BREAKING NEWS: FTC Extends Compliance Deadline for Red Flags Rule AGAIN to December 31, 2010
In the last hour, the news broke that the FTC has again extended the compliance deadline for the FACTA Red Flags Rule, this time to December 31, 2010, "[a]t the request of several Members of Congress." The FTC's press release of this morning is here. This is the fifth time the FTC has extended the enforcement deadline. As usual, the FTC's extension does not affect "other federal agencies’ enforcement of the original November 1, 2008 deadline for institutions subject to their oversight." For more on the Red Flags Rule, see our posts here.
Physicians Seek Relief On Eve of FTC's Red Flags Enforcement Deadline
As previously reported here, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is currently scheduled to commence enforcement of the FACTA Red Flags Rule (72 Fed. Reg. 63,718) on June 1, 2010. On Friday, only 10 days before the deadline, the American Medical Association, the American Osteopathic Association, and the Medical Society for the District of Columbia filed suit against the FTC in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (AMA v. FTC, D.D.C., No. 1:10-cv-00843), following in the footsteps of similar lawsuits filed in the past year by the American Bar Association (ABA) and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The ABA, in a lawsuit filed last August (ABA v. FTC, No. 1:09-cv-01636-RBW), succeeded in obtaining an order (now on appeal) barring the FTC from enforcing the Red Flags Rule against lawyers. (There has been no ruling on the AICPA complaint filed last November.)
Following is a discussion of the definitions ("creditor" and "credit") at the heart of the dispute, a summary of the positions taken by the FTC and the AMA with respect to application of the Red Flags Rule to physicians, and a brief review of the court's decision in ABA v. FTC.
Continue Reading...Information Governance
When it comes to creating policies for handling personal data in an organization, who decides? How are those policy decisions made and kept up to date?
These are questions of governance – I would call it “information governance.” Most large enterprises have established responsibilities and procedures for information technology governance and specifically for IT security policies, procedures, procurement, management, and training. In many cases, however, these have not been fully mapped to personal data compliance and risk management requirements, which should be defined and monitored by a somewhat different group of people, from departments beyond IT and security. Unless privacy issues are visible in the internal governance process, the organization – and the individuals that deal with it -- may be exposed to some nasty surprises.
Live from the IAPP Global Privacy Summit in Washington, DC, It's Monday Afternoon
This week, I will be providing short updates from the IAPP Global Privacy Summit in Washington, DC. The conference will be in full swing tomorrow, and I will report on various panels and topics of interest. In the meantime, as I prepare to see old and new friends at the Welcome Reception this evening, a few thoughts on what I expect to see and hear a lot over the next few days:
- How can we harmonize the EU Data Protection Directive and EU member country privacy laws with the flow of data in today's global economy? It is unfortunate that a number of IAPP participants from the EU will not make it to DC for the Summit this year due to the Icelandic volcano. Nonetheless, I expect active dialogue regarding cross-border data transfers, safe harbor v. standard contractual clauses v. binding corporate rules, and, in particular, the impact of the growth of cloud computing and other outsourcing arrangements (or, at least, the growth of the hype around cloud computing). It would also be nice to hear more about the EU Cookie Consent law - there is a panel scheduled to take place, but unknown if that will happen in light of the volcano debacle.
- HIPAA/HITECH and Medical Identity Theft: Health care privacy topics are hotter than ever, especially with the growing number of reported security breaches affecting more than 500 individuals under the new HHS breach notification rules promulgated pursuant to the HITECH Act.
- "Reasonable Security": What does Massachusetts think? What does the FTC think? What in the world is it and how in the world can organizations comply?
- On a related note, FTC Enforcement, with a focus on behavioral marketing issues and evolving notions of notice and consent. What trends will we see over the next several years, particularly with the growth of social media and online behavioral advertising?
- Social media: how it affects the workplace, corporate policies and procedures, and "reasonable expectations" of privacy.
- The forecast for federal legislation - not just on breach notification, but security requirements, online behavioral marketing and, getting lots of media attention these days, potential revisions to ECPA (being driven, once again, by the cloud computing explosion).
- Breaches, breaches, and more breaches. Of course.
A few things that appear to be missing from this year's agenda - the FTC's current review of the rules under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), enforcement of the Red Flags Rule (the FTC will start enforcing the Rule June 1), and the growing number of state laws (Washington, Nevada, Minnesota) requiring compliance with the PCI Standard.
Stay tuned, I will endeavor to post developments on a daily basis.
Thoughts from the RSA Conference
As the partners of InfoLawGroup make our way through the sensory overload of the RSA Conference this week, I am reminded (and feel guilty) that it has been a while since I posted here. I have good excuses - have simply been too busy with work - but after spending several days in the thought-provoking environment that is RSA, I had to break down and write something. A few observations, from a lawyer's perspective, based on some pervasive themes:
- We all need to work together, and we can. Legal, Information Security, Privacy, Compliance, IT, and the affected business units. Now more than ever, it is essential that ALL the stakeholders join forces, as early as possible, to address security and privacy risks, assess and vet business deals, and put in place appropriate procedures - RFPs, due diligence, contract negotiation - to address the risks.
- Cloud, cloud, cloud, yada, yada, yada. Hold up - the technology is not new - but usage and the business model have changed dramatically. I have been having this argument with my information security and technology friends for months. OK, I get it. "Cloud" technology in some form or another has been around for 30 or 40 years. What is new is the massive scale, availability and changes in usage and the business model - in part driven by the economics. Guess what? Those business model changes make the legal risks even more pervasive. Going back to (1) above, all of the stakeholders need to be in the room (or on the phone or videoconference) discussing the issues BEFORE the decision is made to enter into a cloud arrangement. ANY cloud arrangement. Not after the RFP is issued. Not after IS does its due diligence. Not after the contract negotiations have begun. And not after the contract is inked. The same due diligence and attention to risks that would apply in a traditional outsourcing/offshoring relationship must be applied here, too. The cost savings are illusory if the short-term and/or long-term risks are significant. Think about the kind of data at issue. What are the risks? Evidence preservation, data security, breach response, enforcement rights, indemnification. And before we even get to those - can the data be transferred across borders in the first place? Think about it early. And then talk about it before decisions are made.
More after the jump.
Continue Reading...Is Your Organization's Red Flags Rule Identity Theft Prevention Program Ready for Primetime?
As our readers know, the FTC, after four extensions of the deadline, currently intends to begin enforcing the Red Flags Rule with respect to organizations subject to its jurisdiction on June 1, 2010. In the meantime, the Red Flags Rule remains in effect as to all financial institutions and creditors (and has been subject to enforcement by the banking regulators since November 1, 2008). Although a recent decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, ABA v. FTC, brought lawyers outside the scope of the Rule, the Rule remains broad and covers a wide range of entities as "creditors." Creditors subject to the FTC's jurisdiction need to have their written Red Flags Rule Identity Theft Prevention Programs prepared, approved by the Board, and implemented by June 1. For more on the history and the requirements of the Rule, see my recent article, "The FACTA Red Flags Rule: A Primer," published in Bloomberg Law Reports – Risk & Compliance, reproduced here with the permission of Bloomberg. Read on . . .
BREAKING: FTC Extends Red Flags Rule Enforcement Deadline to June 1, 2010
Reminder: FTC Will Enforce Red Flags Rule Beginning November 1 (but Federal Judge Rules Lawyers Not Subject To Rule)
The Federal Trade Commission will begin enforcing its Red Flags Rule this Sunday, November 1. Financial institutions and creditors that hold covered accounts, as defined under the Rule, must have written Red Flags identity theft prevention programs in place by November 1. Earlier today the American Bar Association reported that a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that the FTC exceeded its authority by applying the Red Flags Rule to practicing lawyers. The FTC is expected to appeal today's ruling.
In 2007, the FTC, the federal bank regulatory agencies, and the National Credit Union Administration issued final rules requiring financial institutions and creditors to develop and implement written identity theft prevention programs, as part of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. The FTC (but not the federal bank regulatory agencies) extended the deadline for enforcement three times: from November 1, 2008, to May 1, 2009, to August 1, 2009, and finally to November 1, 2009.
