Treading carefully - managing company security while keeping employee privacy intact
Kroll Ontrack's Ben Fielding examines the challenging paradox of how to manage company security while keeping employee privacy policies intact...
May 11, 2011 at 07:03 PM
6 minute read
Kroll Ontrack's Ben Fielding examines the challenging paradox of how to manage company security while keeping employee privacy policies intact
The infiltration of computers and other electronic devices in almost every aspect of our working day presents a considerable challenge to ensure employees are properly protected while at the same time ensuring that company policy is adhered to, data and intellectual property (IP) is secure and both financial and reputational damage to the company is avoided.
Management teams have the arduous task of balancing the needs of the company with the rights of the individual and one of the greatest threats to both is the spectre of an investigation into:
- IP theft;
- computer and email misuse;
- bullying, harassment, discrimination or misconduct;
- fraud and theft; and
- contractual disputes.
Electronic storage types
A company's electronically stored information is likely to be stored in a variety of devices, all of which have the capacity to hold large amounts of data. Laptop computers present the most obvious and frequently used method of data storage, but employees are also utilising other means of data storage such as USB memory sticks, secure digital (SD) cards, digital cameras, iPod or MP3 players and digital photo frames, all of which can pose serious difficulties to a company trying to maintain a secure environment.
To really understand the power of these devices and the risks they pose, consider that just 1GB of storage capacity equates to roughly 30,000 pages of data. Moreover, many of these devices are widely, easily and cheaply available. Most employees will have easy access to one or many of these devices and, if used with the wrong intentions, these devices are capable of breaching company policy and pose a potential security nightmare.
Employee investigations
The typical response to an investigation into IP theft, computer misuse or fraud is to ask someone in the IT team to 'have a look' at the employee's computer to confirm what the suspect has done. This is in fact the first mistake in performing an investigation, as an action as simple as starting up a laptop can alter date stamps and other important metadata (most easily understood as the data about data) that could potentially destroy crucial evidence. What is more, 'having a peek' could leave your company open to accusations of tampering, bullying and, worst of all, discrimination.
The correction response
Ensure the correct team members are involved in the decision-making process and follow a pre-determined computer incident response plan that meets technical and legal requirements. Such a plan allows an organisation to respond to an incident while continuing to deliver normal day-to-day services. It also provides structure and detail for dealing with not only what actions should be taken when an incident is detected, but also what individual responsibilities should be in place.
A number of training courses are available to ensure an organisation's response is correct. These include:
- forensics for human resources – learn the legal issues, step-by-step incident response guidelines, common scenarios;
- first responder training – learn evidence handling, chains of custody and Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines; and
- management awareness training – bring together heads of departments to learn legal issues, policy versus practice and incident response planning.
Preventative measures
From the outset, organisations should ensure that they have policies in place detailing the acceptable use of company computers and other electronic devices and that these policies are updated regularly. They might include a clause for the use of personal devices where appropriate, such as home computers when working from home or the use of iPods or other personal devices (capable of storing sensitive information) in the workplace.
Other methods of restricting the leak of vital data include the use of encryption, making USB ports responsive to only approved devices, or disabling these ports altogether if this does not inhibit the smooth running of the business. Tiered or level access helps limit the right to use so that individuals can only access information or data that they need to in order to do their job. Restricting access to particular websites altogether or only allowing access during certain timeframes also helps to counteract internet misuse.
It is critical for the organisation to assess its preparedness to deal with incidents that require the gathering and preservation of digital evidence. Recent changes in UK data protection law have put increasing pressure on organisations to ensure the security of the sensitive information they hold, and the Information Commissioner's Office has already issued severe monetary penalties to companies that have shown negligence in protecting sensitive data.
Exit strategies
Imaging for preservation ensures that you have a copy of a hard drive stored for future use if needed. It also means that you can put an ex-employee's computer back into company circulation knowing that a complete copy of its history is available in archive. Companies are now routinely performing this process for key positions/departments that are considered to be of particular risk in order to protect themselves against the following scenarios:
- an employee leaving, deleting company information that may be useful or critical to the business;
- an employee leaving and six months later starting a new business in competition and corporate clients start to defect; or
- an employee being dismissed, claiming harassment, bullying and unfair dismissal.
In these scenarios, a copy of the hard drive is available to perform a post-event investigation, if required.
It is the technology – laptops, smart phones and USB devices to name a few – which allows organisations to work more productively and more flexibly, maintaining more mobility and allowing us to maintain a work/life balance. Yet this same technology puts us increasingly at risk for computer-related incidents. Executing the correct response procedures helps organisations to best protect themselves and their IP from the increasingly common insider threat. A small investment that equips key staff with the knowledge and understanding to respond to a relatively rare but complex situation could prove invaluable when defending your organisation's position and protecting your priceless assets.
Ben Fielding is manager of business development and computer forensics at Kroll Ontrack Legal Technologies.
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 AllTrump and Latin America: Lawyers Brace for Hard-Line Approach to Region
BCLP Mulls Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
Trending Stories
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