Companies required to appoint a data protection officer (“DPO” ) in Europe should carefully consider which candidate is best to select for the job. A company established in Bavaria, Germany, was recently fined by the Bavarian data protection authority (Bayerisches Landesamt für Datenschutzaufsicht, “BayLDA“) for appointing a DPO who at the same time held an operational position as an IT manager. The appointment was deemed to create a conflict of interests between the two functions. This decision could potentially influence the interpretation of the upcoming EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR“) and thus influence the appointment of DPOs by international companies.
For businesses that work with the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”), two important rules for safeguarding certain categories of sensitive information and reporting cyber incidents were recently finalized, updating the interim rules promulgated in late 2015. The first rule amends the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS Rule”) and went into effect on October 21, 2016. The second rule modifies the previously voluntary DoD cybersecurity information-sharing program in connection with the Defense Industrial Base (“DIB Rule”) and went into effect on November 3, 2016.
We previously explained the changes brought about by the interim rules. Here, we explain what changed after the rules’ comment periods, and provide suggestions for compliance.
It was about time for data breach defendants to get a win. The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois delivered one to Barnes & Noble in its long-running class action that stems from a breach suffered in 2012. Plaintiffs’ case was dismissed in its entirety on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). This development—just days after the Sixth Circuit in Nationwide had aligned itself with the Seventh Circuit’s Neiman Marcus and P.F. Chang’s decisions that found standing to sue for breach plaintiffs—shows that the legal battle over “harm” may start with standing, but goes nowhere absent alleged damages that tightly match the substantive elements of each claim.
According to a press release of the Data Protection Supervisory Authority in the Land Mecklenburg Vorpommern of November 3, German supervisory authorities have randomly selected 500 companies in Germany and sent them requests for information on their international data transfers. The German supervisory authorities are undertaking this coordinated action in order to increase awareness among companies of the need to ensure data privacy compliance of international data transfers.
Last week, FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) issued a formal Advisory to Financial Institutions and published FAQs outlining specific cybersecurity events that should be reported through Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). This Advisory follows former FinCEN Director Jennifer Shasky Calvery’s recent statements reminding “financial institutions to include cyber-derived information (such as IP addresses or bitcoin wallet addresses) in suspicious activity reports.” It also follows the launch of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT). Although the Advisory does not change existing Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requirements or other regulatory obligations, the Advisory highlights a series of cybersecurity events–such as Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks and ransomware incidents–that should be reported on SARs filed with FinCEN, even though they often (but not always) fall outside the traditional notion of a data breach or a compromise of personal information.
The coverage landscape for “Business E-mail Compromise” (BEC) scams remains somewhat tenuous, as organizations and carriers continue to battle in court over the extent of coverage. Although recent positive, policyholder-friendly trends in the Eighth Circuit (hacker who took over a bank’s computer system) and federal district court in Georgia (scheme based on spoofing a CEO’s e-mail) found insurance coverage for fraudulently transferred funds, a recent unpublished Fifth Circuit opinion moves in the other direction. Unfortunately, this new ruling—and the uncertainty it creates—may embolden insurers in fighting coverage for these scams under crime insurance policies.
In the 1969 film Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, after Butch and Sundance rob Union Pacific Railroad (“Union Pacific”) the first time, Union Pacific employs a stronger safe. After Butch and Sundance rob Union Pacific a second time, Union Pacific forgoes the safe and hires a posse of unrelenting gunmen, hell bent on capturing and/or killing the duo. The posse ultimately forces Butch and Sundance to flee to Bolivia—where they resume their bank-robbing antics. Ultimately, it takes the Bolivian army to stop them. In their case, albeit fictional, the active deterrent (the posse) was more effective at protecting Union Pacific’s money than the passive deterrent (the safe), in part, because Butch and Sundance were highly-motivated actors.
Last week, as part of its Fall Technology Series, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) hosted a much-anticipated workshop to explore the privacy concerns associated with drones. Although many in the audience hoped that this workshop would provide some insight into the FTC’s perspective and position on regulation of drones and privacy, the workshop left attendees with more questions than answers. We were there, and provide you with some of the key takeaways.
Data breach notification requirements are going global. By spring 2018, companies operating in the European Union must comply with the new General Data Protection Regulation’s (GDPR) data breach notification requirements and the Network and Information Security (NIS) Directive’s security incident notification requirements. Stricter and more far-reaching notification obligations underscore the importance of establishing a proactive Security Incident Response Policy to analyze potential legal obligations and prepare to respond to incidents long before they occur.
Even today, most companies—even technology companies—do not think they have information that the U.S. Government wants or needs, particularly as it might relate to a national security investigation. The reality is that as terrorists and others who threaten national security use a broader spectrum of technology resources to communicate and to finance and conduct operations, the U.S. Government has significantly increased its collection of data from technology companies and others.