Following months of intense debate, an attempted filibuster, and close votes in both the House and Senate, Congress last week finally extended Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
*This article first appeared in Law360 on December 18, 2017.
For well over a year, defense contractors have had New Year’s Eve 2017 circled on their calendars, and not because they love the “auld lang syne” and a good glass of champagne. (Or at least not only for those reasons.) Dec. 31, 2017, is the deadline for when covered contractors must comply with the U.S. Department of Defense’s new Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) cybersecurity requirements. This holiday season contractors are thus making their lists and checking them twice in order to ensure that they will be compliant by the end of the year. And this intense focus is well warranted. The DOD is deeply committed to protecting its information, and the requirements are an important step in that regard.
But for all of the focus on Dec. 31, contractors must also remember that the focus on compliance must remain into the New Year — and beyond. New technologies will emerge. Contractors will buy new systems and hire new employees. And all the while, internal security teams will be trying to stay a step ahead of hackers and “white hat” security researchers. In short, despite contractors’ best efforts, gaps may be identified at any time. Moreover, these gaps may carry with them real consequences — not only the possibility of contract termination, but also the risk of costly and disruptive False Claims Act investigations and lawsuits, with the specter of treble damages, and the possibility of suspension and debarment, lurking. It is thus crucial that contractors continue to be vigilant about the regulations, and take steps to enable them to demonstrate their vigilance and compliance, in order to best position themselves to avoid liability.
On 26 July 2017, the Court of Justice of the EU (“Court”) issued its Opinion on the proposed EU-Canada Agreement on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data (“PNR Data”). The opinion, issued by the Court’s Grand Chamber, confirms that the Court accepts the necessity of processing large amounts of personal data to protect against terrorism in general. However, in order to ensure compliance with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (“the Charter”), the Court will scrutinize the details of any EU legislative act to ensure that no data are retained or accessed without a clear link to the underlying justification of combating terrorism. (more…)
On February 3, 2017, Eastern District of Pennsylvania Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter ordered Google to comply with FBI search warrants to produce emails stored on foreign servers as part of a domestic criminal investigation. In re Search Warrant No. 16-960-M-01 to Google (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2017). This ruling comes on the heels of the Second Circuit’s decision in Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 829 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2016) (denied rehearing on January 24, 2017), which reached an opposite decision and held that Microsoft could not be forced to turn over user data stored on a server located in Ireland. (For more background, see Second Circuit Microsoft Ruling: A Plea for Congressional Action (August 8, 2016)).
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.”
The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued, on December 21, 2016, its ruling in the joined cases, Tele2 Sverige AB v. Post-och telestyrelsen (C-203/15), and Secretary of State for Home Department v. Tom Watson and Others (C-698/15), concerning the interpretation of EU’s Article 15(1) of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC). Article 15(1) enables EU Member States to adopt measures that restrict privacy rights granted to users of Electronic Communication Services (“ECSs”) when they are “necessary, appropriate and proportionate… to safeguard national security”. Examples of ECSs include private and public companies in Internet, telecommunication, satellite and cable businesses. (more…)
On November 7, 2016, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China promulgated the Cyber Security Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “Cyber Security Law”) after three rounds of readings in June 2015, June and October 2016, respectively. The Cyber Security Law will enter into force on June 1, 2017. As early as July 1, 2015, the National Security Law of the People’s Republic of China was promulgated, expressly providing that the state shall “safeguard sovereignty and security of cyberspace in the state,” a theme that is reiterated and emphasized in Article 1 of the Cyber Security Law. The introduction of the concept of “cyber space sovereignty” in the Cyber Security Law echoes the views of President Xi Jinping, who is also the head of the Office of the Central Leading Group for Cyberspace Affairs, and who has stated in February 2014 that “[n]o cyber safety means no national security.” Critically, the Cyber Security Law may have global implications, as the Law applies to both Chinese and international businesses engaging in the construction, operation, maintenance or use of information networks in China.
The future of privacy and cybersecurity under President-elect Trump – with a Republican-controlled House and Senate – is far from certain, but his campaign comments indicate an emphasis on robust cybersecurity, perhaps with more openness to both offensive as well as defensive initiatives.
Members of the UK House of Lords have amended the Investigatory Powers Bill to make privacy a fundamental concern by inserting the following in clause 1 –
“This Act sets out the extent to which certain investigatory powers may be used to interfere with privacy.”
The amendment, proposed by Lord Janvrin, a member of the UK parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (“ISC“), was approved on Tuesday 11 October 2016, after a debate in which many members highlighted the need for safeguards against disproportionate use of the Bill by public authorities.
On August 10, 2016, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) issued a notice requesting public comment on the current and future state of cybersecurity in the digital economy. The Request for Information (“RFI”) will serve to facilitate the work of the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity (“CENC”) in delivering detailed cybersecurity recommendations for the public and private sectors pursuant to Executive Order 13718. The February 2016 Executive Order created CENC to develop a plan of action for the next decade to strengthen cybersecurity in the public and private sectors and reinforce partnerships between federal, state and local governments and the private sector. The Executive Order directs the Commission and the Secretary of Commerce to work with NIST to carry out its mission.