New cybersecurity regulations issued by the NYDFS define the nonpublic information they regulate in exceptionally broad terms. This expanded definition of Nonpublic Information will create major challenges for regulated companies and their third-party service providers that will likely ripple through other ancillary industries.
Although the incorporation of technology into human endeavours—commercial, political and personal—is a normal component of technological innovation, the advent of artificial intelligence technology is producing significant challenges we have not felt or understood with earlier innovations. For many years, for example, there has been speculation, research and public debate about the impact of the internet, the functioning of search engines, and online advertising techniques on commercial and political decisions.
The alleged “hacking” of the 2016 US presidential election, and the concerns about such activities in the 2017 European elections, will only heighten the interweaving discussions on free speech, national sovereignty, cyber security and the nature of privacy.
The use of artificial intelligence and machine-learning technologies has only added to the list of issues and areas of concern. The consequences of automobile accidents involving “self-driving” technologies, the “flash crashes” on securities markets due to algorithmic trading, and bias in systems designed to determine benefit eligibility, are requiring us to consider what happens when we defer judgment to machines, and highlighting the importance of quality in data sets and sensors.
The government is continuing to ask for more help from the private sector to defend against cyber attacks. The National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) recently published a report discussing current cyber threats and urging private companies and executives to join forces with the government to better address those threats. The report proposes “public-private and company-to-company information sharing of cyber threats at network speed,” among other things discussed here.
On 6 August 2017, the UK government released ‘The Key Principles of Vehicle Cyber Security for Connected and Automated Vehicles’, guidance aimed at ensuring minimum cybersecurity protections for consumers in the manufacture and operation of connected and automated vehicles.
Connected and automated vehicles fall into the category of so-called ‘smart cars’. Connected vehicles have gained, and will continue to gain, adoption in the market and, indeed, are expected to make up more than half of new vehicles by 2020. Such cars have the ability through the use of various technologies to communicate with the driver, other cars, application providers, traffic infrastructure and the Cloud. Automated vehicles, also known as autonomous vehicles, include self-driving features that allow the vehicle to control key functions–like observing the vehicle’s environment, steering, acceleration, parking, and lane changes–that traditionally have been performed by a human driver. Consumers in certain markets have been able to purchase vehicles with certain autonomous driving features for the past few years, and vehicle manufacturers have announced plans to enable vehicles to be fully self-driving under certain conditions, in the near future.
New technologies and the expansion of the Internet of Things have allowed children of this generation to experience seamless interactive technologies through microphones, GPS devices, speech recognition, sensors, cameras and other technological capabilities. These advancements create new markets for entertainment and education alike and, in the process, collect endless amounts of data from children–from their names and locations to their likes/dislikes and innermost thoughts.
The collection of data through this Internet of Toys is on the tongues of regulators and law enforcement, who are warning parents to be wary when purchasing internet-connected toys and other devices for children. These warnings also extend to connected toy makers, urging companies to comply with children’s privacy rules and signaling that focused enforcement is forthcoming.
Federal Trade Commission Makes Clear That Connected Toy Makers Must Comply with COPPA
On June 21 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) updated its guidance for companies required to comply with the Children’s Online Privacy and Protection Act (COPPA) to ensure those companies implement key protections with respect to Internet-connected toys and associated services. While the FTC’s Six Step Compliance Plan for COPPA compliance is not entirely new, there are a few key updates that reflect developments in the Internet of Toys marketplace. Continue Reading Regulating the Internet of Toys
Today, China’s much anticipated Network Security Law comes into effect after two years of review, revisions over three drafts and a public commenting process. The law is a historical development for China’s legislative coverage of information security and data protections. It also represents one of the strictest approaches in any jurisdiction worldwide, and a continuation of a broader effort at demonstrating the government’s cyber-sovereignty goals through control and regulation of data and the internet.
Overview of the Network Security Law
Commonly referred to as the “Cybersecurity Law,” the new piece of legislation has a broad scope and covers a range of issues related to data privacy, security and cross-border transfers, including:
- Increasing security measures and strengthening data security through a variety of specific obligations
- Ensuring consent for collection of personal information through the principles of legality, proper justification and necessity
- Screening equipment and products for security testing and certification
- Ensuring real-name registration for users
- Strengthening requirements to cooperate with government agencies during criminal investigations or to protect national security
- Requiring personal information to be stored in China under some circumstances
- Increasing confidentiality measures for user information
- Setting up a complaint and reporting platform for network security
On April 24, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) settlement in the amount of $2.5 million based on the impermissible disclosure of unsecured electronic protected health information (ePHI) by a provider of remote mobile monitoring, with a focus on patients who are at risk for cardiac arrhythmias.
In January 2012, the remote monitoring company reported that a workforce member’s laptop containing the ePHI of over a thousand individuals was stolen from a parked vehicle outside of the employee’s home. A little over one year later, the same company reported a second breach that compromised the ePHI of twice as many individuals (details regarding this breach were not provided by OCR).
OCR’s investigation revealed that the company allegedly had insufficient risk analysis and risk management processes in place at the time of the theft. Additionally, the company’s draft policies and procedures implementing the standards of the HIPAA Security Rule had never been implemented, and the company was also unable to produce final versions of any policies or procedures regarding the implementation of safeguards for ePHI, including those for mobile devices.
In its tenth OCR Cyber Awareness Newsletter of the year (Newsletter), the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reminded HIPAA-covered entities and business associates of the importance of selecting an appropriate authentication method to protect electronic protected health information (ePHI). Authentication is the process used to “verify whether someone or something is who or what it purports to be and keeps unauthorized people or programs from gaining access to information.” The Newsletter notes that the health care sector has been a significant target of cybercrime and that some incidents result from weak authentication methods.
Authentication methods can consist of one or more factors and are often described as: (1) something you know, such as a password; (2) something you are, such as a fingerprint; or (3) something you have, such as a mobile device or smart card. Single-factor authentication requires use of only one of the methods. Multifactor authentication requires use of two or more methods (for example, a password prompt followed by an additional prompt to a mobile device). Continue Reading OCR Guidance Underscores Importance of Authentication under HIPAA
On 19 October 2016, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held (Case C-582/14 – Breyer v Federal Republic of Germany) that dynamic IP addresses may constitute personal data. The ECJ also held that a website operator may collect and process IP addresses for the purpose of protecting itself against cyberattacks, because in the view of the Court, preventing cyberattacks may be a legitimate interest of a website operator in its effort to continue the operability of its website.
The ECJ’s ruling was based on two questions referred to it by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH). In the underlying German proceedings, a member of the German Pirate Party challenged the German Federal Government’s logging and subsequent use of his dynamic Internet Protocol (IP) address when visiting their websites. While the government is a public authority, the case was argued on the basis of German provisions that address both public and private website operators, and is therefore directly relevant for commercial companies.
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) recently posted guidance (OCR guidance) clarifying that a business associate such as an information technology vendor generally may not block or terminate access by a covered entity customer to protected health information (PHI) maintained by the vendor on behalf of the customer. Such “information blocking” could occur, for example, during a contract dispute in which a vendor terminates customer access or activates a “kill switch” that renders an information system containing PHI inaccessible to the customer. Many information vendors have historically taken such an approach to commercial disputes.
Read full article here.