With issues around the collection and handling of personal data becoming the focus of increased scrutiny among regulators, policymakers, and consumers, interest has continued to grow among organizations to better understand and address privacy risk. Seeking to support innovation in the market and to accommodate the increasingly global nature of data processing ecosystems, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) released Version 1.0 of the NIST Privacy Framework: A Tool for Improving Privacy through Enterprise Risk Management (“NIST Privacy Framework”) on January 16, 2020. The recent publication aims to outline an adaptable approach to privacy risk for organizations of all sizes by providing a “framework for privacy management, not just a checklist of tasks.”
The NIST Privacy Framework is a voluntary tool intended to assist organizations in managing privacy risks that may arise due to system, product, or service operations that involve personal data, or in connection to new regulatory regimes such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). As noted in the Executive Summary, the NIST Privacy Framework is intended to “enable better privacy engineering practices that support privacy by design concepts and help organizations protect individuals’ privacy.” Notably, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), recognized by many as the U.S. government’s top privacy watchdog, had applauded the preliminary draft of the NIST Privacy Framework in Fall 2019 – indicating that the finalized publication could potentially serve as a credible benchmark for organizations seeking to address privacy risk across the data processing lifecycle.
The SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) released two Risk Alerts, on April 16, 2019 and May 23, 2019, highlighting the importance of privacy and cybersecurity compliance for SEC-registered investment advisors and broker-dealers under Regulation S-P. As previously covered on Data Matters, OCIE has consistently identified cybersecurity as one of its main areas of focus for examinations.
Indeed, cybersecurity was once again identified by OCIE in its 2019 National Exam Program Examination Priorities (2019 Exam Priorities), which placed a particular emphasis on proper configuration of network storage devices, information security governance, and policies and procedures related to retail trading information security. With the issuance of the April 16 and May 23 Risk Alerts, OCIE has provided additional detail regarding specific issues that SEC-registered entities should focus on to mitigate privacy and cybersecurity risk, as well as to prepare for examinations.
More and more entities are deploying machine learning and artificial intelligence to automate tasks previously performed by humans. Such efforts carry with them real benefits, such as the enhancement of operational efficiency and the reduction of costs, but they also raise a number of concerns regarding their potential impacts on human society, particularly as computer algorithms are increasingly used to determine important outcomes like individuals’ treatment within the criminal justice system.
This mixture of benefits and concerns is starting to attract the interest of regulators. Efforts in the European Union, Canada, and the United States have initiated an ongoing discussion around how to regulate “automated decision-making” and what principles should guide it. And while not all of these regulatory efforts will directly implicate private companies, they may nonetheless provide insight for companies seeking to build consumer trust in their artificial intelligence systems or better prepare themselves for the overall direction that regulation is taking.
On December 28, 2018, Michigan adopted the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ (NAIC) Insurance Data Security Model Law in the form of Michigan H.B. 6491 (Act). By doing so, Michigan joins Ohio and South Carolina as the third state to adopt the Model Law and the fifth state – along with Connecticut and New York – to have enacted cybersecurity regulations focused on insurance companies. See CT Gen Stat § 38a-999b (2015); 23 NYCRR 500. (Please see our prior coverage for more information on Ohio and South Carolina’s adoption of the Model Law). Moreover, adoption of the Model Law is still gaining steam with Rhode Island potentially next in line.
*This article first appeared in In-House Defense Quarterly on April 3, 2018
The growing volume and severity of cyber-attacks directed against public companies has caught the attention of federal regulators and investors. Recent guidance from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on disclosure and enforcement actions by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) make clear that cybersecurity is no longer a niche topic, but a concern significant enough to warrant the oversight of corporate boards of directors. A high-profile cyber incident may cause substantial financial and reputational losses to an organization, including the disruption of corporate business processes, destruction or theft of critical data assets, loss of goodwill, and shareholder and consumer litigation. More and more, directors are viewing cyber-risk under the broader umbrella of corporate strategy and searching for ways to help mitigate that risk. Increasingly, thought leaders, professional organizations, and government agencies are beginning to provide answers. (more…)
With the continued rise of data breaches rooted in a compromise of user credentials, interest has continued to build in more secure form of digital identities for authentication. Supporting controls for federal agencies as well as innovation in the market, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) published its four-volume Digital Identity Guidelines earlier this year on June 22, 2017. The Guidelines encourage online service providers (“OSPs”) to adopt design practices that promise to reduce unnecessary user frustration with password and identity verification systems, while at the same time increasing security. The primary purpose of the Guidelines is to promulgate technical requirements for federal agencies, businesses, however, could use the Guidelines as a baseline for their own cybersecurity systems—both to establish credibility and enhance the user experience. (more…)