Penetration testing or conducting a pen test can be a key element in a firm’s arsenal to protect itself against cyber intrusions. Firms use pen tests to test potential vulnerabilities of their networks, determine where there may be gaps, and assess their cybersecurity defenses. Today’s post is the fourth in a series of summaries sharing essential, timely insight on how these practices may impact your business. Please click here for the first, second, and third posts on cybersecurity practice impacts. Continue Reading FINRA’s 2018 Report on Cybersecurity Practices: Cybersecurity and Pen Testing: Why Go Looking for Trouble?
Welcome back to our two-part series examining CNIL vs. Google: 10 lessons from the largest data protection fine ever issued. In this post we continue our analysis of CNIL vs. Google by taking a closer look at the additional lessons we can learn from this important decision.
6. …tell data subjects exactly what you’re doing with their data
CNIL found that it was hard for users to understand what Google was doing with their data. They commented: “Users are not able to fullly understand the extent of the processing operations… the purposes of processing are described in too generic and vague a manner and so are the categories of data processed for these various purposes.”
The lesson here is: tell data subjects clearly what data you are collecting and what you are using it for. Do not try to obfuscate it. Continue Reading CNIL vs. Google: 10 lessons from the largest data protection fine ever issued Part Two
In January 2019, the French data protection authority, CNIL (Commission Nationale de l’informatique et des libertés), announced that it had fined Google 57 million euros (approximately £44 million or USD$65 million) for breaching the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) through its use of targeted advertising.
The fine arose out of complaints made against Google to CNIL by privacy activists immediately after the GDPR came into force in May 2018. At the time of writing, it is the largest data protection fine ever issued – but what can we learn from CNIL’s decision? Continue Reading CNIL vs. Google: 10 lessons from the largest data protection fine ever issued
Freshman Delegate Hala Ayala recently introduced House Bill 2793 in this session of the Virginia General Assembly. If enacted, the legislation will impose new requirements on businesses with regard to the disposal of certain consumer records and manufacturers in the design and maintenance of devices that connect to the internet. Continue Reading Virginia General Assembly to Consider Minimum Security Standards for Care and Disposal Consumer Information and Security of Connected Devices
The California Attorney General is currently on a California tour soliciting public comment on the CCPA.[i] To date, the Attorney General has held public forums in San Francisco (January 8th), San Diego (January 14th) and Riverside (January 24th) and will continue on to Los Angeles (January 25th), Sacramento (February 5th), and Fresno (February 13th). These hearings are being held pursuant to a CCPA requirement that the Attorney General “solicit broad public participation and adopt regulations to further the purposes” of the CCPA. Specifically, the Attorney General is directed to seek public feedback on the following areas: expanding the definition of “personal information,” establishing additional exceptions to compliance, establishing rules and procedures for facilitating consumer opt-out requests, just to name a few. Continue Reading Recent Developments on the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)
As 2019 begins, we are one year away from the highly anticipated California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA or the Act) going into effect. As companies update their privacy policies to comply with the CCPA, it is essential to determine whose personal information the Act protects. Two issues businesses should consider when updating their data privacy policies are: (i) the geographic residence of the individuals whose information is collected; and (ii) whether the Act applies to their employees. Continue Reading Defining “Consumer” Under The California Consumer Privacy Act
Recent developments in privacy law and a rise in class action lawsuits related to data collection offer a cautionary tale about understanding legal and ethical boundaries of monitoring “on-the-clock” employee conduct. With a hodgepodge of federal, state, and local legislation governing employee privacy rights, employers are often left to navigate a complicated legal landscape while balancing the practical need to understand how employees are using company information and equipment. Employers, for example, have a legitimate interest in protecting company trade secrets, detecting unlawful transmission of unlicensed material, and improving work productivity. Employees, on the other hand, may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain contexts while at work.
This quandary begs the question, where do employers draw the line? Continue Reading Workplace Monitoring: Where Do Employers Draw The Line?
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) imposes strict obligations upon organizations that process the “personal data” of European individuals. Failure to comply with GDPR can result in large fines. The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), in recent months, issued a number of fines of £500,000 on global businesses with household names, and such fines have generated a lot of publicity. Many onlookers would be shocked by the magnitude of those fines but may not have appreciated that they were imposed under the Data Protection Act 1998, which was in force when the offending breaches occurred. Had the breaches taken place after May 25th of this year, when the GDPR took effect, those fines would more than likely have been significantly higher.
Businesses have therefore invested significant resources and money to make sure that they do not fall foul of the obligations imposed by the GDPR. Yet, within less than a year of the GDPR becoming binding law, those same businesses face further disruption as Brexit looms. Continue Reading Implications of Brexit on GDPR
On November, 2, 2018, Ohio’s recently passed Data Protection Act (Act) officially became law. The Act provides a possible affirmative defense to businesses in lawsuits where the plaintiff alleges a tort based on a business’ failure to implement a cybersecurity framework.
Importantly, the new law does not create a minimum cybersecurity standard in Ohio or new cybersecurity regulations that businesses must follow. Rather, the law operates by incentivizing businesses to develop and maintain a cybersecurity program that “reasonably conforms” to an already existing, industry recognized cybersecurity framework. If the company can prove that it had a compliant cybersecurity program in place at the time of a breach, the company can use the program’s existence as an affirmative defense to certain tort claims. Continue Reading New Cybersecurity Law Offers Safe Harbor Against Tort Claims