{"id":1645,"date":"2006-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-10T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2006\/02\/10\/fcc-examines-need-for-tougher-privacy-rules\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:39:44","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:39:44","slug":"fcc-examines-need-for-tougher-privacy-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2006\/02\/10\/fcc-examines-need-for-tougher-privacy-rules\/","title":{"rendered":"FCC EXAMINES NEED FOR TOUGHER PRIVACY RULES"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Federal Communications Commission launched a proceeding to examine whether additional security measures could prevent the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive customer information held by telecommunications companies.  In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) adopted , the Commission seeks comment on a variety of issues related to customer privacy, including what security measures carriers currently have in place, what inadequacies exist in those measures, and what kind of security measures may be warranted to better protect consumers&#8217; privacy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Notice grants a petition for rulemaking filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) expressing concerns about whether carriers are adequately protecting customer call records and other customer proprietary network information, or CPNI.<\/p>\n<p>Current rules require carriers to certify compliance with the Commission&#8217;s CPNI rules and make that certification available to the public, but the Commission observes that a lack of uniformity in these certifications could be an obstacle to effective enforcement.<\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/hraunfoss.fcc.gov\/edocs_public\/attachmatch\/DOC-263765A1.doc<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1645","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-regulations"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1645","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1645"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1645\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4132,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1645\/revisions\/4132"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}