At the end of May, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“Agency”) released a preliminary draft of proposed regulations for the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”). The 66-page draft proposal only covers a few topics the Agency is seeking to cover. The issues covered in this draft of the regulations include data collection and processing
COVID-19 Remote Workforce Risks – Preservation, Compliance, Privacy, and Data Security Risks
In response to the COVID-19 crisis, nearly all companies and organizations were abruptly forced to transition portions of, and in many cases, their entire workforce to remote work. After a few weeks, it seems that many companies have adjusted to this “new normal” and settled in, albeit with some lingering technical and connectivity issues. As companies raced to get their employees up and running remotely, it is likely many were primarily focused on connectivity and security, while necessarily ignoring the complex privacy, security, compliance, and document preservation challenges lurking below the surface of the “new norm.”
Companies will begin to realize that transitioning to a remote workforce can lead to unintended consequences that can and should now be addressed. Some of these unintended consequences include:
- Information Technology (“IT”) departments deploying software and systems such as Microsoft Teams, Slack, etc that have not yet been properly tested, including establishing retention periods, back-up procedures, and acceptable use policies.
- “Shadow IT” issues relating to employees using whatever services and products they think will help them do their remote job better, even when those products or services are not vetted by, supported by, or welcomed by corporate IT.
- Informal communications using messaging tools or social media platforms that are either not preserved subject to an active litigation hold notice, or that violate company policy, or frame the company in a negative light.
- Remote employee use of unauthorized external or cloud-based storage for company data.
- Information subject to a litigation hold notice being lost due to the inadequate back-up of laptops and other systems being used off-premises.
- Recycling of laptops, desktops, and mobile devices subject to a litigation hold notice in order to ensure rapid deployment of remote workforce.
- Employees using personal devices to store information and communications that are or could become subject to a litigation hold notice.
- Risking breach of confidential, sensitive, or personally identifying information (“PII”) due to lack of adequate remote security.
- Employees using unauthorized, unsecured, commercial collaboration tools.
- Employees using unsecured endpoints or endpoints with consumer-grade antivirus or antimalware.
- Employees operating off-network such that corporate firewalls for phishing and network intrusion are not engaged.
- Terminated employees subject to a litigation hold notice.
Continue Reading COVID-19 Remote Workforce Risks – Preservation, Compliance, Privacy, and Data Security Risks
Seyfarth’s eDiscovery and Information Governance Group is Ranked in the Legal 500
The eDiscovery and Information Governance Group has been ranked in Tier Three in the latest Legal 500 ranking. Richard (Rick) Lutkus was also recognized as a Rising Star in Media, Technology & Telecoms – Cyber Law. Rick Lutkus and Kathleen McConnell were also recognized by the editorial as recommended lawyers. Led by Scott Carlson (also…
NSA Backup Tape Spoliation
Eleven years into the court order levied on the NSA to preserve backup tapes containing data about the NSA surveillance efforts, it’s come to light that the NSA failed to take adequate steps to ensure the data was not deleted. Tapes containing data between 2001-2007 were deleted in 2009, 2011, and 2016, showing a systemic…
Jason Priebe and Natalya Northrip to Present on “EU Data Protection and Cross-Border Discovery” at RelativityFest
Seyfarth eDiscovery attorneys Jason Priebe and Natalya Northrip will present “A Practical Roadmap for EU Data Protection and Cross-Border Discovery” at this year’s RelativityFest on October 24, 2017.
This presentation will provide attendees with practical tips for leveraging the new Sedona International Principles to help in your compliance with stringent GDPR requirements, and in seeking…
Natalya Northrip, Emily Dorner to Present Regarding Litigation Hold Maintenance and Retention of HR Records in April
Natalya Northrip and Emily Dorner will be presenting on two interesting eDiscovery topics this April; presentations will focus on litigation hold maintenance and best practices, as well as recordkeeping for human resources professionals. Presentations will take place on April 6, and April 26, respectively. Summaries of presentation content and links to sign up are provided…
The Microsoft Warrant Decision
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sided with Microsoft Corporation and global privacy advocates in the case of In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation, No. 14-2985, 2006 WL 3770056 (July 14, 2016), by holding that the issuance of a warrant to obtain private emails stored on a Microsoft server in Dublin, Ireland, constituted an impermissible extraterritorial application of the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S. Code §§ 2701 et seq. (“SCA”).
The Microsoft decision coincides with a rise of international tension over the data privacy interests of foreign customers of U.S. electronic communications providers. This tension was heightened by the Snowden revelations in 2013, sparking EU concerns about “unfettered” U.S. government surveillance, reaching a crescendo last October, when the Court of Justice of the EU, invalidated the fifteen year-old U.S.-EU Safe Harbor as not providing an “adequate” level of data protection. Thereafter, the U.S. and EU Commission rushed to develop a new EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework to replace Safe Harbor.
As some commentators have noted the Second Circuit’s ruling may incidentally help EU/U.S. data transfer mechanisms, including model contract clauses and the Privacy Shield program to survive this scrutiny. See Kenneth Withers, M. James Daley, and Taylor Hoffman, In Re Microsoft: U.S. Law Enforcement Not Entitled to Email Stored in Ireland (Aug. 28, 2016). While the Second Circuit’s ruling temporarily defused an explosive issue in EU/U.S. data protection relations, it left unresolved a number of practical issues regarding cross-border government investigations under the outdated SCA.…
The EU-U.S. “Privacy Shield” Opens for Business
On August 1, 2016, the United States Department of Commerce launched the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield self-certification process on its Privacy Shield Website. More than 115 U.S. companies have already self-certified. The Privacy Shield was designed to provide U.S. and European companies with a mechanism to comply with EU data protection requirements for cross-border transfers of personal data in the wake of the invalidation of the previously-used U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.
As with the prior Safe Harbor Framework, U.S. companies that self-certify under the Privacy Shield are identified on Department of Commerce’s website as “active” participants in the program. To avail itself to the benefits of the Privacy Shield, a company must self-certify annually that it agrees to adhere to additional new Privacy Shield requirements, which expand the protection previously provided by Safe Harbor with respect to long-standing EU data protection principles of notice, choice, accountability for onward transfers, security, data integrity and purpose limitation, access, recourse, enforcement and liability. Organizations that self-certify under the new Privacy Shield will need to revise their policies and practices to ensure compliance with the new framework.…
Continue Reading The EU-U.S. “Privacy Shield” Opens for Business
European Restrictions on Computer Profiling
On May 25, 2018, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will come into effect requiring companies that process personally identifiable information of EU residents to comply with a significant number of enhanced data-protection requirements. One of these requirements is an individual’s “right to explanation” of an algorithmic decision made about him or her by a machine.
Continue Reading European Restrictions on Computer Profiling