Privacy

The Cybersecurity Act of 2015, signed into law on Dec. 18, has four titles that address longstanding concerns about cybersecurity in the United States, such as cybersecurity workforce shortages, infrastructure security, and gaps in business knowledge related to cybersecurity. This post distills the risks and highlights the benefits for private entities that may seek to take advantage of Title I of the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 – the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (“CISA”).

It’s been clear for many years that greater information-sharing between companies and with the government would help fight cyber threats. The barriers to such sharing have been (1) liability exposure for companies that collect and share such information, which can include personally identifiable information, and (2) institutional and educational impediments to analyzing and sharing information effectively.

CISA is designed to remove both of these information-sharing barriers. First, CISA provides immunity to companies that share “cyber threat indicators and defensive measures” with the federal government in a CISA-authorized manner. Second, CISA authorizes, for a “cybersecurity purpose,” both use and sharing of defensive measures and monitoring of information systems. CISA also mandates that federal agencies establish privacy protections for shared information and publish procedures and guidelines to help companies identify and share cyber threat information. Notably, companies are not required to share information in order to receive information on “threat indicators and defensive measures,” nor are entities required to act upon information received – but this won’t shield companies from ordinary ‘failure to act’ negligence claims.

Marvel fans know that Captain America’s shield is extraordinary, but exactly what it’s made of remains unknown – Vibranium? Adamantium? Unobtanium (oops, wrong movie)? For the time being, similar mystery shrouds the specifics of the new EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. Four months ago we posted on the European Court of Justice’s ruling that the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor was invalid. This Tuesday the European Commissioner announced negotiations with the U.S. had successfully yielded a new vehicle for compliant cross-border transfers of EU residents’ personal data, dubbed the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. But until details of the new vehicle are disclosed, the specific features of the Privacy Shield remain murky.

All encryption tools are not created equal. Just ask the folks at Microsoft, who have recently demonstrated that encrypted Electronic Medical Record databases can leak information. Turns out that CryptDB, a SQL database add-on developed at MIT that allows searching of encrypted data, allows search queries to be combined with information in the public domain to hack the database. More on this in a minute. In the meantime, let’s consider the assumption that encryption is inviolate/ infrangible/ impervious to hacks. As I mentioned in an earlier post, encryption algorithms are too complex for most laypersons to understand, but we should at least wrap our heads around the concept that encryption is not a “set it and forget it” technology, nor is it foolproof.

HIPAA and the IRS. There isn’t a whole lot of guidance out there about what to do when the IRS knocks on your organization’s door and asks for protected health information. Should the agency be treated as a cop or robber?

The most risk-averse approach for a HIPAA-covered entity or business associate to take is to treat the IRS as a potential thief and draw the deadbolt when it comes to data requests involving PHI. Such a tack would, among other things, comply fully with HIPAA’s minimum necessary requirement and, frankly, reinforce the Everyman attitude toward the agency. Moreover, PHI produced in response to an information document request (IRD) is unlikely to be treated under 45 CFR 164.512 as a disclosure required by law, a disclosure for an administrative proceeding, or a disclosure for a law enforcement purpose, because the IRS appears to lack the authority to compel compliance with an IRD. However, we should be careful that we don’t always and automatically view the IRS with HIPAA suspicion –  in some circumstances the IRS does perform a legitimate healthcare oversight function for which it may receive PHI without individual authorization, consistent with HIPAA’s treatment/ payment/ operations exception.

Only minutes passed between first learning of the Paris attacks and confirming that our son, studying abroad in France, was safe. But it seemed to last a lifetime. My wife and I were with him in Paris just two weeks earlier, strolling happily a few blocks from where slaughter would soon visit the Bataclan Concert Hall and La Belle Equipe. Then, like a sick, twisted Groundhog Day, it felt like 9/11 all over again.

The Paris terrorism has rekindled an ongoing debate over government surveillance power, personal privacy, and cybersecurity. In this crucial, consequential debate, it behooves us to remember that terrorism’s goal is to trigger emotional, extreme reaction, and that perspective and balance are the antitheses of violent radicalism.

You’ve no doubt heard that on Tuesday the European Court of Justice declared the U.S.- EU Safe Harbor invalid. Under European law, the transfer of EU citizens’ personal data to a third country may only occur if the third country ensures adequate protection of that data. A European Commission decision in 2000 declared the United States’ laws and policies provided such adequate protection, through the vehicle of the U.S.- EU Safe Harbor Framework. Nearly 4,500 U.S. companies partake of Safe Harbor protected status – at least until this week’s European Court of Justice’s ruling pulled the plug.

As a result of this ruling, each of the European Union’s 28 national data protection authorities (“DPAs”) now has the power to establish its own rules and regulations for data transfers. Although the U.S. and the European Commission are engaged in continuing negotiations for “Safe Harbor 2.0,” there is no certainty about when the new framework will be established, or even what the framework will be. In the meantime, the question looms – what will the national DPAs do?

It may still be September, but to countless retailers, Halloween is already here. Passing by displays of spooky items while shopping, the ’80s haunted-house music video “Somebody’s Watching Me” comes to mind: “I always feel like somebody’s watching me, and I have no privacy” (yes, Rockwell has attribution, but Michael rocks the chorus).

The paranoid fellow in the video was worried about the IRS and the mailman – how quaint. In today’s world, high on many consumers’ “creepy stuff” lists is the use of mobile technologies by a growing number of retailers to track customers’ movements in their stores.

Cancer Care Group, P.C. settled alleged violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules on September 2 with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for $750,000. Cancer Care, a radiation oncology private physician practice located in Indiana, also agreed to adopt a corrective action plan to remedy defects in its HIPAA compliance program.

“Sorry.” Music service Spotify joins the club as the latest company to apologize to its customers for proposed privacy policy changes. When it comes to bad press, it would be tough to beat Minecraft-founder Markus Persson’s tweet about Spotify: “Hello. As a consumer, I’ve always loved your service. You’re the reason I stopped pirating music. Please consider not being evil.” Spotify promptly threw itself on the mercy of its customers in a short written apology.

While the scope of Spotify’s policy exceeds the scope of data that most companies seek to obtain, it’s a good reminder for all companies to review their own privacy policies. As a company reviews its privacy policy, it should consider these key questions: