PII: Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care...

A data security breach of "Personal Identifiable Information" (PII) will impact your organization in the future. This incident is no different than other Operational Risk loss events to your global enterprise this year, such as occupational fraud or the settlement of a lawsuit.

Correct?

This time however, the difference is that now your own employees or your customers are the victim. Their PII has been lost or stolen and your organization has been the safeguarding entity of that valuable data until now. Your response is vital and the way you legally and ethically behave is a significant risk factor in itself.

Your brand reputation in the marketplace is on the line and the potential churn in lost customers or employees is at stake. Like many post 9/11 companies, your crisis response protocol is already in place for incidents that require your senior executives and the establishment of an immediate Incident Response Team (IRT).

So why is lost or stolen PII such an important executive issue for any organization?

In privacy, PII is less restrictive than in Information security and one definition can be found in the EU directive 95/46/EC:^[1]

Article 2a: 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;

Although the concept of PII is ancient, it has become much more important as information technology and the AI-powered Internet have made it easier to collect PII, leading to a profitable market in collecting and reselling PII.

PII can also be exploited by criminals to stalk or steal the identity of a person, or to plan a person's murder or robbery, among other crimes. As a response to these threats, many web site privacy policies specifically address the collection of PII, and lawmakers have enacted for decades a series of legislation to limit the distribution and accessibility of PII.

As your General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer begin to assess the magnitude and breadth of your recent PII exposure, so too does the plaintiff lawyers. Now the clock starts ticking and each tick gets louder and louder, as different litigation strategies are discussed. In Board Rooms and judges court chambers across the United States, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and the admissibility of "Electronically Stored Information" (ESI) is being discussed as a legitimate component of evidence and it's relevance in the case.

What if you could now "Rewind" this scenario and find yourself in a "legal safe zone" to adequately prepare, prevent and even preempt a "Data Security Breach" in your organization. This "legal safe zone" is available today and is as close as your corporate executive conference room, with several "Subject Matter Experts" working side-by-side. It's a professional service solution from a data breach services leader.

The "Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care" Readiness workshop in your organization begins with a two day facilitated process for discovery and convergence with your fellow company executives.

You will be engaged in a proactive, preventive and preemptive tactical plan in preparation for the day of your next PII-involved Data Security Breach. Upon completion, this operational plan establishes the baseline framework for a complete team-based drill.

This outcome will then test the readiness of your key stakeholders internally and external to the company. More importantly, it provides the strategic insight on what vulnerabilities still exist in your particular organizations approach to remediation and legal compliance.

Each year, despite security efforts, millions of personal records are compromised as a result of corporate and public-sector data breaches. Breach response costs - mandated notification, PR, call handling, credit monitoring and legal fees - can add up, yet traditional approaches don't fully mitigate the risk to your business or your customers.

A data security breach of "Personal Identifiable Information" (PII) will impact your organization in the future. The next one will be different…

QFD: The End of Compliance...

Corporations will continue to be responsible for the criminal behavior and actions of their employees, 3rd party suppliers and other contractors for at least the near term.

In any case that has the defense legal eagles and "Usual Suspects" arguing against the corporate liability issue, the intent is getting cloudy or is it crystal clear?

Even if your Corporate Compliance Programs are in full force and the financial integrity unit is robust in it's efforts, the "Operational Risk" still exists for litigation.

Regardless of the amount of awareness building, education and corporate window dressing, you can't ultimately control human behavior. 

More compliance enforcement and regulatory pressure may seem to be the answer. A voluntary effort to shore up security, soundness and the opportunity for malfeasance in the work place may not be working effectively.

And still the liabilities exist from the plaintiffs and government adversaries to gain compensation. So what is the answer?

The answer lies in the "Enterprise Architecture" of our institutions and the failure to implement the process of "Quality Function Deployment" (QFD). This has been ignored by senior executives and US business because many judge it to be too complex.

One only has to look at the state of our automobile manufacturers versus the likes of Japanese companies to get a sense of the success of incorporating QFD on a comprehensive basis. But now apply this to the culture of an organization and how each individual makes logical business decisions instead of emotion-based decisions.

What many liability issues begin with are the employee(s) who made a bad decision.

QFD in its simplest form is a tool to promote communications. Among peers and connected teams within the organization it provides the methodology to catch errors, omissions and emotional bias early in the process.

As an example, let's take the Request for Proposal (RFP).

Many companies depend heavily on winning business by responding to RFP's. A "deal makers" perception of importance to the RFP determines the effort for the response.

Many times, this is influenced by an incentive plan. The human behavior to accept or decline the effort on an RFP as well as what it takes to push it through the organization for executive sign offs, is not always compatible with the strategic and quality measures of the enterprise.

Over time this will form an unimaginable amount of moral decay within a company. This leads to bad behavior and unethical decisions that people make because the business environment has rewarded it for far too long. So who is to blame here? The employee or the culture and company that has condoned and encouraged the behavior that ultimately damaged someone or something.

Implementing QFD in your information-based enterprise could have a dramatic impact on achieving a defensible standard of care by reducing the likelihood of catastrophic emotional decisions.

More importantly, QFD programs such as this that are directly reducing the likelihood of bad employee behavior and criminal incidents, can reduce the necessity for invasive compliance programs that most everyone wants to ignore.

Cyber Reality: Quest for the Digital Castle...

On this Saturday morning the prayers are silent. For family, friends and also for the subject matter experts in business and the U.S. government.

They have been waking us up again to the reality of the Operational Risks we now face, to our ubiquitous digital-based economic infrastructure.

The message is clear to those insiders, who have been trying to defend our "Digital Castles" against tremendous odds of these seemingly invisible threats. Is it really, game over?

The short answer is yes. The current mindset should be, that every major business of valuable interest in the eyes of the enemy has already been compromised or soon to be. It is already too late. The stealth digital code is currently waiting in the shadows of your organizations hundreds or thousands of digital assets.

Whether it is the aging Dell Tower Desk Tops still running on Windows XP somewhere or the latest Android PDA/Apple IOS devices tethered to the corporate network does not matter. Your adversary has control of when and where to begin the attack on you and your organization.

So if this is the reality of the global state-of-play, in both the business world and also to government, what should the risk management strategy consist of going forward? How could we ever get to a point of advantage over those who seek to do us harm?

So internally, the prudent corporate business strategy should be for your General Counsel and the CIO of your organization to be already preparing themselves for the day that they will step before the press conference microphone to disclose the material breach of the companies intellectual capital or theft of assets.

They should already know, that it is just a matter time and not a denial that it will ever happen on their watch. If you are a Board Director and you still have not had "The Talk" with management about this stark reality, then you too are complicit in the scheme to present your stockholders and stakeholders with a false sense of confidence that you are safe and secure.

The new normal for forward thinking organizations is already being implemented for adverse events. The Crisis Management Team has already exercised the "Data Breach" scenario numerous times.

Your General Counsel and Chief Information Officer have rehearsed and practiced their testimony before opposing and adversarial questioning of your organizations information security processes.

The company subject matter experts are more than prepared to submit evidence of their best practices, industry standards compliance and previous tests of due diligence. The stage is set for the court room battles ahead:

The quest for the "Digital Castle" has been going on for years. Are you awake now or still living in a dream of denial on your state of achieving a Defensible Standard of Care…

Intellectual Capital Risk: The Shamrock Organization…

What is the economic value of the Intellectual Capital(IC) in your organization? Where can you find your most valuable IC assets? Are they in the vault? Are they in the database?

Or are they sitting at the MacBook Pro at home or in the office next door? How do you know what assets are the most precious to the continuous continuity of your business?

These questions and more are at the heart of every "Shamrock" organization.

 A Three-Leaf concept originally coined by the author Charles Handy in his classic 1990 book, The Age of Unreason:

The Core
One leaf of the shamrock represents the core. These are the founders and thought leaders of the organization along with the most qualified professionals or technicians. The core is a flat hierarchy compensated purely on the results of the entire entity.

The Contractual Fringe
The second leaf is known as the contractual fringe. This is both individuals and organizations who may have their own shamrocks. These are paid for results, not for time. In fees, not wages. This leaf provides the core with intellectual assets that are essential to the organization yet are independent or even former members of the core.

The Flexible Labor Force
The third leaf of the shamrock is known as the flexible labor force. This is the flexible labor force that the core utilizes in a just-in-time talent or labor basis. Their specialized skills are tied to the intellectual assets these individuals possess to be efficient and effective for a set time period. They are treated by the core as a valuable component but realize that they will never have the commitment or the ambition of the core. They get fair pay for their contract labor.

What is Intellectual Capital?

Now with our 2021 U.S. economy changing and adapting for decades from a production-oriented economy towards a significant software driven knowledge-oriented economy, your intangible assets are becoming more and more digital. To make better products, to deliver better services or to perform better, as a company in general we need to accelerate the origination and analysis of new found knowledge and know-how.

In that perspective, we could say that our new real knowledge originates from our minds into some form of data, that has now become the key predecessor of any physical labor and financial capital.

To make your company relevant and even more valuable, you will not only need the digital data, computers, and production facilities, ...... you will also need the innovation drivers that makes your company evolve beyond your own imagination.

These “Core” innovation drivers are your “People” with their know-how and experience, your designers of internal processes to guide the business flow and also the proactive interaction with your Alliances/Partners and your key customers.

Without these “Innovation Drivers”, your company wouldn't function at all and therefore, they are of tremendous "Capital" importance. This is your real "Intellectual Capital".

The volume and speed of new “Intellectual Capital” production in your organization will determine how you will perform in an accelerating global arena of competition.

It is the difference between our success and our failure.

"No matter how good the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) or idea may be, without a consistent flow of new found Intellectual Capital, and the development of new tested prototypes, no outstanding and ground breaking results can be expected."

Now the question remains, how will you measure your organizational Intellectual Capital (IC)?

Without a way to measure it, how are you going to know what IC assets need to be managed and protected for the longevity and continuity of the business?

Where are they located? Which are most valuable? Who is the person or who are the people who own it?

People risk is one of the four major categories of Operational Risk Management.  How are you managing, measuring and protecting “Intellectual Capital” in your organization?

Organizational Integrity: Leadership of Risk…

As a leader in your organization, how long have you truly demonstrated the actions you desire for those who are following you?

Countless times each day, leaders in the global race to the finish line, ignore or disavow the rules or policies they enforce for their own team.

What are you demonstrating in your organization today and this week to build “Organizational Integrity”?

How are your own behaviors in the midst of your team, showing and reinforcing the actions that will build and activate a model of “Organizational Integrity”?

integrity
noun

in· teg· ri· ty | \ in-ˈte-grə-tē

Definition of integrity

1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
2 : an unimpaired condition : soundness
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness

Why have you made the decisions that you are more privileged than the others on your team?

Is it your personal sense of ego or power as a figure of authority, that makes you feel as if the activities and rules for you, do not apply or are different than for those who are on the front lines?

They are not.  In the midst of a legal deposition or worse, the leader who is charged, explains their own behaviors.  This is now beyond the point of no return.

Even when you are behind closed doors of the “Board Room” or the “Ready Room,” are you demonstrating the same behavior and adherence to the processes, that you wish upon all those you are leading?

Leadership of your “Executive” Team or a “Squad of Specialists” in the field, requires people who truly “Walk-the-Talk” and adhere to the same standards or rules set forth for the entire organizational operations.

You already are known as a “Leader” in your area of expertise.

Yet are you known as a leader with “Integrity,” that truly demonstrates this in the middle of your operations each day?

Enterprise Resilience: Compete or Die...

Enterprise Resilience is the road to competitiveness. It is the global answer to many of the Chief Security Officers (CSO) who have faced the troublesome battle of selling more "Fear and Doubt" to the CEO and Board of Directors.

The 34th Overseas Security Advisory Council event was held the week before Thanksgiving as usual.  Yet flashback to when Deborah Wince-Smith stood up on the stage at the 21st Annual Security Briefing at OSAC on November 16th, 2006, when her words were music to our ears:

"It is undeniable that the world has gotten more risky. Businesses now function in a global economy characterized by increasing uncertainty, complexity, connectivity and speed. Managing this rapidly changing risk landscape is an emerging competitiveness challenge—a challenge that demands resilience: the capability to survive, adapt, evolve and grow in the face of change. The Council on Competitiveness is proud to offer this report, which promotes a strategy of resilience for both the public and private sectors a strategy with clear benefits for our companies’ competitiveness and our nation’s homeland security."

On the doorstep of 2020, globalization, technological complexity, interdependence, and speed of digital information are fundamentally changing the kind of risks and competitive challenges that companies— and countries—face.

Failure, whether by attack or accident, can spread quickly and cascade across networks, borders and societies.

Increasingly, disruptions can come from unforeseen directions with unanticipated effects. Global information and transportation networks create interdependencies that magnify the impact of individual incidents. These new types of risk, demand new methods of Risk Management.

Was this a way for the Chief Security Officers of the Fortune 500 to finally shift their thinking from protection to something less macho? How could "Resilience" become a platform for a mind set shift to justify new funding?

After all, now we aren't trying to scare people into the "Low Probability - High Impact" incidents anymore and focusing in on the high probability incidents, that may have enough impact to cause a significant business disruption.

What are the incidents and areas of risk that insurance won't touch these days? If the insurance companies can write the policy to give you peace of mind, then is this necessarily an area that you can ignore, because you have transfered the risk to someone else?  Maybe not.

Being agile, ready and capable of a quick recovery is what competitiveness is all about, on the field, on stage or around the table in the Board Room. Working towards control and protection while fear builds in the back of your mind makes you stiff, depletes your energy and creates doubt.

And when you are operating a business or standing on the tee of your first sudden death hole on any PGA weekend, you better have resilience.

The business equivalent to Homeland Security and Critical Infrastructure Protection is Operational Risk Management (ORM)—a domain that many executives see as the most important emerging area of risk for their firms. Increasingly, failure to plan for operational resilience can have “bet the firm” results.

Back in 2000, the Meta Group (now owned by Gartner) did a study on the cost of "An hour of computer downtime by industry group". These numbers are now 19 years old:

INDUSTRY SECTOR (Millions)

• Energy - $2.8
• Telecommunications - $2.0
• Manufacturing - $1.6
• Financial Institutions - $1.4
• Information Technology - $1.3
• Insurance - $1.2
• Retail - $1.1
• Pharmaceuticals - $1.0
• Banking - $0.996

We all know that it costs lot of money to have any systems downtime, that's why so many dollars have been invested in Disaster Recovery (DRP) and other Business Continuity Planning (BCP).

Yet is this the kind of resilience that is going to make you more competitive, to seize more opportunities? The economics of resilience are more than investing for the likely or unlikely information systems incident (ransomware) that will attack your organization tomorrow.

The threat of Tort Liability and the loss of reputation is top of mind these days with every major global company executive. The threat is real and increasing at a faster rate than many other real operational risks to the enterprise. Litigation from regulators, class actions and competitors has given the term "Legal Risk" new emphasis and meaning.

Once corporate management understands the need for a "Resilience" mentality in place of a "Protection" mental state, a new perspective is found. Investing in the vitality, agility and competitive capabilities of the organization sounds and is more positive.

It alleviates the fear of doom and gloom and inspires new found innovation. The future of your organizations longevity and in its adaptability, can be achieved with a new perspective.

Compete or die.

"Enabling Global Enterprise Business Resilience" is just the beginning...

Red Team: The Unknown Adversary...

Anticipating risks and potential threats to critical assets takes a "Red Team" mentality. Communities and companies need to be training, planning and adapting to all hazards.

Whether they be the structural failure of a bridge, ransomware of major municipalities or the next major attack on our U.S. Homeland.

Critical infrastructure is physical and cyber-based systems, that are essential to the minimum operations of the economy and our government.

This means that many states are in a continuous review of their own critical infrastructure. When the analysis is done and the finger pointing is over, we will have one more example of why the public private partnership is essential for the future of government and business.

Organizations such as WashingtonDCFIRST, ChicagoFIRST and others around the U.S. are working on putting more emphasis on critical infrastructure resiliency.

InfraGard in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York Metro, Chicago, the Nations Capital or any of the other 70+ major metro areas, is just another example of how private business is interacting with government in the context of cooperation, coordination and connecting tens of thousands of subject matter experts.

The people who can make a difference long before an incident, or minutes after one occurs, can be found in each of these local chapters. How the local community takes advantage of these resources is up to government leadership.  Since over 85% is owned and operated by the Private Sector.

"The ability to anticipate an opponent’s intent is critical to many forms of planning, analysis, design, and operations. While this need is recognized in the military and intelligence communities, infrastructure providers and first responders find themselves on the front line facing a range of potential threats, that in many cases exceed the defenders direct experience."

Having this "Red Team" mentality can save lives and dollars, through continuous exercises and a business resilience approach to discovering and eradicating new found vulnerabilities...

Information Threat: Battle for Superiority...

What continues to be the greatest economic threat to your organization? Is it "Internal" or "External" to your institution? Could it be both?

Insiders rarely work alone and therefore the nexus with some outside influence, whether it be a person, life factors or some other entity are typically in play.

Is an engineer in R&D copying precious intellectual property information from within the enterprise company, that could be worth hundreds of thousands or even millions to the highest competitive global bidder? Could your small business have an accounting supervisor that has been diverting funds to a private bank account for the past two years?

Would it be possible that a supplier or 3rd party partner is capable of inflating the number of billable hours on a project?

Whether it's IP Theft, Fraud or other white collar corporate malfeasance, these Operational Risks are real and growing at a double-digit percentage rate annually. The greatest economic threat to your organization could be complacency or an apathetic staff, who works without adequate resources and little communication with the Executive "Powerbase".

The compliance and oversight mechanism's are in full swing from the federal governments around the world as highly regulated critical infrastructure organizations are implicated in a myriad of corruption, scandal, ethics and criminal matters.

Litigation is an Operational Risk that many organizations have realized the necessity for more robust internal teams to address the continuous requests for information from the government.

There is one common denominator across all of the insider threats, external forces and other vectors that seem to be attacking our institutions night and day. That common denominator is "Information".

And underlying this is the data and meta data that all to often ends up being the key or clue to finding the "Smoking Gun" and the source or person(s) associated with the scheme or attack on the organization.

Managing information in a mobile and interconnected planet is a major issue in any global company. Providing the tools and the right information faster and more accurately than the competition can be the difference in your own survival on the corporate battlefield.

So how does the CxO suite even begin to address the risks, opportunities and resilience in our demanding "Information-centric" environment?

They believe in having a strong culture of ethics, training and continuous monitoring of employees, systems and their supply chain. They understand the importance of providing the vital resources to the people on the front line of risk management and to make sure that their early warning systems and methods are not compromised.

This breed of CxO's are the new breed of organizational management, that are leveraging information to their most significant advantage:

Whether you are trading in a marketplace, analyzing assets on a map or manufacturing widgets and selling them to qualified buyers, operational risk management begins and ends with information. Managing that information effectively and more accurately than your competition is the name of the game. What have you done today to insure your survivability in the face of the next crisis?

IO Convergence: Cyber Warfare Unified Taxonomy...

Information Operations (IO) is an Operational Risk Management priority in both the public and private sector these days. Is it lawful for a U.S. company and U.S. citizens to train and perform cyber warfare activities on behalf of a foreign country?

Flashback to 2012, The Washington Post reports:

By Ellen Nakashima, Published: November 22

"In the spring of 2010, a sheik in the government of Qatar began talks with the U.S. consulting company Booz Allen Hamilton about developing a plan to build a cyber-operations center. He feared Iran’s growing ability to attack its regional foes in cyberspace and wanted Qatar to have the means to respond.

Several months later, officials from Booz Allen and partner firms met at the company’s sprawling Tysons Corner campus to review the proposed plan. They were scheduled to take it to Doha, the capital of the wealthy Persian Gulf state.

That was when J. Michael McConnell, then a Senior Vice-President at Booz Allen and former Director of National Intelligence in the George W. Bush administration, learned that Qatar wanted U.S. personnel at the keyboards of its proposed cyber-center, potentially to carry out attacks on regional adversaries.

“Are we talking about actually conducting these operations?” McConnell asked, according to several people at the meeting. When someone said that was the idea, McConnell uttered two words: “Hold it.”

A common taxonomy was developed years ago for the cyber terms of the computer and network incident domain. Now we need to make sure we all understand what we mean when we say Information Operations policy as it pertains to the digital world.

As an example, in the context of the digital attacker we have Sandia Labs Taxonomy:

• Hacker
• Spies
• Terrorists
• Corporate Raiders
• Professional Criminals
• Vandals
• Voyeurs

Each is unique and has its own domain or category. We are sure that the same could be used for the context of attackers in the non-digital world, possibly with the exception of Hacker. However, the definition of corporate raider in the off line domains may not be synonymous with the on line domain of cyber incidents.

If we look at the categories that make up the entire "Incident" that Sandia Labs has utilized, we see the following:

• Attackers
• Tool
• Vulnerability
• Action
• Target
• Unauthorized Results
• Objectives

Without combining the context under each category, we lose the impact of what we are trying to make contextual with regard to an "Incident". We need to make sure that the anti-terrorism taxonomies of the off line and on line domains can be utilized together to describe the attributes of an "Incident". We need to break down the sub-categories as well. For instance, in the Sandia Labs Taxonomy for the Objectives category we have:

• Challenge, Status, Thrill
• Political Gain
• Financial Gain
• Damage

When we move to the off line domain and are doing risk mitigation and preparedness exercises for anti-terrorism we utilize another set of words to describe and evaluate infrastructure threats and hazards.  Here are Five factors:

• Existence addresses the question of who is hostile to the assets of concern?
• Capability addresses the question of what weapons have been used in carrying out past attacks?
• History addresses the question of what has the potential threat element (aggressor) done in the past and how many times?
• Intention addresses the question of what does the potential threat element hope to achieve?
• Targeting addresses the question of do we know if an aggressor is performing surveillance on our assets?

Two years later, the Washington Post reports:

By Ellen Nakashima, Published: November 14

President Obama has signed a secret directive that effectively enables the military to act more aggressively to thwart cyber­attacks on the nation’s web of government and private computer networks.

Presidential Policy Directive 20 establishes a broad and strict set of standards to guide the operations of federal agencies in confronting threats in cyberspace, according to several U.S. officials who have seen the classified document and are not authorized to speak on the record. The president signed it in mid-October. The new directive is the most extensive White House effort to date to wrestle with what constitutes an “offensive” and a “defensive” action in the rapidly evolving world of cyberwar and cyberterrorism, where an attack can be launched in milliseconds by unknown assailants utilizing a circuitous route. For the first time, the directive explicitly makes a distinction between network defense and cyber-operations to guide officials charged with making often-rapid decisions when confronted with threats.

The policy also lays out a process to vet any operations outside government and defense networks and ensure that U.S. citizens’ and foreign allies’ data and privacy are protected and international laws of war are followed.

“What it does, really for the first time, is it explicitly talks about how we will use cyber-operations,” a senior administration official said. “Network defense is what you’re doing inside your own networks. . . . Cyber-operations is stuff outside that space, and recognizing that you could be doing that for what might be called defensive purposes.”

We believe that as our cultures, countries, agencies and professionals work together on Information Operations (IO) and online counter-terrorism initiatives, we are going to have to develop a solid taxonomy. It will provide the foundation for our clear and accurate risk management methodologies and incident management systems, being developed by relevant organizations in mutual collaboration.

Once we have accomplished this fundamental understanding, then true Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) cooperation and coordination will occur.

Privacy Law: Scanning the Legal Horizon...

As our new knowledge-based organizations begin the startup phase, the thought of all of the implications of collecting and storing information may be secondary to raising capital.  However, once you have the core team in place and the business begins to scale, maybe it is time to look over the horizon.

Once you have reached the point in your companies growth curve to consider the hiring of a CFO and even an outside "General Counsel", the regulatory engine must be established within the enterprise.  Today, even the CISO in any major business across the United States has been challenged by rapidly changing digital privacy laws the past two years.

Especially in California, the CalECPA went into effect January 1, 2016 and in general is focused on law enforcement:

The landmark California Electronic Communications Privacy Act bars any state law enforcement agency or other investigative entity from compelling a business to turn over any metadata or digital communications—including emails, texts, documents stored in the cloud—without a warrant. It also requires a warrant to track the location of electronic devices like mobile phones, or to search them.

The simple fact that a company is doing business in the State of California and has employees operating there, puts a significant set of requirements and compliance issues that are top of mind.  This is why you see technology-oriented companies who have their Headquarters based here, developing robust guides for working within federal and state privacy laws.

A "Chief Information Security Officer" is not only charged with protecting the data within a confidentiality, integrity and assurance framework, but also working in tandem with the General Counsel and a Chief Privacy Officer.  The standards and the laws have significant hurdles that also require prudent Operational Risk Management strategies.

Now take all of this into consideration as your begin to plan for implementing an "Insider Threat Program" (InTP) within your organization.  The addition of a Human Resources component, Chief Information Officer and even perhaps 3rd Party Cloud supply chain vendors will all be in play.

So What?

So what is the legal profession in California focused on these days?  Just take a look at the Agenda for a March 2017 event at Berkeley Law:

Cybersecurity Regulatory Enforcement

New regulators, new laws, and new norms are causing cybersecurity responsibilities to proliferate. This discussion will feature insights on how cybersecurity lawyers navigate the growing thicket of information security rules from the perspective of both companies pursued by the FTC and multinationals operating under different legal regimes. It will consider challenges posed by insider breaches and obligations arising from the General Data Protection Regulation.

Practitioners Panel

Privacy practitioners from leading law firms and major online companies will share insights on how to stay afloat in increasingly turbulent waters.

Privacy Award

BCLT is proud to bestow its annual Privacy Award this year on
Susan Freiwald, University of San Francisco Law School
Nicole Ozer, ACLU of California

in recognition of their leadership in securing passage of CalECPA, which establishes the “gold standard” of a judicial warrant for government access to communications, location data and other information about our daily lives.

Keynote: Too Close for Comfort – AI, Cloud Computing, and Privacy 

Recent advances in artificial intelligence, robots, and machine learning are enabled by big data, digital cameras, and cloud computing. These advances open an enormous Pandora’s box in terms of security and privacy. Groundbreaking AI researcher Ken Goldberg will present potential responses, such as a concept for “Respectful Cameras,” a privacy-preserving system for industrial automation. He will explain why claims of an impending “Singularity” are greatly exaggerated and will propose an alternative, “Multiplicity,” where diverse groups of humans work together with diverse groups of machines to innovate and to solve complex problems.

Government Access

With digital evidence central to an increasing number of criminal and foreign intelligence investigations, government demands for access seem to steadily increase. From varying perspectives, this panel will explore emerging issues in government access to data stored with third parties.

Artificial Intelligence and the Right to an Explanation

The General Data Protection Regulation requires that organizations explain to individuals the logic behind decisions rendered by algorithms. This policy is aligned with growing efforts in the machine learning community to improve the interpretability of outputs. This panel will examine a broad range of efforts to address interpretability and potential biases in complex algorithmic systems.

Consent and Contract under EU Data Protection Law

EU privacy regulation continues to have worldwide relevance, especially affecting U.S.-based companies. This session will examine how consumer data can continue to be collected and used given the different approaches in the EU and U.S. to consensual mechanisms for authorizing personal data processing.

The CISO and the entire team of Operational Risk Management professionals at your organization, should be monitoring and creating new strategies to protect the organization.  Scanning the legal horizon on what the new challenges are and how to prepare, is the sign of a sound business strategy.

Legal Risk: Tools for Trusted Governance...

One of the reasons that the United States has endured is because of transparency and the rule of law.  There are several key systems in place for corporations, organizations and governments to decide on the rules, publish them, enforce them and provide people with mechanisms for establishing trust in the system.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) as a discipline interfaces with many of them across the globe.

Policies that are not codified in laws are different across states and global jurisdictions.  The rules that people can rely on and have come to trust for hundreds of years, remain the foundation for our modern civil societies.  It is when the rules are ignored, under utilized or forgotten that disruption and chaos can erupt.

A key principle in modern democracies is that the rule of law is known. Statutes, regulations, court decisions, agency deliberations, and even the minutes of Federal Reserve meetings are published and made available. The operating premise is that, if the rules are accessible, civil order and social continuity will be strengthened and the conduct of those violating the rules is more easily prosecuted. The old saying that “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” rests on an important premise—the law must be published and accessible. The Internet has made much of the content of the rule of law even more accessible. Jeffrey Ritter

The country and the jurisdiction is a key component for knowing the law.  It is in the day of the Internet even more accessible.  Building and achieving trust in an organization, company enterprise or governance body has several tools at their disposal to assist them in the enforcement mechanism.  One of those is an independent panel or group of outsiders who are convened to discover evidence.

A Board of Directors is comprised of both individuals inside the company and outside to help guide the organization.  In a private company, this "Board of Directors" make decisions on the evidence of data and make informed decisions to govern the enterprise.  Some of these decisions may involve what products and services to develop or what people should be selected or released from certain duties and responsibilities.

In the public sector, there is another mechanism that can be utilized, A Grand Jury.  The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury..."

A grand jury is a legal body that is empowered to conduct official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct and to determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may compel the production of documents and may compel the sworn testimony of witnesses to appear before it. A grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning.[1]
What is one example of a notable case where a Grand Jury was used in the process of the rule of law:

The second Watergate grand jury indicted seven lawyers in the White House, including former Attorney General John Mitchell and named President Nixon as a "secret, unindicted, co-conspirator." Despite evading impeachment, Nixon was still required to testify before a grand jury.

An environment of trust includes a vital component of transparent and accessible rules. When there is a reason to discover the truth, we look to the governance factors of those rules. Then we look at the clear evidence, the data to determine the correct course of action in our inquiry.  A Board of Directors or a Grand Jury provides guidance on whether a particular case should be referred to a legal process in a particular jurisdiction.  The rules are clear.  Trust is preserved.

What are the outcomes and benefits of effective Operational Risk Management (ORM):

1. Reduction of operational loss.
2. Lower compliance/auditing costs.
3. Early detection of unlawful activities.
4. Reduced exposure to future risks.

ORM is a continual process that when utilized effectively will provide the four benefits described.  Why any governance organization or body that it interested in transparency and building trust would ignore the process is questionable.

ORM includes legal risk.  This is why the General Counsel of private sector companies include the GC in the team that helps to effectively govern the organization.  They understand the rule of law and the requirement for transparency and factors needed to achieve integrity and trust.

Now think about your organization, your jurisdiction and the process you are utilizing to ensure more effective TrustDecisions.  What can you do different?  What will you do to make it better?  How will you provide the best use of the rules to effectively ensure the integrity and governance of the system?

Here is just one example:

Over 60 people in the U.S. and India face conspiracy and wire fraud charges in the largest crackdown against a telephone scam ever, officials said.

Callers from centers in India posed as federal agents to threaten victims with arrest, imprisonment, fines or deportation if they didn’t pay up, according to an 81-page indictment unsealed Thursday.

At least 15,000 Americans lost more than $300 million collectively during the four-year scam, according to the feds. A Texas grand jury indicted 24 people from nine U.S. states, 32 people from India and five call centers in Ahmedabad, India, earlier this month.

Scrutiny: The Noun Missing From Your Culture...

The culture of your business or organization will continue to be the root cause of many of your most substantial successes.  Simultaneously, it will be one of the most significant factors in your potential downfall as a company.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals at Wells Fargo and Booz Allen Hamilton, are still dissecting all of the evidence of their respective events.

"Managing Risk to Ensure Intelligence Advantage" is a theme that you may not have heard before, unless you are in the Intelligence Community.  There is one key principle that is worth emphasizing again at this point in time:

Ensure all work is subject to scrutiny.  Require conflict of interest-free peer review for all programs, projects and strategies.

This principle, that shall become pervasive across the culture of the organization, is imperative for several reasons.  The first is, that a culture really is a manifestation of the people and the behaviors that are normal in the organization.  The second is, that the culture shall strive to be a true mosaic of the best thinking and ideas from all the key stakeholders in the enterprise.  Not just one or two people from the top or a singular department.

Putting scrutiny to your work by others to review, is the beginning of new found discovery and transparency insight.  It is the foundation for building a more trusted operating environment, with as little bias as you can possibly have in a culture.  When an organization spins of out of control and becomes the latest case study on an Operational Risk failure event, you must learn from it.  Wells Fargo is just one recent example:

Some consumers may be shying away from Wells Fargo after learning that employees used customers’ information to open sham accounts, according to new figures reported by the bank.

The nation’s largest retail bank beat expectations when it reported more than $5.6 billion in profit for the past three months. But the bank’s earnings report also hinted that the Wells Fargo may have some trouble convincing people to open new accounts in the wake of the scandal.

The number of checking accounts the bank opened in September fell by 25 percent from the same time last year, the company reported Friday. Credit card applications filed during the month dropped by 20 percent from a year ago. And the number of visits customers had with branch bankers also fell by 10 percent from last year.  Washington Post

Whether you are in the international banking and finance business, the defense industrial base or any other set of critical infrastructure institutions that public citizens are counting on, there is no room for a runaway culture.  Consider this definition:

scrutiny

noun, plural scrutinies.

1. a searching examination or investigation; minute inquiry.

2. surveillance; close and continuous watching or guarding.

3. a close and searching look.

You see, the integrity and longevity of your "Trust Decisions" begins with the sharing of relevant information.  Sharing that information with your most trusted and significant partners is the start. The beginning of a dialogue with people in your culture who continuously review the information, the new strategy. This begins the ongoing process. It is now time for others to look at your idea, your strategy, your policy rule, from their perspective. From their knowledge-base. To scrutinize it. To analyze it. To make sense of it for them and those affected by it.

The truth is, you don't have all the understanding and you don't have all of the ecosystem knowledge. You don't have the entire data set, to know if the specific work you have been doing is sound and correct. That the new work you have designed, is culturally and morally acceptable. That the outcomes of your project will produce the results imagined. That the strategy and the work, is the right thing to do at this point in time.

So how do you change? It begins with your next management meeting and beyond. If you are the leader, the manager, the director, the Vice-President or the CxO start now. Ask for scrutiny on your proposed strategy. Gain new insight and understanding. Ask for feedback and changes to make it better. Your power in the culture and its impact is your greatest weakness. Your people will follow you, unless you challenge them to think differently...

Trade Secrets: Gearing up for DTSA...

The Fortune Global 500 and the smallest research and development organizations in the U.S. have another ruleset to keep their eye on this week.  It is named DTSA or S.1890 - Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 has passed the Senate.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) is preparing for the next addition to national laws.

The attribution of cyberespionage adversaries has been gearing up since the Sony Pictures hack.  The private sector has been hunting and identifying those shadow individuals and nation state special units for years.  Now the lawyers can get more aggressive with civil actions.

The question remains, will another law deter the actions by global organized crime and the intelligence community of some significant nations?  How will attribution and more aggressive civil actions in foreign jurisdictions make a difference?

As a global organization, can you access your database of confidential trade secrets?  No different than the task of the identification of information assets that you are going to protect, you need an inventory.  What are they and where are they?  Everyone knows the formula for "Coca-cola" is written on a single piece of paper that is locked up in a vault in Atlanta, GA right?  Or is it?

There are trade secrets across America that have been stolen by operatives working inside organizations.  They may be preparing to leave the U.S. for another country outside the reach of law enforcement and the legal process for seizing the stolen property.  That is going to change soon.

The EX-Parte Seizure Order is part of the Trade Secrets bill that allows a trade secret owner to obtain an order from a judge for U.S. marshals to seize back the trade secret from the alleged bad actor without prior warning. This is to protect the trade secret owner from having the alleged bad actor skip the country or destroy the evidence before it is recaptured.

Now that Trade Secrets are in the same legal and enforcement category with patents and trademarks, you can predict that your legal budgets will need to be adjusted, upwards.  In general, what is a Trade Secret?

The subject matter of trade secrets is usually defined in broad terms and includes sales methods, distribution methods, consumer profiles, advertising strategies, lists of suppliers and clients, and manufacturing processes. While a final determination of what information constitutes a trade secret will depend on the circumstances of each individual case, clearly unfair practices in respect of secret information include industrial or commercial espionage, breach of contract and breach of confidence.

The effort to make intellectual property a "Trade Secret" is another strategy in itself. The determinations to designate something a trade secret is going to depend on the invention or the data itself. We understand. So what?

A Chinese businessman pleaded guilty Wednesday (March 23) in federal court in Los Angeles to helping two Chinese military hackers carry out a damaging series of thefts of sensitive military secrets from U.S. contractors.

The plea by Su Bin, a Chinese citizen who ran a company in Canada, marks the first time the U.S. government has won a guilty plea from someone involved with a Chinese government campaign of economic cyberespionage.

The resolution of the case comes as the Justice Department seeks the extradition from Germany of a Syrian hacker — a member of the group calling itself the Syrian Electronic Army — on charges of conspiracy to hack U.S. government agencies and U.S. media outlets.

Our adversaries are determined. They are already here. It has been documented for years. Let the next wave of legal indictments and seizures begin. One thing is certain. The "Insider Threat" is still present and your organization can do better. The ability to effectively utilize the correct combination of controls, monitoring, technology and internal corporate culture shifts will make all the difference. What are you waiting for?

Rugged DevOps: Reengineering for our Next Generation...

The reengineering of the Internet is now underway for our next generation beyond the millennials.  The unification of corporate software development and information security teams are experiencing a deja vu and reminiscent of scenes from the 1993 movie "Groundhog Day."  Operational Risk Management (ORM) is hopeful that we are having a new resurgence of software vulnerability management thinking.  Why?

"A weather man is reluctantly sent to cover a story about a weather forecasting "rat" (as he calls it). This is his fourth year on the story, and he makes no effort to hide his frustration. On awaking the 'following' day he discovers that it's Groundhog Day again, and again, and again. First he uses this to his advantage, then comes the realization that he is doomed to spend the rest of eternity in the same place, seeing the same people do the same thing EVERY day."  --Groundhog Day

We are seeing the reunification of 1990's Software Quality Assurance (SQA) thinking, combined with the rigor of new 21st century rapid software development disciplines.  It is called "Rugged DevOps."  Application development life cycles are getting shorter these days.  That is because modern day software development life cycles are taking a more component-based approach, with the reuse of standardized software capabilities.  This makes sense, as long as the use of software quality assurance tools and services are not abandoned and new tools and processes are embraced.

Welcome to "Rugged DevOps."  This Forrester report, "The Seven Habits of Rugged DevOps" will give you more context:

Habit 1: Increase Trust And Transparency Between Dev, Sec, And Ops

Habit 2: Understand The Probability And Impact Of Specific Risks

Habit 3: Discard Detailed Security Road Maps In Favor Of Incremental Improvements

Habit 4: Use The Continuous Delivery Pipeline To Incrementally Improve Security Practices

Habit 5: Standardize Third-Party Software And Then Keep Current

Habit 6: Govern With Automated Audit Trails

Habit 7: Test Preparedness With Security Games

"Enabling Digital Trust of Global Enterprises" in the next decade will require software development organizations to embrace security and risk professionals simultaneously, on a more consistent and non-adversarial basis:

DevOps practices can only increase speed and quality up to a point without security and risk (S&R) pros' expertise. Old application security practices hinder speedy releases, and security vulnerabilities represent defects that can leave a company open to cyberattacks. But DevOps practitioners can leap forward with both increased speed and quality by including S&R pros in DevOps feedback loops and including security practices in the automated life cycle. These new practices are called rugged DevOps. This report presents the seven main principles of rugged DevOps so I&O pros and developers can break down barriers with S&R pros and achieve faster releases with stronger application security.

Chief Information Officers (CIO), Chief Privacy Officers (CPO), Chief Legal Officers (CLO), Chief Operating Officers (COO), Chief Security Officers (CSO) and maybe the Chief Executive Officers (CEO) are now paying more attention to these issues.

Here are 9.5 million more reasons why:

In 2007, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California against Facebook on behalf of 3.6 million users of Facebook concerning its “Beacon” program. KamberLaw represented the plaintiffs in this action and Cooley LLP represented Facebook. This suit was settled in 2009 and was granted final approval by the Hon. Richard Seeborg in March 2010. As part of the settlement, the parties created the Foundation (the Digital Trust Foundation) “the purpose of which shall be to fund projects and initiatives that promote the cause of online privacy, safety, and security.” The case settled for $9.5 million, with the Foundation receiving approximately $6.7 million after attorney’s fees, payments to plaintiffs, and administrative costs. There were four objectors to the settlement, two of whom appealed the approval to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently the Supreme Court. But ultimately, in November 2013, the appeals were rejected and the Foundation was funded. The Foundation will distribute more than $6 million and will close its doors once all of the grants have been distributed and completed.

The corporate Board of Directors conversations about the topic of "Digital Trust" is now ongoing and the subject of new business units.  Security vs. Privacy has been a recent media frenzy between some of our technology companies and the U.S. government.  Your elected officials in the U.S. House of Representatives are also on the hot seat now, to produce new relevant legislation.  The courts are adding more privacy and data breach cases to the docket each week.  The "Digital Equilibrium Project" is being established and will hopefully include an international set of stakeholders.

Authoring the rules that everyone understands and everyone can agree on, sets the stage or playing field for the environment of competition to engage with some sense of civility.  Rules will be broken in plain sight and the referee (law enforcement, judges, courts, juries) will impose a penalty, while potentially millions of people watch live.  Is it a penalty kick or just a loss of down?

Think global.  Think at the speed of light.  Think about the trust of e-commerce transactions where millions of people rely on our computing machines every waking minute of the day.  Where Zettabytes of data are in use.  The rules on the "Digital Playing Field" are vital to our future social and economic well being.

"Rugged DevOps" is another and necessary component of a safe, private and secure Internet ecosystem.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals are evermore concerned, with the root cause of our current Privacy vs. (soon to be "And") Security headlines.  Digital Trust is hard to achieve and yet easy to forfeit.  It is time for us to begin "Reengineering for our Next Generation".

Rule of Law: The Privacy vs. Security Paradox...

Chief Privacy Officers and Operational Risk Officers are watching with anticipation as Microsoft argues it's case with the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York, USA on September, 9, 2015.

The trustworthiness of data and the future of "Achieving Digital Trust" for companies and countries is a priority.  The wealth created from the management, storage and processing of data across global borders is at stake.  The "Rule of Law" that intersects with that data and the legal disclosure to government authorities, has been accelerating in countries such as Ireland, Belgium and Brazil.

The company hasn’t always been so eager to comply. A year earlier, it rebuffed a request from the Department of Justice for a suspected drug trafficker’s e-mails. Those were in a data center in Dublin -- and according to Microsoft, the arm of American law enforcement doesn’t extend to Ireland. That set in motion a legal challenge putting Microsoft and its general counsel, Brad Smith, in the lead of a charged battle between the U.S. technology industry and the U.S. government.
More than two dozen companies, including Apple Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc., have filed briefs on Microsoft’s behalf in the case, which is about due process and the right to privacy, and money. Internet service providers may be hard-pressed to sell Web-based products if they can’t promise that digital records stowed in foreign countries will be protected by those countries’ laws -- and from unilateral U.S. search-and-seizure missions.

The privacy vs. security business is apparent and a defensible standard of care remains vital.  Several companies in the data privacy industry have made the decision to establish their legal business entity in Switzerland.  Silent Circle, Proton Mail and Golden Frog are a few examples.  Why?

It is because the business of privacy is becoming a big business.  It is creating wealth.  Data privacy and the use of cloud-based products and services is now so pervasive across borders, that the collision of private companies and governments was inevitable.  Nation states are making it easier for global companies to locate, manage and operate in their data privacy friendly countries.

Digital Trust is at the center of the dialogue.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) surrounds the core conversations as you analyze the implications of building a data-centric business with the ability to comply with all of the regulatory and legal requirements.  The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 is being interpreted in Microsoft v. United States of America:

The Government’s brief confirms this much: Nowhere did Congress say that ECPA should reach private emails stored on providers’ computers in foreign countries. Small surprise for a statute written in 1986, before the creation of the global internet, when the notion of storing emails halfway across the globe was barely imaginable.

Congress can and should grapple with the question whether, and when, law enforcement should be able to compel providers like Microsoft to help it seize customer emails stored in foreign countries. Microsoft has outlined many reasons why Congress would be wary of granting that power: It would establish a norm that would allow foreign governments to reach into computers in the United States to seize U.S. citizens’ private correspondence, so long as those governments may assert personal jurisdiction over whatever company operates those computers. It would offend foreign sovereigns.

Business and Government across the globe are working diligently to create a balanced, legally sound and vital information sharing environment.  Consumers will continue to have a choice, on what vendor, device or data hosting company they utilize for their communications.  The features, functions and benefits will be carefully thought out, by the marketing and business executives.  Yet the question will be asked by each companies respective stakeholders:  What is the value of trustworthiness in the markets we operate in and how will we decide to create "Digital Trust"?

The consumer must also understand how these tools are being utilized by the dark and evil components of our human society.  Citizens must better understand the motivations for government to protect consumers and those organizations who choose to use certain tools on the Internet.  Those who have a fear of government also like the idea of law enforcement protecting their neighborhoods.  There are two sides to the private enterprise:

They aspire to be neutral conduits of data and to sit outside or above politics. But increasingly their services not only host the material of violent extremism or child exploitation, but are the routes for the facilitation of crime and terrorism. However much they may dislike it, they have become the command-and-control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us. If they are to meet this challenge, it means coming up with better arrangements for facilitating lawful investigation by security and law enforcement agencies than we have now.

As private companies and nation states collaborate to attract new business commerce and tax revenues, your privacy and your company will be at the center of the negotiation.  The consumers preference of where you want your data stored and the legal environment where you want your data to be subjected to legal jurisdictions will continue.  For the good guys and the bad guys.  "Achieving Digital Trust" will be with all of us for some time to come.  As mankind evolves and the most valuable assets of our world become virtual, we can only hope "Trust Decisions" and the "Rule of Law" will stand the test of time.