Technology: Companies can be national security risks without knowing it
Does your company have any role in our country's national defense?
May 04, 2012 at 06:50 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Does your company have any role in our country's national defense? Don't discount the question just because you don't build stealth missiles or the new “Mission Impossible” movie doesn't remind you of your office.
If your business interacts with the U.S. military or intelligence community, including by way of sales or contracts, or if your business could be used by a terrorist or spy (for example, if you are a communications provider or a company with technology of value to the Chinese government), then your company may possess national defense information (NDI).
NDI, which does not have to be classified or marked in any way, is simply any “information relating to the national defense,” and it is regulated and controlled under the federal Espionage Act, which provides criminal or civil penalties for a several kinds of mishandling of NDI, including both intentional and negligent acts.
For example, the Espionage Act provides penalties if a person's (or company's) gross negligence causes a document or other information relating to the national defense to be lost or stolen. Think about that: HR could be grossly negligent in hiring someone with a criminal background who steals NDI. Or your IT department could be grossly negligent in the way it protects your network, allowing hackers to gain easy access to NDI.
We have seen the government undertake aggressive national security investigations even when the underlying conduct was, at most, negligent. You don't need cloak-and-dagger or ties to the Kremlin to raise the ire of the Espionage Act. And the Espionage Act also makes it a crime to fail to report the loss of NDI once it is known.
Yet, you don't see company executives going to jail over a mishandling of NDI. What, then, are the real risks to protect against?
- A national security investigation invariably causes disruption, inconvenience and the expenditure of significant resources in responding to FBI inquiries
- A company can lose business and revenue that are dependent on access to NDI
- A company can violate Sarbanes-Oxley Act requirements because the company did not have adequate controls to manage foreseeable risks (in this case, the loss of NDI)
- Attention of the news media, which could come from a leak concerning a government investigation or even from a required disclosure in SEC filings
A final wrinkle is that in some cases, the sensitive work that can generate NDI will not be widely known. In fact, we have had company general counsel come to us confessing that they do not know what sensitive work, if any, is being done at their company. So how do you protect against a risk like this that you may not know you even have?
Our recommendation is to get control. Corporate policies and controls that relate to NDI are just part of an effective compliance and ethics program and the government will take those into account when considering whether to attribute the criminal conduct of an individual officer or employee to the company itself. Therefore, the company should do the following:
- Develop policies and procedures for handling NDI and communicate those policies and procedures to relevant employees
- Provide appropriate training on the handling of NDI to all those who have reason to work with it
- Provide company personnel who have access to NDI with the tools they need to protect that information, including, for example, a locked file cabinet, a paper shredder and robust encryption for communication and storage of NDI
If you don't feel like you have the institutional knowledge to adequately address the treatment of NDI within the company, consider meeting with general counsel of the agency or agencies with whom your company interacts. Don't overlook asking the simple questions: What's going on with my company? Are we in possession of information relating to the national defense?
These national security risks only seem esoteric and abstract until you find out you have one. Fortunately, the perceived intrigue and mystery associated with national security issues is in reality an unnecessary smoke screen; corralling all the information and setting reasonable policies will let you avoid most problems before they arise.
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
© 2025 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 AllExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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