Cultivating Global Trust in Your Data Security and Data Privacy
A primer on the upcoming GDPR, and how it could impact legal representation and the way data is shared.
March 20, 2018 at 08:00 AM
6 minute read
With the deadline for compliance just around the corner, everyone is discussing the data privacy requirements of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). For legal professionals worldwide, understanding the difference between data security and data privacy is critical to protecting client information, complying with regulations such as the GDPR, and cultivating global trust.
What do you need to know, and what should you do to ensure that you're not inadvertently sharing sensitive information?
Differentiating Data Security and Data Privacy
Trust is essential to legal representation. Legal professionals therefore must protect their reputation and their trustworthiness from careless errors. Globally speaking, this demands a heightened appreciation for both data security and data privacy. Security and privacy are related, but not interchangeable, concepts.
Data security ensures that data is not accessed by unauthorized individuals; data security measures are generally designed to protect data from hacking. Security also encompasses minimizing collection of personal data in the first place and destroying data after its purpose has been satisfied. After all, data that a company no longer has or never had cannot be subject to security breaches.
Data privacy, on the other hand, refers to the acceptable uses of data. Data privacy means that data is used only within the scope of its original purpose. For instance, personal data collected by your doctor to monitor your personal health should not then be used to sell you prescriptions or fitness equipment without your agreement. Note that data that is not secure is necessarily not private, as its use cannot be controlled, but keeping data secure does not guarantee that its privacy is adequately protected.
A law firm could quite easily have excellent data security measures and still run seriously afoul of the GDPR. How? By failing to respect its data privacy provisions.
The GDPR's Data Privacy Mandates
The GDPR goes into effect on May 25, 2018, replacing the 1995 Data Protection Directive. The GDPR was designed to standardize the hodgepodge of European data privacy laws, protect individuals' data privacy rights, and “reshape the way organizations … approach data privacy.”
The GDPR protects not just residents of the 28 EU member nations but also residents of Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway, non-EU nations that are members of the European Economic Area (EEA). At least until Brexit is finalized, the United Kingdom is also subject to the GDPR. Even after Brexit, so long as the U.K. remains in the EEA, it will stay under the umbrella of the GDPR.
Under the GDPR, businesses worldwide must limit their possession and use of covered individuals' personal data, keep their data secure, and give full control and ownership of that data to the individual. Individuals have the right to correct their data, to be “forgotten” or have their data deleted from a company's records, and to access their data on demand. Additionally, businesses must justify their possession of personal data, generally by obtaining the individual's consent.
Who is subject to the regulation? Any business that collects, processes, or handles personal data from protected data subjects or that provides goods or services to those individuals must comply with the GDPR. Note that all of these terms are defined broadly. Processing encompasses not just using or disclosing data but also merely storing it, even securely. Personal data is also wide-ranging, covering obvious identifiers like name, birthdate, and address and extending to any information that could be used to identify an individual, such as computer IP addresses or demographic information.
Violations of the GDPR can result in staggering penalties: fines may be as high as 4 percent of annual global corporate turnover or 20 million euros, whichever is greater.
How to Protect Your Work
How can global law firms protect their clients, respect data privacy, and maintain trust?
First, they can recognize the need to approach data privacy as an individual right deserving of protection. As part of this, companies should rethink their definition of personal data to align with the GDPR's definition of any information that could be linked back to an individual. Companies can anticipate that the GDPR's standards are likely to spread, becoming the new accepted approach to data privacy and ownership, so making this adjustment now should pay off.
Law firms should be sure to obtain either a valid justification or active consent, using clear and plain language, before collecting any personal data. Organizations must establish mechanisms through which individuals can access their data, make corrections, request the deletion of data, or transfer data elsewhere. Additionally, firms must have clear protocols for detecting breaches and for notifying the authorities promptly in the event of any data breach.
One key component to protecting data privacy is rigorously monitoring and cleaning metadata. Metadata—data about data—can include document comments, tracked changes, and document properties and may reveal personal information such as an author's name. Metadata also establishes an information chain: where data came from, who captured it, and where it went. While it's relatively straightforward to remove metadata from Microsoft Word files, other file types can present greater challenges, necessitating the use of specialized software.
Documents and files should never be circulated or shared without considering what may be disclosed inadvertently in metadata, and of course email addresses should be carefully checked to ensure that information is sent only to authorized recipients.
Law firms that respond appropriately to today's data security and data privacy challenges, including the GDPR's mandates, will earn global trust and accompanying business. Firms that can't, or choose not to, stand to lose out in today's increasingly small world. It takes only a single slip to destroy a reputation.
Paul Domnick is President of Litera Microsystems, having been President of Litéra Corp from 2014 to 2017. He brings unique insight into the utility of the Litera Microsystems' risk management solutions having previously been CIO of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer for five years. There he was responsible for a global team of more than 300, covering all areas in IT & IS such as change management, information security, infrastructure operations and help-desk support, technical architecture, vendor management, application support, program and project delivery.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
- 2Biden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
- 3Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
- 4De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 5Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
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