Peter Sloan

Peter Sloan is the Managing Attorney at the law firm Information Governance Group, LLC.  Peter advises clients on how best to retain, secure, preserve, and dispose of information. He helps clients throughout the United States create, validate, and update retention schedules; implement compliant information management policies and processes; and defensibly dispose of information. Peter also counsels clients on data security compliance and breach response readiness, and he works with clients to manage data breach response.

Peter has served clients across a broad range of industries, including energy, financial services, healthcare, engineering and construction, manufacturing, retail, technology, and transportation.

For more information about the Firm, please visit www.infogovgroup.com, or the Firm's blog, Information Bytes.

 

Contact:Read more about Peter Sloan

 will be missed, but his wisdom will endure. Who else could have observed “No one goes there nowadays. It’s too crowded”? The information governance equivalent is “No one has information anymore. There’s too much of it.” In the last decade we have witnessed the systemic utilitization of computing power. Data used to be housed predominantly within a company’s own systems, but now, through remote storage, SaaS, PaaS, and other cloud solutions, more and more information is hosted by third-party providers. Also, as marketplace forces compel organizations to leverage or outsource functions that used to reside internally, operational service providers increasingly create, receive, maintain, and process information on the organization’s behalf.

It follows that information governance (the organization’s approach to satisfying information compliance and controlling information risk while maximizing information value) can no longer simply be an internally-focused exercise. IG “has come to a fork in the road, and must take it.” Service provider selection, contracting, and oversight are now primary vehicles of information governance – because when it comes to governing your organization’s information, “the future ain’t what it used to be.”

Do data breaches cause lasting reputational damage for organizations? We all know breach response is expensive –  just ask Target, which posted data breach-related costs of $162 million through fiscal year 2014, plus another $129 million for the first half of FY2015, all net of $90 million in cyber insurance. That’s a lot of zeros, and it’s not over yet. According to Ponemon’s 2015 Cost of Data Breach study, the average U.S. cost of a “malicious or criminal breach” is $230 per compromised record, $210 per record for a “system glitch” breach, and $198 per record for “human error” breaches. The U.S. breaches in the study averaged more than 28,000 compromised records and an average total cost of over $6.5 million.

But beyond response hard costs, the X factor for many companies is a fear of crippling reputational damage in the wake of a large-scale data breach. As it turns out, such fears may be unfounded, and may also be unhelpful.

Folks of a certain age, and fans of “Guardians of the Galaxy’s” Awesome Mix vol. 1, have a hard time forgetting that late ‘70s song by Rupert Holmes, “Escape” (“If you like piña coladas, getting caught in the rain….”). But for millions of subscribers to infidelity website AshleyMadison, there’s no easy escape from hackers’ public disclosure of subscribers’ personal information. In the ensuing schadenfreude-field-day, and amidst early reports of extortion attempts and even suicides, there’s an important lesson to remember. Whether or not a company’s business model is broken vows, broken promises in a privacy policy can have severe repercussions.

Months. Actually, years. That’s how long the notion has been brewing that the Federal Trade Commission has no authority to enforce reasonable data security under the unfairness prong of FTC Act Section 5. The stakes are high – the FTC can pursue essentially any commercial company under the FTC Act for unfair or deceptive trade practices in interstate commerce. And if the FTC indeed has the authority to take any such company to court for “unfair” data security practices under Section 5, without any FTC regulations under Section 5 setting standards for exactly what constitutes adequate data security… well, one can appreciate why many in the general business community are uneasy.

When the FTC sued Wyndham in federal court for inadequate data security, Wyndham raised every argument its lawyers could think of to dismiss the FTC’s unfairness claims.  After failing to convince the trial court, Wyndham next took an interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the first appellate court to ever consider this issue, and asked that the FTC be stopped. But instead of a red light (a ruling of no FTC authority) or a yellow light (a ruling on other grounds), the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision, handed down this week, gives the FTC a clear green light to pursue its claims against Wyndham for alleged unreasonable data security as an unfair business practice.

It’s tempting to “gild the lily” when applying for cyber insurance. Insurers are still getting their arms around how to underwrite cyber risks, and so applications commonly feature a lengthy questionnaire about security controls and safeguards. Often folks in the insured’s Finance or Risk departments handle the application process, with minimal involvement by IT Security and Legal. The result can be questionnaire responses that are, well, “aspirational.”

The problem is that the insured’s representations in the application usually become part of the policy, with coverage conditioned on the representations being accurate when made, and also on an ongoing basis. If the questionnaire responses are later deemed to be material misrepresentations, or if what was represented changes materially, then coverage may be lost. With cyber insurance applications, gilding the lily can result in gelding of coverage.

Last Friday, when Amazon’s market cap pushed past Walmart’s, the headlines almost wrote themselves – “Internet Retailer Amazon Topples Traditional Retailer Walmart,” or the like. The lead angle? Amazon’s information-based business model had surpassed Walmart’s old-school, bricks and mortar business concept. Just one problem – totally wrong lead, with the totally wrong point.

For years, federal district courts have reliably dismissed data breach consumer class actions at the outset, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International. Defendants’ tried-and-true argument goes like this:  (1) under Clapper, plaintiffs must allege at least an imminent risk of a concrete injury to have standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution; (2) the data breach plaintiffs haven’t alleged such an injury, and any future alleged injuries are too speculative; (3) so no standing, and no case.  But last week, in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, the Seventh Circuit disagreed. The Neiman Marcus decision pumps new life into consumer data breach claims, and plaintiffs will undoubtedly argue that it sounds a death knell for Clapper in data breach litigation.

When a judge hears that documents no longer exist due to a company’s retention schedule, it feels like we’re transported back to grade school, with a sheepish pupil making lame excuses about “disappearing” homework. Courts can seem skeptical, even disdainful, about retention schedules. As the U.S. Supreme Court characterized them in Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, “’Document retention policies,’ which are created in part to keep certain information from getting into the hands of others, including the Government, are common in business.” The tone is noblesse oblige, as if businesses follow an odd, quaint practice of having retention schedules, which should be grudgingly acknowledged before moving on to the court’s more important consideration of the preservation duty and discovery sanctions.

Ironically, the courts have retention schedules too. Yep, this notion of destroying records pursuant to a retention schedule is not unique to “business” – the trial judge at a spoliation hearing is governed by the court’s own records retention schedule, which classifies records by content type and prescribes records disposition, including destruction.  And the court also has a records management program, with one of its purposes being the appropriate disposition of records when they have served their purposes.

Old-school company intranets are like soooo boring. Why not juice things up? Sure, we’ll keep the one-directional content (employee policies, company announcements, etc.), but let’s add a dynamic platform for employee interactive training modules, capturing employee responses and quiz results. Why stop there – how about a message board for employees, to turn dull company communications into an energized conversation? And in today’s mobile world, shouldn’t we enable remote access from anywhere our employees happen to be, 24/7? What could possibly go wrong?

Well … a whole lot will go wrong, unless the company first applies an information governance perspective. So let’s ask a few questions to explore what information risks and compliance issues are at play.