In November 2017, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman introduced the Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security (SHIELD) Act (the “Act”) in the state’s Legislature. Companies – big and small – that collect information from New York residents should take note, as the Act could mean increased compliance costs,…

On February 21, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an interpretive Commission Statement and Guidance on Public Company Cybersecurity Disclosures (the “Guidance”) to assist public companies in meeting their cybersecurity disclosure requirements under the federal securities laws. The Guidance notes that, as reliance on networked systems and the…

State financial regulators in Colorado and Vermont recently adopted cybersecurity rules that apply to broker-dealers and investment advisers regulated by those states as well as certain other “securities professionals” in Vermont.

The broad definition of “securities professional” in Vermont’s regulation (“any person providing investment-related services in Vermont”) could include entities that do not generally consider themselves to be regulated by Vermont’s financial regulator.

Colorado’s and Vermont’s cybersecurity rules require covered entities to implement certain practices including: authentication practices for employee access (which could include multi-factor or two-factor authentication), procedures for authenticating client instructions received via electronic communication, and an annual cybersecurity risk assessment. Notably, Vermont’s regulation also requires that covered entities maintain cybersecurity insurance and provide identity restoration services in the event of a breach.

In a landmark decision, a nine judge bench of the Supreme Court of India ruled today that privacy is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of India.

Background

Due to the volume of cases brought before the Supreme Court of India, cases are generally heard by benches consisting of a subset of the ten justices of the Supreme Court. The question of whether there is a constitutionally protected right to privacy arose in a 2015 case brought before a three judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court challenging the legal validity of the Government of India’s Aadhaar program.  Under the Aadhaar program, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), an Indian government authority, is charged to assign a twelve digit unique identification number (UID) to each of the over 1.3 billion residents of India.  Each resident’s UID is linked to certain biometric information of the resident including his/her photograph, fingerprints and iris scans.  The UIDs are used by the government for a variety of purposes including to eliminate fraud in connection with the dispensing of benefits under various government welfare programs.  The three judge bench in the Aadhaar case determined that to assess the case appropriately, a determination of whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of India was required by a larger bench of Indian Supreme Court justices.  Given that the 1954 case of M.P. Sharma et al. v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi et al. holding that privacy is not a right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution was decided by an eight judge bench, a larger bench of nine Supreme Court justices was convened to determine whether the rationale of the M.P. Sharma judgment and others which similarly found that the Indian Constitution does not guarantee a right of privacy was based on “jurisprudential correctness.”  This bench of nine justices of the Indian Supreme Court listened to arguments presented over six long days spread over three weeks.

Whether it means taking a prominent role shaping data security for the Internet of Things, or addressing high profile breaches, the FTC has adopted an active position in policing data privacy and security. And, as data becomes increasingly digital in its form and protections, data security is of paramount importance for all types of intelligence—whether financial, medical, or otherwise sensitive.  The Commission’s emphasis on these areas has not slowed, even as the composition of the Bureau of Consumer Protection changes under a new administration.  The FTC’s actions over the past year reflect that Commission’s continued emphasis on data privacy and its recent data privacy settlements have provided companies with a trail of breadcrumbs from which they can extract lessons learned and help avoid potential FTC scrutiny.