On February 12, 2011, the American Bar Association Information Security Committee established the Smart Grid Privacy and Security Working Group. The working group's mission is to increase awareness regarding privacy and information security legal issues arising in connection with the Smart Grid among consumers, regulators, utilities, service provider and other stakeholders. Gib Sorebo, Chief Cybersecurity Technologist at SAIC, and Boris Segalis, partner at InfoLawGroup, will co-chair the group.
So, you thought our cloud series was over? Wishful thinking. It is time to talk about ethics. Yes, ethics. Historically, lawyers and technologists lived in different worlds. The lawyers were over here, and IT was over there. Here's the reality: Technology - whether we are talking cloud computing, ediscovery or data security generally - IS very much the business of lawyers. This post focuses on three recent documents, ranging from formal opinions to draft issue papers, issued by three very prominent Bar associations -- the American Bar Association (ABA), the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA), and the State Bar of California (CA Bar). These opinions and papers all drive home the following points: as succinctly stated by the ABA, "[l]awyers must take reasonable precautions to ensure that their clients' confidential information remains secure"; AND lawyers must keep themselves educated on changes in technology and in the law relating to technology. The question, as always, is what is "reasonable"? Also, what role should Bar associations play in providing guidelines/best practices and/or mandating compliance with particular data security rules? Technology, and lawyer use of technology, is evolving at a pace that no Bar association can hope to meet. At the end of the day, do the realities of the modern business world render moot any effort by the Bar(s) to provide guidance or impose restrictions? Read on and tell us - and the ABA - what you think.
The attorneys of InfoLawGroup have been very busy this summer, and August is no exception. In addition to our regular day-to-day work, we will (somehow) find the time to attend some great events in August. If you will be in San Francisco and/or Seattle later this month, please join us, we would love to see you.
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.
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.