The New Wave of Data-Breach Outrage

You can almost feel it, like a power-line buzz in the air. If 2014 was the year that consumers and legislators woke up to the real threat to privacy and information security, 2015 may be the year that sees a shift in both enforcement and penalties.

On February 5, Anthem, Inc., the country’s second-largest health insurer by market value announced a security breach resulting in unauthorized access to tens of millions of current and former customer and employee accounts, Bloomberg reports.

Of particular concern is that the compromised data included social security numbers and birth dates, etc. Very different than having a credit card number stolen.

Last week, a group of 10 state attorneys general (AGs) sent a letter chastising Anthem for the length of time it took to notify the public of the breach. The letter was written on behalf of Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

Some observers have commented that current encryption technology can limit the amount of data that even “authorized users” can view at one time, making it more difficult to compromise massive amounts of data.

In this situation, the breach occurred through misuse of an authorized user’s credentials, so encryption alone would not have worked. While most companies give universal access to data to some employees (senior level or IT), for the encryption approach to work, no one person or set of credentials should allow access to all data.

In the end, the new “best practices” approach may be a combination of encryption plus controls to limit the amount of data that any one set of credentials can access.

When it comes to addressing data privacy risks, it is often difficult to determine whether you should slow down, change course, signal for help, or simply muddle through. Often, teams tasked with managing privacy need to quickly identify potential issues, assess the risk, and implement controls to steer clear of unneeded exposure. The privacy professionals at the Adler Law Group can help you adopt Privacy Impact Assessments – or similar tools – and standardize a methodology for approaching these challenges by setting objectives, determining scope, allocating resources, and developing practices that will efficiently and effective manage privacy, while keeping pace with the business. For a free consultation, call us at (866) 734-2568, send and email to info@ecommerceattorney.com or visit our web site www.adler-law.com.

DATA PRIVACY DAY 

Do You Understand Your Data Privacy Rights?

Data Privacy Day was started in 2007 in response to widespread lack of understanding about how personal data was being protected. Today, 91% of adults “agree” or “strongly agree” that consumers have lost control over how personal information is collected and used by companies, according to a recent Pew Research Center Survey.

Data is one of the natural resources of the 21st century. It should be treated like all other precious resources. Understanding, responsibility, and accountability are key. Ubiquitous Internet connections, unprecedented processing power and speed combined with staggeringly large databases have the ability to help both the private and public sectors. However, there is a growing split between the benefits of data-driven activities and perceptions of decreased privacy rights needs to be addressed. There is a balance that needs to be found between the responsibility of governments and that of businesses in ensuring an adequate level of protection to citizens and consumers, while supporting technological innovation.

The purpose of Data Privacy Day is raise awareness among digital citizens and empower them with understanding how their data is being collected, stored and consumed. Often, that starts with being educated about the privacy policies of online companies and web properties.

The National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA) officially kicked off today’s Data Privacy Day events with a broadcast from George Washington University Law School featuring Federal Trade Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen and privacy and security experts from industry and government.

Whether you are a consumer, an application developer, a technology platform provider, consultant, or enterprise that relies on the collection, analysis and commercialization of data (who doesn’t these days) Adler Law Group can help you navigate this emerging area by 1) assessing and prioritizing privacy risks, 2) creating a baseline understanding of data assets, data flows and contractual commitments, 3) developing internal Privacy Polciies and processes, and 4) creating and delivering training programs for executives and employees that increases awareness and mitigate risk.

Identifying Intellectual Property Issues in Start-Ups – Live Webcast!

Do you work with start-up companies and need a basic understanding of the various intellectual property issues that can arise?

I will be co-presenting in this online seminar that will help you:

  • understand the trademark and copyright problems your client may encounter with branding;
  • learn how to protect your client’s branding once established;
  • familiarize your practice with patents, including what they protect, timing, and strategies to prevent inadvertent loss of patent rights before filing the application;
  • understand trade secrets and the importance of non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements;
  • recognize intellectual property issues relating to technology, including open source code and the cloud;
  • establish a proactive approach toward intellectual property ownership between cofounders, employees, and vendors; understand business names, domain names, promotional issues, and website content concerns.

The program qualifies for 1.5 hours MCLE credit.

I would like to personally invite you to attend the upcoming Law Ed program titled, “Identifying Intellectual Property Issues in Start-Ups,” which I will be co-presenting via live webcast on Tuesday, May 27th.

Presented by the ISBA Business Advice and Financial Planning Section

Co-Sponsored by the ISBA Intellectual Property Section

Is Your Company’s Web Site Privacy Policy Compliant With New California Law?

Privacy Law Update: California “Do Not Track” 

Two California laws went into effect at the beginning of the year that  require additional notifications to consumers.  The California Online Privacy Protection Act (“CalOPPA”) requires that web sites, mobile apps and other online services available to California residents (in reality anyone with a web site that may be accessed by a CA resident) post a privacy policy that gives notice to consumers regarding behavioral or interest-based advertising practices (“OBA”).

Disclosures must explain:
1. If a web site operator allows other parties to use tracking technologies in connection with the site or service to collect certain user data over time and across sites and services; and
2. How it responds to browser “do not track” signals or other mechanisms designed to give consumers choice as to the collection of certain of their data over time and across sites and services

In addition, the “California Shine the Light Act” requires that companies (except non-profits and businesses with less than 20 employees) collecting broadly defined personal information from California consumers on or offline either: (a) give consumers a choice as to the sharing of that information with third parties (including affiliates) for direct marketing purposes; or (b) provide notice of, and maintain, a method by which consumers can annually obtain information on the categories of information disclosed the names and addresses of the recipients of that data, and a description of the recipients’ business.

If an e-commerce service offers tangible goods or services, or vouchers for them, to California consumers, it must give certain notices to consumers, including how they can file a complaint with the CA Department of Consumer Affairs.

Are you  concerned about how to disclose how your service responds to “Do Not Track” signals or similar tools and settings, and whether third parties are permitted to collect personally identifiable information about consumer online activities over time and across different websites when a consumer uses that online service? We may be able to help. We can review your policies, your information gathering and sharing practices, and advise on whether there is room for improvement.

Please contact us for a no-fee consultation.

Amended California Do Not Track Disclosure Law Requires Websites Disclose Do Not Track Signal Response

At the end of August, the California passed an amendment to the California Online Privacy Protection Act that will require commercial websites and services that collect personal data to disclose how they respond to Do Not Track signals from Web browsers.

AB 370, as introduced by California Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, requires a business that discloses a customer’s personal information to a third party for direct marketing purposes to provide the customer, within 30 days after the customer’s request, as specified, in writing or by e-mail the names and addresses of the recipients of that information and specified details regarding the information disclosed.

This bill, available here, would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would regulate online behavioral tracking of consumers.


Latest Illinois Case on Restrictive Covenants Increases Uncertainty, Burden For Employers

English: A customer signing the at A Stone's T...

English: A customer signing the at A Stone’s Throw Jewelers in . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiff in this declaratory judgment action had been employed by a subsidiary of an insurance company that marketed finance and insurance products to the automotive industry. After a sale of that business, plaintiff’s employment was terminated, but he was offered employment conditioned upon his acceptance of an “Employee Confidentiality and Inventions Agreement” (the agreement) which included non-solicitation and non-compete provisions. The agreement states in pertinent part:

“Employee agrees that for a period of two (2) years from the date Employee’s employment terminates for any reason, Employee will not, directly or indirectly, within any of the 50 states of the United States, for the purposes of providing products or services in competition with the Company (i) solicit any customers, dealers, agents, reinsurers, PARCs, and/or producers to cease their relationship with the Company *** or (ii) interfere with or damage any relationship between the Company and customers, dealers, agents, reinsurers , PARCs, and/or producers *** or (iii) *** accept business of any former customers, dealers, agents, reinsurers, PARCs, and/or producers with whom the Company had a business relationship within the previous twelve (12) months prior to Employee’s termination.”

Plaintiff successfully negotiated with Premier a provision that the restrictive covenants would NOT apply if he was terminated without cause during the first year of his employment (the first-year provision). Three months later, plaintiff resigned, began working for a competitor and sued to have the restrictive covenants held unenforceable stating that plaintiff had no access to confidential and proprietary information. The trial court held that the restrictive Covenants were unenforceable for lack of “consideration” – a legal term of art that generally means a bargained-for exchange of value. The appeals court affirmed.

ANALYSIS

Defendant argued that the non-solicitation and non-compete provisions were enforceable because the offer of employment was adequate consideration, there was a mutual exchange of promises (employment in exchange for restrictions), and the covenants were pre-employment, not post- employment. Defendant further argued that “the purpose of Illinois law regarding restrictive covenants is to protect against the illusory benefit of at-will employment” which was “nullified by the inclusion of the first-year [non-enforcement] provision in the agreement.”

Plaintiff countered with the argument that the provisions in the agreement are unenforceable because Illinois law requires employment to continue for a substantial period of time and that “Illinois courts have repeatedly held that two years of continued employment is adequate consideration to support a restrictive covenant…regardless of whether an employee is terminated or decides to resign on his own.”

The appellate court agreed with plaintiff citing Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Mudron, 379 Ill. App. 3d 724, 728 (2008) which held that the promise of continued employment in the context of post-employment restrictive covenants may be an illusory benefit where the employment is at-will. “Illinois courts have held that continued employment for two years or more constitutes adequate consideration. Id. at 728-29.”

TAKE AWAYS

The Fifield decisions has already generated a great deal of discussion from corporate board rooms to legal blogs. Unfortunately for businesses and their lawyers, the case leaves many unanswered questions.

For example, the court does not discuss whether the outcome would have been different if the employee were a high-level executive with immediate access to a wide range of highly sensitive confidential and proprietary information. At best,mother court simply mentions the plaintiff’s allegations that he had no access to such information.

Another area of uncertainty impacts start-up and early stage businesses. Very young businesses are often highly dynamic and early employees have access to a broad swath of the company’s Intangible assets such as business and revenue models, marketing plans, computer software and hardware and prospective customers, regardless of whether they serve a customer service function or “C-suite” executive function. The requirement that an employee have two years continued employment before a restrictive covenant becomes enforceable ignores the very real dynamic of start-up companies.

Lastly, an important question that went unanswered is whether the employer can offer some other “consideration” besides two years continued employment. For example, is there a pure monetary consideration that would support enforcement of the covenant? What if the covenant only lasted as long as the period of the departing employee’s employment?

NEXT STEPS

If you have restrictive covenants in your agreements with employees, it is strongly recommended that you meet with your lawyer to discuss the impact of this case on these agreements and your business. At the very least, you should carefully review your non-compete and non-solicitation agreements to see if they are supported by adequate consideration. If you have questions or concerns, or just don’t know how to begin, feel free to contact the lawyers at Leavens, Strand, Glover & Adler for a free, in-person or over-the-phone consultation. You can also email the author here: dadler@lsglegal.com.

Proposed Amedments To Computer Fraud & Abuse Act

Enacted by Congress in 1986, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) builds upon existing computer fraud law (18 U.S.C. § 1030). Initially, the CFAA was intended to limit federal jurisdiction to cases “with a compelling federal interest-i.e., where computers of the federal government or certain financial institutions are involved or where the crime itself is interstate in nature.” Notably, the CFAA criminalized certain computer-related acts such as distribution of malicious software code, propagating denial of service attacks as well as trafficking in passwords and similar items. Recently, the CFAA has gained prominence as a bludgeon used to prosecute a wide-range of activities, some broadly labelled “hacking” and other stretching the boundaries of “unauthorized” computer access.

Two recently introduced bills, one by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) in the House and one by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) in the Senate aim to amend the CFAA in hopes of ameliorating application of the CFAA to claims of breach of terms of service, employment agreements. Additionally, with the nickname “Aaron’s Law,” they also seek to limit what some see as the CFAA’s tendency to allow for overzealous prosecution that they claim characterized Aaron Swartz’s case.

In short the bills would amend the meaning of “exceeds authorized access,” changing it to “access without authorization,” which is defined to mean:

“to obtain information on a protected computer”;
“that the accesser lacks authorization to obtain”; and
“by knowingly circumventing one or more technological or physical measures that are designed to exclude or prevent unauthorized individuals from obtaining that information.”

For a well-documented discussion of the application and boundaries of the CFAA, check out the Electronic Frontier Foundations Legal Treatise on civil and criminal cases involving the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act here.

As businesses become ever more dependent on digital assets and systems, a working knowledge of the legal and regulatory framework that defines and protects those assets is paramount.

If you or your executive teams has questions about securing and protecting digital assets, please feel free to contact David M. Adler for a free consultation. LSGA advises a wide range of businesses on creating, protecting and leveraging digital assets as well as computer, data and information security and privacy.

Please tweet, comment on, and forward is article!

David M. Adler | Leavens, Strand, Glover & Adler, LLC
203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2550
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Direct: (866) 734-2568
Direct Fax: (312) 275-7534
http://www.lsglegal.com
http://www.ecommerceattorney.com

*2012 Illinois Super Lawyer http://bit.ly/gFfpAt

Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/adlerlaw
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/adlerlaw