Findlaw reports that publisher and data broker Reed Elsevier Group has admitted that up to 10 times as many people as originally thought may have had their profiles stolen from one of its US databases. The company had previously said that intruders may have accessed personal details of 32,000 people via a breach of the LexisNexis-owned legal and business information service Seisint. It now says that figure is closer to 310,000 people. This breach, discovered during internal checking procedures of customers' accounts, is being investigated by US law enforcement authorities. Information accessed included names, addresses, Social Security and driver licence numbers, but not credit history, medical records or financial information, the Anglo-Dutch group said in a statement to the London Stock Exchange.
Seisint: did the person who thought up the slogan "the knowledge you need"
have customers in mind, or information thieves?
The IPKat feels that electronically-stored personal databases are an accident waiting to happen. They are too tempting a target for hackers and unscrupulous business interests and no amount of legal regulation and good practice will stamp these thefts out completely. But the advantages they confer on those who compile and run them are so great that any legal regime will have to encompass them, with all their faults and risks. Merpel says, "the best thing to do is to have no personal details ..."have customers in mind, or information thieves?
Theft of identity here, here and here
Changing identities here
REED ELSEVIER SUFFERS MAJOR DATA THEFT
![REED ELSEVIER SUFFERS MAJOR DATA THEFT]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html