5 Ways Companies Can Curb Risk When Transferring Data
From encrypting sensitive data to examining your cloud service provider's processing ability, here are some tips for securely transferring data.
July 29, 2019 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
July has been a busy month for privacy penalties. From Facebook Inc.'s $5 billion data privacy fine and Equifax's $1.4 billion data breach class action settlement, to the U.K. proposing fines for Marriott and British Airways, companies should be more aware of the gravity of data privacy enforcement.
Part of avoiding such fines is also being aware about how to properly transfer data outside the company. While jurisdiction is key to understanding exactly what is needed to make your data transferring compliant, there are some universal things every enterprise can do to limit their risks. Here's a look at five ways to ensure safer data transfers.
|Examine Your Cloud Processing
Relativity global risk and compliance director Lynn Engel advises companies to thoroughly consider the type of data they are putting in the cloud and how it's being managed.
“This includes who is allowed to transfer it,” Engel says to Legaltech News. “Have they been trained on how to handle personally identifiable information as required by General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other locally applicable law?”
Engel also notes that the GDPR's data transfer requirements are applicable to data transferred for e-discovery and other aspects of litigation.
|Use Encryption With Transfers
Balch & Bingham partner Brandon Robinson says encryption is key to transferring data, though he acknowledged the technology can be costly.
Still, many state data breach notification laws have liability exemptions for encrypted data if it is received by an unauthorized party that doesn't have the key to access it, he notes. “You get a lot of bang for your buck with encryption,” Robinson says.
Likewise, Robinson says encrypting sensitive data that's transferred or stored internally is one of the quickest and easiest data privacy steps a company can make.
|Implement Data Handling and Minimization Policies
“I think the default is to retain the data forever. We never know when will need the data,” Robinson acknowledges. Still, he says that is a habit companies should break to decrease the amount of data that could be breached when transferred. He suggests leveraging an automated, scheduled task of deleting unneeded data.
What's more, “purpose minimization” and a data privacy policy are also important when transferring data, Robinson adds. Purpose minimization provides documentation of the data subject's consent to use their data for specific purposes. In turn, that document creates not only a record of consent but a reminder to the company of how that data should be used.
Likewise, a data privacy policy establishes a procedure for safeguarding data for internal and external use, documentation that could be useful if concerns or litigation arises. “Build into your process not just a good data privacy process but the documentation you need if there is an audit, question or lawsuit,” Robinson says.
|Remember: Location, Location, Location
The GDPR may be a massive data regulation that governs 28 European Union member-states, but companies based in or transferring data to other countries such as Brazil or China must remember to heed those countries' local data regulations as well. Likewise, while the U.S. doesn't have a nationwide data regulation, more states are enacting data privacy laws that may vary in content but pack a sizable penalty if a company doesn't comply.
“I think even internationally, as you are thinking about your processes for transferring data, you also have to have a step in there that you are aware of the law where the recipient of the data will be,” Robinson says.
Engel echoes that sentiment, but notes companies should also be aware of where their data centers and their backups are located.
|Ensure Accountability
Robinson believes it's important for every company to have a commitment from their personnel to ensure compliant data transfers.
“Part of accountability is you have someone in your organization that is being held accountable and is authorized to make sure the data is transferred securely,” he says. “Someone in the organization that wears this hat and [ensures] this data isn't going to be transferred without approval or a process to ensure [it's at] a sophisticated level.”
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
- 1Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 2Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
- 3'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 4Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 5These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
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