While eyes focus on the privacy legislative debate now underway in the United States, the development of a new Privacy Framework by the influential National Institute for Standards and Technology (“NIST”) is also worthy of attention. On May 13-14, 2019, NIST hosted its second workshop on the recently released discussion draft of its “Privacy Framework: An Enterprise Risk Management Tool” (“Privacy Framework”). The workshop brought together stakeholders to provide feedback on the draft and suggest areas for revision. NIST had previously hosted a workshop in October 2018 to kick off the development of the Privacy Framework and had presented its thinking at other fora such as the Brookings Institution.
In the past two years, multiple state bills that have been introduced in the US to provide for cybersecurity requirements and standards to the insurance sector, with recent legislative activity taking place in particular within the States of Ohio, South Carolina, and Michigan. The entering into effect of multiple state laws in this area may present challenges for insurance providers operating in states where such cybersecurity requirements are provided for.
The California Department of Justice has announced a March 8, 2019 deadline for submitting written pre-rulemaking comments on the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The March 8 deadline is an extension from the previously set end-of-February deadline. Pursuant to section 1798.185(a) of the CCPA, the California Attorney General (AG) is obligated to solicit broad public participation and adopt regulations to further the purposes of the CCPA. The CCPA sets out seven specific areas for AG rulemaking.
The New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) Cybersecurity Regulation came into effect March 1, 2017. Various provisions under the regulations have been implemented on a staggered implementation timeline since that date. As of September 4, 2018, covered entities are required to be in compliance with additional requirements. As you finalize your organization’s preparations for compliance, we have highlighted key aspects of these obligations that came into effect in September.
The National Science Foundation is seeking public comment on US policy for artificial intelligence, according to the Federal Register Notice of Request for Information (RFI) filed in September 26, 2018. Specifically, the RFI requests input from the public as to whether the National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan (AI Strategic Plan) should be updated or improved. Comments to the RFI are due to the National Science Foundation by October 26, 2018.
Words matter. Nowhere is this truer than in legislation, where word choices—often the product of long debate and imperfect compromise—determine the scope and impact of a law. Legislative history can speak volumes about those word choices, and the unique legislative history of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) only highlights the importance of understanding the terms used in the act. We thus focus here on discussing some of the CCPA’s key definitional terms.
We have heard the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) called many things since its enactment on June 28, 2018. Our experience to date has confirmed the compliance challenge ahead for organizations that engage with the residents of the world’s fifth-largest economy. We will explore the ramifications for businesses of this seminal legislation in this multi-part series, “The Challenge Ahead” authored by members of Hogan Lovells’ CCPA team. In this first installment, we describe recent activity to enact so-called “technical” amendments to the CCPA.
On July 24, members of the Hogan Lovells global privacy team presented a webinar on the new California Consumer Privacy Act, a ground-breaking new data privacy law that some are calling the United States’ answer to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. In this post, we provide links to the recorded webinar and slide deck.
On June 28, 2018, California’s governor signed Assembly Bill 375, a ground-breaking new data privacy law that some are calling the United States’ answer to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. Particularly in light of California’s status as the world’s 5th largest economy, many are wondering how the new California Consumer Privacy Act will affect them. Please join members of the Hogan Lovells global privacy team for a live webinar on July 24 to learn what you should be focusing on now.
The first of several implementation deadlines in connection with the New York State Department of Financial Services’ cybersecurity regulations occurs this month, on August 28. In this post, we provide an overview of the implementation requirements to assist covered entities in preparing for the upcoming deadline.
Earlier this year, the National Association of Corporate Directors released an updated version of its Director’s Handbook on Cyber-Risk Oversight. The NACD’s issuance of an update to its Handbook in just three years signals that cybersecurity-related governance expectations of companies and directors are evolving. While the use of and compliance with the Handbook is not mandatory, the Handbook is influential in shaping governance practices and thus it is prudent for those involved in corporate governance to familiarize themselves with the changes.
Malware was recently identified that appears to have been designed and deployed by a nation-state to target and shut down electric grids. According to published reports, this malware currently appears to be capable of attacking the European grids, and parts of the Middle East and Asia grids, by targeting the specific industrial control system network protocols used to operate those grids. With small modifications, the malware reportedly also appears to be capable of attacking the North American power grid, as well as other industries that use ICS networks (e.g., oil, gas, water, data) around the globe. This post discusses the malware as well as vulnerability management.
Major companies, health care organizations and government agencies are facing a wave of cyberattacks involving ransomware that takes control of computers and denies access until a ransom is paid. These attacks are occurring on a global scale and in some cases are having a significant impact on business and healthcare operations. The cyberattack has disrupted targets throughout the world from Britain’s National Health Service to US Fortune 500 companies, the Russian Foreign Ministry, and universities in China.
As Hogan Lovells previously reported, the New York State Department of Financial Services has launched a significant initiative to impose detailed cybersecurity requirements on covered financial institutions. On February 16, NYDFS issued its Final Rules, following the initial proposed rules published in September 2016 and two rounds of feedback via industry complaints and public comment. The Final Rules set forth requirements for a risk-based approach to cybersecurity, and include expectations for reporting on cybersecurity risks and events to senior management and NYDFS.
Recent changes to Japan’s Act on the Protection of Personal Information and the establishment of a new Personal Information Protection Commission have raised questions about how the world’s third-largest economy plans to implement new domestic requirements and engage internationally on cross-border data transfers, APEC, new technologies, and more. Hogan Lovells recently hosted some of Japan’s senior data privacy regulators and advisors for a special briefing in our Washington, D.C. offices.
In the past month, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has issued a draft update to its flagship cybersecurity framework as well as new standalone guidance on how organizations can plan to recover from cybersecurity events. The publication of these documents demonstrates NIST’s ongoing focus on providing substantive guidance to the private and public sectors alike on cybersecurity risk management. In this post we summarize the highlights of each of these new NIST publications.
The Internet of Things continues to draw broad interest from policymakers and regulators around the globe. Following on the heels of a major distributed denial-of-service attack in October 2016 that leveraged potentially millions of compromised IoT devices, members of Congress have sent letters to US federal agencies regarding the risks posed by insecure IoT devices and held a hearing about what if anything should be the US federal response to such IoT-driven cyberattacks. Against that backdrop, in November 2016 two US federal agencies have issued guidance on securing IoT.
In September, we proudly launched our online client cybersecurity resource portal: Ready, Set, Respond. The portal was designed by our cross-practice team of global practitioners to provide in-house counsel with the tools they need to not only prepare for the inevitable cybersecurity incident, but quickly and easily stay up to date on the evolving state of cybersecurity regulation around the world. Today, we’re taking a closer look at the Asia region with our partner Mark Parsons. Visit Ready, Set, Respond for more information or to take advantage of the tools and data available there.
Cybersecurity risk continues to evolve at an astonishingly rapid rate, prompting companies to review and adjust their plans to deal with the fast-moving threats posed by an increasingly connected world. At the same time, cybersecurity law and regulation around the world are coming of age. In this complex and uncertain environment, it is not surprising that lawyers are increasingly being asked to guide on governance, counsel on compliance and risk allocation, and lead in the event of a cyber incident.
Drawing on our work with clients across the globe, Hogan Lovells’ cross-practice team of cybersecurity lawyers has launched Ready, Set, Respond, a new set of online cybersecurity resources.
On September 12, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo broke new ground in proposing a state-level regulation that would require banks, insurance companies, and other financial services entities regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services to establish formal cybersecurity programs.
The Federal Trade Commission recently presented an analysis of how its approach to data security over the past two decades compares with the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity issued in 2014 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and strongly endorsed by the White House. The FTC first explains how this question has a faulty premise, as the Framework is not designed to be a compliance checklist. Instead, in this new blog post, the FTC outlines how the FTC’s enforcement actions comport with the Framework’s five Core functions—Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover—and emphasizes how both the Framework and the FTC’s approach highlight risk assessment and management, along with implementation of reasonable security measures, as the touchstones of any data security compliance program.
On 12 July 2016, the European Commission issued its much awaited “adequacy decision” concerning the Privacy Shield framework for the transfer of personal data from the EU to the U.S. This adequacy decision is based on the latest version of the Privacy Shield, which was further negotiated and revised following the Article 29 Working Party’s April 2016 concerns with the terms of the original Privacy Shield framework. Many of our clients have questions about Privacy Shield—what it is, when it will be available for use, and how it differs from other data transfer mechanisms, among others. We have prepared blog post to answer these questions about the updated version of Privacy Shield and its implications for companies engaging in trans-Atlantic data flows.
The February 29, 2016 announcement of the new EU-U.S. data transfer framework—the Privacy Shield—was accompanied by over 130 pages of documentation and significantly more operational details than its predecessor, Safe Harbor. We have reviewed the Privacy Shield materials and published a comprehensive breakdown of the changes from Safe Harbor to Privacy Shield and the practical impact on business: Inside the New and Improved EU-U.S. Data Transfer Framework.
On March 2, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced its first data security enforcement action in the form of a Consent Order with online payment platform Dwolla, Inc. The 5 year Consent Order is based on CFPB allegations that Dwolla engaged in deceptive acts and practices by misrepresenting to consumers that it had “reasonable and appropriate data security practices.” Dwolla neither admitted nor denied that it engaged in data security misrepresentations. The CFPB fined Dwolla $100,000, enjoined it from making further misrepresentations, and is requiring that it develop a written, comprehensive data security program, designate a person responsible for the program, provide employee training, conduct risk assessments, and undergo independent third party audits annually, among other things. The CFPB also places primary responsibility for compliance with the Consent Order on Dwolla’s board of directors.