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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As we noted earlier this week, Massachusetts indicated late last week it would issue its last round of amendments to its data security regulations scheduled to take effect March 1, 2010, 201 CMR 17.00. The last round of amendments are not particularly significant, although it is worth noting that, contrary to the amendments made in August, this round clarifies that the regulations cover any entity that even stores personal information of Massachusetts residents, in addition to those that receive, maintain, process, or otherwise have access to personal information. Here is the press release from the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation. Here is the final version of the Regulations. Doug Cornelius has a great analysis here. The effective date of the regulations is still March 1, 2010.
Friday was a busy day for identity theft and data security regulations. Not long after the Federal Trade Commission announced it was extending the enforcement deadline for the Red Flags Rule for the fourth time, word came from BNA's Privacy & Security Law Report that the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (OCABR) had filed with the Massachusetts Secretary of State its final amendments to 201 CMR 17.00, the state's data security regulations. BNA reported that OCABR plans to make the amendments public sometime this week. BNA further reported that there are no major changes, but that there will be some clarification with respect to contracts between persons who own or license personal information and third-party service providers (201 CMR17.03(2)(f)(2)). You can check out Dave's post on the last round of significant revisions to the regulations in August, complete with redline. We have seen a lot of activity in the blogosphere about the new changes, but nothing official yet. And so far, no announcements of further delays in the effective date, currently set for March 1, 2010. We will report as soon as we hear more information.