Senators Call For 'Attitude Change' Around Cybersecurity, as Verizon Attorney, Other Execs Testify
Behind the massive breaches at Yahoo Inc. and Equifax Inc., U.S. lawmakers grilled executives from these companies on Capitol Hill Wednesday about what's being done to protect consumers from future incursions.
November 08, 2017 at 05:52 PM
12 minute read
Karen Zacharia of Verizon. Photo credit: Diego Radzinschi/ALM.
Behind the massive breaches at Yahoo Inc. and Equifax Inc., U.S. lawmakers grilled executives from these companies on Capitol Hill Wednesday about what's being done to protect consumers from future incursions.
When in came to Yahoo, the focus for the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee was primarily on the August 2013 breach that impacted all of its approximately three billion users. Yahoo, which was acquired by Verizon Communications Inc. this year, was represented at the hearing by former Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer and Verizon deputy general counsel and chief privacy officer Karen Zacharia.
Equifax's former CEO Richard Smith and interim CEO Paulino do Rego Barros Jr., meanwhile, were questioned about the cybersecurity incident announced earlier this year that affected more than 145 million U.S. consumers.
The company reps outlined the steps that have been taken by their respective companies to protect consumers, from improving processes to pouring resources into systems and personnel tasked with thwarting these breaches. But senators questioned whether these efforts are enough.
Attitude Change
After questioning Mayer, who was reportedly subpoenaed to appear before Congress, about what, if anything, could have been done differently to prevent the breaches at Yahoo, Sen. Bill Nelson pressed Zacharia about what steps Verizon plans to take going forward to better protect consumers.
To begin with, according to Zacharia, collaboration between companies like Verizon and government officials is needed to really get a handle on this issue. “Verizon, for example, has long believed that there should be national data security and data breach legislation and we would be happy to work with any of the senators here on what that legislation should look like,” she said.
Asked later by Sen. Roger Wicker about what this legislation would look like, Zacharia listed two requirements: First, there should only be one standard to comply with when there's a breach, she said. And secondly, Zacharia added, this standard needs to improve customer notifications “to make sure that we're not notifying them so often and about so many things that they stop paying attention.”
Security teams also have to understand that “security isn't static,” Zacharia told Nelson. “The attackers are getting better, the tools are getting better, the intelligence that we're gathering is changing. And so, as that's happening, we have to make sure that we're changing our security systems to improve and keep up.”
Nelson responded that while companies' intentions are good around cybersecurity, this problem requires more. “It's going to take an attitude change among companies such as yours, [an understanding] that we've got to go to extreme limits to protect our customers' privacy,” he said.
Conflicting positions?
In her opening remarks, Zacharia noted that “proactively enhancing our security is a top priority.” But this didn't sit well with Sen. Ed Markey, because of the company's role, which he called “instrumental,” in ensuring the Federal Communications Commission's internet privacy rules were repealed.
These rules, which were repealed earlier this year, would have required broadband providers to provide oversight of data security practices and to implement best practices for data security, Markey pointed out.
“Your testimony states that security has always been in Verizon's DNA … but Verizon actively and vigorously lobbied to eliminate these data security and privacy breach notification protections,” Markey said. “How are these two positions consistent?”
Zacharia reiterated that the company supports the idea of an overarching framework when it comes to data security and privacy, but the FCC's framework “was not that,” she said.
“Well, here's where we are, now we have nothing,” Markey responded. “As we sit here, we hear concerns about the need to have legislation. We had it. And it was going to actually work.”
Equifax CLO John Kelley … Again
Former Equifax CEO Smith has testified a number of times about the breach that was announced in September. With each visit to lawmakers, a theme in the questioning has emerged: the role of chief legal officer John Kelley III in the cybersecurity disaster.
Equifax's security department first became aware of suspicious activity on July 29, and in the following days, Smith previously testified, Kelley was informed of this activity, the FBI was notified of the incident and four executives, after receiving approval from Kelley's office, sold shares in Equifax.
The timeline has raised questions from more than a few members of Congress, and Wednesday's hearing was no different.
A special committee formed by Equifax's board of directors, in a Nov. 3 report, said the four executives had “received clearance from the appropriate legal department personnel prior to trading” and that neither Kelley nor his designated preclearance officer had reason to believe the executives in question had knowledge of the security incident.
What the report failed to mention, according to Sen. Tammy Baldwin, is that Kelley approved these stock sales around the same date the FBI was notified of the breach on Aug. 2 and that it then took almost two weeks, until Aug. 15, to impose a trading blackout.
“This is totally inappropriate,” Baldwin said. “Do you believe Mr. Kelley's failure to act was appropriate?” she asked both Barros and Smith.
Barros responded that it's “not my perspective to provide,” though he added that the special committee is continuing to review various aspects of the breach.
Smith, however, said it's “not an unusual step” for Equifax to notify the FBI of an incident. “It is not unusual for us to engage outside counsel, outside forensic experts—in this case Mandiant—or the FBI,” he said, adding that the company deals with millions of instances of suspicious activity in any given year.
Karen Zacharia of Verizon. Photo credit: Diego Radzinschi/ALM.
Behind the massive breaches at
When in came to Yahoo, the focus for the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee was primarily on the August 2013 breach that impacted all of its approximately three billion users. Yahoo, which was acquired by
Equifax's former CEO
The company reps outlined the steps that have been taken by their respective companies to protect consumers, from improving processes to pouring resources into systems and personnel tasked with thwarting these breaches. But senators questioned whether these efforts are enough.
Attitude Change
After questioning Mayer, who was reportedly subpoenaed to appear before Congress, about what, if anything, could have been done differently to prevent the breaches at Yahoo, Sen. Bill Nelson pressed Zacharia about what steps Verizon plans to take going forward to better protect consumers.
To begin with, according to Zacharia, collaboration between companies like Verizon and government officials is needed to really get a handle on this issue. “Verizon, for example, has long believed that there should be national data security and data breach legislation and we would be happy to work with any of the senators here on what that legislation should look like,” she said.
Asked later by Sen. Roger Wicker about what this legislation would look like, Zacharia listed two requirements: First, there should only be one standard to comply with when there's a breach, she said. And secondly, Zacharia added, this standard needs to improve customer notifications “to make sure that we're not notifying them so often and about so many things that they stop paying attention.”
Security teams also have to understand that “security isn't static,” Zacharia told Nelson. “The attackers are getting better, the tools are getting better, the intelligence that we're gathering is changing. And so, as that's happening, we have to make sure that we're changing our security systems to improve and keep up.”
Nelson responded that while companies' intentions are good around cybersecurity, this problem requires more. “It's going to take an attitude change among companies such as yours, [an understanding] that we've got to go to extreme limits to protect our customers' privacy,” he said.
Conflicting positions?
In her opening remarks, Zacharia noted that “proactively enhancing our security is a top priority.” But this didn't sit well with Sen. Ed Markey, because of the company's role, which he called “instrumental,” in ensuring the Federal Communications Commission's internet privacy rules were repealed.
These rules, which were repealed earlier this year, would have required broadband providers to provide oversight of data security practices and to implement best practices for data security, Markey pointed out.
“Your testimony states that security has always been in Verizon's DNA … but Verizon actively and vigorously lobbied to eliminate these data security and privacy breach notification protections,” Markey said. “How are these two positions consistent?”
Zacharia reiterated that the company supports the idea of an overarching framework when it comes to data security and privacy, but the FCC's framework “was not that,” she said.
“Well, here's where we are, now we have nothing,” Markey responded. “As we sit here, we hear concerns about the need to have legislation. We had it. And it was going to actually work.”
Equifax CLO John Kelley … Again
Former Equifax CEO Smith has testified a number of times about the breach that was announced in September. With each visit to lawmakers, a theme in the questioning has emerged: the role of chief legal officer John Kelley III in the cybersecurity disaster.
Equifax's security department first became aware of suspicious activity on July 29, and in the following days, Smith previously testified, Kelley was informed of this activity, the FBI was notified of the incident and four executives, after receiving approval from Kelley's office, sold shares in Equifax.
The timeline has raised questions from more than a few members of Congress, and Wednesday's hearing was no different.
A special committee formed by Equifax's board of directors, in a Nov. 3 report, said the four executives had “received clearance from the appropriate legal department personnel prior to trading” and that neither Kelley nor his designated preclearance officer had reason to believe the executives in question had knowledge of the security incident.
What the report failed to mention, according to Sen. Tammy Baldwin, is that Kelley approved these stock sales around the same date the FBI was notified of the breach on Aug. 2 and that it then took almost two weeks, until Aug. 15, to impose a trading blackout.
“This is totally inappropriate,” Baldwin said. “Do you believe Mr. Kelley's failure to act was appropriate?” she asked both Barros and Smith.
Barros responded that it's “not my perspective to provide,” though he added that the special committee is continuing to review various aspects of the breach.
Smith, however, said it's “not an unusual step” for Equifax to notify the FBI of an incident. “It is not unusual for us to engage outside counsel, outside forensic experts—in this case Mandiant—or the FBI,” he said, adding that the company deals with millions of instances of suspicious activity in any given year.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllContract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readHow Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute readAuditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readDog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 12 Years After Paul Plevin Merger, Quarles & Brady’s Revenue Up More than 13%
- 2Trade Fixtures In New York Eminent Domain Cases - What Qualifies and How Are They Valued?
- 3Rule of Law: Is Big Law Too Shortsighted?
- 4The Empty Promise of ‘Dubin v. United States’
- 5Weil Partner Exits Raise Questions About Future Firm Leadership
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250