A metal cattle brand with the word brand as the marking areaThe “business case” for information governance often focuses solely on quantifying specific costs for data management and exposures for data security and ediscovery.  Number crunching is of course important, but it misses something bigger, more strategic, and ultimately more crucial to the organization – its brand.  Companies, regardless of industry, are fundamentally in the information business.  It follows that how an organization manages its information assets reveals how the organization manages itself.  And that matters, a lot, because companies that align themselves with their brand, achieving brand discipline, are more successful.

In their seminal 1993 Harvard Business Review article, Customer Intimacy and Other Value Disciplines, Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema made the case for how highly successful companies (1) understand and redefine value for their customers, (2) build “powerful, cohesive business systems” to deliver more of that value than their competitors, and (3) raise their customers’ expectations beyond what the competition can deliver.  The most successful companies do this work within at least one of three disciplines: operational excellence, product leadership, or customer intimacy.

Treacy and Wiersema based their insights on an intensive study of 40 companies that achieved breakout success in their markets.  They followed the article with their quintessential business strategy book The Discipline of Market Leaders.  Twenty years later, this book is likely still on your CEO’s bookshelf.

What’s the point for information governance?  It’s this – a successful company brand cannot be lipstick on a pig.  It must be organic, a discipline that pervades the organization from the bottom to the top, inward and outward, in its core processes, business structure, management systems, and culture.  And how your organization manages information value, cost, compliance, and risk is no exception.  Simply put, stronger information governance yields a stronger brand for your business.  And this is true for each of the three disciplines of highly successful companies: Continue Reading Why govern our information? Reason #8: It can build – or bust – your brand

One Bullet in Gun BarrelHaving too much data causes problems beyond needless storage costs, workplace inefficiencies, and uncontrolled litigation expenses.  Keeping data without a legal or business reason also exacerbates data security exposures.  To put it bluntly, businesses that tolerate troves of unnecessary data are playing cybersecurity roulette … with even larger caliber ammunition.

Surprisingly few U.S. data security laws and standards expressly require that protected data be compliantly disposed of once legal and business-driven retention periods expire.   PCI DSS v3.2.1, Requirement 3.1, provides “[k]eep cardholder data storage to a minimum by implementing data retention and disposal policies ….”  HIPAA regulations  mandate that business associate agreements require service providers, upon contract termination, to return or destroy all PHI received or created on the covered entity’s behalf, if feasible.  Alabama and Colorado require that records containing state-level PII be disposed of when such records are no longer needed.  And biometric data privacy laws in Illinois, Texas, and Washington generally require that biometric data be disposed of once it has served its authorized purpose.

Instead, most such laws and standards focus on securely sanitizing or destroying storage media.  For example, the NIST Cybersecurity Framework v. 1.1 includes as a security control (PR.IP-6) that “[d]ata is destroyed according to policy,” and ISO 27002 (§ 8.3.2) provides that “[m]edia should be disposed of securely when no longer required, using formal procedures.”

But data security is not achieved by simply running through a checklist of explicit compliance requirements – it instead requires assessing risks and establishing effective security controls.  And one of the most powerful security controls is to not keep too much data, for too long. Continue Reading Why govern our information? Reason #9: Unnecessary business data multiplies data security exposures

Hands pointing towards businessman holding head in hands Being a CISO is a tough gig.  The perpetual deluge of news items on hack after hack, breach after breach, has finally conveyed that data security is an imperative for all companies, large and small.  But the perception still lingers that the Chief Information Security Officer (or her InfoSec team) will single-handedly prevent breaches at “our” company – and if one should occur, will take care of the response.  For some CISOs, it may feel like High Noon, all over again.

This is unfair to the CISO, and wrong on at least two counts.  First, regardless of the CISO’s job description, the full range of cyber risk exceeds the scope of the CISO’s practical control.  Second, effective breach response requires up to ten channels of coordinated activity, and nine of the ten fall outside of the CISO’s authority. Continue Reading Why govern our information? Reason #10: It’s a when, not if, world for data breaches

3d blue cubes come together from different directions.Dr. Stephen Covey reminded us that “important” is not the same thing as “urgent.”  Records retention reminds us that important is not the same thing as exciting.  I get it – records retention schedules are boring.  But the fact remains that literally thousands of records retention requirements apply to your organization’s information.  I know, because my firm finds and tracks these laws as part of our decades of retention schedule work for clients across industries.  And your regulators expect you to know them too.

Records retention requirements generally apply to information’s content, regardless of the information’s medium – electronic data, paper, you name it.  The requirements are scattered across the federal and 50 states’ statutory and regulatory codes, often with unusual retention mandates.  Here are just a few: Continue Reading Why govern our information? Reason #11: Thousands of federal and state records retention laws apply to your company

Fingerprint biometric dataIn today’s landmark ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court held that private lawsuits seeking statutory damages and injunctions for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) may be pursued by “aggrieved” persons without alleging any actual injury or adverse effect.

BIPA, enacted in Illinois back in 2008, was the seminal state statutory privacy law for individuals’ biometric data.  The law protects individuals’ biometric identifiers (a retina or iris scan, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry) and biometric information (any information, regardless of how captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual’s biometric identifier used to identify an individual), all subject to statutory exceptions.

Under BIPA, private entities that possess such biometric data:

  • must have a written policy for the retention and destruction of such data within three years of the earlier of the individual’s last interaction or when the purpose of collecting or obtaining the data has been satisfied;
  • must not collect or otherwise obtain such data without first (1) notifying the individual in writing of the collection or storage of the data, (2) notifying the individual in writing of why and how long the data is being collected, stored, and used, and (3) obtaining the individual’s written release;
  • must not sell, lease, trade, or otherwise profit from such data;
  • must not disclose such data without the individual’s consent, or to complete a financial transaction the individual requests or authorizes, or as required by law; and
  • must safeguard such data using reasonable care and in a manner at least as protective as the entity’s safeguards for other confidential and sensitive data.

BIPA authorizes private actions by “aggrieved” persons in state or federal courts for statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and injunctions.

In Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp, the complaint alleged that an amusement park obtained plaintiff’s fingerprint to set up a season pass, without making the BIPA-required notifications or obtaining the plaintiff’s written release.  The defendant convinced the Court of Appeals that plaintiff was not an “aggrieved” person under BIPA because there were no allegations of actual harm.  But on appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that BIPA allows private actions for statutory damages and injunctions for statutory violations, regardless of any showing of actual injury or adverse effect.

This ruling, as a definitive interpretation of BIPA, will have immediate impact in litigation across the country, including cases pending in federal courts against a variety of companies doing business in Illinois (note that BIPA exempts financial institutions, and their affiliates, subject to the GLBA Safeguards Rule).

The ruling also underscores the need for companies to carefully pursue information governance for any collection, storage, or use of biometric data, including their policies and systems for privacy, data security, and data retention.

Image of one hundred bill burning “If your clients don’t have a records management system, they may as well take their money out into the parking lot and set it on fire.”

– Former U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge John Facciola

We all know that ediscovery is expensive, and various research reports have so confirmed. The definitive Rand study, Where the Money Goes: Understanding Litigant Expenditures for Producing Electronic Discovery, found that median costs for collection, processing, and review are $17,507 per gigabyte (roughly 3,500 documents or 10,000 e-mails).  The math is not pretty – a case involving 482 GBs of source data could exceed $8 million in ediscovery costs.

And on top of that are preservation costs. The  Preservation Costs Survey demonstrated that large companies incur significant fixed costs for preservation (for in-house ediscovery personnel and also for procurement and maintenance of legal hold management and data preservation technology systems), averaging $2.5 million annually.  More significant is the cost of employee time lost in complying with legal holds.  While companies with up to 10,000 employees incur the average time cost of over $428,000 per year, costs for the largest companies exceed $38 million per year.

There is indeed great complexity in how to cost-effectively process huge amounts of data through the ediscovery funnel. Tighter management of ediscovery processes continues to be important.

But as we ponder how to cut costs, let’s not confuse symptoms with causes: Continue Reading Why govern our information? Reason #12: Unnecessary business data causes unnecessary litigation costs

Depressed employee with laptopMost people have elevated stress during the holiday season — work, travel, family, money, time.  And holiday stress can make people inattentive, tired, frustrated, and willing to take short cuts, especially when it comes to computer and Internet use.  This is when mistakes happen.  It’s when we decide to evade policy by emailing work home or by using the unsecured airport Wi-Fi because our plane is delayed.  It’s also when malicious acts of information theft, sabotage, and fraud can more easily occur and go undetected.

According to a recent survey, insider threats — as opposed to outside actors — can account for nearly 75% of cyber incidents.  These incidents occur because of the actions of employees, suppliers, customers, and previous employees.  Law firms are not exempt, particularly small to medium size firms.  In fact, smaller firms typically have fewer resources to devote to cybersecurity and use more outside suppliers.

End-of-year activities for law firms also make them especially vulnerable to insider threats, whether inadvertent or malicious: the push to bill and collect for more hours, time-sensitive legal matters that must be resolved before the end of the calendar year, attending to year-end tax accounting, case and client review, bonus calculations.  Lawyers and their staff feel the strain of extra hours, looming deadlines, and sometimes contentious clients at the same time we all feel holiday pressures at home.

What is at risk? Continue Reading Law firm insider threats don’t take a break for the holidays — they may get worse.

Fish tempted by fishing hookAs technical security improves, human security vulnerabilities are increasingly in the bulls-eye.  For a fresh look at social engineering, and how best to defend against it, there’s no better source than a hacker.  So, I reached out to Cliff Smith, Ethical Hacker & CISSP at Parameter Security, for his take on the current social engineering battleground.  Here’s what he shared:

Confidence games have been around forever.  Is there anything fundamentally different about social engineering practiced by hackers?

Modern social engineering is no different than the classic con games.  They all run on information, trust, and emotions.  The biggest change in the past 20 years or so is that technology makes the attacker’s job much easier, for several reasons.  First, a skilled practitioner can use countless tactics to make their first contact appear more legitimate, such as spoofing a message’s source or creating a legitimate-looking website.  Second, the average user operates on autopilot much of the time when using their phones or computers.  It’s so easy, for example, to click on a link without stopping to think about the danger, which makes phishing attacks much more likely to succeed.  Third, technology makes the consequences of social engineering much more dire.  In just a few clicks, you can accidentally ruin your financial life, or someone else’s.

It’s commonly understood that phishing is a problem, and that phishing is a deceptive email with a malicious link.  Is it that simple, or are there other social engineering attacks to be concerned about? Continue Reading If you teach a man to phish …

Last Piece of PuzzleWhew – we’ve survived yet another round of states enacting or amending their PII breach notification laws.  If a trial lawyer’s vacation is the time between her question and the witness’s answer, a data security lawyer’s vacation is when state legislatures are out of session.

Back in 2002, California enacted the first state law mandating notification of individuals whose personally identifiable information (PII) is breached.  Now every state has followed suit, with the final two holdouts, Alabama and South Dakota, joining the other forty-eight states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands by enacting PII breach notification statutes.  Each state has its own unique approach, and the states continue to expand their requirements, especially their definitions of what constitutes PII and the timing and content of mandated notifications.

These laws are triggered by the affected individuals’ residency, not where the breach occurred. So, when an organization with employees or customers in many states suffers a data breach, it must comply with a wide variety of conflicting and evolving state breach notification laws. And differ and evolve they do: Continue Reading With PII breach notification statutes, the rules keep changing

Empty SafeLast week’s post explored why law firms need data security policies.  Before we move on, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention another policy that’s absolutely crucial for the law firm’s data security posture – a records management policy, coupled with an up-to-date and legally validated records retention schedule.

What does a records retention schedule have to do with data security?  Simply this – keeping data without a legal or business reason exacerbates data security exposures.

Breached systems frequently contain many times more data than was needed for retention compliance or any valid business or operational purpose.  This unnecessary data multiplies the number of those whose confidential or protected information is compromised, and can also have exponential impact once breached, passing a tipping point on lasting reputational damage or on the economic viability of claims against the firm.

It’s not possible for a breach to compromise the security of information that no longer exists, having already been compliantly disposed of once its legally required retention and business value have expired.

But surely most every law firm has a records retention schedule in place for its records of client matters and firm administration, right?  Actually, far too few firms do. Continue Reading Law firm data retention – they can’t hack what you no longer have