by

The Challenge

Complying with the ever-increasing number of privacy laws is a daunting task. In addition to comprehensive state laws, like California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Virginia’s Consumer Data Protection Act and the Colorado Privacy Act, there are a multitude of targeted laws on the federal and state level. Other laws to consider include the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (and corresponding laws in the United Kingdom, Switzerland and a host of other countries); industry specific laws, like the Health Insurance Portability and Protection Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; privacy and security standards issued by governmental and industry authorities; and the ever-present risk of individual and class actions that follow a data breach. And the landscape is in constant flux.

Increasing Threats

At the same time, firms are under attack by increasingly sophisticated threat actors. Bad agents have graduated to attack tools that are comparable to nation-state crypto-weapons, and are often sponsored, explicitly or implicitly, by host nations. The availability of malware on the Dark Web, often in the form of software as a service, has increased the number of potential bad actors, as has the increase in the marketplace for stolen information. Phishing expeditions continue, and individuals continue to open emails they should not, visit websites that expose them to hacking, and publish personal information on social media, making them and their companies more vulnerable.

So what is a company to do? Whether a firm seeks to comply with privacy and security laws or face potential sanctions, or to create actual data security, companies are simply not prepared to face the task in full, especially when the demand for competent privacy and security experts far exceeds the supply. Continue reading

by

Bob Braun was recently quoted in an article distributed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), evaluating the organization’s recent publication of a three-part guide to securing guest and credit card data at hotels. “This publication analyzes and addresses the challenges common to almost all hotels in creating secure data systems,” he said. “Hotels would be well-advised to incorporate its recommendations in their information protection protocols.”

The guide, Securing Property Management Systems, uses commercially available technology to implement a range of data security strategies, including zero trust architecture, role-based authentication, and tokenization of credit card data. Hotels are attractive targets for attackers seeking sensitive guest or financial data; one industry report ranked the hospitality industry as the third-most frequently compromised, suffering 13% of all incidents in 2019.

Read the full article here.

All three parts of the guide are available as a downloadable PDF here.

by

The California Attorney General’s Office has finalized additional regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the CCPA). The new regulations, found here, are the most recent in a series of regulations that build on the rules last adopted in August 2020. The new regulations have a number of developments that companies doing business in California need to consider:

  • Do Not Sell Button. The regulations introduce, but do not require, the use of a blue opt-out icon designed by Carnegie Mellon University’s Cylab and the University of Michigan’s School of Information. While earlier versions of the regulations discussed placement of the icon, the only mandates that remain are that the icon is the same size as others on the web page. Businesses can download the icon here. Importantly, the icon may be used in addition to, but not in place of, the existing do not sell procedures.
  • Ongoing Enforcement. While the Attorney General has not been active in bringing enforcement actions for violations of the CCPA, the Attorney General’s office has actively issued notices to cure violations. The press release accompanying the new regulation notes that there has been “widespread compliance … especially in response to notices to cure.” Last year, Supervising Deputy AG Stacey Schesser told the IAPP, the International Association of Privacy Professionals, that enforcement targeted online businesses that were missing key privacy disclosures or “Do Not Sell” links, and came in response to consumer complaints, including on social media.

    The future of enforcement will depend on a number of factors, including the impact of the newly formed California Privacy Protection Agency and the Governor’s nomination of Rob Bonta as Attorney General to succeed Xavier Becerra, who was recently confirmed as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Continue reading

by

Just as we were getting used to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”), Californians voted to approve Proposition 24, the California Privacy Rights Enforcement Act of 2020 (the “CPRA”). For now, the CCPA is still with us – the CPRA becomes effective on January 1, 2023 – but companies that do business in California need to address the new industry requirements, consumer privacy rights, and enforcement mechanisms as far in advance as possible.

The CPRA, like the CCPA, is a consumer-focused law with the goal of expanding consumer knowledge about and control over the types of personal information businesses collect about consumers and how that personal information is used, sold, or shared. To that end, the CPRA introduces a new class of information, sensitive personal information. Companies that collect sensitive personal information are required to follow disclosure requirements and implement additional protections and rights for California residents. In order to comply with the new law, a critical first step for businesses is to understand the data and personal information they collect about consumers and whether they collect any sensitive personal information under this new definition.

What is sensitive personal information?

The CPRA’s approach to sensitive personal information generally tracks the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation’s definition of Special Category Data, but adds data elements commonly viewed in the U.S. as sensitive, and introduces a new twist by including the contents of a consumer’s mail, email, and text messages. Specifically, the CPRA defines sensitive personal information as:

  • social security, driver’s license, state identification card, or passport number;
  • account log‐in, financial account, debit card, or credit card number in combination with any required security or access code, password, or credentials allowing access to an account;
  • precise geolocation;
  • racial or ethnic origin, religious or philosophical beliefs, or union membership;
  • the contents of a mail, email and text messages;
  • genetic data;
  • biometric information for the purpose of identifying a consumer;
  • personal information collected and analyzed concerning a consumer’s health, sex life or sexual orientation.

Continue reading

by

LOS ANGELES—Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (JMBM) is pleased to announce that Michael A. Gold, co-chair of JMBM’s Cybersecurity & Privacy Group, has been recognized by the Daily Journal as one of California’s Top Cyber Lawyers.

As reported by the Daily Journal, his clients include companies that operate within large and complex data environments, particularly those with international operations and regulatory challenges.

In the Daily Journal’s profile, Gold said:

“Threats and exploits and hacks are existential problems for companies when they lead to lawsuits and regulatory investigations. Nobody takes this lightly, and part of my job is to help clients see a path forward.”

Read the full profile here.

Gold has been recognized as one of the “Most Influential Lawyers: Digital Media and E-Commerce Law” by the Los Angeles Business Journal, has been designated a “Top Rated Lawyer in Technology Law” by Martindale Hubbell, and was listed in the Daily Journal’s Top 20 Cyber – Artificial Intelligence Lawyers” in 2018. He is the co-publisher of the blog, Cybersecurity Lawyer Forum, a resource for lawyers, executives, boards of directors and IT professionals.

“Michael remains on the forefront of the dynamic cyber and technology issues that continue to impact businesses worldwide,” said Bruce Jeffer, JMBM’s managing partner. “He is a tremendous asset to our clients and to our firm.”

by

Many races and initiatives that California voters considered on November 3 are still undecided, but Proposition 24, the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (the “CPRA”) isn’t one of them. The California electorate approved Proposition 24 by a comfortable margin – 56% of Californians voted in favor.

Like its predecessor the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”), the impact of the CPRA won’t be felt immediately. It goes into effect on January 1, 2023, and many of its provisions are unclear and will require study. But all businesses that have a presence in California will need to consider its requirements, and given the scope of the law, addressing its requirements early will be essential.

New Sheriff in Town

Perhaps the most significant development in the CPRA is the establishment of a new agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency, dedicated to handling enforcement and compliance with privacy regulations. This makes California the first state with an agency focused solely on enforcing privacy laws. This new agency will replace the California Attorney General in interpreting and enforcing the CCPA. The ultimate impact of the agency will develop as its members are selected and interpret its mandate, but it is clear from the CPRA that it has broad authority to bring civil and criminal actions.

Select Key Provisions

The CPRA is not an entirely new law – it is an extension and modification of the CCPA. It adds a number of new definitions and provisions that, in some cases, extend the scope of the CCPA and, in other cases, clarify the requirements of the CCPA. The result is that companies that already comply with the CCPA will need to revisit their policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the CPRA. Key provisions include:

  • Sensitive Data. The CPRA adds a definition of “sensitive data,” which includes government-issued identifiers, account log-in credentials, financial account information, precise geolocation, contents of certain types of messages, genetic data, racial or ethnic origin, religious beliefs, biometrics, health data, and data concerning sex life or sexual orientation, and allows consumers the ability to limit the use and disclosure of sensitive data.
  • Data Breach Liability. The liability for data breaches under the CCPA has been expanded to include a private right of action for unauthorized access or disclosure of an email address and password or security question that would permit access to an account if the business failed to maintain reasonable security. These kinds of breaches are common and raise the stakes for companies doing business in California. The CPRA also eliminates the 30-day cure period for bringing private actions – something that was more confusing than effective.
  • Annual Audits and Risk Assessments. Under regulations to be adopted by the new Agency, businesses that undertake high-risk processing will be required to have annual audits and regular risk assessments. In particular, such regulations would require businesses whose processing presents significant risks to consumer privacy or security to perform a thorough and independent cybersecurity audit annually.
  • Automated Processing Limitations. A new concept of “profiling” has been added to the CCPA, consisting of “any form of automated processing of personal information, . . . to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to a natural person, and in particular to analyze or predict aspects concerning that natural person’s performance at work, economic situation, health, personal preferences, interests, reliability, behavior, location or movements.” The Privacy Agency is required to develop regulations addressing access and opt-out rights for this kind of technology, similar to the requirements of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.
  • Right to Correct Inaccurate Data. The CPRA adds the right to correct consumer data to the existing rights of notice and deletion.
  • Limits on Sharing Personal Information. In addition to restrictions on the sale of personal information, the CPRA extends many of those limits to the “sharing” of personal information. This change will expand the obligations of companies to comply with opt-out and similar requests.
  • Data Minimization. Similar to the GDPR, the CPRA adds concepts of data minimization, requiring companies to limit the personal information they collect to the type of information that is necessary for their operations, and to inform consumers of the length of time the business intends to retain each category of personal information and sensitive personal information, or the criteria used to determine that period.
  • Service Providers, Contractors and Third Parties. The CPRA places new contractual and direct obligations on service providers, contractors and third parties. In particular, the CPRA adds and revises existing definitions in the CCPA, and adds a new definition for contractors, which focuses on the business providing data pursuant to a written contract, prohibiting the contractor from sharing or selling the personal data, processing it for any purposes other than those specified in the contract or combining it with data received or collected through other means, with some limited exceptions. Moreover, the CPRA contractually extends the data protection obligations of the act to service providers, contractors and third parties, and requires service providers and contractors to cooperate with and assist businesses in providing requested personal information in response to consumer requests, and complying with correction or deletion requests. As we learned from the CCPA, an effective date in two years is a short time when it comes to compliance with complex privacy laws. Companies that have taken steps to comply with the CCPA will need to take concrete steps to comply with the CPRA, including:

Continue reading

by

Are your cybersecurity management practices reasonable? Do you know your risk tolerance? Are you covering all the cybersecurity bases that make up reasonable cybersecurity?

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and other emerging laws require organizations to have “reasonable cybersecurity practices.” The challenge is that there is no accepted definition of exactly what “reasonable” means.

Addressing this challenge, Robert Braun, co-chair of JMBM’s Cybersecurity & Privacy Group, will participate as a panelist for the online interactive program Cybersecure LA2020: A Reasonable Approach to Reasonable Security sponsored by SecureTheVillage.

There is no one size fits all: Whatever “reasonable” is to mean, it must – at the very least – take into account the particular circumstances of the organization and the information it possesses. It would clearly be unreasonable, for example, to hold a small manufacturing company or nonprofit to the same standard as a large bank.

Join SecureTheVillage at CybersecureLA 2020 and learn how to think through your organization’s particular cybersecurity and privacy circumstances … the information you must protect … the laws and regulations governing protection … your own corporate risk-tolerance … and integrate these together into an information security management program that’s reasonable for your organization.

Register Now

Date:   Wednesday, October 28th

Time:   2:30 – 5:00 pm Pacific Time

Who should attend:  Board members. C-Level Executives. CFOs, Chief Risk Officers, Chief Information Security Officers. Anyone in the organization with management responsibility for information security. Trusted advisors.

Learn by doing: CybersecureLA 2020 is organized as an interactive workshop, taking advantage of online event capabilities including small group discussion, polls, surveys, and interactive Q&A.

You will learn to:

  1. Identify your cyber-risk exposure
  2. Explore your cyber-risk tolerance
  3. Know the key elements of reasonable cybersecurity
  4. Leave with a well-defined process to follow in identifying what reasonable security is for your organization.

Register Now For This Informative Program

Robert E. Braun is the co-chair of the Cybersecurity and Privacy Law Group at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. Bob helps clients to develop and implement privacy and information security policies, negotiate agreements for technologies and data management services, and comply with legal and regulatory requirements. He helps clients to develop and implement data breach response plans, and he and his team respond quickly to clients’ needs when a data breach occurs. Contact Bob at RBraun@jmbm.com or +1 310.785.5331.

About JMBM’s Cybersecurity and Privacy Group counsels clients in a wide variety of industries, including accounting firms, law firms, business management firms and family offices, in matters ranging from development of cybersecurity strategies, creation of data security and privacy policies, responding to data breaches and regulatory inquiries and investigations, and crisis management. The Cybersecurity and Privacy Group uses a focused intake methodology that permits clients to get a reliable sense of their cybersecurity readiness and to determine optimal, client-specific approaches to cybersecurity.

About SecureTheVillage. The Mission of SecureTheVillage is a Cybersecure Los Angeles.We accomplish our Mission by turning people and organizations into CyberGuardians having the knowledge, skills, and commitment needed to meet the ongoing challenges of cyber crime, cyber privacy and information security. We do this through cybersecurity community building and education. SecureTheVillage also has a second vital objective: To be a role model for other communities. For more information see https://securethevillage.org/.

by

On September 29, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed an amendment (AB 1281) that extends the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) partial employee and business-to-business exemptions through December 31, 2021. The extended exemptions may provide some relief to businesses struggling to comply with changing local, state and federal COVID-19 requirements.

Partial Employee and B2B Exemptions

The amendment extended the exception for businesses from complying with certain CCPA requirements with respect to the personal information of California employees, applicants and business contacts.

The partial employee exemption specifically exempts personal information that is collected by a business about a person in the course of the person acting as a “job applicant to, an employee of, owner of, director of, officer of, medical staff member of, or contractor of” the business to the extent that the personal information is collected and used solely within the employment context. The exemption also applies to personal information used for emergency contact purposes, as well information that is necessary to administer employment benefits.

Under the exemption, employers are still required to inform employees and applicants, at or before the time of collection, of the categories of personal information to be collected and the purposes for which the information will be used (i.e., a “notice at collection”). Further, employers are not exempt from the “duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices.” And employees and applicants retain the private right of action in the event that certain of their personal information is subject to a data breach.

Continue reading

by

The Blackbaud Breach

In July of this year, Blackbaud, a U.S. based cloud computing provider and one of the world’s largest providers of administration, fundraising, and financial management software, notified its clients that it had discovered and stopped a ransomware attack.  In a public statement, Blackbaud described the attack:

In a ransomware attack, cybercriminals attempt to disrupt the business by locking companies out of their own data and servers. After discovering the attack, our Cyber Security team—together with independent forensics experts and law enforcement—successfully prevented the cybercriminal from blocking our system access and fully encrypting files; and ultimately expelled them from our system. Prior to our locking the cybercriminal out, the cybercriminal removed a copy of a subset of data from our self-hosted environment.  . . .  Because protecting our customers’ data is our top priority, we paid the cybercriminal’s demand with confirmation that the copy they removed had been destroyed. Based on the nature of the incident, our research, and third party (including law enforcement) investigation, we have no reason to believe that any data went beyond the cybercriminal, was or will be misused; or will be disseminated or otherwise made available publicly. . . . The subset of customers who were part of this incident have been notified and supplied with additional information and resources.

Since its July announcement, nonprofit organizations throughout the world have issued their own notices of breach to their stakeholders, relying in large part on Blackbaud’s description of the breach.

Key Takeaways from the Breach

While data breaches are an almost daily occurrence, the Blackbaud breach is notable for a couple of reasons.  First, even though it was able to prevent the ransomware attack, the cybercriminal exfiltrated unencrypted data from Blackbaud’s servers, in reaction to which Blackbaud elected to pay a ransom for the criminal’s agreement to destroy the data – given the reliability of criminals, a somewhat dubious promise.  The response indicates that Blackbaud was threatened with a new, but increasingly common, tactic in ransomware attacks – the cybercriminal will couple a ransomware attack with theft of data, and threaten to make the data public unless it receives payment.  As more and more companies are able to reconstruct compromised systems through backups and other means, cybercriminals have found a new way to monetize their attacks.

More importantly, the fact that this breach created a waterfall of breach disclosures reflects the impact of vendors on today’s data environment.  Blackbaud provides comprehensive data, financial management, fundraising, payment, and other services to schools, museums, faith communities, foundations, healthcare organizations and nonprofit organizations, and those entities rely on Blackbaud for critical functions that are essential to their missions.

The Role of Vendors

Firms increasingly rely on vendors for data management functions. The 2018 Ponemon Institute survey of data breaches reported that that at least 56% percent of organizations participating in the survey experienced a data breach due to a vendor’s security shortcomings.  At the same time, companies are increasingly reliant on vendors – a recent Bomgar survey reported that, on average, companies allow 89 vendors to access their networks weekly, and that 71% of respondents expect to become more reliant on third parties in the coming years. Continue reading

by

Shrems II – Groundhog Day, All Over Again

Past is Prologue

One of the keys to the European’s Union data protection regime has been the prohibition against transferring personal data from EU countries to jurisdictions that do not have regimes that, in the determination of the EU, provide adequate protection to consumers. Beginning in 2000 the U.S. – EU Safe Harbor Framework allowed U.S. companies to certify their compliance with EU data protection requirements, and facilitated the transfer of data between the EU and the U.S. On October 6, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Union’s highest court, overturned the Safe Harbor Framework. In response, the EU and the U.S., primarily through the Department of Commerce, developed International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles, commonly called the “Privacy Shield,” and a more robust framework was adopted, allowing substantially the benefits of the Safe Harbor.

On July 16, 2020, the CJEU held that the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield arrangement — which includes more than 53,000 participating companies — is invalid. The CJEU said in a press release that, in the court’s view, “the limitations on the protection of personal data arising from the domestic law of the United States on the access and use by U.S. public authorities … are not circumscribed in a way that satisfies requirements that are essentially equivalent to those required under EU law, by the principle of proportionality, in so far as the surveillance programmes based on those provisions are not limited to what is strictly necessary.” The Court also said that the United States ombudsman is neither independent enough, nor has adequate authority, to provide an effective cause of action to guarantee the protections under EU laws and regulations.

In particular, the court said that the ombudsperson mechanism in the U.S. — a role created by the Privacy Shield arrangement — “does not provide data subjects with any cause of action before a body which offers guarantees” at the level of EU law. The CJEU said the ombudsperson, which sits under the U.S. Department of State, is neither empowered nor independent at an adequate level.

Impact of the Decision

Like the invalidation of the Safe Harbor, the rejection of the Privacy Shield is likely to create substantial disruptions in data transfers, a key to international trade, until a resolution is found. It is hard to overstate the significance of this decision. The U.S. Commerce Department estimates that the value of the transatlantic economic market at $7.1 trillion, and that a multitude of companies, large and small, rely on the ability to transfer personal, employee and other data from the EU to the U.S. The impact on individual firms will be wide: Continue reading