A Brief Note On Federal Information Processing Standards

1293 WordsFeb 29, 20166 Pages
that the right source be notified to ensure that the issue is addressed quickly. Successful enforcement of all instruction is intended to produce the information security needed to produce a healthy infrastructure. Compliance is very important, but not easily accomplished. It entails consistent updates to keep up with the daily issues such as security breaches and managers not doing their jobs. Though not on the federal level, both Home Depot and Target are current examples of large corporations that were not ensuring that their systems were updated consistently to maintain compliance. Their lack of such resulted in hackers’ unauthorized access to various information systems and personal information that was not as assured as…show more content…
The OPM breach, one of the largest reported on federal government systems, was detected in April 2015, partly through the use of the Department of Homeland Security 's (DHS 's) Einstein system—an intrusion detection system that "screens federal Internet traffic to identify potential cyber threats." This and other breaches have not brought about successful litigation, though lawyers for those affected by the breaches are citing a violation of The Privacy Act, section 552a of title 5, which governs the means by which federal agencies and, in some instances, their contractors collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individually identifiable information in a system of records. Unlike FISMA, The Privacy Act authorizes an individual to bring a civil action in federal district court whenever an agency fails to comply with the Privacy Act or a related rule in such a way as to have an “adverse effect on an individual”, according to Is There a Judicial Remedy for Victims of Federal Data Breaches? (2015), plaintiffs must prove that there has been both an intentional or willful act leading to the breach and be able to demonstrate that he or she has suffered “actual damages,” a term of art recently interpreted by the Supreme Court to exclude damages for mental or emotional distress. According to this same
Open Document