Federal Finance Council Learns Hard Lesson: Cyber Compliance Can't Be Onerous
Burdensome cybersecurity procedures aren't much better than zero cybersecurity procedures, since people are less likely to engage with solutions that induce headaches or impede functionality.
April 15, 2019 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
At least they care enough to ask. Four members of the Federal Financial Institutions Council—the Office the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union Administration—want to know if financial institutions find the Council's cybersecurity assessment tool too burdensome.
It's not an altogether odd question, as organizations deploying their own cybersecurity tools and procedures in response to increased regulatory pressures have discovered.
“If the security solution makes usability untenable, then it's not really a solution because people will bypass it,” said Behnam Dayanim, a partner at Paul Hastings.
Ideally, a cyber solution will fit organically into the systems that employees are already using. According to Dayanim, user compliance begins to drop off once extra steps are introduced into the process.
The issue is more prevalent in some industries than others. Dayanim noted that employees working in the financial services sector might be more accustomed to working in the shadow of heavy regulation and engaging with restrictive IT on a daily basis.
But there is a limit to how much disruption an organization can take. “When you implement policies, standards and procedures which enhance privacy and security, it can absolutely impact functionality,” said Phyllis Sumner, head of the privacy and security practice at King & Spalding.
She's seen this happen inside law firms too, where the need to obtain information quickly has to be counterbalanced against privacy and security concerns. When consulting with clients outside of the firm, Sumner said attorneys need to take creative approaches to problems rather than creating additional obstacles to a company's operations or falling back on the word “no.”
Occasionally there's not a compromise or creative alternative to be found, and companies decide to accept a risk rather than adopt a measure that could hinder business. Those instances can be compiled into a risk register that can be tracked on an ongoing basis.
“Those risks can change, so part of the process should be to review that risk register on a regular basis and revise policies and procedures or other issues relating to technology as the [regulatory] landscape changes,” Sumner said.
The areas where companies do decide to implement new cybersecurity protocols or tools need to be treated with care. Success can have less to do with the hardware involved than the people.
Andrew Konia, a partner and chair of the Data Privacy and Security team at McGuireWoods, pointed out that asking employees in an organization to take on additional responsibilities that will not be reflected in their paycheck is inherently a tough sell. And the truth is that they really need to buy it.
“They need to be engaged. This is a critical function. It's critical to the health of the company, it's critical to the success of a company,” Konia said.
While it's perhaps not the sexiest cyber solution on the block, a consistent message backed by clearly delineated responsibilities and regular checkups can work wonders. Once timetables and expectations have been established, it's easier to hold people accountable.
In some cases, otherwise strong workers are being asked to perform cyber-related functions that exist outside of their preexisting skillset. Without proper training, intimidation can become a handy excuse not to engage with risk protocols.
“These people are undertaking sometimes a very new task to them. They need support, they need some guidance, they need to feel the love,” said Konia.
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 Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand and Uncertainty
Russia-Linked Deepfakes Are Hitting the US Election. Will It Spur Congress to Act?
AI Gives Legal Departments New Leverage to Demand Speed, Efficiency From Law Firms
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
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