securitylinkindia

A Defective Camera & the Biggest Kidnapping in Europe’s History

  Ashish Jha, Consultant, SLI What to do, when your worst fears come true? As the owner of world’s second biggest beer brand Heineken, Freddy had always lived in the fear of being kidnapped. Policing was very lax in Netherland and there was not much of private security network either. On 9th November 1983 Freddy Heineken and his driver Ab Doderer were kidnapped just outside the brewery’s head office in Amsterdam. The kidnappers Cor van Hout, Willem Holleeder, Frans Meijer and Jan Boellaard demanded 30 million euros in ransom. It was the biggest ransom in the history of Europe.   For 21 days they were held separately in the unheated cells of a deserted timber factory where their only human contact was a man in a balaclava who brought them coffee and bread in the morning and a meal in the evening. The ransom drop was made in the early morning of November 29. The Dutch police planned to keep track of the kidnappers during the ransom drop using an ultraviolet camera on a helicopter. Ultraviolet cameras were still a pretty new technology at the time, and the Netherlands didn’t have one yet. The British police had one and were willing to rent it out for one night. That was an expensive kindness at 100 thousand guilders, now about 45 thousand euros. On the night of the ransom drop the night vision camera was attached to a police helicopter and the helicopter followed the car sent to drop off the ransom – on a viaduct without on- or off-ramps; the bags of money were dropped through a drainage gutter to the kidnappers’ pickup point. Up until this point, all went well. The gyroscope with which the camera was attached to the helicopter came loose and was no longer controllable. The camera stared out at the night landscape, while the kidnappers took off with the ransom unchecked. The four kidnappers disappeared for two years before finally running into the police. Only some of the money was ever recovered. When they were rescued by police, who also retrieved some of the money, Heineken announced that he had never been so glad to see 11 policemen all at once. Heineken thereafter became something of a recluse. He was haunted by the memories of captivity. It is said that the kidnappers had meticulously planned for two years before carrying out this audacious kidnapping. They took one year and a million dollars just to prepare a safe house in the city where nobody would notice them. Here they had prepared two sound proof chambers inside the hall of a timber factory. It also had a secret door which was not easy to find. The kidnappers fled from the scene after receiving the ransom and did not bother to free either Freddy or his driver. It was just a chance tip provided to the Amsterdam police which helped in finding Freddy and his driver. The Dutch police never disclosed the name of the person who tipped them and took them to the safe house. Freddy who is credited for selecting the distinctive green bottle and red star logo for Heineken beer was a very intelligent businessman. He thought about the scope of private security agency in Netherlands and went on to form one of the largest private security firm in the country. In 2015 Daniel Alfredson directed a movie by the name of kidnapping Mr Heineken.

Read More

Maximizing the Value of Data Privacy Investments

Most organizations have invested, and continue to invest in people, processes, technology and policies to meet customer privacy requirements and avoid significant fines and other penalties. In addition, data breaches continue to expose the personal information of millions of people, and therefore organizations are concerned about the products they buy, services they use, people they employ, and with whom they partner and generally do business with. As a result, customers are asking more questions during the buying cycle about how their data is captured, used, transferred, shared, stored, and destroyed. In last year’s study (Cisco 2018 Privacy Maturity Benchmark Study), Cisco introduced data and insights regarding how these privacy concerns were negatively impacting the buying cycle and timelines. This year’s research updates those findings and explores the benefits associated with privacy investment. Cisco’s Data Privacy Benchmark Study utilizes data from Cisco’s Annual Cybersecurity Benchmark Study, a double blind survey completed by more than 3200 security professionals in 18 countries and across all major industries and geographic regions. Many of the privacy specific questions were addressed to more than 2900 respondents who were familiar with the privacy processes at their organizations. Participants were asked about their readiness for GDPR, any delays in the sales cycle due to customer data privacy concerns, losses from data breaches, and their current practices related to maximizing the value of their data. The findings from this study provide strong evidence that organizations are benefitting from their privacy investments beyond compliance. Organizations that are ready for GDPR are experiencing shorter delays in their sales cycle related to customers’ data privacy concerns than those that are not ready for GDPR. GDPR ready organizations have also experienced fewer data breaches, and when breaches have occurred, fewer records were impacted and system downtime was shorter. As a result, the total cost of data breaches was less than what organizations not ready for GDPR experienced. Even though companies have focused their efforts on meeting privacy regulations and requirements, nearly all companies say they are receiving other business benefits from these investments beyond compliance. These privacy-related benefits are providing competitive advantages to organizations, and this study can help guide investment decisions as organizations work to mature their privacy processes. The Results GDPR readiness Among all respondents in the Data Privacy Benchmark Study, 59% indicated that they are meeting all or most of GDPR’s requirements today. Another 29% said they expect to be GDPR ready within a year, leaving 9% who said it would take more than a year to get ready. While GDPR applies to businesses located in the EU or to the processing of personal data collected about individuals located in the EU, it is interesting that only 3% of the respondents in our global survey indicated that they did not believe GDPR applied to their organization. By country, the level of GDPR readiness ranged from 42% to 76%. Not surprisingly, the European countries in the survey (Spain, Italy, UK, France, Germany) were generally on the higher end of the range. Respondents were asked to identify the most significant challenges their organizations faced in getting ready for GDPR. The top responses were data security, internal training, evolving regulations, and privacy by design requirements. Sales delays due to privacy Respondents were asked whether they are experiencing delays in their sales cycles due to customers’ data privacy concerns. 87% of respondents said they do have sales delays, whether from existing customers or prospects. This is significantly higher than the 66% of respondents who reported sales delays in last year’s survey and is likely due to the increased awareness of the importance of data privacy, GDPR becoming enforceable, and the emergence of other privacy laws and requirements. Data privacy has become a board-level issue for many organizations, and customers are making sure their vendors and business partners have adequate answers to their privacy concerns before doing business together. When asked about the length of the delay, the estimates varied widely. The average delay for sales to existing customers was 3.9 weeks, and over 94% of organizations reported delays between 0 and 10 weeks. Nonetheless, there were some organizations reporting delays up to 25 to 50 weeks or more. Note that the average delay for sales to prospects was 4.7 weeks, perhaps reflecting the longer timeframes needed to adequately address privacy concerns in a new potential customer relationship. These average delays for both existing customers and prospects are significantly shorter than the average of 7.8 weeks reported in last year’s survey, perhaps reflecting the fact that firms have become better equipped over the last year to answer customer’s privacy concerns. By country, the distribution of sales delays for existing customers ranged from 2.2 weeks to 5.5 weeks. Longer delays can usually be found where privacy requirements are high or in a state of transition, as organizations work to adapt to the concerns raised by their customers. Sales delays, at a minimum, cause revenue to be deferred for some period of time. This can lead to missed revenue targets, impacting compensation, funding decisions, and investor relations. In addition, delayed sales can often turn into lost sales, for instance, when delays cause a potential customer to buy a competitor’s product or not buy the product or service at all. Respondents were also asked to identify the reasons for any privacy-related sales delays at their organizations. The top responses included the need to investigate specific customer requests, translating privacy information into the customer’s language, educating the customer about the company’s privacy practices or processes, or having to redesign the product to meet the customer’s privacy requirements. Business benefits of privacy investments Organizations that have invested in getting ready for GDPR have done so primarily to avoid the significant fines and other penalties associated with not meeting the regulation. However, as the research indicates, there are other significant business benefits associated with these privacy investments. In looking at the sales delays due to privacy issues, the average delay for selling to existing customers was 3.9 weeks. However, those…

Read More