same thing when he checked his own Google account settings. Reeve noted in his blog post that the Android version of the app doesn't gain full access to your Google account.

Reeve said it's not just creepy to give a random company access to your Google account -- it's also dangerous. If Niantic got hacked, for example, cyberattackers could access your Google account. Since we often use our Gmail accounts to reset passwords to all our other accounts, this is essentially giving hackers access to every online account we have. That's why Reeve says you should go nuclear if you signed into Pokemon Go with your Google account.

"Revoke permissions through Google and uninstall the app," he said.

If you don't, you've said, "Pikachu, I choose you over my personal privacy."

That advice could apply to a lot of people, since the app has been downloaded 7.5 million times, according to app analytics firm SensorTower. More than 2 million of those were downloaded from the Apple App Store. It's not clear how many users on the iOS platform are logging in with a Google account.

To be sure, Google doesn't spell out exactly what full account access means. That's part of why the blogosphere has cried foul. And some even say it's not as bad as Reeve claims.

As you've traded vast access to your life for the thrill of the Poke-hunt, privacy advocates are calling for app developers and phone manufacturers to do a better job of explaining how much of your data is being collected and when.

For example, Carnegie Mellon University researcher Ashwini Rao presented an idea for making those tiny, legalistic terms and conditions easier to read and digest at the Federal Trade Commission's Privacy Con in January. His suggestion? Make it look like a beautiful nutrition label. Apps like Snapchat, which came under fire in October for its new terms that granted it permission to reproduce user photos and other snaps, are also closely watched by privacy advocates for signs of overreach.

Finally, phones are getting better at telling you when apps are accessing your personal information. iPhones can send you a notification if, say, Google Maps accesses your location even when you're not using the app. The Qualcomm microprocessor Snapdragon 820 is designed to help phones do a better job of tracking what data your applications are accessing and when.

It's hard to know how apps for Android phones compare to those that are developed for iPhones and iPads. The Google Play store is easier to mine for this data than the Apple App Store is, a 2015 Pew study of app permissions found. But this appears to be one circumstance in which the iOS version of an app gives far broader permissions than its Android counterpart.

Updated at 6:10 p.m. PT with comment from Niantic that it will limit its access to Google account data and that the Pokemon Go app had only accessed user IDs and email addresses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pokemon Go: Gotta catch all your personal data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Maybe you gotta catch 'em all, but you're not the only one with collection fever. The developer of the wildly popular Pokemon Go, Niantic Labs, has full access to your Google account if you used it to log into the game from an iOS device.

# data[].attributes.body
MIT robot helps deliver babies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Would you trust a robot to help deliver your baby?

Robots could eventually play integral roles in labor wards, according to findings from MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

Robots are currently employed in hospitals to carry out simple actions, like dispensing medication. But can they understand patient needs and make scheduling decisions?

The researchers have been working for the past two years to determine whether robots can be more than just helpful companions.

They've been conducting experiments to see if a robot can serve as an effective "resource nurse." That's the nurse in the labor and delivery unit that's in charge of assigning other nurses to care for patients.

Related: 'AI can solve world's biggest problems' says Google Brain's Quoc Le

"It is really one person making these decisions. It's a very complex environment and a very hard job," said MIT professor Julie Shah, the senior author of the study. The job requires effective decision making -- which room should a patient be assigned to? Which nurse should perform a C-section? -- in a fast-paced, often unpredictable environment.

To conduct the study, the researchers trained a Nao robot to learn from nurses' scheduling decisions and to understand why they made those decisions opposed to the alternatives.

The robot takes into account the complexity of patients assigned to particular nurses, break schedules and more. It can also determine nurses' availability on the floor.

The researchers then had the robot make suggestions for doctors and nurses in Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. At Beth Israel, the resource nurse coordinates 10 nurses, 20 patients and 20 rooms at the same time, according to the study's authors.

Related: New AI can predict when two people will kiss

90% of the time, the Nao robot made suggestions that doctors and nurses carried out, the study found.

According to Shah, there are two important use cases for the technology. It can be an effective training tool for novice nurses and can help make better decisions in the labor ward.

The researchers performed the experiment first with a computer-based support and then with a robot to compare whether nurses complied differently with the suggestions of robots versus computers.

They didn't see an over-reliance on the robot, according to Shah, who also led a similar study that applies the same system to missile-defense scenarios.

Next up for the labor robots, Shah said, is to expand the research to other labor units in more hospitals.

"We are looking to scale this, but this is a safety critical domain so we're making sure we take measured steps," Shah added.

CNNMoney (New York) First published July 11, 2016: 12:52 PM ET

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Robots could eventually play integral roles in labor wards, according to findings from MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Robots are currently employed in hospitals to carry out simple actions, like dispensing medication. But can they understand patient needs and make scheduling decisions?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
China's spies hacked into computers at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from 2010 until 2013 -- and American government officials tried to cover it up, according to a Congressional report.

The House of Representative's Science, Space and Technology Committee released its investigative report on Wednesday.

It presents the FDIC's bank regulators as technologically inept -- and deceitful.

According to congressional investigators, the Chinese government hacked into 12 computers and 10 backroom servers at the FDIC, including the incredibly sensitive personal computers of the agency's top officials: the FDIC chairman, his chief of staff, and the general counsel.

When congressional investigators tried to review the FDIC's cybersecurity policy, the agency hid the hack, according to the report.

Investigators cited several insiders who knew about how the agency responded. For example, one of the FDIC's top lawyers told employees not to discuss the hacks via email -- so the emails wouldn't become official government records.

FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg is being summoned before the Congressional committee on Thursday to explain what happened.

The FDIC refused to comment. However, in a recent internal review, the agency admits that it "did not accurately portray the extent of risk" to Congress and recordkeeping "needs improvement." The FDIC claims it's now updating its policies.

Given the FDIC's role as a national banking regulator, the revelation of this hack poses serious concern.

Related: Are Chinese hackers dialing back attacks on the U.S.?

The FDIC's role is to monitor any bank that isn't reviewed by the Federal Reserve system. It has access to extremely sensitive, internal information at 4,500 banks and savings institutions.

The FDIC also insures deposits at banks nationwide, giving it access to huge loads of information on Americans.

"Obviously it's indicative of the Chinese effort to database as much information as possible about Americans. FDIC information is right in line with the deep personal information they've gone for in the past," said computer security researcher Ryan Duff. He's a former member of U.S. Cyber Command, the American military's hacking unit.

"Intentionally avoiding audits sounds unethical if not illegal," he added.

Congressional investigators discovered the hacks after finding a 2013 memo from the FDIC's own inspector general to the agency's chairman, which detailed the hack and criticized the agency for "violating its own policies and for failing to alert appropriate authorities."

Related: Chinese man admits to cyber spying on Boeing and other U.S. firms

The report also says this culture of secrecy led the FDIC's chief information officer, Russ Pittman, to mislead auditors. One whistleblower, whose identity is not revealed in the report, claimed that Pittman "instructed employees not to discuss... this foreign government penetration of the FDIC's network" to avoid ruining Gruenberg's confirmation by the U.S. Senate in March 2012.

David Kennedy, a computer security expert and former analyst at the NSA spy agency, worries that federal agencies are repeatedly hiding hacks "under the blanket of national security."

"With such a high profile breach and hitting the top levels of the FDIC, it's crazy to me to think that this type of information wasn't publicly released. We need to be deeply concerned around the disclosure process around our federal government," said Kennedy, who now runs the cybersecurity firm TrustedSec.

Related: China blames criminals for U.S. government hack

This same committee, led by Republican Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas, has previously criticized the FDIC for minimizing data breaches.

Several cybersecurity experts -- who have extensive experience guarding government computers -- expressed dismay at the alleged coverup.

"It's incumbent upon our policymakers to know about these data breaches so we can properly evaluate our defenses. Trying to hide successful intrusions only makes it easier for the next hacker to get in," said Dan Guido, who runs the cybersecurity firm Trail of Bits.

CNNMoney (New York) First published July 13, 2016: 1:22 PM ET

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China hacked the FDIC - and US officials covered it up, report says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The House of Representative's Science, Space and Technology Committee released its investigative report on Wednesday. It presents the FDIC's bank regulators as technologically inept -- and deceitful. According to congressional investigators, the Chinese government hacked into 12 computers and 10 backroom servers at the FDIC, including the incredibly sensitive personal computers of the agency's top officials: the FDIC chairman, his chief of staff, and the general counsel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are some big companies out there that you've probably never heard of, that know more about you than you can imagine.

They're called data brokers, and they collect all sorts of information - names, addresses, income, where you go on the Internet and who you connect with online. That information is then sold to other companies. There are few regulations governing these brokers.

Data brokers have been around for a long time, collecting information about your magazine and newspaper subscriptions. They know whether you prefer dogs or cats. From public records they can tell if you drive a Ford or a Subaru or if you've declared bankruptcy.

But the Internet upped the ante considerably. Think of all that personal data you share on Facebook, or your online shopping. According to Julie Brill, who recently stepped down as a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, these companies share just about everything.

"It's what Web pages we visit, where we're shopping, who we're interfacing with on social media - all of that information is available to be collected by entities that park themselves on the various websites," Brill said.

Once these companies collect the information, the data brokers package and sell it - sometimes to other brokers, sometimes to businesses - that then use the information to target ads to consumers. And it's a lucrative industry. One of the largest brokers, Acxiom, reported over $800 million in revenue last year.

When the FTC studied data brokers two years ago, it found that brokers take the information they gleaned about consumers and use it to put us into categories.

Some of the categories are innocuous - pet owner, or winter sports enthusiast.

But Brill says others were more problematic, like "single mom struggling in an urban setting" or "people who did not speak English and felt more comfortable speaking in Spanish" or "gamblers."

"And so the concern is not only the fact that these profiles are being created, but how are they being used," Brill said.

Say, for instance, you do an online search for heart disease or diabetes.

Depending upon the website, that information can go to ad networks and analytics companies. If the contents of that heart disease or diabetes search end up with a data broker, that information could then be added to your digital biography.

"That becomes a part of your profile and others see that and can market to you based on that information," Brill said.

And there's little to stop data brokers from using the information they've gathered from us in whatever way they please, says Jeff Chester, a privacy advocate and director of the Center for Digital Democracy.

"Because there are no online privacy laws in the United States, there's no stop sign, there's no go slow sign, there's no crossing guard. The message is anything goes," Chester said.

Like Chester, former FTC Commissioner Brill says legislation is needed to make the industry more transparent.

She says there should be a website where consumers could see what data has been collected about them and correct it or block it from being used. Some individual companies, like Acxiom, do this.

And the industry does have voluntary guidelines to limit how information is used.

Xenia Boone is the vice president for corporate and social responsibility at the Direct Marketing Association, which represents many data brokers. She says companies are not creating "dossiers" about consumers.

Boone says marketing companies and fundraiser organizations "are working with data companies in order to get the right information about potential prospects because they need to go out there, they need the data in order to reach someone."

A marketing industry website, aboutads.info, lets consumers opt out of having some ads sent to their browsers. Consumers can also block individual ads by clicking on that little triangle in the upper right hand corner of many of them. You can also install an ad blocker and clear the cookies from your browser.

But blocking ads is one thing, keeping your information away from the data brokers is much harder to do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Firms Are Buying, Sharing Your Online Info. What Can You Do About It?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are some big companies out there that you've probably never heard of, that know more about you than you can imagine. They're called data brokers, and they collect all sorts of information - names, addresses, income, where you go on the Internet and who you connect with online.