H&H Chronicle of Data Protection : Privacy Lawyers & Attorneys : Hogan & Hartson Law Firm : Data Security, E-Commerce & Technology

The Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 201 CMR 17.00 (“Massachusetts Standards”), include a broad range of administrative, physical, and technical obligations.  Nevertheless, there are certain common business processes that may pose unique and substantial compliance challenges.  Accordingly, organizations subject to these regulations should give very careful consideration to their practices in the following high risk areas. 

Email

First, the obligation to encrypt all sensitive personal information transmitted over public networks will have a substantial impact on the use of email to collect and transmit such data.  While there is generally accepted technology available to encrypt email and/or or files attached to emails, implementing such tools and properly training the workforce to use them may require significant expense.  (It should also be noted that this would apply to webpage forms that populate and transmit emails, as well as the use of Instant Messaging, Text Messaging, or similar technologies to transmit personal information.)

Organizations that exchange personal information directly with consumers may find the transition particularly difficult.  Many consumers may be ill-equipped to deal with encrypted messages and attachments.  Moreover, the encryption/decryption process may create negative user experiences that undermine customer goodwill.  While decrypting messages and attachments may be quite straightforward for the technology savvy consumer, it is likely to be confusing or frustrating for many others.  Similar complications may arise when dealing with small to mid-sized third party service providers that have limited technological sophistication.

In light of the foregoing, many organizations may consider alternative communications protocols, such as shifting email-dependent business processes to web browser-based processes that can be secured in a more efficient and centralized manner. Web pages served over secure HTTP or secure FTP could replace most present-day email communications involving personal information. 

Portable Devices

The Massachusetts Standards require the encryption of sensitive personal information stored on portable devices.  By the Massachusetts government’s own admission, there are no generally accepted encryption tools for use on many commonly-used portable devices, such as smartphones and PDAs.  As a result, enterprises subject to the Massachusetts Standards should carefully consider when it is necessary and appropriate, if ever, to store sensitive personal information on portable devices.  Alternatives, such as truncation of sensitive data (e.g., SSNs and financial account numbers) and use of secure online protocols (e.g., secure HTTP or secure FTP) for transmitting data to third parties, should be thoroughly contemplated.  In those instances when such storage is both necessary and appropriate, procedures, including workforce training, should be developed to ensure that the data remains secure during storage.

There is a certain level of overlap with the email concerns discussed above because a likely source of personal information on smartphones is the email messages that may accessed through the devices.  Since encryption of these messages may not be practicable, organizations may have further incentive to suspend the exchange of personal information via email in favor of browser-based protocols.  

Third Party Relationships

The Massachusetts Standards require enterprises to “select and retain” third party service providers that will provide safeguards consistent with the other requirements of the regulations, as well as contractually obligate third party service providers to maintain such safeguards.  The “select and retain” provision is fairly vague, affording the Massachusetts government (and courts) the opportunity to interpret it in ways that could introduce substantial obligations.  This provision appears to impose obligations to engage in pre-contract evaluation and post-execution monitoring of the security practices of third parties. 

Prior iterations of the Massachusetts Standards included an explicit requirement to obtain written certification of compliance from third party service providers.  Since that language has been removed, the regulations no longer provide concrete guidance on what steps should be taken to “select and retain” appropriate third party service providers.  The resulting ambiguity is a problem for both data owners and their prospective service providers.  Service providers are reluctant to reveal detailed information about their security policies and procedures because such information may be misused at significant cost to the service provider.  On the other hand, data owners are limited in their ability to rely upon imprecise representations of robust security measures from service providers because such representations appear to be self-serving. 

Accordingly, it is important for enterprises in both positions (as data owners and/or service providers) to thoroughly analyze the most effective and appropriate way to ensure that their contractual relationships satisfy the Massachusetts Standards.  Among the potential alternatives is the retention of reputable independent auditors to analyze service provider security practices and generate compliance reports for distribution to business partners (as is common for third parties that provide services subject to the Sarbanes Oxley Act). 

• Email This
• Print

 A new era of information security law may well start as the Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 201 CMR 17.00 (“Massachusetts Standards”) go into effect today, March 1, 2010.  All institutions collecting sensitive personal information (e.g., a name combined with a Social Security Number, state-issued identification number, or financial account number) from Massachusetts residents should pay careful attention to the requirements and enforcement of these regulations.  However, the implications beyond those entities that operate in Massachusetts may be longstanding as well.

Information Security Law Trend: From Generalities to Specificity

While information security statutes and regulations are fairly new developments in United States law, the previous trend reflected a bifurcated approach by federal and state authorities.  On the one hand, were somewhat ambiguous reasonableness standards imposed by states such as California and Texas.  On the other hand, were detailed regulations imposed upon industry sectors commonly involved in the handling of sensitive personal information, such as the HIPAA Security Rule, GLB Safeguards Rule, and FCRA/FACTA Disposal Rule. 

As press reports of significant breaches of sensitive personal information continued to mount, state lawmakers have taken an increasingly aggressive approach to regulation. Starting with the rather quiet passage of the Oregon Identity Theft Protection Act and more widely noted passage of the Minnesota Plastic Card Security Act, both in 2007, several states have attempted to adopt detailed information security obligations applicable to all entities that handle sensitive personal information.  Accordingly, Nevada has recently revised its data protection statute, which includes an obligation that businesses that handle credit card transactions must comply with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (similar to the Minnesota Plastic Card Security Act).  Meanwhile, detailed information security regulations remain under development in New Jersey.

A New Revolution Starts in Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Standards stand as a unique development in this lineage because they are notably more comprehensive than the reasonable security statutes implemented in many states and expressly disclaim any exemptions based upon compliance with other regulatory schemes (whether self regulatory such as PCI DSS or federal such as HIPAA and GLB).  In fact, the Massachusetts Standards include a number of technical requirements that are not spelled out in similar detail in the federal sector-specific regulations.  For example, the Massachusetts Standards expressly require the implementation of network firewalls and regularly scheduled patching of operating systems, obligations that are not expressed in either the HIPAA Security Rule or the GLB Safeguards Rule. 

While the Commonwealth’s enforcement agenda remains to be seen, particularly with respect to out-of-state organizations, the regulations are likely to have a distinct impact on many entities. The wide scope of the regulations themselves (covering many administrative, physical, and technical security areas) and the entities arguably subject to the regulations (any entity, regardless of size, that collects sensitive personal information from Massachusetts residents), will compel a significant number of organizations to consider their compliance alternatives.

Although the Massachusetts Standards are designed to scale to the unique circumstances of each entity subject to the obligations (a point reemphasized in revisions issued on August 17, 2009), it is yet to be seen how the enforcement authorities will apply this scalability in practice.  Some of the provisions introduced in an attempt to increase the flexibility of the regulations have inadvertently led to new ambiguities.  For instance, the technical security requirements are only necessary to the degree that they are “technically feasible.”  However, the definition of “technically feasible” (“if there is a reasonable means through technology to accomplish a required result, then that reasonable means must be used”) provides limited practical guidance.  Regardless of their ultimate decisions, entities will be assuming a certain level of risk with any compliance decision until the Massachusetts authorities establish further guidance, either through supplemental documents or enforcement actions.

All that being said, many elements of the Massachusetts Standards are more evolutionary than revolutionary, but their impact may remain substantial.  For example, the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation has stated in its official Frequently Asked Questions that all backup media must be encrypted prospectively.  While encryption has been a solution of choice for legislators and regulators for sometime now, it has historically been encouraged as a form of safe harbor for data breach notification requirements (in state law and recently issued federal health data breach notification regulations).  However, the Massachusetts Standards join the Nevada encryption law in mandating the encryption of sensitive personal information both during transmission and during storage on portable devices and media.  The financial and opportunity costs of such wide ranging obligations to encrypt data may prove substantial and enterprises should be planning accordingly.

• Email This
• Print

The Federal Trade Commission has warned one hundred businesses and organizations that peer-to-peer software (typically used by employees to download and share copyrighted music, software and movie files over the Internet) is exposing information on customers and employees, including health and financial data, Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers.

In a release entitled "Widespread Data Breached Uncovered by FTC Probe" the FTC warned that the presence of privacy-violating peer-to-peer software on an organization's network may represent a violation of the security obligations under a variety of federal statutes.

In one sample letter of the type sent to one of the 100 entities referenced in the FTC release the Commission wrote:

We have not determined whether your company is violating laws enforced by the Commission. However, the FTC is urging you to review your security practices for personal information about your customers and employees, and, if appropriate, the practices of contractors and vendors with access to such information, to ensure that the practices are reasonable, appropriate, and in compliance with the law. It is your responsibility to protect such information from unauthorized access, including taking steps to control the use of P2P software on your own networks and those of your service providers. (emphasis supplied)

In the letters sent to organizations found to be hosting the P2P software, the Commission also pointedly provided a link to the long list of enforcement actions taken by the Commission for inadequate data security (leading to compromised personal privacy).

While focused on the data security threats created by P2P software, the FTC's release also underscores the importance of data security generally and the legal risks involved in not adequately addressing the issue.   (In that connection, Hogan & Hartson's privacy and data security practice group regularly assists clients in conducting a risk management assessment to indentify privacy and data security issues, including the presence of P2P software, and to suggest remedial steps.)

• Email This
• Print

The Federal Communications Commission released a Public Notice this week seeking further comment on numerous privacy issues as part of its National Broadband Plan proceeding.  Based on questions raised in a recent Center for Democracy & Technology filing, some of the broad issues that the Notice seeks comment on include:

• Consumer expectations of privacy, and how to meet those expectations as new technologies are deployed;
• Building Privacy by Design;
• Concerns surrounding the collection, use, and storage of transactional data; and
• The regulation of third-party applications.

The FCC, which is working to complete the Plan and submit it to Congress by March 17, has thus far not focused extensively on how to protect consumer privacy and personal information in the broadband ecosystem.  This Notice, however, indicates that the FCC may be planning to highlight a number of privacy-related consumer protection issues in the Plan.  Moreover, depending in part on the comments received in response to the Notice, it could also open the door to future privacy and data protection proceedings at the FCC.

Comments are due on January 22, 2010, just over a week after the Commission issued the Notice.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

 The European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) has just published a paper on cloud computing, which discusses the benefits and risks of cloud computing from a security perspective. The paper also includes recommendations for improving information security in the context of cloud computing and provides a - in our view very helpful - set of questions that organizations can use to assess whether or not providers of cloud computing services are sufficiently protecting the data entrusted to them.

The key conclusion of the paper is that the “cloud’s economies of scale and flexibility are both a friend and a foe from a security point of view. The massive concentrations of resources and data present a more attractive target to attackers, but cloud-based defenses can be more robust, scalable and cost-effective.” 

The paper is particularly timely in light of the European Commission’s public consultation on the legal framework for the fundamental right to protection of personal data, which closes at the end of next month. ENISA’s paper includes specific recommendations for the European Commission’s future consideration. It rightfully points out that certain issues related to the EU Data Protection Directive and Article 29 Working Party recommendations warrant clarification. In the current legal framework, it is not clear, for example, under which circumstances a provider of cloud computing services may be classified as a “joint controller” of personal data. ENISA also recommends that the European Commission examine and clarify, inter alia:

-         whether providers of cloud computing services should be obliged to notify their customers of data security breaches (and what information should be provided to these customers);

-         the legal impact of data transfers to providers of cloud computing services in countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA), if those countries do not provide an “adequate” level of data protection;

-         how the intermediary liability exemptions arising from the eCommerce Directive apply to providers of cloud computing services.

As far as information security in concerned, ENISA’s paper provides useful and practical guidance for potential and existing users of cloud computing services as well as policy makers. It will be interesting to see to what extent its recommendations will result in concrete action by the European Commission and/or Article 29 Working Party.

• Email This
• Print

The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act (“PDPSA”), recently reintroduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee proposes comprehensive federal regulation of data broker services.  While enactment of the PDPSA remains uncertain, the draft legislation may presage future legislative and regulatory trends.

Comprehensive Federal Regulation of “Data Brokers”

Title II of the PDPSA would introduce significant new regulation for data brokers, which are defined as

“a business entity which for monetary fees or dues regularly engages in the practice of collecting, transmitting, or providing access to sensitive personally identifiable information on more than 5,000 individuals who are not the customers or employees of that business entity or affiliate primarily for the purpose of providing such information to nonaffiliated third parties on an interstate basis.” 

PDPSA § 3(5).  Entities that are already regulated under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), or Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) are not subject to the data broker requirements of the PDPSA as currently drafted.  See PDPSA § 201(b)(1)-(3).  Notably, the PDPSA requirements would apply to the use of any form of sensitive personally identifiable information ("SPII"), unlike the FCRA which is limited to information used in consumer reports. 

• Email This
• Print

The August 17, 2009 revisions of the Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (“Massachusetts Standards”) were accompanied by reassurances that the changes were designed to create a more flexible regulatory framework that would ease the burdens on business while protecting the public interests. However, the revisions also include more detailed provisions dealing with sharing of personal information with third party service providers.  Third party service provider relationships can be a substantial source of risk to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of sensitive information.  Risk factors include the security practices of third parties within their own facilities as well as the seemingly simple process of transferring sensitive information to a service provider. 

The Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (“OCABR”) has addressed these risks by requiring businesses subject to the Massachusetts Standards to take “reasonable steps to select and retain third party service providers that are capable of providing appropriate security measures” consistent with the regulations and contractually obligating those service providers to do so.  There are several particularly noteworthy implications of these requirements.

Expansive Definition of Service Provider

The revised Massachusetts Standards define a “service provider” as: “any person that receives, maintains, processes, or otherwise is permitted access to personal information through its provision of service directly to a person that is subject to this regulation …” explicitly excluding the U.S. Postal Service. Accordingly, almost any vendors, suppliers, consultants, contractors, and advisors with which a business shares the personal information of Massachusetts residents appear to fall within this definition. Going forward, businesses subject to the Massachusetts Standards should carefully examine all of their third party relationships to identify all scenarios where the third party service provider requirements are applicable.  

Data Security Due Diligence

While it has been an advisable practice for some time now, the express reference to selecting third party service providers that are capable of providing appropriate security raises analysis of data security practices during due diligence to the level of a legal obligation. The Commonwealth is unlikely to be sympathetic to claims that an entity was in compliance with the Massachusetts Standards without meaningful evidence of pre-closing investigation into the data security practices of its service providers.

Monitoring Third Party Service Provider Data Security Practices

The August 17th revisions removed the prior obligation to ensure that third party service providers are applying security measures consistent with the regulations. Nonetheless, the new language contains the admonition to “retain” third party service providers capable of providing such security. Hence, OCABR maintains some authority to require monitoring of the data security performance of third party service providers. Consequently, guaranteeing the right to audit the data security measures taken by third party service providers remains a strongly advised policy. 

Limited Grandfather Clause

Finally, the August 17th revisions include a grandfather clause apparently designed to exempt third party service contracts entered into before a particular date. Due to a likely drafting error, the grandfather clause contains conflicting dates (March 1, 2010 and March 1, 2012) for the exemption. This confusion is likely to be resolved after the current public comment period. While a reasonable reading of the current language could lead one to conclude that contractual obligations are not necessary for any contract entered into before March 1, 2010, the use of contract to protect the interests of businesses subject to the Massachusetts Standards remains a very attractive option, even for agreements currently in existence. 

The grandfather clause provides no indication that it exempts presently existing third party relationships from the “selection and retention” requirements discussed above. Contractual restrictions are among the more readily practicable methods of implementing the requirement to select and retain service providers capable of providing appropriate security. Therefore, ensuring that relevant contractual obligations are in place is in the interests of all businesses subject to the Massachusetts Standards.

• Email This
• Print