It often makes sense to refer to an information security management framework or standard in an outsourcing contract, but this is usually not very meaningful unless the customer also understands what particular security measures the vendor will apply to protect the customer's data.
Security governance is often well established in large organizations, but privacy governance typically lags. It is time for a broader approach to "information governance" that focusses on the kinds of sensitive data handled by the enterprise and establishes policies to assure compliance and effective risk management, as well as better customer, employee, government, and business relations.
As some of you know, I tweeted my notes from the IAPP Global Privacy Summit 2010 yesterday and today (@Forsheit for those of you on Twitter). Since many of our readers are not on Twitter, I thought I would provide you with those notes here (minus the usual Twitter hashtags and abbreviations). Please note that there were multiple sessions, and this reflects only those I was able to attend, and only the information I could quickly record, putting virtual pen to paper. These are not direct quotes, unless specifically designated as such. Overall, I think it was a great conference, a wonderful opportunity to reconnect with other lawyers and privacy professionals, and to meet students, lawyers, and others looking to learn more about this constantly evolving legal and compliance space. For me, the conference highlight was Viktor Mayer-Schonberger's keynote this morning on The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Without further ado, here are my notes. Would love to hear your thoughts/reactions.
Data integrity is a potential challenge in cloud computing, with implications for both operational efficiency and legal evidence. Vendors should consider a standards-based approach to assuring data integrity, and customers should address the issue in due diligence and in contracting.
On Friday, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, certified for publication its October 8 opinion in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, the most recent in a string of decisions regarding California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, California Civil Code § 1747.08. On first glance, Pineda appears uneventful. The Court merely reiterated its December 2008 holding in Party City v. Superior Court, 169 Cal.App.4th 497 (2008), that zip codes are not personal identification information for purposes of the Act, right? Not so fast. In fact, the Pineda court added a couple of new wrinkles that are worth a second look. First, the court reaffirmed its Party City holding even though Pineda specifically alleged that Williams-Sonoma collected the zip code for the purpose of using it and the customer's name to obtain even MORE personal identification information, the customer's address, through the use of a "reverse search" database. Second, the court held that a retailer's use of a legally obtained zip code to acquire, view, print, distribute or use an address that is otherwise publicly available does not amount to an offensive intrusion of a consumer's privacy under California law.