Whether you are marking today with a glass of champagne, a shot of whiskey, or a hot cup of tea, today marks a significant day for privacy professionals world-wide.
Here’s to all of the privacy professionals who have put in so many hours to prepare for the GDPR, fully effective as of Friday May 25, 2018 at midnight in Brussels; that is 6 PM eastern on Thursday, May 24th for toasting purposes.
For business executives, policymakers, and consumers who have become aware of the GDPR in recent weeks and are interested in learning more, visit our GDPR resource page here.
On May 8, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal announced that he was vetoing Senate Bill 315 (“SB 315” or “the bill”), cybersecurity legislation that would have expanded the criminalization of “unauthorized computer access” to capture, in addition to traditional hacking, activity that opponents warned is necessary to robust private and public sector cyber defense. In his veto statement, Governor Deal commented that parts of SB 315 “have led to concerns regarding national security implications and other potential ramifications” that caused him to conclude that “while intending to protect against online breaches and hacks, SB 315 may inadvertently hinder the ability of government and private industries to do so.” (more…)
For defense contractors, January 1, 2018 brought with it not only a new year, but also a new era – an era in which contractors must comply with the entire set of more detailed cybersecurity requirements under Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012. As we have flagged before on Data Matters, this DFRAS provision applies to all Department of Defense (DOD) contracts (except for those involving commercial, off-the-shelf items) and places a number of substantial obligations on contractors, including that they comply with the security requirements in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171, “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations,” and report certain cyber incidents to DOD. (more…)
*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…)
And then there were none. Alabama has joined the ranks of the other 49 states with breach notification requirements by enacting the Alabama Data Breach Notification Act of 2018 (the “Act”). The Act, which was signed into law by Alabama Governor, Kay Ivey on March 28, 2018, requires companies to provide Alabama residents with notification of a breach within 45 days of discovery. Notification is triggered by a determination of a breach that poses a risk of harm to impacted individuals. Alabama exempts from the definition of breach the good faith acquisition of sensitive personally identifying information by an employee or agent of a covered entity, unless the information is used for a purpose unrelated to the business or subject to further unauthorized use. Companies must notify the state AG in the same period if the breach requires notification of more than 1,000 “individuals” (defined as Alabama residents whose “sensitive personally identifiable information” was, or is reasonably believed to have been, accessed as a result of the breach). In addition, if more than 1,000 individuals are notified at a single time, companies must provide notice to consumer reporting agencies “without unreasonable delay.” Third parties who are contracted to process sensitive personally identifiable information must provide notice of a breach to the owner of that information within ten days of discovering the breach. Notice from a third party then triggers the 45-day notification period for the covered entity.
On March 21, Governor Daugaard of South Dakota signed SB 62, making South Dakota the 49th state to enact a data breach notification statute (leaving only Alabama without a state data breach law). South Dakota’s attorney general issued a statement after the law was signed, observing that the connected economy comes with “an increased risk of theft and fraud,” and “we need the tools to combat these breaches and thefts of our personal information.” (more…)
On February 21, 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued interpretive guidance (the Guidance) to assist public companies in drafting their cybersecuritydisclosures in SEC filings. See 83 FR 8166 (Feb. 26, 2018). In his public statement accompanying the issuance of this guidance, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton said he believed that “providing the Commission’s views on these matters will promote clearer and more robust disclosure by companies about cybersecurity risks and incidents, resulting in more complete information being available to investors.”1 In this new guidance, the SEC is likely intending to signal how it may focus future enforcement concerning the cybersecurity disclosure obligations of public companies, and their underlying disclosure controls, procedures and certifications. (more…)
Few would describe 2017 as a quiet year. But it actually was a period of relative calm with respect to at least one important topic. After supporters and opponents of mandated government access to encrypted communications publicly feuded for much of 2016, reprising arguments they’ve had since at least the days of the “Clipper Chip,” these “encryption debates” seemed to quiet down for much of last year. The same tensions likely simmered beneath the surface, to be sure, but they didn’t boil over and there was accordingly less attention directed at the issue than there had been previously. (more…)
On February 7, 2018, the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) released its annual National Exam Program Examination Priorities (Exam Priorities).1 As has been widely reported, the Exam Priorities’ general focus areas include:
- retail investors
- compliance and risks in critical market infrastructure
- oversight of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB)
- anti-money laundering (AML) programs
The majority of these Exam Priorities are not surprising because they reflect the Commission’s continued focus on retail investors, conflicts of interest, fee disclosure, cybersecurity, cryptocurrency and AML programs.2 The Exam Priorities can serve as a roadmap for firms to assess their policies, procedures and compliance programs, and to prepare for OCIE exams. This post outlines and elaborates on each of the Exam Priorities. (more…)
Companies that are subject to New York’s Cybersecurity Regulation are moving quickly to finalize their compliance obligations under the Cybersecurity Regulation, as the second “due date” quickly approaches – February 15, 2018. By August 28, 2017, Covered Entities were required to have a cybersecurity program in place, as well as a board (or senior officer) approved written cybersecurity policy and Chief Information Security Officer to help protect data and systems. They also became obligated to report cybersecurity events to the NYDFS. (more…)