Cybersecurity: What Does It Mean to Be Completely Prepared?
So often articles related to cybersecurity focus solely on assessment and preparedness against external forces (e.g., cybercriminals, hackers, ransomware, etc.), yet do not convey the full array of protections necessary to ensure complete cyberpreparedness for a busin
March 01, 2018 at 02:36 PM
6 minute read
So often articles related to cybersecurity focus solely on assessment and preparedness against external forces (e.g., cybercriminals, hackers, ransomware, etc.), yet do not convey the full array of protections necessary to ensure complete cyberpreparedness for a business. By contrast, this article explores the less talked about, but equally important, intersection between cybersecurity and employment law to demonstrate why businesses must also be protected from internal forces. Only by realizing the importance and necessity of maintaining, reviewing, and constantly updating policies, procedures, protocols, and training will a business be able to face any cyber-related issue without delay and/or major institutional damage.
In a time when there is rarely a day that goes by when the subject of cybersecurity is not at the forefront of news stories, it is commonplace to hear horror stories of businesses where a disgruntled executive departs and exposes his or her former company to privacy attacks or the innocent actions of an employee, i.e., opening a suspicious email, compromises key proprietary data. In addition to the standard protections from external forces, to ensure continued success and safety, businesses must—without delay—learn how and why to assess their current cyber-preparedness, particularly against careless use of electronic mail, internet usage, electronic data and equipment, and rogue employees.
Whether you are a practitioner with clients who should be thinking more globally about cybersecurity or you happen to be in the legal field within a business reading this article, the time is now to start the conversation about the following evaluative questions. Sitting around hoping that your client or your business will not be affected by a cybersecurity issue is a dangerous stance and will invariably lead to a dire situation from which the client or business may not ever recover. Of course, this article alone is not going to be sufficient to fully prepare your client or business to be fully cyber-prepared, but it is certainly a good starting point to realize what must be done to ensure proper protections are in place.
|Does the Business Have the Right Policies?
As noted, cyberpreparedness does not just mean simply having a cybersecurity incident response plan, although that is naturally a critical component that every business should have (it's just not the focus of this article). From an employment law perspective, internal cyberpreparedness means ensuring that a business has appropriate policies in place to protect the most sensitive information of that business. For example, a business should consider immediately reviewing and updating, inter alia, workplace equipment policies, workplace privacy policies, social media policies, Internet-access policies, usage policies, and employee exit protocols to address current data security and privacy protection issues/regulations.
These are just a handful of the policies, procedures, and protocols a business should consider implementing, reviewing, and updating to ensure sufficient protection from internal forces as well as external forces. Without these critical policies, procedures and protocols, a business could easily fall victim to a cyberattack. Such internal policies, procedures and protocols, however, are not only important from a cybersecurity standpoint, but also to ensure that employees understand business expectations and potential discipline for their actions. The limits of these policies, procedures and protocols may vary greatly by business and industry, but they should, at a minimum, establish rules of behavior necessary to guarantee that all employees (regardless of level, title, and seniority) are aware of appropriate boundaries.
|Has the Business Properly Trained Its Employees?
In addition to creating, implementing, and updating policies, procedures, and protocols, much of cyberpreparedness also involves appropriate training to ensure that employees are not exposing a business to a data security risk while also understanding how to comply. Training can take a variety of forms, but must—as a matter of best practice—be on-going in order for employees to appreciate the severity of the topics discussed and any new developments. Some topics to consider training employees on include, but are not limited to: effective password management, what to do if a device is stolen (including reporting and discipline depending on the situation), the importance of maximum privacy settings, identifying and flagging potentially harmful spam and malware electronic mail, what is expected upon being asked to leave or voluntarily leaving the business.
One of the hardest aspects of training employees (at any level) is making the entire process easy to understand while at the same time not too painful. In this regard, the key to effective training is to engage employees on security awareness in a way that educates but does not lecture—a bored employee is not going to listen, but zone out instead, undoing the entire point of such training in the first place and once again exposing the business to the risk of a cyber-related incident. With a staggering percentage of recent cyberattacks on businesses being the result of improper, but avoidable, employee action, this training must make a lasting impact. Teaching employees the risks involved will better prevent organizational losses.
Cyberpreparedness means having strong protection against both internal and external threats and cannot be achieved without a comprehensive cybersecurity governance framework customized to the risks and threats facing a business. Every business must commit to the on-going process of assessing its weaknesses, develop individualized policies, procedures, and protocols, and maintaining appropriate security measures. Any lawyer reading this who thinks that these issues can be generally addressed through generic policies, procedures, and protocols is gravely mistaken. Only by taking these steps, tailored to a business, will that business and its employees make good decisions to stay ahead of the curve and enjoy continued success.
—Stephanie K. Rawitt, a member at the firm in Philadelphia, contributed to the article.
Jonathan D. Klein is a senior attorney at Clark Hill in Philadelphia. He represents clients on a wide range of complex commercial litigation and on issues related to cybersecurity and data privacy. Contact him at [email protected] or 215-640-8535.
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 AllNo Pa. Case Has Ever Adjudicated a Claim to Enforce an Environmental Covenant Imposed Under 'Act 2'—Does That Matter?
7 minute readSuperior Court Rejects Pa. Hospital's Challenge to $7.3M Med Mal Judgment
3 minute readPittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
3 minute readDe-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
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