privacy

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:

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.

Some weeks ago I experienced that sinking feeling that comes with locking your keys in the car. Fortunately, I was only a phone call and a 20-minute wait away from rescue. But how can that happen, you ask, given all the modern safeguards built into automotive key technology? Don’t cars these days alert you or automatically unlock the doors when you leave the key inside?

I met this grumpy fellow in Sabi Sands, South Africa, and took this picture with my phone (nope, no zoom… wish he’d been further away). The experience reminded me of the fable about the Blind Men and the Elephant, a classic allegory for how we often do not perceive the big picture, but instead only the part we directly encounter. This fable has become a useful metaphor for Information Governance. In so many organizations, individual departments and functions have their own, limited perspectives on information, seeing only the issues and objectives with which they are directly familiar. Limited perspective yields limited perception – not a good thing for identifying, understanding, and controlling organizational risk. Information Governance is the means through which organizations can bridge across such silos and perceive the big picture of information compliance, risk, and value.

Actually, I prefer a different version, restyled as the Blind Elephants and the Man.

After years of debate, Congress last December passed three bills focused on combating cybercrime. President Obama quickly signed each bill into law.

They include:

  • National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014. The most notable piece of legislation for the private sector, this Act establishes a framework for private entities and government authorities to share intelligence about cyber threats and incident response plans. However, much to the dismay of many private entities, this stripped-down version of an earlier House bill lacks the liability protections that many companies had desired.
  • Federal Information Security Modernization Act. This Act creates a structure for maintaining safeguards to protect federal government data. It encourages government agencies to use automated security tools to identify and correct security deficiencies, building upon the risk management framework originally established by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. It also requires that agencies report major cyber incidents to Congress within seven days of discovery.

While governing my information (yep, cleaning up old email and files), I came across one of my early white papers on Information Governance, from 2010:  The Information Governance C Change. It can be cringe-inducing to revisit old material, but this piece seems as valid today as five years ago:

“Companies are awash in an ocean of data. E-mail servers are overflowing, troves of legacy data and documents are accumulating, rogue IT is proliferating, and social media and other Web 2.0 usage is seeping into the workplace. These same companies are also experiencing a sea change in their information compliance environment. E-discovery costs and exposures continue to mount, while courts’ expectations are escalating for compliant preservation, collection, and production of ESI. And new laws and regulations are expanding the reach of information privacy and security requirements to a broader range of entities and business operations.