No bulky books, just short cut Questions of PDPF exam PDPF cheat sheets involves a Comprehensive Pool of PDPF Issues and Answers having exam prep validated and approved along with personal references and explanations. Each of our objectives to train the PDPF Questions and even Answers is not merely to pass typically the PDPF test at typically the first attempt although Really Improve Your current Knowledge about typically the PDPF test subjects.

Exam Code: PDPF Practice exam 2022 by team
Privacy and Data Protection Foundation
EXIN Protection information source
Killexams : EXIN Protection information source - BingNews Search results Killexams : EXIN Protection information source - BingNews Killexams : Identity Theft Protection Is Mostly Bullshit

Photo: Tero Vesalainen (Shutterstock)

I received a notice in the mail some months ago that I was involved in a data breach a certain massive, multi-national telecomm company was settling. Like many people involved in such settlements, I was not offered a ludicrously small amount of money as a reward for being an unwitting victim. Instead, I was given the mostly useless gift of free Identity Theft Protection.

Identity Theft Protection (ITP) services promise to monitor your financial and online life (so often intertwined these days) and alert you if your personal information is compromised in order to steal your identity. This can involve anything from using your credit cards to make illegal purchases to more complex schemes that use your information to borrow money or open accounts in your name, potentially ruining your credit score and leaving you with an enormous mess to clean up.

Considering the damage that identity theft can do to you, paying for ITP seems like a pretty good idea. But the fact is that while there’s nothing wrong with doing do, you don’t need them, because you can do just about all the important stuff yourself—for free.

What ITP does

It’s important to note that Identity Theft Protection isn’t the same as Identity Theft Insurance. The latter covers you against financial losses incurred if someone steals your identity, while the former alerts you to the possibility that it’s happening to you. It’s also important to note that ITP doesn’t always do anything to stop identity theft—it simply monitors aspects of your life for signs of it and then alerts you to those signs so you can take action.

Typically, ITP services monitor:

  • Credit reports for new accounts or other suspicious activity (not all ITP services monitor all three of the major credit bureaus, however).
  • Social media accounts for your personal information like your phone number or Social Security number.
  • Dark web sites that serve as data-brokers trading in stolen personal information.
  • Your financial accounts for suspicious withdrawals or unauthorized access.

Some of these services will simply alert you when something troubling is found, while others will go further and take proactive steps, like working to scrub your information from known sites that sell stolen information.

Many ITP services also offer recovery assistance and some form of insurance in the case of identity theft. Norton’s LifeLock service, for example, offers up to $1 million “for lawyers and experts” hired to help clean up the mess, and up to $25,000 in reimbursements as part of their lowest-cost tier. Considering you can lose a lot of money if someone steals your identity, that’s a nice feature—but not all ITP services offer insurance and reimbursements, so you have to read the fine print.

Is ITP worth it?

On the one hand, identity theft protection services obviously offer some benefit. They can automate some of the work of protecting yourself, and offer an extra layer of vigilance as well as assistance and compensation if you get nailed by identity theft anyway.

But ITP services mainly offer alerts after the fact—they don’t actually do much to prevent your information from getting out there in the first place. And there are many reasons why paying for an ITP services isn’t really worth it:

  • They’re not magic. Having ITP services doesn’t mean you won’t have to do anything. You’ll still need to wade through alerts (sometimes a lot of them, which can lead to “alert fatigue” that defeats the purpose), and alerts are often too late—by the time a service is warning you that your Social is out there, it’s out there. And if you need to recover from identity theft (despite having an ITP service in place) you’ll need to put in the work there as well—ITP services can help with recovery, but it’s still gonna be on you to do the legwork. You’re often better off proactively practicing good personal information hygiene in the first place.
  • You can do most of this yourself, for free. You can access your credit reports for free once a year. And you should! It’s a fast and pretty straightforward operation, and at a glance you can see if someone has opened a credit card or taken out a loan in your name. In fact, the number one best way to stop folks from stealing your identity is to freeze your credit, which prevents anyone—even if they have your personal information—from getting a new credit card or loan. While this doesn’t protect you from every single kind of fraud out there, it removes the most common vectors that identity thieves use.
  • You might already have it, for free. If you’ve been involved in a data breach, you might already have access to ITP services, just like me. In fact, the way companies just deliver away ITP any time they screw up kind of lets you know just how “valuable” these services actually are. Also, many organizations offer ITP as a benefit—for example, if you’re a member of AAA you can get ITP as a free add-on service.
  • You can perform recovery actions yourself, for free. Recovering from identity theft is challenging, but there’s nothing an ITP service will do that you can’t do yourself. The government, in fact, maintains a website designed to help you figure everything out and take action to deal with the situation.
  • Your personal liability is often limited. If someone gets control of your credit card, for example, your personal liability is legally limited to just $50 no matter how much the criminal actually charges to your card, and most banks or credit card issuers will simply waive fraudulent charges as long as you dispute the charges within 60 days of the statement date.

In the end, identity theft protection is kind of like a car alarm: It might make you feel better psychologically, but it doesn’t actually do much. As with many things, if you have the cash to spare for identity theft protection, there’s no harm in paying for it. But all you really need to do is take a few simple steps on a regular basis and you’ll do everything these services promise just as well—and maybe even better, since you’ve got skin in that game.


Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:52:00 -0600 en text/html
Killexams : New approaches to water source protection

Drying water sources across Bhutan is one of the critical challenges in meeting Bhutan’s national target of ensuring ‘24/7 access to safe drinking water’ by 2023.

Access to safe drinking water is interlinked with other national goals of public health and hygiene, and environmental management. A survey conducted by the Department of Forest and Park Services (DoFPS) as part of the Strategic Program for Climate Resilience preparatory project in 2019 found that 35% of the 6,555 water sources surveyed are drying up while 2% (147) were reported as ‘completely dried’. Similarly, a latest nationwide survey in 2021 by DoFPS again reported that 25.1% (1856) of 7399 water sources have already dried, while 69 (0.9%) were reported as ‘drying’.

A latest book published by the Tarayana Foundation titled ‘Springshed: Identifying

Recharge Areas of Drying Springs and Lakes with Water Quality in Southwestern

Bhutan’ authored by Jambay and Karma Uden further offers insights into the protection of Bhutan’s critical water drinking water sources. Through this article, the authors and a group of independent water researchers put forward new ideas for improving the management of drying water sources.

Drinking water sources in Bhutan are mainly springs (35%) and stream networks. A common strategy under current water source protection strategies in Bhutan includes fencing and enhancing vegetation cover at the discharge point – the location where the water starts flowing. Recently, interventions such as digging trenches  upstream of the discharge point to increase groundwater recharge have also been implemented in a few places like Trashigang and Pemagatshel. For enhancing the effectiveness of such interventions, we propose the following recommendations based on our field experiences and the latest scientific research.

Changing interventions from discharge to recharge areas – The focus area for the management of water resources should begin by effectively managing the recharge areas. A recharge area refers to a geographical area where rainwater soaks through the ground to reach a groundwater reservoir. Management strategies should be targeted to maintain adequate water levels in these underground water reservoirs to ensure a continuous flow of streams and springs.

Mainstreaming protection of public drinking water supply areas – Critical water supply catchments could be demarcated as critical public drinking water supply areas with a similar status of protection of national parks, to limit development activities impacting the catchment. However, such demarcation should be based on adequate hydrogeological observations. The boundary demarcations for such public drinking water supply areas could then be made available for public use during development and planning. For example, an environmental clearance for any development could use such a database with an online portal to safeguard water sources from all kinds of risks.

Using adequate site-specific hydro-geological data – The plantation of trees cannot be considered a universal solution to reviving drying water sources across different Catchments because of he high variability in groundwater hydrogeology in mountainous regions like ours. Thus, relationship between vegetation cover and shallow groundwater reservoirs needs to be thoroughly investigated. In general, young vegetation may uptake more water than recharging, but mature vegetation would enhance water recharge. However, there are numerous site-specific hydrogeological factors and other physical environmental factors that significantly influence the dynamics of the relationship between vegetation and underground water reservoirs. Thus, it is critical to start gathering relevant data for calculating water balances at national levels. Such data collection could be incorporated with national forest inventory data collection which is conducted every few years. Otherwise, a one-time data collection from a few selected sites along the main river or stream channel such as conducted by National Environment Commission (National Water Resources Inventory 2018) is less valuable.

Reducing disturbance at the source – The minimal disruption to the water abstraction site is critical. Any heavy civil works such as the construction of water tanks or the cutting and planting of trees closer to water sources could sometimes be counterproductive in reviving the drying water sources. The large-scale disturbance near the sources could potentially alter the orientation of the lithology. Consequently, water flow paths may get altered resulting in the drying of the springs and lakes.

Creating data and knowledge repository – The strategy to collect long-term data on hydrology and geotechnical information is key for making an informed decision. A simple start could be to have a national repository of bore-logs from all groundwater explorations being carried out in many places across Bhutan. If those bore logs were generated according to standard scientific procedures, they should have detailed information on soil and hydrogeology on every meter of the hole dug into that area used for groundwater extraction. Analysis of bore logs data in coming years should be critical in the exploration and management of drinking water sources under similar hydrogeological locations across Bhutan.

Applying the concept of ‘springshed’ management – The majority of past scientific investigations in Bhutan in the field of water resource management have applied concept of watershed or river basin management to suit specific objectives.

However, in the case of exploring interventions to halt the drying of water sources, we advocate the application of the principles of ‘springshed’ management. Further, this new approach to springshed management provides a better understanding of the water flow paths as both geological formations of aquifers and springs are given equal importance. We believe the concept springshed management is particularly relevant in addressing drying water sources in Bhutan, as the incline rocks usually guide the water flow instead of horizontal bedrock formations.

The article is published based on personal experiences and observations by a group of water researchers from Bhutan. The group can be contacted at

Fri, 11 Nov 2022 10:00:00 -0600 text/html
Killexams : Firefox gets total cookie protection

On Android

Firefox Android browser users will enable the Total Cookie Protection feature by default.

There will be no separate option to enable the Total Cookie Protection in Firefox for Android as it will be part of the Enhanced Tracking Protection setting. You'll just need to switch to the Custom or Strict set from the Standard protection mode. The feature discourages tracking companies from using cookies to track your browsing preferences.

In 2015, the company rolled out an anti-tracking measure called Tracking Protection, a feature that let people turn on protection by going into Private Browsing mode. Later in 2019, it added Enhanced Tracking Protection to actively protect users rather than expect them to defend themselves.

Mozilla has now enabled it for Android users. The feature mainly works by creating a separate ‘cookie jar’ for each website you visit. So, instead of allowing trackers to link your behaviour across multiple sites.

No other websites can access the assigned cookie jars and find out what information other websites’ cookie jars have about you. You get all the necessary protections against tracking without compromising your mobile browsing experience.

Mon, 14 Nov 2022 21:14:00 -0600 Nick Farrell en-gb text/html
Killexams : A first look at the new data protection Bill

The story so far: The latest draft of the data protection law — the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022 (DPDP Bill, 2022) — has now been made open for public comments and the government is expected to introduce the Bill in Parliament in the budget session of 2023.

Is this the first draft?

This is the fourth iteration of a data protection law in India. The first draft of the law — the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, was proposed by the Justice Srikrishna Committee set up by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) with the mandate of setting out a data protection law for India. The government made revisions to this draft and introduced it as the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (PDP Bill, 2019) in the Lok Sabha in 2019. On the same day, the Lok Sabha passed a motion to refer the PDP Bill, 2019 to a joint committee of both the Houses of Parliament. Due to delays caused by the pandemic, the Joint Committee on the PDP Bill, 2019 (JPC) submitted its report on the Bill after two years in December, 2021. The report was accompanied by a new draft bill, namely, the Data Protection Bill, 2021 that incorporated the recommendations of the JPC. However, in August 2022, citing the report of the JPC and the “extensive changes” that the JPC had made to the 2019 Bill, the government withdrew the PDP Bill.

Why have there been so many revisions and changes?

Constant interactions with digital devices have led to unprecedented amounts of personal data being generated round the clock by users (data principals). When coupled with the computational power available today with companies (data fiduciaries), this data can be processed in ways that increasingly impair the autonomy, self-determination, freedom of choice and privacy of the data principal.

Also Read | Explained | Does data protection Bill have safeguards on privacy?

The current legal framework for privacy enshrined in the Information Technology Rules, 2011 (IT Rules, 2011) is wholly inadequate to combat such harms to data principals, especially since the right to informational privacy has been upheld as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court ( K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India [2017]). It is inadequate on four levels; first, the extant framework is premised on privacy being a statutory right rather than a fundamental right and does not apply to processing of personal data by the government; second, it has a limited understanding of the kinds of data to be protected; third, it places scant obligations on the data fiduciaries which, moreover, can be overridden by contract and fourth, there are only minimal consequences for the data fiduciaries for the breach of these obligations.

While the need to have an effective personal data protection regime is undisputed, India like other jurisdictions has struggled to come up with an optimum formulation for several reasons. First, while protecting the rights of the data principal, data protection laws need to ensure that the compliances for data fiduciaries are not so onerous as to make even legitimate processing impractical. Second, the challenge lies in finding an adequate balance between the right to privacy of data principals and reasonable exceptions, especially where government processing of personal data is concerned. Third, given the rate at which technology evolves, an optimum data protection law design needs to be future proof — it should not be unduly detailed and centred on providing solutions to contemporary concerns while ignoring problems that may emerge going forward. Fourth, the law needs to be designed for a framework of rights and remedies that is readily exercisable by data principals given their unequal bargaining power with respect to data fiduciaries.

What is the scope of the present formulation of the Bill?

The DPDP Bill, 2022 applies to all processing of personal data that is carried out digitally. This would include both personal data collected online and personal data collected offline but is digitised for processing. In effect, by being completely inapplicable to data processed manually, this provides for a somewhat lower degree of protection as the earlier drafts only excluded data processed manually specifically by “small entities” and not generally.

Also Read |Draft data protection Bill uses ‘she’ and ‘her’ to refer to all individuals

Furthermore, as far as the territorial application of the law is concerned, the Bill covers processing of personal data which is collected by data fiduciaries within the territory of India and which is processed to offer goods and services within India. The current phrasing, inadvertently, seems to exclude data processing by Indian data fiduciaries that collect and process personal data outside India, of data principals who are not located in India. This would impact statutory protections available for clients of Indian start-ups operating overseas, thereby impacting their competitiveness. This position further seems to be emphasised with the DPDP Bill, 2022 exempting application of most of its protections to personal data processing of non-residents of India by data fiduciaries in India.

How well does the DPDP Bill, 2022 protect data principals?

The bulwark of most data protection legislations consists of allowing maximum control to the data principal over their personal data. This happens by mandating a comprehensive notice to the data principal on different aspects of data processing based on which the data principal can provide explicit consent to such processing. While limited circumstances for non-consent based processing of personal data exists, it still gives the data principal the right to access, correct, delete etc their data. Concomitantly, the data fiduciary is placed, inter alia, with the obligation of data minimisation, which is to collect only such personal data as is required to fulfil the purpose of processing (collection limitation); process it only for the purposes stated and no more (purpose limitation) and to retain it in its servers only for so long as is required to fulfil the stated purpose (storage limitation).

The current draft removes explicit reference to certain data protection principles such as collection limitation. This would allow a data fiduciary to collect any personal data consented to by the data principal. Making collection solely contingent on consent, ignores the fact that data principals often do not have the requisite know-how of what kind of personal data is relevant for a particular purpose. For example, a photo filter app may process data related to your location or information on your contacts even though it may not require such information to carry on its primary task of applying the filter. It also does away with the concept of “sensitive personal data”. Depending on the increased potential of harm that can result from unlawful processing of certain categories of personal data, most data protection legislations classify these categories as “sensitive personal data”. Illustratively, this includes biometric data, health data, genetic data etc. This personal data is afforded a higher degree of protection in terms of requiring explicit consent before processing and mandatory data protection impact assessments. By doing away with this distinction, the DPDP Bill, 2022 does away with these additional protections.

Additionally, the Bill also reduces the information that a data fiduciary is required to provide to the data principal. While the previous iterations required considerable information in terms of the rights of the data principals, grievance redressal mechanism, retention period of information, source of information collected etc to be provided for the data principal, the current draft reduces the scope of this information to the personal data sought to be collected and the purpose of processing the data. While this may have been done in an attempt to simplify the notice and avoid information overload, there are other ways such as infographics, just-in-time notices etc that are being recommended by data protection authorities to ensure a comprehensive yet comprehensible notice.

Moreover, the DPDP Bill, 2022 seems to suppose that a notice is only to be provided to take consent of the data principal. This is a limited understanding of the purpose of notice. A notice is also important for the data principal to exercise data protection rights such as the right to know what personal data is being processed by whom, whether that data needs correction or updation and also to request deletion of data that may not be relevant for the purpose of processing. These rights exist even in cases of non-consent based processing of data. As such, limiting notice to only consent based personal data processing would limit the scope for the exercise of these rights.

The DPDP Bill, 2022 also introduces the concept of “deemed consent”. In effect, it bundles purposes of processing which were either exempt from consent based processing or were considered “reasonable purposes” for which personal data processing could be undertaken under the ground of “deemed consent”. However, there exist some concerns around this due to the vaguely worded grounds for processing such as “public interest” and the removal of additional safeguards for protection of data principals’ interests.

An important addition to the right of data principals is that it recognises the right to post mortem privacy which was missing from the PDP Bill, 2019 but had been recommended by the JPC. The right to post mortem privacy would allow the data principal to nominate another individual in case of death or incapacity.

The writer is a research fellow at the Centre for Applied Law and Technology Research, Vidhi Centre for legal policy

(This is the first of a two-part series on the draft Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022)

Thu, 24 Nov 2022 09:20:00 -0600 en text/html
Killexams : Dell expands data-protection product line

Dell Technologies has announced new products and services for data protection as part of its security portfolio.

Active data protection is often treated as something of an afterthought, especially compared to disaster recovery. Yet it's certainly a problem for companies. According to Dell’s latest Global Data Protection Index (GDPI) research, organizations are experiencing higher levels of disasters than in previous years, many of them man-made. In the past year, cyberattacks accounted for 48% of all disasters, up from 37% in 2021, and are the leading cause of data disruption.

One of the major stumbling blocks in deploying data-protection capabilities is the complexity of the rollout. Specialized expertise is often required, and products from multiple vendors are often involved. Even the hyperscalers are challenged to provide multicloud data-protection services.

Dell's GDPI survey also found 85% of organizations with multiple data-protection vendors want to reduce the number of vendors they use. It cost organizations that use a single data-protection vendor 34% less to recover from incidents than those that used multiple vendors.

Now Dell is looking to be that sole provider, starting with the announcement of a new PowerProtect appliance, enhancements to Dell’s APEX storage services, and an agreement to use Google Cloud for cyber recovery.

The Dell PowerProtect Data Manager Appliance is designed to offer AI-powered data protections in an enterprise IT environment, including consistent backup and restore functions, with support for Kubernetes and VMware hybrid cloud environments. The appliance is also aimed at helping to accelerate the adoption of zero-trust architectures.

Copyright © 2022 IDG Communications, Inc.

Wed, 23 Nov 2022 17:32:00 -0600 en text/html
Killexams : Real-world data show updated Covid-19 boosters increase protection against infection

The updated Covid-19 boosters increase people’s protection against symptomatic infection from the coronavirus, according to some of the first estimates of how the shot is performing in the real world and in people, not just in lab experiments. What’s more, that protection was even stronger when people waited a longer period of time since their last dose of the original shot.

The findings, released Tuesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, do not, however, address the question of whether the bivalent shot offers greater protection than another shot of the original formulation would have.

Health regulators authorized an updated form of the shot for people 12 and up in September, before making children 5 and older eligible the following month. The new shots — which mark the first time the makeup of the vaccines has been changed — target both the original strain of the coronavirus and the BA.5 Omicron subvariant, which was dominant in the United States this summer. Uptake of the new shots has been slow, however, with just about 13% of adults and 30% of those over 65 receiving doses so far.


In the new report, researchers relied on a national testing program available at pharmacies to come up with estimates for the relative vaccine effectiveness of the new shots, compared to people who had been previously vaccinated but hadn’t received a bivalent booster. They also measured effectiveness based on whether people received their bivalent booster just two to three months since their last shot of the original vaccine, or eight months or more. Only adults who had Covid-19 symptoms and who did not have immunocompromising conditions were included in the analysis.

For people 65 and older, the relative vaccine effectiveness of the bivalent shot was 28% for people who had more recently had a dose of the original vaccine, and 43% for people who were at least eight months out. For people 50 to 64, the estimates of effectiveness were 31% and 48%, respectively, and for people 18 to 49, they were 30% and 56%.


“Bivalent mRNA vaccines provided additional protection against infection compared with previous vaccinations with 2, 3, or 4 monovalent vaccines alone,” the researchers wrote, noting that they saw “relative benefits increasing with increasing time since receipt of the most latest monovalent vaccine dose.”

The findings that a longer gap between doses elicited a bigger relative boost in protection suggest that the benefits of another shot are higher the longer someone is out from their last shot. Experts have also said that the immune response can deepen with time after a person’s last exposure, whether in the form of an infection or vaccine. Health officials have recommended that people wait three months since their last infection before getting boosted.

The new research relied on more than 360,000 tests performed at nearly 10,000 pharmacies.

The study period was from Sept. 14 to Nov. 11, when BA.5 and related sublineages were dominant.

The effectiveness estimates in the new report relate to just one point in time. Given that the bivalent boosters were only authorized a few months ago, researchers still can’t say how long that enhanced protection against infection will last. The mRNA vaccines’ ability to block infection wanes over a period of months, particularly as the virus evolves, which is why so many people who’ve been vaccinated and boosted have gotten infected over the past year in the age of the Omicron variant. However, the protection elicited against more serious outcomes has held up much better.

The new results can’t settle the debate among some experts about whether it was necessary to refine the shots or whether another dose of the original formulation would provide a similar boost of protection. In an effort to keep up with the SARS-CoV-2 virus’s evolution, regulators authorized the updated shots before human efficacy data were available.

Since then, researchers have been trying to compare the vaccines by examining how well the antibodies generated by the different shots stand up to different variants in simulated lab studies. A few of these “immunogenicity” studies initially suggested that the updated shots didn’t seem to provide deeper coverage than another shot of the original formulation would have provided, but other researchers have found in their experiments that the bivalent shots indeed stand up better to different forms of Omicron. Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have also said they’ve seen improved immunogenicity data from the updated shots that could indicate they’re more protective than the original shots against Omicron strains.

“It is clear now, despite an initial bit of confusion, that the BA.4/5 bivalent booster — what we refer to as the updated vaccine — clearly induces a better response against BA.4/5 and the sublineages of BA.4/5 than does the ancestral strain,” Anthony Fauci, the country’s top infectious disease official, said at a White House briefing Tuesday, likely his last public briefing before he leaves his government post next month after decades of service. 

The new study had several limitations. For one, people who’ve been vaccinated — particularly those who rushed out to get the bivalent booster — could have different behaviors or risk factors for contracting Covid. It also relied on people to report their infection history; it’s possible previous infections were underreported if they were mild or people didn’t get tested.

Get your daily dose of health and medicine every weekday with STAT’s free newsletter Morning Rounds. Sign up here.

Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:00:00 -0600 en-US text/html
Killexams : Activision Scores Some Downside Protection

Tue, 08 Nov 2022 03:51:00 -0600 en-US text/html
Killexams : Want to optimize WhatsApp for data protection? Add archiving, says Worldr

Check out the on-demand sessions from the Low-Code/No-Code Summit to learn how to successfully innovate and achieve efficiency by upskilling and scaling citizen developers. Watch now.

Ever since the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of remote working, consumer-grade communication and collaboration apps like WhatsApp and Microsoft Teams have played an integral role in enabling employees to collaborate. 

According to Veritas, 71% of employees globally admit to sharing sensitive and business-critical data via instant messaging and business collaboration tools.

Yet while these solutions may be convenient for users, they’re also poorly optimized for sharing regulated data, and leave organizations exposed to regulatory liabilities. 

For this reason, zero-trust architecture provider Worldr designed Worldr for WhatsApp, a bolt-on solution for WhatsApp that’s designed to archive user messages so they’re available during auditing.


Intelligent Security Summit

Learn the critical role of AI & ML in cybersecurity and industry specific case studies on December 8. Register for your free pass today.

Register Now

Worldr for WhatsApp sits on top of the user’s existing WhatsApp deployment and keeps a copy of all communications within a secure storage facility. This means that compliance teams can archive messages for auditing purposes and satisfy SEC, GDPR and FINRA requirements. 

The company also announced today it has raised $11 million in seed funding.

Making collaboration compliant 

The announcement comes amid a regulatory crackdown on unauthorized messaging apps, with the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission handing out $2 billion in fines to global financial firms that failed to monitor employee communications on unauthorized messaging apps like WhatsApp. 

One of the firms fined, Morgan Stanley, received a fine of $200 million for “use of unapproved personal devices” and “inadequate” recordkeeping, with the U.S. government alleging that directors had used WhatsApp and personal email addresses for business communications and evaded proper scrutiny. 

Worldr for WhatsApp aims to address these compliance challenges by adding auditing capabilities to the app so that organizations have a clear record of all communications taking place. 

“Our solution enables organizations to retain records of conversations over this app, so that compliance teams can access, search and retrieve relevant information for regulatory purposes. This means that employees can continue using WhatsApp with their teams and clients, while meeting SEC, GDPR and FINRA compliance standards,” said Max Buchan, CEO of Worldr. 

The organization’s approach is designed to be easy to implement, as it doesn’t require employees to stop using WhatsApp or change their behavior and adopt other tools. 

“It is difficult to ask employees to change their behavior to Strengthen enterprise security and compliance. Despite the best will in the world, it is just human behavior to stick with what we know,” Buchan said.

Now Worldr for WhatsApp will work alongside Worldr’s other collaboration app bolt-on solutions — Worldr for Microsoft Teams and Worldr for Slack — to help organizations to Strengthen the overall security of popular communication apps that users rely on in remote and hybrid working environments.  

A look at collaboration software and secure messaging alternatives 

With the collaboration software market anticipated to grow from a value of $13.7 billion in 2022 to reach $18.5 billion by 2027, it’s clear that organizations have no intention of moving away from hybrid working approaches. 

That being said, in light of increased regulatory scrutiny, there are a growing number of enterprise-grade communication apps looking to offer greater data sovereignty and insulate organizations from regulatory liabilities. Such solutions include Mattermost, Element and Rocket Chat

Mattermost, which most recently raised $50 million in funding in 2019, provides an open-source alternative to tools like Google Hangouts chat, Slack and Teams, offering users channels where they can message, collaborate, and screenshare, under the protection of granular user and admin security settings. 

Similarly, secure collaboration provider Element provides users with end-to-end encrypted messaging, voice and video, alongside single sign-on (SSO) and data-loss prevention capabilities. Element most recently announced raising $30 million in funding

The key difference between these providers and Worldr is that “Worldr takes a fundamentally different approach, however, in building second layer privacy, security and compliance infrastructure on top of the tools that employees already use,” Buchan said. 

VentureBeat's mission is to be a digital town square for technical decision-makers to gain knowledge about transformative enterprise technology and transact. Discover our Briefings.

Sun, 06 Nov 2022 19:54:00 -0600 Tim Keary en-US text/html
Killexams : US Customs and Border Protection commissioner is asked to resign, sources say

CNN  — 

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas asked US Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Chris Magnus to resign this week, two sources familiar with the discussions tell CNN.

Magnus has been criticized internally for being out of touch with the agency and publicly for the handling of the US-Mexico border. During his tenure, officials have told CNN they believed Magnus seemed disengaged and wasn’t joining some internal meetings at a critical time for the agency.

In a statement to the Los Angeles Times, Magnus said he planned to stay in the agency.

“I am excited about the progress I made and look forward continuing that work,” he said.

Though Magnus remains at the agency, Homeland Security Deputy Secretary John Tien and CBP Deputy Commissioner Troy Miller are carrying out his day-to-day duties, according to one person familiar with the matter. Direct reports to Magnus are also now reporting to Tien.

CNN has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security and the White House for comment.

President Joe Biden tapped Magnus, who served as police chief in Tucson, Arizona, to helm CBP – the largest federal law enforcement agency and the second-largest revenue-collecting source in the federal government.

Late last year, the Senate confirmed Magnus after months of confirmation setbacks that left the agency with a void at the top amid a record number of border arrests.

RELATED: Border agency chief condemns retweets of ‘offensive’ comments by ex-Trump adviser from official CBP account

Magnus came in at a time when Customs and Border Protection, which is under the Department of Homeland Security, faced an influx of migrants crossing the US-Mexico border and grappled with travel restrictions stemming from the coronavirus pandemic.

US Border Patrol, a division of Customs and Border Protection, made over 2.2 million arrests in fiscal year 2022 for unlawful crossings on the US-Mexico border, the highest annual number of apprehensions on record.

This story has been updated with additional developments.

Fri, 11 Nov 2022 06:38:00 -0600 en text/html
Killexams : Customs and Border Protection commissioner resigns

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Chris Magnus has resigned, according to a statement from the White House released Saturday evening.

Magnus had clashed with immigration officials over how to handle an influx of migrants at the southern border, lost the confidence of his bosses and been asked to resign or be fired, POLITICO reported Friday.

“The President has accepted the resignation of Christopher Magnus, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement. “President Biden appreciates Commissioner Magnus’ nearly forty years of service and the contributions he made to police reform during his tenure as police chief in three U.S. cities. The President thanks Mr. Magnus for his service at CBP and wishes him well.”

Magnus submitted his resignation “effective immediately” to President Joe Biden, thanking the administration “for this tremendous opportunity.”

Magnus was told on Wednesday by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that he should either resign or be dismissed, according to three current and one former Department of Homeland Security officials.

POLITICO reported in October that five current administration officials who worked with Magnus said he was unengaged in his job, saying he often failed to attend White House meetings on the situation on the border, badmouthed other agencies to colleagues and superiors, and had not built relationships within CBP and across other immigration agencies to address the influx of migrants at the border.

Several also said he fell asleep in numerous meetings, which Magnus attributed to the effects of his multiple sclerosis.

Mayorkas told the CBP workforce on Saturday night that deputy CBP commissioner Troy Miller is now acting commissioner of the agency.

“We are thankful to Commissioner Magnus for his contributions over the past year and wish him well,” he wrote to CBP staff. He thanked the CBP staff for their “continued commitment to CBP and our important security mission.”

Sun, 13 Nov 2022 00:13:00 -0600 en text/html PDPF exam dump and training guide direct download
Training Exams List