Employees are increasingly using (and demanding to use) their personal devices to store and process their employer's data, and connect to their networks. This "Bring Your Own Device" trend is in full swing, whether companies like it or not. Some organizations believe that BYOD will allow them to avoid significant hardware, software and IT support costs. Even if cost-savings is not the goal, most companies believe that processing of company data on employee personal devices is inevitable and unavoidable.Unfortunately, BYOD raises significant data security and privacy concerns, which can lead to potential legal and liability risk. This blogpost identifies and explores some of the key privacy and security legal concerns associated with BYOD, including "reasonable" BYOD security, BYOD privacy implications, and security and privacy issues related to BYOD incident response and investigations.
Earlier today the Federal Trade Commission issued its long-awaited final report "Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers" focusing on three primary principles: 1) Privacy by Design; 2) Simplified Choice for Businesses and Consumers; and 3) Greater Transparency. The vote approving the report was 3-1. Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch dissented from the issuance of the Final Privacy Report.
Nowadays, a news story on privacy is out of place if it doesn't mention Do-Not-Track (known as "DNT") or Big Data. While these hot topics represent key concerns for privacy professionals, advocates and regulators, there is no clear agreement on what they mean or how to address the privacy issues they raise. In this post, we consider recent developments on these topics, including how the Federal Trade Commission has sought to focus on and connect these new issues.DNT or DNC DNT is in the midst of a multi-faceted identity crisis, starting with a disagreement over the definition of DNT. Self-regulatory organizations and the advertising industry assert that DNT stands for "Do Not Target," referring to the use of consumer data for the purposes of targeted advertising. The FTC, buoyed by privacy advocates, appears to take the view that DNT means not only "Do Not Target" but also "Do Not Collect" (DNC). FTC Commissioner Brill elaborated at the 2012 IAPP Summit that she doesn't view the current DNT efforts as entirely sufficient because the choice DNT offers does not give consumers appropriate protection against what Brill characterized as "limitless, unmitigated" data collection. But Brill does not argue for wholesale implementation of DNC, and has indicated that the details of the implementation of DNT/DNC will continue to remain a key focus for the FTC.
Yesterday the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released the 4th revision of its "Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations." Despite the long title it will ultimately be a mainstay reference for federal agencies required to comply with provisions of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and FIPS 200. As a result it should have a significant affect on cloud security practices effecting commercial non-governmental cloud usage.
Google's new privacy policy (and its plans to create user profiles across multiple online services) has drawn fire from European data protection authorities. Online and mobile retailers and service providers should take account of a renewed emphasis on transparency and proportionality in collecting data about users.
What happened in the privacy world last week? On Thursday, just before the release of the White House Paper, California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced an agreement with the leading operators of mobile application platforms to privacy principles designed to bring the mobile app industry in line with a California law requiring mobile apps that collect personal information to have a privacy policy. It might be argued that the White House is now enunciating principles and best practices, and encouraging legislation of principles, that have long been embodied not only as best practice but as actual legislation under California law.
The White House today released its white paper setting forth a framework for "Protecting Privacy And Promoting Innovation in The Global Digital Economy" (the " Framework"). The Framework is far reaching, touching on everything from a call for legislation, including a national standard for security breach legislation, to promoting international interoperability.The Framework centers on The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, which contains seven core principles relating to "personal data." Note that "personal data" is defined broadly, to encompass any data, including aggregated data, which can be linked to a specific individual, and may include data linked to a specific computer or other device. It is worth noting that the Framework includes, as an illustrative example of personal data, "an identifier on a smartphone or family computer that is used to build a usage profile."
The conditions for transborder data flows may become more uniform in the EU under the proposed Data Protection Regulation, but restrictions on foreign data transfers are now appearing in new data privacy laws and regulations in several regions of the world, posing global compliance challenges.
On February 8, 2012, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) asked the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce the terms of the agency's Google Buzz privacy settlement with Google. EPIC seeks to compel the FTC to stop Google's planned consolidation of user data from across the company's services into a single profile for each user under a single privacy policy. EPIC has alleged that the proposed changes and the way Google seeks to implement the changes violate the Google Buzz consent order. The District Court will hear the case before March 1, 2012.In this post, we discuss the highlights of EPIC's complaint, Google's response and lessons learned.
Last week NY's most prominent state appellate level court formally fully adopted the Zubulake standard for e-discovery. The entire opinion is worth a careful read, as although the First Department noted that it previously "adopted the Zubulake standard when reviewing a motion for spoliation sanctions involving the destruction of electronic evidence" it had not previously addressed the issue of when a party reasonably anticipates litigation and the resulting duties and obligations that flow from this determination. Now it has.
As organizations of all stripes increasingly rely on cloud computing services to conduct their business, the need to balance the benefits and risks of cloud computing is more important than ever. This is especially true when it comes to data security and privacy risks. However, most Cloud customers find it very difficult to secure favorable contract terms when it comes to data security and privacy. While customers may enjoy some short term cost-benefits by going into the Cloud, they may be retaining more risk then they want (especially where Cloud providers refuse to accept that risk contractually). In short, the players in this industry are at an impasse. Cyber insurance may be a solution to help solve the problem.