On December 28, 2016, former President Obama issued Executive Order 13757, Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency with Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (E.O. 13757). E.O. 13757 amends an earlier Executive Order 13694 (E.O. 13694) of April 1, 2015, under which the President declared a “national emergency” to deal with the “unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security, foreign policy and the economy posed by malicious cyber-enabled activities conducted by persons outside the United States in relation to the November 2016 election. Through the December 2016 amendment, President Obama took “additional steps” to deal with such malicious cyber activities in view of their increasing use “to undermine democratic processes or institutions.”
*This post first appeared in Lawfare on January 17, 2017.
As the new administration takes office this week, we will start to see just how literally to take Donald Trump’s pronouncements and the promised targeting of his predecessor’s executive orders for immediate destruction. Trade policy appointments signal that statements about being aggressive against barriers to trade should be taken very literally. Wilbur Ross, the prospective Commerce Secretary; Peter Navarro, tapped to lead a new Trade Council on the White House staff; and Robert Lighthizer, designated U.S. Trade Representative, all have been vociferous in calling out China’s mercantilist policies and advocating a more transactional approach to breaking down market barriers in the world’s second largest national economy.
The National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) has issued a revised draft version of its Cybersecurity Framework. The document is issued as “Version 1.1″ of the existing framework, redlined to show changes from the original framework issued almost three years ago. It is a draft, seeking comment. No period for public comment is specified, except that NIST expects to hold a public workshop on the revised draft “around the fall of 2017.”
On September 13, 2016, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) proposed regulations outlining minimum requirements for NYDFS-regulated entities to address cybersecurity risk (“Proposed Regulations”). The NYDFS regulates entities and products that are subject to New York insurance, banking and financial services laws. Because the scope of the Proposed Regulations includes any entity “operating under or required to operate under a license, registration, charter, certificate, permit, accreditation or similar authorization under the banking law, the insurance law or the financial services law,” the Proposed Regulations will cover a broad range of entities in the banking, insurance and financial services industries, including insurance producers and premium finance companies.
Now that we are into September, you may be hearing more about the Privacy Shield for transfers of personal data from the EU to the U.S., and in particular the 9 month “grace period” to fully implement the Privacy Shield for companies that certify within the first two months that the Privacy Shield is available for certification. The Department of Commerce began accepting certifications on August 1, 2016, and so the opportunity to take advantage of the grace period closes on September 30, 2016. This grace period does not, however, absolve companies of the responsibility to implement Privacy Shield principles and substantive obligations upon certification. Rather, it permits companies nine months from the date they certify to the Privacy Shield to negotiate amendments to their third party contracts with all vendors or other business partners that receive personal data from the certifying company.
*This article originally appeared in Law360 on August 1, 2016.
On July 14, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a long-awaited decision that — to the surprise of many observers — rejected the government’s construction of the Stored Communications Act and instead embraced a more restrictive view that Microsoft Corp. had advanced, backed by much of the tech industry and many privacy groups. The decision holds that electronic communications that are stored exclusively on foreign servers cannot be reached by U.S. prosecutors under the SCA’s warrant provisions — not even where the warrant is served on a U.S. provider that can access the foreign-stored information, and deliver it to U.S. officials, entirely by using computers and personnel based here in the United States. Microsoft Corp. v. USA, In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E‐Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation (2d Cir. July 14, 2016)( Docket No. 14‐2985).
From Monday August 1, 2016, companies will be able to self-certify under the EU-US Privacy Shield (www.privacyshield.gov). The Privacy Shield was adopted on July 12, 2016 and is intended as a replacement to the now invalidated Safe Harbor framework. Companies preparing to self-certify their adherence to the Privacy Shield Principles should carefully review the associated documentation to understand the new requirements and consider carrying out a gap analysis against their existing privacy program. This is particularly important given the potential for increased enforcement action from the US Federal Trade Commission against participating companies that fail to comply with the Principles. (more…)
The Article 29 Working Party, on July 26, 2016 issued a statement on the final form of the EU-US Privacy Shield, which was formally adopted on July 12, 2016. Speaking at a press conference, Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, chairman of the Article 29 Working Party, stated that the EU data protection authorities would not launch legal action of their own initiative in the next year but instead will wait until after the first annual review: “the first joint review will be a time in which we will make an evaluation of the Privacy Shield and also a time where additional propositions could be made … we want to be provided with additional clarification, additional evidence, possibly changes in the legislation.” (more…)
On July 14, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a long-awaited decision that—to the surprise of many observers—rejected the government’s construction of the Stored Communications Act (SCA) and instead embraced a more restrictive view that Microsoft had advanced, backed by much of the tech industry and many privacy groups. Microsoft Corp. v USA, In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E‐Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation (2d Cir. July 14, 2016)( Docket No. 14‐2985). (Sidley Austin LLP represented a number of amici in support of Microsoft before the Court of Appeals and District Court.) The decision holds that electronic communications that are stored exclusively on foreign servers cannot be reached by U.S. prosecutors under the SCA’s warrant provisions—not even where the warrant is served on a U.S. provider that can access the foreign-stored information, and deliver it to U.S. officials, by using computers and personnel based here in the United States.