Privacy

Internet search giant Yahoo!Inc. (“Yahoo”) revealed last year that it was the victim of two massive data breaches back in 2013 and 2014 that potentially affected more than 1.5 billion users. Investigations into the incidents continue to reveal potentially damning information regarding what the company knew and when, how the company responded to the breaches, and the status of Yahoo’s information security at the time of the breaches. The details that have emerged paint the picture of a company that failed to adhere to basic data security requirements. Unfortunately, the technology company will likely become a case-study in what happens when an organization fails to follow security best practices.

Remember when Edward Snowden showed the world how easy it is for your cell phone to record everything you say? Initial gut reaction for many was something along the lines of disbelief to shock. As time went by, many people took comfort in the idea that the government could not care less about their day-to-day activities. After all—for most of us—our day consists of the daily routine of workout, work, and daily errands. Yet, spying is not limited to the intelligence community. As we have seen again and again, health information is particularly valuable. Devices such as Internet cameras (think security cameras) or perhaps even web cams (the little lens that stares from the top of your laptop) pose risks to health data. Many health entities have not considered the unique risks posed by such devices, but it is a risk the Federal Trade Commission is not ignoring.

Colleges and universities frequently hire third-party vendors to provide services that involve student data—cloud storage, online education delivery, and online grade books to name a few. Although the arrangements are common, they can run afoul of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) (FERPA) and other data privacy best practices. Colleges and universities should contemplate privacy and security issues when contracting with third-party vendors and include language in the service agreement that identifies exactly what information is being shared and protects how the information can be used in the future.

The beginning of a new year offers the perfect opportunity for companies to review their privacy and data security practices and make any needed adjustments. Since it is a matter of “when,” not “if,” your company will be the target of a data breach, your organization should proactively ensure that you are prepared for the inevitable. We suggest all companies resolve to do the following in 2017 to set themselves on the right course for the year:

As the shock of Trump’s surprise election win gives way to processing the consequences of a Trump presidency, one issue that has not gotten as much attention is privacy and data security.

Trump did not say much on this topic on the campaign trail and his “vision” for cybersecurity on his campaign website is relatively thin. But we can glean some information from his public comments. As always with Trump, unpredictability is his trademark, so it is anyone’s guess whether his actions going forward will be consistent with his past statements.

More and more frequently the following question arises: “What do we do about personal, sensitive, and business information owned by or residing with a financially troubled company?” Information is an intangible asset and often has significant value. Information increasingly resides with a party other than the owner and may need to be transferred in unexpected ways. Unfortunately, the thinking about this question often arises after financial distress is readily apparent, such as after a bankruptcy filing. Planning should occur much earlier, whether for the business in distress or in dealing with a business that could suffer financial distress (hint 1 – the latter is every business).

With all due respect to noted astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, this blog post will attempt to explain the bank privacy universe in a tiny package. Many tend to think “bank privacy” began with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLB” and technically The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999). But this perspective misstates the origin of bank privacy and understates its breadth and depth.

Rather bank privacy is genetically coded into the customer relationship and has been since the beginning. Perhaps “privacy” is even the wrong word as “confidential” seems more apt. Protecting bank customer confidences has long been recognized on both state and federal levels, at common law and in numerous statutes pre-dating GLB. For perspective, in 1995 I revised my bank’s deposit agreement and made extensive reference to customer confidentiality and the bank’s information sharing practices, embodying almost all the concepts later enshrined in GLB.

Posting a terms of use document on your website or mobile application defines the terms that govern your customers’ use of your website or mobile application and greatly reduces your exposure to liability when providing goods or services through a web-based application. A privacy policy describes to your consumers what information you collect, how you collect…

The European Union and United States differ greatly on law regulating the collection and transfer of personal data. For many years companies could rely upon the U.S.–EU Safe Harbor to lawfully make transatlantic data transfers and bridge the gap between the differing privacy frameworks. But in October 2015, the EU Court of Justice invalidated the U.S.–EU Safe Harbor on the grounds that it did not adequately protect personal data. This ruling jeopardized the continued flow of data from the EU to the United States and left many companies wondering how they could continue collecting and using data from the EU without violating the law.