Join us for State of Cybercrime, where experts discuss the latest trends and developments in the world of cybercrime and provide insights into how organizations can protect themselves from potential threats.
Sponsored by Varonis
php/*
Join us for State of Cybercrime, where experts discuss the latest trends and developments in the world of cybercrime and provide insights into how organizations can protect themselves from potential threats.
Sponsored by Varonis
Tiffany C. Li is an attorney and Resident Fellow at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project. She frequently writes and speaks on the privacy implications of artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and other technologies. Our discussion is based on her recent paper on the difficulties with getting AI to forget. In this second part, we continue our discussion of GDPR and privacy, and then explore some cutting edge areas of law and technology. Can AI algorithms own their creative efforts? Listen and learn.
But what's missing often is someone who actually knows what that means on the technical end. For example, all the issues that I just brought up are not in that room with the lawyers and policymakers really, unless you bring in someone with a tech background, someone who works on these issues and actually knows what's going on. So this is something that's not just an issue with the right to be forgotten or just with EU privacy law, but really any technology law or policy issue. I think that we definitely need to bridge that gap between technologists and policymakers.
One option is giving it to the designer of the AI system on the theory that they created a system which is the main impetus for the work being generated in the first place. Another theory is that the person actually running the system, the person who literally flipped the switch and hit run should own the rights because they were provided the creative spark behind the art or the creative work. So other theories prevail or exists right now. Some people say that there should be no rights to any of the work because it doesn't make sense to provide rights who are not the actual creators of the work. Others say that we should try to figure out a system for giving the AI the work. And this of course is problematic because AI can't own anything. And even if it could, even if we get the world where AI is a sentient being, we don't really know what they want. We can't pay them. We don't know how they would prefer to be incentivized for their creation, and so on. So a lot of these different theories don't perfectly match up with reality.
But I think the prevailing ideas right now are either to create a contractual basis for figuring this out. For example, when you design your system, you signed a contract with whoever you sell it to, that lays out all the rights neatly in the contract so you bypass a legal issue entirely. Or think of it as a work-for-hire model. Think of the AI system as now just an employee who is simply following the instructions of an employer. In that sense for example, if you are an employee of Google and you develop something, you develop a really great product, you don't own the product, Google owns that product, right? It's under the work-for-hire model. So that's one theory.
And what my research is finding is that none of these theories really makes sense because we're missing one crucial thing. And I think the crucial point they're missing is really goes back to the very beginnings of why we have copyright in the first place, or why we have intellectual property, which is that we want to incentivize the creation of more useful work. We want more artists, we want more musicians, and so on. So the key question then if you look at works created by non-humans isn't, you know, if we can contractually get around this issue, the key question is what we want to incentivize. Whether we want to incentivize work in general, art in general, or if for some reason we think that there's something unique about human creation, that we want humans to continually be creating things, and those two different paradigms I think should be the way we look at this issue in the future. So it's a little high level but I think that that's interesting distinction that we haven't paid enough attention to yet when we think about the question of who should own intellectual properties for works that are created AI and non-humans generally.
So in my personal opinion, I believe if we do get to that point, if there are artificially intelligent beings who are as intelligent as humans, who we believe to be almost exactly the same as humans in every way in terms of having intelligence, being able to mimic or feel emotion, and so on, we should definitely look into expanding our definition of citizenship and fundamental rights. I think, of course, there is the opposite view, which is that there is something inherently unique about humanity and there's something unique about life as we see it right now, biological, carbon based life as we see it right now. But I think that's a limited view and I think that that limited view is not something that really serves us well if you consider the universe as a whole and the large expanse of time outside of just these few millennia that humans have been on this earth.
And this is something that, you know, maybe is giving too much moral responsibility to the day to day actions of most people. But if you consider that any small action within a company can affect the product, and any product can then affect all the users that it reaches, you kind of see this easy scaling up of your one action to effect on the people around you, which can then affect maybe even larger areas and possibly the world. Which is not to say, of course, that we should live in fear of having to the decide every single aspect of our lives based on greater impact the world. But I do think it's important to remember that especially if you are in a role in which you're dealing with things that might have really direct impact on things that matter, like privacy, like free speech, like global idealistic human rights values, and so on.
I think it's important to consider ethics and technology definitely. And if we can provide training, if we can make this part of the product design process, if we can make this part of what we expect when hiring people, sure. I think it would be great. Adding it to curriculum, adding tech or information ethics course into the general computer science curriculum for example would be great. I also think that it would be great to have a tech course for the law school curriculum as well. Definitely both sides can learn from each other. We do in general just need to bridge that gap.
These tech companies and their responsibilities or their duties, towards users, towards movements, towards governments, and possibly towards the world and larger ideals. So it's a really interesting new initiative and I would definitely welcome different feedback and ideas on these topics. So if people want to check out more information, you can head to our website. It's law.yale.edu/isp. And you can also follow me on twitter @Tiffany, T-I-F-F-A-N-Y-C-L-I. So I would love to hear from any of your listeners and love to chat more about all of these fascinating issues.
Want to join us live? Save a seat here: https://www.varonis.com/state-of-cybercrime
More from Varonis ⬇️
Visit our website: https://www.varonis.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/varonis
X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/varonis
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/varonislife/
On the last week of the year, the Inside Out Security panelists reflected on the year’s biggest breaches, scams and fake everything. And is computer security warfare? Well, it depends on who you ask. A 7th grader trying to change her grades isn’t an enemy combatant. But keep in mind as another argues, “There's an opponent who doesn't care about you, doesn't play by the rules, and wants to screw you as fully as possible.”
Panelists: Cindy Ng, Mike Buckbee, Kilian Englert, Kris Keyser
Want to join us live? Save a seat here: https://www.varonis.com/state-of-cybercrime
More from Varonis ⬇️
Visit our website: https://www.varonis.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/varonis
X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/varonis
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/varonislife/
Tiffany C. Li is an attorney and Resident Fellow at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project. She frequently writes and speaks on the privacy implications of artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and other technologies. Our discussion is based on her recent paper on the difficulties with getting AI to forget. In this first part , we talk about the GDPR's "right to be forgotten" rule and the gap between technology and the law.
The right to be forgotten, it's a core principle in the GDPR, where a consumer can request to have their personal data be removed from the internet. And I was wondering if you can speak to the tension between an individual's right to privacy and a company's business interest.
So one argument outside of this consumer versus business tension, one argument really is simply that the right to be forgotten goes against the values of speech and expression, because by requesting that your information or information about you be taken down, you are in some ways silencing someone else's speech.
And I think what's interesting really is that even then people were already discussing this tension that we mentioned before. Both the tension between consumer rights and business interests but also the tension between privacy in general and expression and transparency. So it goes all the way back to 2010, and we're still dealing with the ramifications of that decision now.
And of course, the right to be forgotten has many conditions on it and it's not an ultimate right without, you know, anything protecting all these values we discussed. But I think it should be mentioned that there are consequences, and if we take anything to an extreme, the consequences become, well, extreme.
I think another issue, if we take a step back, if we think about machine learning algorithms and artificial intelligence, you consider any personal information as part of the training data that is used to train an AI system. If your personal information, for example, if you committed a crime and the fact of that crime and your personal information are linked to that crime, and put into an algorithm that determines the likelihood of any human being to become a criminal. So after adding in your data, that AI system then has a slight bias towards believing that people who may be similar to your various data points may be more likely to commit a crime, by a very slight bias. So when that happens, after that, if you request for your data to be removed from the system, we get into kind of a quandary. If we just remove the data record, there's a possibility of affecting the entire system because the training data that the algorithm was trained on is crucial to the development of the algorithm and the development of the AI system.
Want to join us live? Save a seat here: https://www.varonis.com/state-of-cybercrime
More from Varonis ⬇️
Visit our website: https://www.varonis.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/varonis
X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/varonis
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/varonislife/
The CIO is responsible for using IT to make the business more efficient. Meanwhile, the CISO is responsible for developing and executing a security program that’s aimed to protect enterprise systems and data from both internal and external threats. At the end of the day, the CISO makes security recommendations to the CIO has the final say. Perhaps it’s time that the CISO gets a seat at the table.
Meanwhile, good Samaritans such as Chris Vickery and Troy Hunt help companies find leaked data and hopes the company seal the leak before cybercriminals find it.
Other articles discussed:
Panelists: Cindy Ng, Kilian Englert, Mike Buckbee, Matt Radolec
Want to join us live? Save a seat here: https://www.varonis.com/state-of-cybercrime
More from Varonis ⬇️
Visit our website: https://www.varonis.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/varonis
X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/varonis
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/varonislife/
We need to do better. Exhausting. Dramatic. That’s how the Inside Out Security panelists described our 2018 security landscape. We see the drama unfold weekly on our show and this week was no different.
As facial recognition software becomes more prevalent, we’re seeing it used in security to protect even the biggest stars like Taylor Swift. Her security team set up a kiosk replaying rehearsal highlights. Meanwhile, onlookers who stopped were cross checked against their database of stalkers. What a stealthy way to protect one of our favorite singers in the world!
And here’s a story that’s less wholesome. A few years ago, we thought it was a major threat when ransomware gained prominence. Cybercriminals upped the ante and threatened victims with a note that someone planted bombs in the building unless a bitcoin ransom is paid.
Kris is right, we do need to do better. Kilian is right, it’s all exhausting.
Tool of the Week: BloodHoundAD
Panelists: Cindy Ng, Kilian Englert, Mike Buckbee, Kris Keyser
Other articles discussed:
Want to join us live? Save a seat here: https://www.varonis.com/state-of-cybercrime
More from Varonis ⬇️
Visit our website: https://www.varonis.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/varonis
X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/varonis
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/varonislife/
There’s a yin and yang to technology. For instance, the exchange for convenience and ease with our data. Unfortunately Facebook is getting most of the blame, when many companies have collect many points of data as the default setting.
Meanwhile, as quickly as diligent security pros are eager to adopt and advance security solutions with biometrics, cybercriminals are equally determined to thwart these efforts.
Other articles discussed:
• Google’s plan to mitigate bias in their algorithm
• Australia approves bill, requiring tech companies to provide data upon request
Want to join us live? Save a seat here: https://www.varonis.com/state-of-cybercrime
More from Varonis ⬇️
Visit our website: https://www.varonis.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/varonis
X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/varonis
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/varonislife/
We’ve completed almost 100 podcast panels and sometimes it feels like we’re talking in circles. Over the years, the security and privacy landscape have gotten more complex, making baseline knowledge amongst industry pros ever so more important. Old concepts are often refreshed into current foundational security concepts.
Technological advancements as well as decline also bring forth new challenges. When there’s a decline, we need to reserve the right to change our strategy. For years, users were blamed and labeled as the enemy, but our infrastructure wasn’t built with security in mind. So, perhaps the weakest link in cybersecurity isn't human, but the infrastructure.
When there are advancements, security and privacy need to be baked in from the very beginning. Concerns are already arising with DNA and fitness testing kits as well as what constant surveillance is doing to our brains.
Other articles discussed:
Want to join us live? Save a seat here: https://www.varonis.com/state-of-cybercrime
More from Varonis ⬇️
Visit our website: https://www.varonis.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/varonis
X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/varonis
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/varonislife/
Passwords are easy to use. Everyone knows how it works. However, many security pros point out the inherent design flaw in passwords as a safe form of authorization and authentication. The good news is that we can reflect upon what old technologies can teach new technologies as we’re creating new products and services. One vital concern to keep in mind are terms and conditions, particularly with DNA ownership rights.
Other articles discussed:
Want to join us live? Save a seat here: https://www.varonis.com/state-of-cybercrime
More from Varonis ⬇️
Visit our website: https://www.varonis.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/varonis
X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/varonis
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/varonislife/
Troy Hunt, creator of “Have I been pwned”, gives a virtual keynote that explores how security threats are evolving - and what we need to be especially conscious of in the modern era. In this keynote, you’ll learn: Real world examples of both current and emerging threats How threats are evolving and where to put your focus How to stem the flow of data breaches and protect against malicious activity and much more! Transcript Cindy Ng: Troy Hunt is a world-renowned web security expert known for public education and outreach on security topics. And we recently invited Troy to give a keynote on the modern state of insecurity. Troy Hunt: So, let's move on and talk a little bit detection because this is another interesting thing where we're seeing adversaries within environments, or data breaches having occurred, and then long periods of time passing before anyone realizes what's going wrong. And I think probably one of the most canonical examples of long lead time for detection is Sony Pictures. So, if everyone remembers Sony Pictures, so this was back in about 2014. Folks came into the office one day, sat down at their PC and got, this is what appeared on the screen. Hacked by GOP, Guardians of Peace. Evidently not so peaceful. And then you can see a whole bunch of hyperlinks down at the bottom as well. And this was Sony's data. And the data that was leaked was massively extensive. So, the attackers claimed that they'd been in the network for a year and taken about 100 terabytes of data. I've not seen anything to verify it was quite that long or quite that much, but what we do know is that there was a huge amount of data taken. So, things like unreleased films, sensitive internal emails, some of those emails caused a huge amount of embarrassment because they were disparaging towards Obama, which wasn't a great move. Also, things like employee data with social security numbers and they're kind of important in the U.S. And one of the things that I find really fascinating about those three different classes of data, the unreleased films, sensitive internal emails, and employee data is that it's not like these are just all sitting on a shared folder somewhere. They're not there in one location. These are the sorts of assets, particularly in a large organization, like Sony Pictures, which would have been distributed into very, very different corners of the organization. So, it's from all over the place. And someone's had enough time to go and retrieve very large amounts of data from different locations within the network, exfiltrate them, and then eventually upload them to those locations. So, this was really devastating. And it's really interesting now to look at just how much stuff is exposed in organizations which causes things like this. So, I'll give you a bit of an example here. Varonis produced a report earlier this year, ''The 2018 Global Data Risk Report''. And they found that 21% of all folders in an organization are open to everyone. So, if you're in a corporate environment, just have a look around you, like have a look at just how much stuff is open. I spent a lot of years in a corporate environment. And I would see this all the time, folders that were open to everyone. And why do people do it? Well, because it's easy. They're taking the shortcuts. Fifty-eight percent of those have over 100,000 folders open to everyone. A hundred thousand folders that are open to everyone. Now, obviously, these are large organizations. And of course the larger organization, the harder it is to manage this sort of stuff as well. But that is just a staggeringly high number. So, I remember back in my corporate role, some of you know where that was, I would find these open folders. And I'd go to my leadership and I'll say, ''Look, we've got a lot of open folders. Like we've got to stop doing this. This is going to work out badly.'' And the fix was always to secure the folder. And what this ultimately was, it was always just treating the symptom. It's like, ''Hey, we found something. It's been open, let's close it.'' And I would drive and drive and drive to say, ''Look, there is an underlying root cause which is causing these folders to be opened in the first place.'' And then what it boiled down to was a whole bunch of people having the ability to open them in the first place that shouldn't have. A whole bunch of people had server admin rights to places they shouldn't have. And those are harder problems to solve. But if your only means of detection is some bloke having a browse around the network in spare time and finding too much stuff open, well, then that's probably not a good place to be in. So, we're saying way too much stuff, way too open, for way too long. So, time and time again in running ''Have I Been Pwned'', I find that I'm the vector by which organizations learn of a data breach. And this shouldn't be the way. Very often, this is very large amounts of data as well. This can be many tens of gigabytes worth of data that someone had sent me. And I've got to go to the organization say, ''Hey look, I've got your data. I think this is yours. You should do something with it.'' I'm in the middle of about half a dozen disclosures right now. And one of them is tens of gigabytes with the log files. And those log files include things like emails. Some of them are disparaging. I'll leave it at that. I'm not quite sure how this will pan out yet. But Troy Hunt should not be your disclosure. This is not the way you want it to work. So, these organizations really need to do a better job at the ability to detect when data is flying out of their networks in abnormal ways. And if we go back and have a look at some of the really notable recent incidents, you can see just how much data we're talking about. So, LinkedIn is a good example. So, often when I do talks, I talk about ''Have I Been Pwned.'' And I'll ask the audience, ''So, say who was in LinkedIn?" And there's always, "I hate the people in LinkedIn'' because there are 165 million records there, including mine, unfortunately. Now, the thing is their data breach happened in 2012. And back in 2012, they did actually acknowledge it. They said, ''Look, we've, we've had a cyber thing, we don't think it's too bad.'' I think at the time, they thought it might've been something like 5 million records, not too bad. And then four years passed, so for four years, someone had all this data. SHA-1 hashed passwords too. So, pretty trivial to crack those. In fact, I was speaking to someone at an event just yesterday in Sydney and they said, ''Look, they'd gone through and managed to crack about 98% of them." So, for all intents and purposes that cryptographic storage was absolutely useless. So, four years between incident and detection. Dropbox, another popular one a lot of people have been in including me. And again, the same sort of time frames. So, the incident happened in 2012. It took four years before they realized what actually happened and just how bad it was. In fact, as I understand it, and bear with me here, the way the Dropbox data breach went down was Dropbox employees storing a backup of Dropbox data in their Dropbox and then their Dropbox got broken into. It's all very meta. But apparently, that was what happened. But four years before we learned about the incident. Another one. Also another one that I was in. This is not an intentional thing, I've just been on a lot of data breaches. Disqus. So, someone reached out to me last year and said, ''Look, I've got the Disqus data. There's about 18 million records in here.'' And I had a look at it and it looked very legitimate. And then I found my own data. And incidentally, finding your own data in a data breach makes verification a lot easier. Actually, my number one blog post ever is titled ''The Dropbox hack is real.'' And it was number one I think because I managed to get verification out there very early. And the way I verified it is that I had one password, generated password. So, it's just like 40 or 50 crazy random characters. And there was a bcrypt hash in the database. And when I passed in that crazy random string of password, it matched, go go, there we go. So, good. So, Disqus looked legitimate and I had to reach out to them. And that was the first they knew of it. They said, ''Look, you know, we weren't aware of any incident, certainly not an incident dating back three years.'' And they verified it. And then had to go through the disclosure process. And again, like these organizations, your organization, you really don't want to get emails from me. It's not a good day usually. Imgur was the last one as well. So, Imgur was like last year as well. Slightly after Disqus and very, very similar sorts of time frame. Now, fortunately, there are only 1.7 million records. And I think that that was only that small because it dated back to a point which was pretty early for that. So, they managed to sort of dodge a bit of a bullet. But, you know, even still, four years passing from an almost 2 million records being breached to when they actually realize it. So, clearly, we've got a problem with detection. And I think that's really, really sort of worthwhile everyone thinking about. If you did have malicious activity happened within your internal network or within your website, would you actually be able to identify anomalous behavior? And would you be able to identify it or is the first you're going to know about it when you get an email from me? So, moving on, the money pit is an interesting one. Now, this is kind of a little bit delicate. Because there's obviously a lot of companies out there selling a lot of security things. And the trick that organizations have today is they are just absolutely bombarded by messaging. If any of you have been to any of the big security shows, particularly something like RSA in San Francisco, it's just absolute bedlam with security companies everywhere selling cyber things. And it's very, very hard. In fact, I'm very sympathetic to organizations who are trying to make decisions about, how are we going to protect our company? Because everywhere they look there is a cyber-something. And I'll give you a few examples of this. There are cyber enablement services. You can go and buy cyber-enablement. There are cyber innovation services. That's also a thing here. You can go and buy cyber innovation services. There are even cyber matrix services. You can buy into the cyber matrix. Not quite sure what it is, but it is out there. And just to make the point that they are actually all genuine services that are out there. Have a Google for them. There are 27,000 cyber enablement results out there. Fifty-two thousand cyber innovation. And if we go all the way down to matrix there's going on 44,000 cyber matrix results. And you might be looking at this going, where on earth do they get these terms from? Like is this something they just make up? It's not really something I made up, but it's something you can make up. Because every one of these came out of the bullshit generator. There is literally a website. You can see the URL up there on the top right. And I know that everyone now wants to go there because it's actually really cool. So, you go there and you can make bullshit. And what it does is it combines a verb, an adjective, and a noun. And all I did is, I just went and took a bunch of those and added them after cyber and we got the results we saw before. So, that's actually kind of cool. So, you just go through and you make new terms, repurpose interactive readiness, I can barely even say that one. You go through and streamline next-generation functionalities. This is a real service. Give this to your marketing people, they will love it. It will drive you nuts but they'll love it. And like this was meant to be a little bit tongue in cheek, but the very fact that I could go here and generate terms of the actual things that people are selling sort of demonstrates the point of how difficult it is for those actually having to make decisions about where they spend their cyber dollar. So, moving on, let's just wrap up a few takeaways here from what we've just looked at and then we'll go through and do some questions. So, thinking back to the conventional risks, we still have the same fundamental underlying problems today as we did many, many years ago. We've also got a whole bunch of new ones as well. And particularly thinking about conventional risk, things like risks in the humans are still massive. We've really not put much of a dent in phishing attacks. You know, a great example, we've still got this conventional vulnerability, which is the organic matter sitting at the keyboard, and we haven't been able to solve it yet. The monetization side of things as well. So, many of the old monetization strategies still apply today. They've just been streamlined because we've got cryptocurrency and email and internet, which we didn't have when these things started out. And of course, monetization also goes all the way through to the organizations that are...I was going to say defending against these attacks. I'm not sure if that's a fair representation of professional data recovery, but certainly playing in that ecosystem. The supply chain bit I think is really fascinating. And the bit that we looked at was really just this sort of embedding of external services. It doesn't touch on all the libraries that we're dependent on or all the other things that go into modern-day software. But this is becoming a problem. And that's before we even get into things like the hardware supply chain. So, where does your hardware come from? Do you trust that party? And there's certainly some very interesting things going on at the moment that cast some really massive doubts about where we can trust our equipment to come from. So, have a think about all the different bits and pieces that go into modern-day applications and indeed into physical infrastructure as well. On the detection side of things, I sort of metaphorically posed the question for us and said, ''Look, how well equipped are you to detect if there's large amounts of data being exfiltrated from your network or from your website?'' And in fairness, this is a nontrivial problem as well. This is not an easy thing, but it's an important thing. Because again, as I said a couple of times, like you really don't want to be getting emails from me. You especially don't want to see like a tweet from me saying, ''Do you have a security contact at your company?'' This is not the way you want your detection to work. Much better to detect it quietly and try and stop it before it happens in the first place. And finally, that piece on the money pit. And again, I have this huge amount of sympathy for organizations that are having to make decisions today about where they spend their money. Particularly when there are a bunch of infosec companies out there who are claiming that will solve all your problems with this one shiny thing. Because of course, the one shiny thing is a very attractive thing to the people that hold the purse strings in a lot of organizations who are very frequently aren't the technical folks but are wowed by flashy presen…
Full show notes at the publisherWe had a unique opportunity in talking with data privacy attorney Sheila FitzPatrick. She lives and breathes data security and is recognized expert on EU and other international data protection laws. FitzPatrick has direct experience in representing companies in front of EU data protection authorities (DPAs). She also sits on various governmental data privacy advisory boards. During this first part of the interview with her, we focused on the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which she says is the biggest overhaul in EU security and privacy rules in twenty years. One important point FitzPatrick makes is that the GDPR is not only more restrictive than the existing Data Protection Directive—breach notification, impact assessment rules—but also has far broader coverage. Cloud computing companies no matter where they are located will be under the GDPR if they are asked to process personal data of EU citizens by their corporate customers. The same goes for companies (or controllers in GDPR-speak) outside the EU who directly collect personal data – think of any US-based e-commerce or social networking company on the web. Keep all this in mind as you listen to our in-depth discussion with this data privacy and security law professional. Transcript Cindy Ng Sheila FitzPatrick has over 20 years of experience running her own firm as a data protection attorney. She also serves as outside counsel for Netapp as their chief privacy officer, where she provides expertise in global data protection compliance, cyber security regulations, and legal issues associated with cloud computing and big data. In this series, Sheila will be sharing her expertise on GDPR, PCI compliance, and the data security landscape. Andy Green Yeah, Sheila. I'm very impressed by your bio and the fact that you've actually dealt with some of these PPA's and EU data protection authorities that we've been writing about. I know there's been, so the GPDR will go into effect in 2018, and I'm just wondering what sort of the biggest change for companies, I guess they're calling them data controllers, in dealing with DPA's under the law. Is there something that comes to mind first? Sheila FitzPatrick And thank you for the compliment by the way. I live and breathe data privacy. This is the stuff I love. GPR ...I mean is certainly the biggest overhaul in 20 years, when it comes to the implication of new data privacy regulations. Much more restrictive than what we've seen in the past. And most companies are struggling because they thought what was previously in place was strict. There's a couple things that stick out when it comes GDPR, is when you look at the roles of the data controller verses the data processor, in the past many of the data processors, especially when you talk about third party outsourcing companies and any particular cloud providers, have pushed sole liability for data compliance down to their customers. Basically, saying you decide what you're going to put in our environment, you have responsibility for the privacy and security aspects. We basically accept minimal responsibility. Usually, it's around physical security. The GDPR now is going to put very comprehensive and very well-defined regulations and obligations in place for data processors as well. Saying that they can no longer flow responsibility for privacy compliance down to their customers. And if they're going to be... even if they... often times, cloud providers will say, "We will comply with the laws in countries where we have our processing centers." And that's not sufficient under the new laws. Because if they have a data processing center say in in UK, but they're processing the data of a German citizen or a Canadian citizen or someone from Asia Pacific, Australia, New Zealand, they're now going to have to comply with the laws in those countries as well. They can't just push it down to their customers. The other part of GDPR that is quite different and it's one of the first times it's really going to be put into place is that it doesn't just apply to companies that have operations within the EU. It is basically any company regardless of where they're located and regardless of whether or not they have a presence in the EU, if they have access to the personal data of any EU citizen they will have to comply with the regulations under the GDPR. And that's a significant change. And then the third one being the sanction. And the sanction can be 20,000,000 euro or 4% of your global annual revenue, whichever is higher. That's a substantial change as well. Andy Green Right, So that's some big, big changes. So you're referring to I think, what they call 'territorial scope'? They don't have to necessarily have an office or an establishment in the EU as long as they are collecting data? I mean we're really referring to social media and to the web commerce, or e-commerce. Sheila FitzPatrick Absolutely, but it's going to apply to any company. So even if for instance you say, "Well, we don't have any, we're just a US domestic company", but if you have employees in your environment that hold EU citizenship, you will have to protect their data in accordance with GDPR. You can't say, well they're working the US, therefore US law applies. That's not going to be the case if they know that the individual holds citizenship in the EU. Andy Green We're talking about employees, or...? Sheila FitzPatrick Could be employees, absolutely. Employees... Andy Green Anybody? Sheila FitzPatrick Anybody. Andy Green Isn't that interesting? I mean one question about this expanded territorial scope, is how are they going to enforce this against US companies? Or not just US, but any company that is doing business but doesn't necessarily have an office or an establishment? Sheila FitzPatrick Well it can be... see what happens under GDPR is any individual can file a complaint with the ports in basically any jurisdiction. They can file it at the EU level. They can file with it within the countries where they hold their citizenship. They can file it now with US courts, although the US courts... and part of that is tied to the new privacy shield, which is a joke. I mean, I think that will be invalidated fairly quickly. With the whole Redress Act, it does allow EU citizens to file complaints with the US courts to protect their personal data in accordance with EU laws. Andy Green So, just to follow through, if I came from the UK into the US and was doing transactions, credit card transactions, my data would be protected under EU law? Sheila FitzPatrick Well, if the company knows you're an EU citizen. They're not going to necessarily know. So, in some cases if they don't know, they're not going to held accountable. But if they absolutely do know then they will have to protect that data in accordance with UK or EU law. Well, not the UK... if Brexit goes through, the EU law won't matter. The UK data protection act will take precedence. Andy Green Wow. You know it's just really fascinating how the data protection and privacy now is just so important. Right, with the new GPDR? For everybody, not just the EU companies. Sheila FitzPatrick Yeah, and its always been important, it's just the US has a totally different attitude. I mean the US has the least restrictive privacy laws in the world. So for individuals that have really never worked or lived outside of the US, the mindset is very much the US mindset, which is the business takes precedence. Where everywhere else in the world, the fundamental right to privacy takes precedence over everything. Andy Green We're getting a lot of questions from our customers the new Breach Notification rule... Sheila FitzPatrick Ask me. Andy Green ...in the GDPR. I was wondering if you could talk about... What are one the most important things you would do when you discover a breach? I mean if you could prioritize it in any way. How would you advise a customer about how to have a breach response program in a GDPR context? Sheila FitzPatrick Yeah. Well first and foremost you do need to have in place, before a breach even occurs, an incident response team that's not made up of just the IT. Because normally organizations have an IT focus. You need to have a response team that includes IT, your chief privacy officer. And if the person... normally a CPO would sit in legal. If he doesn't sit in legally, you want a legal representative in there as well. You need someone from PR, communications that can actually be the public-facing voice for the company. You need to have someone within Finance and Risk Management that sits on there. So the first thing to do is to make sure you have that group in place that goes into action immediately. Secondly, you need to determine what data has potentially been breached, even if it hasn't. Because under GDPR, it's not... previously it's been if there's definitely been a breach that can harm an individual. The definition is if it's likely to affect an individual. That's totally different than if the individual could be harmed. So you need to determine okay, what data has been breached, and does it impact an individual? So, as opposed to if company-related information was breached, there's a different process you go through. Individual employee or customer data has been breached, the individual, is it likely to affect them? So that's pretty much anything. That's a very broad definition. If someone gets a hold of their email address, yes, that could affect them. Someone could email them who is not authorized to email them. So, you have to launch into that investigation right away and then classify the data that has been any intrusion into the data, what that data is classified as. Is it personal data? Is it personal sensitive data? And then rank it based on is it likely to affect an individual? Is it likely to impact an individual? Is it likely to harm an individual? So there could be three levels. Based on that, what kind of notification? So if it's likely to affect or impact an individual, you would have to let them know. If it's likely to harm an individual, you absolutely have to let them know and the data protection authorities know.Andy GreenAnd the DPA, right? So, if I'm a consumer, the threshold is... in other words, if the company's holding my data, I'm not an employee, the threshold is likely to harm or likely to affect?Sheila FitzPatrickLikely to affect.Andy GreenAffect. Okay. That's a little more generous in terms of...Sheila FitzPatrickRight. Right. And that has changed, so it's put more accountability on a company, because you know that a lot of companies have probably had breaches and have never reported them. So, because they go oh well, there was no Social Security Number, National Identification number, or financial data. It was just their name and their address and their home phone number or their cell phone. And the definition previously has been well, it can't really harm them. We don't need to let them know. And then all of a sudden people's names show up on these mailing lists. And they're starting to get this unsolicited marketing. And they can't determine whether or not... how did they get that? Was it based on a breach or is it based on trolling the Internet and gathering information and a broker selling that information? That's the other thing. Brokers are going to be impacted by the new GDPR, because in order to sell their lists they have to have explicit consent of the individual to include their name on a list that they're going to sell to companies.Andy GreenAlright. Okay. So, it's quite consumer friendly compared to what we have in the US.Sheila FitzPatrickYes.Andy GreenIs there sort of new rules about what they call sensitive data? And if you're going to process certain classes of sensitive data, you need approval from the... I think at some point you might need approval from the DPA? You know what I'm referring to? I think it's the...Sheila FitzPatrickYes. Absolutely. I mean, that's always been in place in most of the member states. So, if you look at the member states that have the more restrictive data privacy laws like Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, they've always had the requirement that you have to register the data with the data protection authorities. And in order to collect and transfer outside of the country of origination any sensitive data, it did require approval. The difference now is that any personal data that you collect on an individual, whether it's an employee, whether it's a customer, whether it's a supplier, you have to obtain unambiguous and freely given explicit consent. Now this is any kind of data, and that includes sensitive data. Now the one difference with the new law is that there are just a few categories which are truly defined as sensitive data. That's not what we think of sensitive data. We think of like birth date. Maybe gender. That information is certainly considered sensitive under... that's personal data under EU law and everywhere else in the world, so it has to be treated to a high degree of privacy. But the categories that are political/religious affiliation, medical history, criminal convictions, social issues and trade union membership: that's a subset. It's considered highly sensitive information in Europe. To collect and transfer that information is going to now require explicit approval not only from the individual but from the DPA. Separate from the registrations you have done.Andy GreenSo, I think what I'm referring to is what they call the Impact Assessment.Sheila FitzPatrickPrivacy Impact Assessments have to be conducted now anytime... and we've always... Anytime I've worked with any company, I've implemented Privacy Impact Assessments. They're now required under the new GDPR for any collection of any personal data.Andy GreenBut sensitive data... I think they talked about a DNA data or bio-related data.Sheila FitzPatrickOh no. So, what you're doing... What happened under GPDR, they have expanded the definition of personal data. And so that not the sensitive, that's expanding the definition of personal data to include biometric information, genetic information, and location data. That data was never included under the definition of personal data. Because the belief was, well you can't really tie that back to an individual. They have found out since the original laws put in place that yes you can indeed tie that back to an individual. So, that is now included into the definition.Andy GreenIn sort of catching up a little bit with that technology?Sheila FitzPatrickYeah. Exactly. But part of what GPDR did was it went from being a law around processing of personal data to a law that really moves you into the digital age. So, it's anything about tracking or monitoring or tying different aspects or elements of data together to be able to identify a person. So, it's really entering into the digital age. So, it's trying to catch up with new technology.Andy GreenI have one more question on the GDPR subject. There's some mention in the law about sort of outside bodies can certify...?Sheila FitzPatrickWell, they're talking about having private certifications and privacy codes. Right now, those are not in place. The highest standard you have right now for privacy law is what's call Binding Corporate Rules. And so companies that have their Binding Corporate rules in place, there's only less than a hundred companies worldwide that have those. And actually…
Full show notes at the publisher