Technology: Keeping Sensitive Customer Information
Increased diligence is required when companies keep and use information that should be kept secure.
May 12, 2011 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This is the third in a series of articles on information security. The first article in the series dealt with simple steps to help keep your data safe and was followed with thoughts on the rise of tablet computing and the information security concerns regarding tablets. This article deals with keeping and using sensitive customer information and ways in-house counsel can assist in keeping that information secure.
The recent spate of disclosed data breaches has underscored the need for companies to remain vigilant in how they use and secure sensitive customer information. The breach of the Epsilon platform, which exposed millions of names and email addresses, along with other recent breaches, underscores the vulnerabilities of this type of information.
A recent survey by the Ponemon Institute estimated that the average cost of a data breach for a company is $7.2 million, or an average of $214 per record compromised. Clearly, this is not an inconsequential sum. However, it may pale in comparison into the reputational damage that is incurred by companies that are found to have lost or had sensitive customer information compromised in some fashion. This reputational hit can be very expensive in terms of lost consumer trust and brand loyalty. In fact, it may take years for the company to recover, if it is able to do so at all.
In light of the vulnerabilities associated with retaining and using sensitive customer information, as well as the damages associated with such information if it is compromised, companies need to be increasingly vigilant in how they handle sensitive information. In-house counsel can and must play an increasingly important role in this process.
In addition to the normal contractual clauses that in-house counsel would concern themselves with such as indemnity clauses, limitation of liability clauses, choice of law provisions, SLAs and performance guarantees, warranties and insurance requirements, in-house counsel will increasingly be tasked with understanding the more technical aspects of data usages, storage and security. As such, in-house counsel must make certain that, as they are advising their corporate clients, they are asking the right questions and more importantly, understanding the answers.
Perhaps one of the most fundamental questions that should be asked is what type of security the company is providing for sensitive information. This question should be asked of any vendors that are providing services to the company or to in-house IT staff if the services will be managed in-house. Robust security is becoming increasingly important as companies rely more and more on utilizing sensitive customer information for things such as gaming platforms, marketing campaigns, social media strategies and customer relations/services.
In-house counsel must also understand the industry that the company is in and be prepared for any regulatory and compliance issues that arise. In-house counsel must be aware of all applicable laws and regulations as well as any governance concerns raised by the company's industry and how the company is using data. Also, as “customer touching” platforms become more international in scope, in-house counsel must become knowledgeable on the relevant country-specific laws and regulations.
Vendor liability and lock-in are also two issues that should be addressed by in-house counsel in coordination with the company's IT staff and business personnel. In-house counsel should question the viability of the vendor both from an economic and from a performance standpoint. Additionally, in-house counsel should understand how the company's information will be transitioned from the vendor in case the company desires or needs to move to another vendor or platform. This includes understanding the format of the data and how the data will be translated if the old and new platforms are different.
Finally, in-house counsel should understand the platforms that will be handling this sensitive customer information. For example, if the vendor is providing a “hybrid cloud” type service to the enterprise, how will the company's data be segregated from the data of other companies on the cloud vendors' network? This is becoming increasingly important to understand as instances of data leakage between customers of cloud vendors occur.
While the above is a sampling of some of the more important issues that in-house legal counsel must begin to understand and question, this list is not exclusive or exhaustive. In short, in-house legal counsel must increasingly become more aware and astute as to the technology solutions being deployed by the company as well as how sensitive customer information is being used and secured. Of course, the same concerns apply to sensitive company information. It is indeed a brave new world.
Read Roy Hadley's previous column.
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 AllFatal Shooting of CEO Sets Off Scramble to Reassess Executive Security
5 minute readBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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