It is easy to see networks all around us. The printers at the office, your child’s videogame, the food ordering app on your phone, the fitness band or smart watch on your wrist, the electricity grid for your city, the self-driving cars being tested on our roads, all rely at least in part on networked solutions. The ubiquity of networks is already staggering and the pace of research and development in this area is poised to increase for years to come. As the things in our world get smarter and the network of these smart things grows larger, a little-known agency in the U.S. Department of Commerce, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST” or “Agency”), decided it was time that stakeholders smartened up about the way they discuss networks, connected “smart” things, and the privacy and security challenges associated with them. Continue Reading Let’s talk about Networks of Things, baby. Let’s talk about you and me.
Two recent data breach incidents in the healthcare industry prove what readers of this blog have heard all too often: KNOW THY VENDORS.
Last week, Phoenix-based Banner Health reported one of the year’s largest data breaches. Banner reported that it had suffered a massive cyberattack potentially affecting the information of 3.7 million patients, health plan members and beneficiaries, providers. This attack is notable for all companies and not just healthcare providers covered by HIPAA. Reportedly, the attack occurred through the computer systems that process food and beverage purchases in the Banner system. In the incident, according to reports, the hackers gained access to the larger systems through the point-of-sale computer system that processes food and beverage purchases. The attack was discovered on July 13, and Banner believes hackers originally gained access on June 17. Continue Reading To Protect Data: Keep Your Network Access Close, and Your Vendors Closer
On Friday, the heads of the Federal Trade Commission overruled the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) in In the Matter of LabMd., Inc. The FTC concluded that the ALJ had erred in dismissing the Commission’s case against a lab testing company LabMD and misapplied the unfairness standard. The key determination by the FTC was that the mere disclosure of sensitive medical information is cognizable harm under Section 5(c) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), irrespective of whether there is further economic or physical harm. What does this mean for privacy enforcement? Read on. Continue Reading FTC Plants A Flag With LabMD Ruling: What This Means for Enforcement
Colorado is the latest state to revisit, and expand upon, its laws pertaining to the use and protection of student data. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper recently signed into law House Bill 16-1423 (the “Bill”) designed to increase the transparency and security of personal information about students enrolled in Colorado’s public education system (K-12). Described by its sponsors and the media as “nation-leading” with respect to the extremely broad scope of the definition of “student personally identifiable information”, the Bill imposes additional, detailed requirements on the Colorado Department of Education, the Colorado Department of Education, the Colorado Charter School Institute, school districts, public schools, and other local education providers (each, a “Public Education Entity”) and commercial software providers (including education application providers) with respect to the collection, use, and security of student data. In this blog post, we focus only on the duties of commercial software or education application providers. Continue Reading Colorado Student Data Privacy Bill – What EdTech software providers need to know
While it’s making few headlines, the European Commission is still working to finalize Privacy Shield, and it’s even possible that Privacy Shield will pass a key hurdle by the end of this month. The Commission is still scrambling to address the concerns raised by the Article 29 Working Party and the European Data Protection Supervisor concerning the Privacy Shield arrangements that the Commission had negotiated with the US. (The European Parliament has also criticized Privacy Shield.) Some of the concerns raised so far have made it necessary for the Commission to negotiate further with the U.S. State Department. And now the Commission is shortly to present a proposed final version of Privacy Shield to the Article 31 Committee, which represents the Member States.
If the Art. 31 Committee agrees with the Commission, Privacy Shield will be submitted to the College of the Commission for formal adoption. If the Art. 31 Committee does not endorse the Privacy Shield arrangements, the Commission will need to consider further how to proceed. Also, the Council or Commission could intervene as permitted by the comitology procedure (which could result in more pressure on the Commission to negotiate further with the US).
News sources have speculated as to the status of the Article 31 negotiations (see here and here (scroll down)), but given the lack of specific information from the Commission on this point, it’s tough to tell what the real status is. In any event, while we expect to have some more concrete news by the end of June as to the progress of Privacy Shield, it is unlikely that Privacy Shield will be formally adopted by then.
And it’s important to keep in mind that, as soon as Privacy Shield limps over the finish line (assuming it doesn’t succumb to death by a thousand objections), it will almost certainly face immediate litigation seeking to have the Court of Justice of the EU invalidate it.
PS – for those who’ve been wondering, Brexit (should it occur) is unlikely to result in the UK taking a divergent path from the EU on general data protection rules.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have issued the long-awaited final procedures for both Federal and Non-Federal Entities under the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) (“Final Procedures”) that provide information on how DHS will implement CISA. In addition to the Final Procedures, the agencies also released “Guidance to Non-Federal Entities to Share Cyber Threat Indicators and Defensive Measures with Federal Entities under the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015” (the “Guidance”).
As we have written previously, a company may share cyber threat indicators (CTIs) and defensive measures (DMs) for cybersecurity purposes “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” and receive certain liability protections for sharing in accordance with the Act. The Final Procedures and the Guidance are finalized versions of interim guidance previously discussed. Any decision to share information under CISA is complex and involves factual and legal determinations.
Read on to find out what CTIs and DMs are, and information on the procedures companies must follow to obtain liability protection for sharing CTIs and DMs with the Federal Government. Continue Reading “Interim” No More: DHS and DOJ Publish Final CISA Guidance on Cybersecurity Sharing
Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced (press release) that Practice Fusion, the largest cloud-based electronic health company in the United States, has agreed to settle FTC charges over deceptive practices involving the public disclosure of healthcare provider review information collected from consumers that included sensitive personal and medical information. Below is our review of the circumstances of the basis of the FTC complaint, a summary of the terms of the settlement, and a few pointers on how to avoid a similar situation. There are many lessons to be learned from this FTC complaint for all online providers, not only EHR providers. Read on ….. Continue Reading Practice Fusion and FTC Settle Complaint Over Deceptive Statements About the Privacy of Consumer-Generated Online Content
Sophisticated phishing scams and muscular hacking efforts continue to compromise personal and sensitive information held by insurers, hospital systems, and businesses large and small. In response, many states have strengthened their data breach notification and have enacted data security laws to enhance data protection obligations imposed on data collectors and to ensure that residents and state regulators receive prompt and adequate notice of security breaches when they do occur. By mid-summer, a range of new measures will be going into effect in Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island and Tennessee. Be sure to review the latest edition of the Mintz Matrix for these new measures. Continue Reading Illinois Joins the Fray: Strengthens its Laws Around Data Breach Notification and Data Security
In a decision favorable to the airline industry—but not helpful to other companies—the California Court of Appeal said that a privacy enforcement action against Delta is not going to fly. On May 25, 2016, the Court of Appeal tossed the California Attorney General’s CalOPPA enforcement action against Delta Airlines, affirming the lower court’s 2013 dismissal of the case with prejudice.
As we previously wrote, California AG’s office has been taking incremental steps toward ensuring that mobile applications comply with CalOPPA. As early as 2012, its office began sending notices of non-compliance to mobile application developers. When some companies failed to respond, the Attorney General chose Delta as its pilot case, promptly filing its first-ever enforcement action under CalOPPA. Over the past three years, we have followed the Attorney General’s CalOPPA compliance campaign, including the Delta case. Continue Reading Delta Wins CalOPPA Case – But Your Mobile App May Not Fly
Mintz Levin’s Immigration Law Blog is running a series titled “Innocents Abroad” addressing issues in an increasingly globalized economy where employers assign employees all over the globe.
These are big questions, reflecting some of the practical concerns in our international marketplace. The series focuses on the well-intentioned Global HR Director, Ned Help, who will raise hot topics and difficulties his company faces when sending their employees abroad. We will then explore the common pitfalls and offer practical solutions to the difficulties Ned Help faces. This month’s edition: Privacy Considerations – follow the rest of the series at Innocents Abroad.
From: Carrie Counselor
To: Ned Help
Date: May 24, 2016
RE: Privacy considerations for employees working abroad
I understand that one of your employees will be engaging a six-month temporary assignment around Europe to scope market opportunities, and you’d like to have a better understanding of what to be thinking about in terms of privacy. Great question! This is an area where many employers struggle because other jurisdictions protect privacy and personal data quite differently than we do here in the United States.
Generally speaking, federal and state laws applicable to employee information do not have “extraterritorial” effect beyond the information that remains in the United States, meaning that American employees working abroad (even temporarily) will not benefit from US legal protections with respect to personal information collected, stored or transmitted outside of the country.
What makes this area of the law particularly crucial and daunting for employers is that non-US countries frequently offer greater protections to employees and establish far higher compliance obligations on the part of employers. Of particular concern for you should be the data protection landscape across the European Economic Area (referred to as the “EEA,” encompassing all European Union (EU) Member States as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) because each country has passed its own set of national laws governing the collection, use, retention and transmission of personal data. Companies must consider these local laws before electronically monitoring an employee outside the United States or transferring an employee’s personal information back home. Let’s talk specifics: Continue Reading Innocents Abroad: Privacy Considerations for Employers