in Massachusetts 210 CMR ...

20/20, ABA, client confidentiality, COPRAC, encrypt, encryption, ethics, Formal Opinion Interim No- 08-0002, lawyers, New York State Bar Association, online storage, Opinion 842, professional responsibility, State Bar of California, technology, wifi

Legal Implications of Cloud Computing -- Part Five (Ethics or Why All Lawyers-Not Just Technogeek Lawyers Like Me-Should Care About Data Security)

By InfoLawGroup LLP on October 19, 2010

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.

IAPP, International Association of Privacy Professionals, Red Flags Rule

Live from the IAPP Global Privacy Summit in Washington, DC, It's Monday Afternoon

By InfoLawGroup LLP on April 19, 2010

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.

agility, best practices, compliance, IAPP, information governance, IT, Law, legal defensibility, outsourcing, privacy professionals, risk, Security, security breach, technology, whitepaper

Privacy's Trajectory

By InfoLawGroup LLP on March 14, 2010

As many of our readers know, the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) will celebrate 10 years this Tuesday, March 16. In connection with that anniversary, the IAPP is releasing a whitepaper, "A Call For Agility: The Next-Generation Privacy Professional," tomorrow, March 15. I am honored that the IAPP has given me the opportunity to read and blog about the whitepaper in advance of its official release.

ABA, Cloud, E-Sign, ethics, privacy professionals, Red Flags Rule, RSA

Thoughts from the RSA Conference

By InfoLawGroup LLP on March 03, 2010

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.

201CMR17-00, Massachusetts, risk, WISP

Analyzing the Risk-Based Factors of Massachusett's Data Security Law

By InfoLawGroup LLP on November 18, 2009

SearchSecurity.com published an article by me yesterday (Interpreting 'risk' in the Massachusetts data protection law) concerning the risk-based elements of Massachusetts' data security regulation (201 CMR 17.00, et. al). The gist of the article is that any company that chooses anything less than "strict compliance" with the specific written information security policy ("WISP") and control requirements of the regulation must be able to legally support their decision based on the regulation's risk elements. What this amounts to is developing a legal opinion interpreting and applying those risk-based factors to the organization's particular circumstances.