Group items tagged

Enterprise employees frequently use social networking tools, most notably Web-based applications. It's no surprise more organizations are wondering what happens if social networking data becomes relevant to an e-discovery investigation. How does an enterprise go about discovering and assessing Web 2.0 data? How responsible is an organization, legally speaking, for the information that's out there in the Web 2.0 world? What risks arise from e-discovery as it relates to Web 2.0 data, and how can you mitigate them? In this tip, we will look at e-discovery as it relates to Web 2.0 and consider the strongest options for minimizing risks to the organization. E-discovery basics We begin with a quick look at what e-discovery is and how it can create risk. Essentially, e-discovery is the electronic extension of the legal process of discovery, which Wikipedia defines as "the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party through the law of civil procedure can request documents and other evidence from other parties or can compel the production of evidence by using a subpoena or through other discovery devices, such as requests for production and depositions." If you're an IT person, not a lawyer, it's important to note that the rules governing the discovery process now require plaintiffs to address all electronically stored information or ESI. In other words, if your organization faces litigation, it will have to deal with the issue of e-discovery, which will entail a whole lot more than turning over some old emails. Depending upon your role in the organization, the first you may hear of this is a "notice of litigation" with perhaps a "litigation hold directive" containing a "preservation directive." Here is a generic e-discovery request below. Apart from a few limiting factors, such as subject matter, named persons and a specified time period, the scope of such a notice is likely to be broad; blame standard procedure, not some high-powered attorney pushing his or her lu

On Wednesday, February 11, 2009, the Data Protection Working Party, an independent European advisory body on data protection and privacy, released its Working Document 1-2009 (.pdf) on pre-trial discovery for cross border civil litigation. The Working Document attempts to reconcile the tension between U.S. discovery rules and the European Union's Directive 95/46/EC (.pdf), which outlines the EU's privacy requirements. What follows is a summary of the Working Document and an analysis of how it begins to bridge the gap between U.S. discovery rules and the European privacy framework. The Working Document offers guidance to EU data controllers responding to U.S. discovery requests. As the Working Document explains, those controllers often find themselves in a bind. On the one hand, U.S. law allows for broad discovery, which may require a controller to provide, or "process," personal data of customers or employees. On the other hand, Article 7 of EU Directive 95/46 limits a member state's authority to process such data. Under Article 7, a member state may process personal data only if one of six identified grounds for processing applies. The Working Document considers the Article 7 grounds most likely to supply a legitimate basis for compliance with a discovery request - namely 1) consent, 2) necessary for compliance with a legal obligation, and 3) necessary for the purposes of a legitimate interest, where such interests are not "overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject." Recognizing that the "interests of justice would be served by not unnecessarily limiting the ability of an organisation to act to promote or defend a legal right," the Working Document suggests that the third basis - necessary for the purposes of a legitimate interest - will often provide a ground for processing data in response to a U.S. discovery request.

This tip is part of SearchSecurity.com's Data Protection School lesson, E-discovery and security in the enterprise. Visit the E-discovery and security in the enterprise lesson page for additional learning resources. Most information security pros have a handle on the major data types found in their environments, but they also know that there is a whole lot more data lurking around the edges. These unknown data types can include documents used by individuals, or whole applications owned by departments that have quietly become essential to the business. Most of the time, focusing on the squeaky wheels is an acceptable strategy; if there's no "squeak" then there's no need to worry. But when it comes to litigation, and especially managing the electronic discovery process, what you don't know can hurt you. There are four major types of data in use today: paper documents; structured data sets, like databases; semi-structured applications, like email and image stores; and unstructured repositories, like file servers. Comprehending the vast volume of these varied records can be a challenge for everyone involved, which includes information technology, records management, legal staff, and even the data owners themselves. But since almost all business information is stored in digital formats today, electronic storage systems are the most popular target for the discovery motions filed as part of legal proceedings. It is most efficient for a litigator to head straight for your email, spreadsheets and applications, looking for what they term electronically stored information (ESI). Making matters worse for IT administrators, new rules for civil litigation enacted at the end of 2006 (called the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or FRCP) have pushed up the timetable of electronic discovery. What was once a delayed and informal process has become much more structured, with lawyers meeting to discuss available ESI, typically just a few weeks after legal action commences. When l

The new year has come and gone on the Gregorian calendar. But the new year for legal technology is still in progress at LegalTech New York, where vendors are unveiling their new products and services and attendees are helping them celebrate. LegalTech attendees should revel in the number of vendor initiatives aimed at reducing e-discovery costs from acquisition to review and production. And, like last year, EDD vendors continue to design and manufacture their products for international litigation. But LegalTech is not all about e-discovery. There were still plenty of vendors with products outside the Electronic Data Reference Model. EDD PARTIES Readers should be aware that Index Engines can access and extract data from tape and tape libraries -- and can do so really fast. But now they can also extract data from network storage systems, file shares, forensic images and hard drives and still provide users a single point of access to it -- via a Web browser. Index Engines first indexes data on disparate resources. Once the index is compiled, data can be deduped, searched, reviewed and extracted on demand. Also note that Index Engines can now filter unwanted file types such as EXE, DLL, etc., during the indexing process to reduce the time it takes to review the data. Read LegalTech New York 2009 Coverage on Legal Blog Watch In preparation for the new year, Kazeon Systems introduced new pay-as-you-go pricing models that augment their current standard software licensing option and focus on case matters. Kazeon hopes the new pricing models allow customers to implement an e-discovery solution that does not require a major financial investment or lengthy rollout. Vendors are starting to "go left" of the EDRM to provide organizations a better view of the end of litigation via early case assessment tools. In fact, KPMG promoted the concept with a T-shirt emblazoned with "go left." Toward that end, Daticon EED announced the availability of its Early Case Assessment servic

The reality of any new technology, security or otherwise, rarely lives up to its promise. Once you move past the bright sheen of the product brochures and top-level user interfaces, only the practicalities of implementing the product in the real world remain. This is especially true of newer technologies we have little prior experience with, where our product expectations are defined by marketing, the press, and the rare peer reference. It's only after these tools are tested in the real world, under full production conditions, that we really start learning how to either best implement them, or kick them back to the vendor for a little more polish (and a compelling business use). Data loss prevention (DLP) is one of the most promising, and least understood, security technologies to emerge during the last few years. It dangles promises of ubiquitous content protection before our eyes, with shadows of complexity and costs glooming over its shoulder. As with everything, the reality is somewhere in-between. We've interviewed dozens of DLP users (including our own contacts, random volunteers and vendor references) to find out how DLP works in the trenches of the real world. The result is a collection of lessons learned and use cases to help you avoid common pitfalls while deriving maximum value. Lesson 1: Users are confused by a confusing market Lesson 2: Full DLP solutions take more effort to deploy, but are more effective and easier to manage Lesson 3: Set the right expectations and workflow early Lesson 4: Poor identity management hinders good DLP Lesson 5: False positives are a manageable concern Lesson 6: Progressive deployments are most effective Lesson 7: Endpoint DLP is still more limited than network or discovery Lesson 8: Content discovery is hot

www.killdo.de.gg Most quality online stores. Know whether you are a trusted online retailer in the world. Whatever we can buy very good quality. and do not hesitate. Everything is very high quality. Including clothes, accessories, bags, cups. Highly recommended. This is one of the trusted online store in the world. View now www.retrostyler.com

The discovery of documents with students' personally identifying information stored in an unlocked room has launched protests against the university's chief information security officer. Students at Binghamton University in New York are circulating a petition to remove the university's chief information security officer following the discovery of boxes full of documents listing personal information of students and parents in an unlocked storage room. The existence of the unsecured documents was discovered March 6 by a reporter working for student radio station WHRW and disclosed on March 9. For that investigative work, the student reporter could face criminal charges. Binghamton University has had other recent problems with information security. In the past year, according to an article written by Robert Glass, the WHRW news director, university employees accidentally e-mailed the Social Security numbers of 338 students to another group of 200 students, sent the personal information of exchange students -- passport scans and birth certificates -- to student groups, and disposed of information about more than 70 former graduate students in trash bins atop a pile of shredded documents. Those breaches led the university to create an information security council, with a full-time information security officer, to prevent further incidents, according to Glass. Glass did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A University spokeswoman characterized the hiring of Terry Dylewski as the university's chief information security officer as a reflection of the school's ongoing concern about information security rather than a response to past breaches. Asked about the status of the students' petition to remove Dylewski, as reported by Broome County Fox affiliate WICZ TV, she said that question should be directed to the students. The spokeswoman said the university is treating the incident as a possible crime and that a criminal investigation is ongoing. She sai

Attorneys can customize discovery requests for online postings, status updates, blog entries, photos, or videos to fit the facts of each case. Deposition questions about online activity, changing privacy settings, and deleting online material likewise are fair game if reasonably related to the case at hand.

A recurring problem in modern litigation is the inadvertent disclosure of materials subject to the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product protection. New Federal Rule of Evidence 502 changes the rules concerning waiver of privilege in all Federal and many State court cases, thereby reducing the risk that inadvertent disclosures will constitute a wavier of attorney client privilege or work product protection. But the new rule requires careful application. Important risks remain. Inadvertent disclosure of privileged or protected information too easily occurs when massive numbers of documents or files make it impractical or prohibitively expensive to review every item individually. The proverbial privileged document needle gets lost in the e-discovery haystack and is overlooked. Later, when opposing counsel recognizes that she has a potentially privileged document and brings this to the attention of disclosing counsel, there may be a fight as to whether the document will be returned, or whether the disclosure constitutes a wavier of any privilege related to the information. Under existing State and Federal law, release of privileged or protected information to an adversary, even if inadvertent, may constitute a waiver of the privilege or protection with regard to the information or document disclosed or, worse, to all documents and other information related to the same topic. Invoking the "claw" Amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), adopted in December 2006, were aimed at reducing the risks of waiver from inadvertent disclosures. Rule 26(b) provides that if privileged information is produced, the party making the claim of privilege may notify any party that received the information of the privilege claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has, must not use or disclose the information until the privilege claim is resolved; must t

Twitter posts may seem different from e-mail, but legally they aren't, so more companies are including them in their e-discovery policies, reports InformationWeek's Bob Evans. The subject is more than a little confusing, Evans finds, but one thing is clear: If you do have a policy on Twitter posts, it had better be enforced.

"The United States House of Representatives took a major step this week toward enacting a national data breach notification law. H.R. 2221, the Data Accountability and Trust Act (DATA), cleared the House with a voice vote. In its current form, DATA requires businesses to notify customers and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if sensitive information has been exposed to a security breach. If the U.S. Senate can reconcile its own approach to data breach notification legislation with DATA, a new federal standard will emerge. If signed into law by President Barack Obama, a federal data breach ¬law would pre-empt the jumbled mass of dozens of state laws. "You'd be better served by federal legislation if the federal legislation has teeth and doesn't pre-empt the state's law," said California state senator Joe Simitian, speaking to executive editor Scot Petersen in September. "If there was a meaningful standard at the national level, I think many states would be happy to accept it." Aside from the data breach notification required by the HITECH Act, DATA would put into place the first national law of its kind. H.R. 2221 was sponsored by House Subcommittee Chair Rep. Bobby L. Rush of Illinois. The bill specifically states that: "Any person engaged in interstate commerce that owns or possesses data in electronic form containing personal information shall, following the discovery of a breach of security of the system maintained by such person that contains such data -- 1. notify each individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States whose personal information was acquired by an unauthorized person as a result of such a breach of security; and 2. notify the Federal Trade Commission."

This year was an interesting year in privacy and information security, and by looking back, we can clearly discern trends that will likely be a major part of the security management landscape in 2009. More and more states passed breach-notification laws and several enhanced or extended existing legislation. Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) and virtualization really took off, and compliance's looming presence grew with PCI DSS version 1.2 and some actual enforcement of HIPAA. Of particular note was Massachusetts' data breach law 201 CMR 17.00: Standards for The Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth. This is to date the most comprehensive law of its kind, setting a new standard for what breach-notification laws should look like; it covers both paper and electronic records, it mandates appropriate security awareness training as well as security and risk assessments and, most importantly, requires companies to make changes to their security programs in accordance with the findings of those risk assessments. Similarly, California enhanced the well-known CA-1386 to include not just traditional financial information, but also health care and health insurance data as well. With new mandates popping up all the time, it's no wonder compliance was one of the biggest focus areas for enterprise information security teams in the past year, and this trend will clearly continue in 2009; there will be more regulation on both the state and federal levels, and stronger enforcement of existing regulations. Fines and other penalties for violations of PCI DSS and HIPAA will continue to rise, along with the inevitable rise in discoveries of malfeasance. As a result, there will be an even larger focus on compliance by upper management, which also means decreased time and budget for necessary security controls that don't clearly fall under a compliance umbrella.

Those who are superstitious may believe that bad things happen on Friday the 13th, but we will leave it to each individual and entity to formulate conclusions regarding the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the HITECH Act), which Congress passed late on Friday, February 13, 2009, and President Obama officially signed into effect on February 17, 2009. The HITECH Act addresses various aspects relating to the use of health information technology (H.I.T.), including providing for federal funding by way of grants and incentive payments in order to promote H.I.T. implementation. This Alert focuses, however, on Subtitle D of the HITECH Act, which includes important, new and far-reaching provisions concerning the privacy and security of health information that will materially and directly affect more entities, businesses and individuals in more diverse ways than ever before. These changes are further elaborated upon below, but this Alert can only highlight certain prominent issues under the HITECH Act and is by no means a comprehensive review of this lengthy and complex Act. For questions and additional guidance on the HITECH Act, contact your Fox Rothschild attorney or the authors of this Alert. New Privacy and Security Requirements * Security Breach Notification Requirements: Security breach notification requirements under the HITECH Act go into effect 30 days after the date that interim final regulations are promulgated, which will be no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the HITECH Act (August 16, 2009). Covered entities, business associates and vendors who handle personal health records are required to abide by breach notification requirements. Violations of this requirement by vendors would be treated as an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. If a breach affects more than 500 individuals of a particular state, notice also must be provided to prominent media outl

A defunct payment gateway has exposed as many as 19,000 credit card numbers, including up to 60 Australian numbers. The discovery by a local IT industry worker was made by mistake and appears to be caused by a known issue with the Google search engine, in which the pages of defunct web sites containing sensitive directories remain cached and available to anyone. The cached data, viewed by iTnews, includes 22,000 credit card numbers, including CVVs, expiry dates, names and addresses. Up to 19,000 of these numbers could be active. Most are customers in the US and Britain although some are Australian. The credit card numbers are for accounts held with Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Solo, Switch, Delta and Maestro/Cirrus. Within the address bars of the cached pages are URLs of companies, including UK retailers of laboratory supplies, sports and health goods, apparel, photo imaging and clothing.

Proof that George Bush was actually protecting us by limiting access to government information!

At the National Archives and Records Administration's annual conference Thursday, one keynote speaker asked the crowd of several hundred how many of the archivists in attendance were sold on the use of social media. Only a smattering raised their hands. Clearly, it's a challenge for the government to figure out how to navigate complex archival and e-discovery regulations that require it to capture and store all sorts of new content in the age of social media, cloud computing, and seemingly endless storage. "The federal government is in a constantly evolving records environment," Adrienne Thomas, acting archivist of the United States, said in a luncheon speech to the conference. "These are exciting and challenging times." Obama administration ambitions toward cloud computing and more openness only make that issue more complicated. "Many of us in the federal records administrations have struggled with the implications of this new direction," Paul Wester, director of modern records programs at the National Archives, said in an interview. "We deeply believe in transparency and openness, but we are concerned about FOIA, HIPAA, the Privacy Act, personally identifiable information, and compliance with the Disability Act and Federal Records Act."

Enterprise role management is key in efficiently managing user access rights and enforcing access policies such as segregation of duties. Roles help companies group coarse- and fine-grained access rights (like access to and functionality within a financial accounts application) into groups, called enterprise roles. These enterprise roles map to job functions and are only allowed access rights that don't violate segregation of duties. For instance, a financial clerk role can't contain fine-grained access rights that allow someone in the role to access the accounts receivable and accounts payable parts of the financial application. The processes and tools necessary for effective role management consist of role mining and design (automatic discovery and management of roles based on existing access rights and entitlements data), role recertification (a process performed typically every six months when a business role custodian certifies what access rights should belong to a role), and access recertification (a process performed typically every 3-6 months to ensure all user access is understood and was granted in an audited way).

"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule to beef up penalties for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accounting Act (HIPAA), as several Congressmen criticize the agency for leaving dangerous loopholes in the law. The new rules significantly increase penalty amounts that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services can impose for HIPAA violations of patient privacy, according to a statement from HHS. The new rules reflect requirements enacted in the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) sections of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. Before HITECH, maximum penalties were $100 for each violation or $25,000 for all identical violations of the same provision. A covered health care provider, health plan, or clearinghouse could be exempt from civil financial penalties if it demonstrated it did not know it violated the HIPAA rule. The HITECH act increases civil financial penalties by establishing tiered ranges of increasing minimum penalties, with a maximum $1.5 million for all violations of identical provisions. And a "covered entity" can plead ignorance as a protection only if it fixes the violation within 30 days of discovery."