Safe Harbor: Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care...

"Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care" within the enterprise requires an astute and proactive legal framework.  Operational Risk Management becomes a key component of the legal framework in multiple junctions of technology, data science and privacy law.

U.S. National Security continues to be in the center of the legal jousting between the European Union and the United States.  Underlying the debate is the data flowing through the Internet from data centers in Europe owned by U.S. companies.

What are the implications of a change in the Rule of Law and the rules associated with the collection, storage and analysis of data by companies such as Facebook?  How will the future of Operational Risk decisions impact the safety and security of nation states?  Is "Safe Harbour" ready for legal reengineering and a new updated global data privacy architecture for the Internet of Things (IoT).

III –  Conclusion 237. In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court should answer the questions referred by the High Court as follows:

Article 28 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, read in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of a decision adopted by the European Commission on the basis of Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46 does not have the effect of preventing a national supervisory authority from investigating a complaint alleging that a third country does not ensure an adequate level of protection of the personal data transferred and, where appropriate, from suspending the transfer of that data.

Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the Department of Commerce of the United States of America is invalid.

  Chief Privacy Officers and General Counsel within the ranks of Amazon, Google and Facebook are on a proactive mission quest.  How to keep business models fueled by advertising from erosion of data flows from outside the U.S. if precluded and if, all data from the EU must stay within the EU.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) will be tracking the data privacy legal frameworks across the globe and the continuous changes that will be necessary to stay in compliance with U.S. laws.  Henry Farrell sums this up nicely in his WP analysis:

Thus, if the court rules as expected, the U.S. has to choose between two unattractive options. The first is to refuse to make any concessions on surveillance, hence endangering the business models of big and influential U.S. e-commerce firms, and making life much harder for other big corporations that e.g. have to transfer personnel files across borders. The second is to make real concessions to the EU on spying, moving away from indiscriminate surveillance to a system that would provide real protections for European citizens.

We are on the edge of many years of new business process reengineering (BPR), but this time it is not about the demise of proprietary client / server architectures and the addition of Internet Protocols.  The new data privacy BPR is now just underway and it has all to do with creating the sound contractual negotiations of digital devices across borders.  More importantly, the trusted business assurance questions being asked by Operational Risk Officers and the building of digital trust as data and rules are executed at the speed of light.

Achieving Digital Trust delivers to business executives, IT strategists, and innovation leaders something remarkable-a complete tool-kit of new strategies and resources that will change how they make decisions that matter, and how to build digital assets that can be trusted. 

As you pick up your mobile device to access Messenger, or Wickr, the rule of law is being put in motion in nanoseconds.  When you type the message to your colleague in Ireland or Germany from Detroit, your data is being processed across data centers in multiple countries.  Machines executing business rules with other machines.  Are the rules correct?  Are they all legal?

"Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care" in the next decade will be one of our most interesting challenges.  The Safe Harbor of our way of life may go beyond the simple integrity and assurance that the message simply gets delivered.

Black Swan: Strategy Execution for the "Outlier"...

The Black Swan is a surprise event and the idea that a catastrophe can strike without warning. What does your organization plan for? The low consequence high frequency incident or the high consequence low frequency incident? The ratio can tell you what your "Resilience" factor is to Operational Risk loss events. Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) can give you some forward looking view into the risk portfolio yet what about the resilience to the Black Swan?

A black swan is a highly improbable event with three principal characteristics: It is unpredictable; it carries a massive impact; and, after the fact, we concoct an explanation that makes it appear less random, and more predictable, than it was. The astonishing success of Google was a black swan; so was 9/11. For Nassim Nicholas Taleb, black swans underlie almost everything about our world, from the rise of religions to events in our own personal lives.

Why do we not acknowledge the phenomenon of black swans until after they occur? Part of the answer, according to Taleb, is that humans are hardwired to learn specifics when they should be focused on generalities. We concentrate on things we already know and time and time again fail to take into consideration what we don’t know. We are, therefore, unable to truly estimate opportunities, too vulnerable to the impulse to simplify, narrate, and categorize, and not open enough to rewarding those who can imagine the “impossible.”

Your organization is no doubt spending time on the Operational Risk Management (ORM) events that consistently are in the high frequency "In Your Face" category. In a highly regulated industry sector such as finance, health care or energy the oversight mechanisms require a continuous analysis of risk based upon the criticality of these sectors to the overall resilience of the economy. Yet it is the "Outlier" incident that comes at the most unexpected time that is the real threat and the incident catalyst, that could be your "Black Swan". You never know when it is going to be coming, so you must plan, prepare and imagine that someday it will happen.

Enabling Global Operational Risk Management (ORM) requires thinking beyond models and outside the box analysis of the "Resilience Factor," should an outlier impact the organization, the state or the country. The resources, personnel and systems focused on these areas of risk are small today. But not for long. Just ask those people who had been working 24/7 since the "Fukushima" or "Lehman Brothers" crisis. Or more importantly, the plaintiff lawyers preparing their briefs for the inevitable aftermath of litigation over, who knew what, when.

One prediction into the future could be that litigation will follow all "Black Swan" incidents. If you are in a highly vulnerable industry sector because it's part of the critical infrastructure of the global grid, then you already know you are in the middle of the target zone. What is amazing to many in the after-action reporting is how much we continue to under estimate the magnitude of a lack of planning and resources devoted to these low frequency high consequence events.  Enter Target Corporation:

Is Target to Blame for Its Data Breach? Let the Lawsuits Begin 

By Joshua Brustein December 26, 2013 

The lawsuits started almost immediately after Target’s (TGT) admission that hackers had stolen information related to the credit-card accounts of 40 million shoppers. At least 11 customers are now pursuing class-action suits against the retailer, claiming it was negligent in protecting their data. 

Losing control of sensitive customer data is a fact of life for American companies. They’re collecting more of it, and they are often outgunned by hackers, who are highly motivated to get at it. It’s not even clear how much legal responsibility they have to protect it. “There is limited judicial guidance on what constitutes negligence in the cybersecurity area,” says Craig Newman, a partner at Richard Kibbe & Orbe who follows legal issues related to security.

HSI Governance: Equilibrium of Privacy and Security...

When people are faced with increasing Operational Risk uncertainty in their organization, our inherent DNA makes us gravitate towards avoiding new risk at all costs. What any new bold policy shift requires to succeed for the masses is to face risk squarely in the eye and to manage it effectively. This is exactly how many private sector intelligence organizations have evolved and continue to thrive in a vast universe of "Open Source" and Electronically Stored Information (ESI).

The U.S. government "Homeland Security Intelligence" (HSI) enterprise has the same opportunity to embrace risk and simultaneously manage it more efficiently and effectively. Over the course of the past decade the U.S. Patriot Act has several controversial provisions that have been implemented, tested and refined. Several of these include Sec. 203(b) and (d) that allow information from criminal probes to be shared with intelligence agencies and other parts of the U.S. government. Another is Sec. 206 that allows one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices, eliminating the need for separate court authorizations for a suspect's cell phone, PC and Blackberry, for example. The civil liberties debate on Sec. 215 known as the "libraries provision" allows access to records such as what books were checked out at the library or purchased from a bookstore, as long as the records are sought "in connection with" a terror investigation.

The governance of information by the private sector may have either accelerated or detained HSI enterprises in terrorism investigations. One example are the policies private sector Internet Service Providers utilize for records management and "Electronically Stored Information" (ESI) readiness. Electronic discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) have created the requirement for private sector companies to be more prudent in "Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care."

The risk associated with non-compliance of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) is a major facet of Operational Risk Management. The fusion of the Corporate Governance Strategy Execution comes together with a dedicated internal "Task Force" inside the enterprise. Comprised of the General Counsel, CIO, CISO and VP of Human Resources, this team provides the mechanism for effective policy implementation and operations accountability. The mission is to carry out the fiduciary duty to create a culture of legal compliance within the organization.

The evidence obtained for Homeland Security Intelligence (HSI) investigations may only be as accessible and obtainable as the effectiveness of a private sector companies ESI policies. How often do they purge their e-mail from databases? How much data storage does the enterprise allow for each person's mailbox? Are there people circumventing the information governance policies in the private or public workplace in order to get their daily business accomplished?

The collection of information for HSI has a parallel path with the collection of evidence and it must be done according to the civil liberties and privacy laws of the United States. It is this balance and equilibrium between the governance of information and the legality of obtaining it for the purpose of a terrorism related investigation that brings us to a potential digital paradox.

Where action against a person or organization involves the law, either civil or criminal, the evidence presented shall conform to the rules for evidence laid down in the relevant law or in the rules of the specific court in which the case will be heard. This shall include compliance with any published standard or code of practice for the production of admissible evidence.

In Joshua Cooper Ramo's book "The Age of the Unthinkable","Why the New World Disorder Constantly Surprises Us and What We Can Do About It" the author discusses the concept of Deep Security. His analogy of how to think about "Deep Security" is the biological immune system. "A reactive instinct for identifying dangers, adapting to deal with them, and then moving to control and contain the risk they present."

The key word in Ramo's writing is "Adapt". Being Adaptive. However, prior to this there are two other very vital words that we feel are even more imperative. Instinct. Identifying. In other words, Proactive Intuition.

Ask any savvy law enforcement investigator or intelligence analyst on how she solved the case and you may hear just that, "I had a hunch." Talk with a Chief Privacy Officer in any Global 500 company and you might get them to admit they have a sense that their organization will be the target of a data breach incident in the coming year or two. The complexity of IT systems, data networks and the hundreds of laptops circling the globe with company executives is enough to predict that a major breach will occur.

Being adaptive and having proactive intuition in the modern Homeland Security Intelligence enterprise or private sector company does not come natural. You have to work at it and it requires a substantial investment in time and resources to make it work effectively. Once you realize that all of the legal controls, technology and physical security are not going to keep you out of harms way, you are well on your way to reaching the clairvoyance of "The Age of the Unthinkable."

Rule-based Design: The Future of HSI...

Levers in the Homeland Security Intelligence (HSI) ecosystem impact the performance and the health of the environment that the entities are sharing their respective insights. These HSI entities are people within the analytic ecosystem who are diverse in the art and science they utilize to create and share insight.

The threat to any ecosystem in many cases is "too much" or "too little" of a key element of that environment that makes it thrive. Anything that occurs to offset the equilibrium in the ecosystem can have dramatic effects. What is the greatest killer of human beings on the planet earth over the past few decades? A good guess would be "Drought". Too much sun and too little water has killed millions.

Yet in the context of intelligence, if data is "The Sun" and shared insight is "The Water" then in order to mitigate the impacts of upsetting the equilibrium of our HSI ecosystem a prudent course of action is required. The levers should assist in the governance of the right amount of data and the right amount of shared insights so no one entity is at risk. Now we must examine the topic of "Rule-based Design."

Homeland Security Intelligence analysts who are experiencing too much data and not enough insight is many times the argument at hand. They are indeed at the mercy of the compliance and data governance mechanisms that are in place, because of the civil liberties, legal framework and privacy statutes across 50 U.S. states. To add to the complexity are the systems and analytic software solutions that have been developed over the past ten plus years. The software designers must incorporate "Rule-based Design" if they are to assist in the entire equilibrium of the HSI ecosystem. Jeffrey Ritter explains:

Clearly, for the IT architect, there are lessons to be learned. For each step taken by the IT architect to better account for all of the rules that a solution must navigate, before the design process begins and long before construction of the solution is underway, the IT architect is able to better assure the timely completion of the solution, and the compliance of the systems and resulting data with applicable rules. Yet, even in this second decade of the 21st century, we are witnessing a continued failure of IT systems to be designed for compliance. Time and again, systems are designed, built and implemented without early and complete evaluation of the rules that must be satisfied. The result is that corporations (and their lawyers) are often patching compliance onto the systems after the fact. Expenses are increased, compliance is less assured, and the IT architect often gets stuck with the responsibility.

“Rules–based design” means that IT solutions are designed with a fully-informed awareness of all of the rules, including the legal rules, that the solution and the data must satisfy. With cloud computing, data that is dynamic and volatile, and mobile users, the challenge is genuine – how do we anticipate all of the legal rules that may apply?

The solution will emerge incrementally. But the first step is to accept the principle that IT systems, and their data, can be designed differently. We can take into account prior to the design process, and not after the completion of construction, all of the rules that the systems and the data must successfully navigate.

Now we must examine the "Civil Liberties and Privacy Policy" and the applicability within the Department of Homeland Security.

The Policy applies to “protected information,” which the ISE defines as information about U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents that is subject to information privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties protections required under the U.S. Constitution and Federal laws of the United States. DHS has instituted a policy whereby any personally identifiable information (PII) that is collected, used, maintained, and/or disseminated in connection with a mixed system is treated as a system of records subject to the administrative protections of the Privacy Act regardless of whether the information pertains to a U.S. citizen, legal permanent resident, visitor, or alien. As a result, this Policy also applies to information about nonresident aliens contained in “mixed systems.”

When you combine the complexity of a vast and endless data ecosystem with the rule-based design to try to accomplish the civil liberties and privacy of U.S. citizens; you have the basis for a significant challenge and a simultaneous opportunity. The governance of Homeland Security Intelligence is in the hands of policy makers and software systems designers. The drought metaphor utilized earlier to illustrate the point on "too much data" and "too little insight" can now be clarified in our focus post 9/11. As of this writing, the system is working and has prevented a terrorist attack in the U.S. homeland on the magnitude of that unforgettable Tuesday in September, 2001.

The entities within our Homeland Security Intelligence ecosystem will continue to be enabled or impeded by the policy decisions of civil liberties and privacy laws. The degree to which the software systems and rule-based design are commensurate with these policies may very well determine whether the equilibrium continues it's success in the United States.

The levers to improve our HSI in the midst of a dynamic and asymmetric enemy are a constant ambition. Looking into the future, we can only pray our analytic entities execute in an ecosystem that perpetuates our successes so far and minimizes our failures. The governance factors designed by our policy makers and software developers will determine our abilities to save lives and protect our vital national assets for years to come.

Digital Paradox: Privacy v. Security...

The media communications and advertising industries are buzzing over the new U.S. Federal Trade Commission report and framework entitled: Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change. The Operational Risk Management implications to your enterprise could be significant if you currently do not understand how your marketing department provides disclosures or manages consumer collected data. If you think that you are protected because you outsource to a 3rd party, then think again. The power to the consumer is increasing and the data privacy laws are playing a quick game of catch-up on regulation:

Scope: The framework applies to all commercial entities that collect or use consumer data that can be reasonably linked to a specific consumer, computer, or other device.

Companies should promote consumer privacy throughout their organizations and at every stage of the development of their products and services.

With 500 Million plus people who are self-profiling themselves on Facebook these days, you might wonder if they even truly think about their privacy. See Controlling How You Share, Facebook

A variety of business models involve practices that fall outside the proposed “commonly accepted practices” category. These include, for example, a retailer collecting purchase information directly from a consumer and then selling it to a data broker or other third party that may be unknown to the consumer. Other examples include online behavioral advertising, in which an online publisher allows third parties to collect data about consumers’ use of the website, as well as social media services, where the service or platform provider allows third party applications to collect data about a consumer’s use of the service. In addition, as noted above, using deep packet inspection to create marketing profiles of consumers would not be a commonly accepted practice.

The new framework and panel discussions has focused on the Operational Risks associated with collecting, storing and sharing data on consumers. The regulations that change going forward to assist in consumer protections and disclosures may not have much impact on whether the consumers "Personal Identifiable Information" (PII) is disclosed to nefarious transnational criminal syndicates without their permission.

If you are a U.S. government military employee you may have received notice lately from yourPenFed Credit Union that you too may have your PII in the hands of people that will use it for monetary gain. The continuous loss of data by institutions has now been verified as just another criminal business enterprise by organized crime and in many cases sanctioned by nation states. The data protection and data theft game is the modern equivalent of bank robbery yet it is moving at the speed of electrons across fiber optic networks world wide.

And now that this accelerating consumer issue of cybersecurity has made it's way to The White House, one can only wonder what may change. The cost to business is now $204.00 per record according to well respected research by Ponemon Institute. The MOU with DHS, Department of Commerce and the Financial Services Sector Coordinating Council (FSSCC) remains the window dressing on another unfunded effort to deter the cyber plague before us.

There is no shortage of people reporting about the breaches (this blog included), the hacks and the data leakage via employees using Peer 2 Peer file sharing software within the walls of their Fortune 500 company or government agency. Some people who are disclosing the information are doing it with alternative motives and rarely try to provide a potential solution to the problem.

So what can a PenFed or major U.S. Government agency do, to stem the tide of the growing digital tsunami of data thefts and transnational economic crime or acts of espionage? There is not one solution nor is there ever going to be a day when it all comes to an end. Which brings us to the mind set shift that is necessary to make a difference.

The Security vs. Privacy legal topic is somewhere in the mix of the solution. The education of our digital natives at a young age is another. Many kids know how to type with their thumbs better than they can write a legible letter to grand mother. And finally, the implementation of new technologies that will enable law enforcement to their jobs more effectively.

Now back to the mind set shift. Cecilia Kang of the Washington Post reports:

As the United States looks at ways to better protect Internet users’ privacy, Europe is going through its own update of online privacy rules. The 27-nation European Union is taking a more aggressive approach to privacy by setting higher bars for how data can be collected on Web users.

European laws prohibit Web sites from tracking users without their permission. The E.U. is also weighing legislation that would let users delete all their information from a Web site, such as Facebook, and transfer data from one wireless provider to another without leaving profiles behind.

Viviane Reding, the vice president of the E.U. Justice Commission and head of privacy regulation, visited The Post on Wednesday to talk about her approach to protecting users in the age of Internet over-sharing. On Thursday, she is scheduled to meet with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to discuss ways the E.U. and U.S. can cooperate on safeguarding consumers' personal information, including data on travel and finances. The talks may also touch on the recent disclosure of classified documents by Wikileaks.

Digital RubiCON: The Fifth Domain...

Operational Risk Management is a continuous process in the context of our rapidly expanding corporate environments. What is one example? People traveling to emerging markets to explore new business opportunities or new suppliers that will be connected by high speed Internet connections to the supply chain management system. These boundaries of managing operational risk, have not only expanded, they have become invisible.

Ru·bi·con

1. a river in N Italy flowing E into the Adriatic

—Idiom

2. Rubicon, to take a decisive, irrevocable step

This "Digital Rubicon" before us, to take on a more "Active Defense" in navigating the risk across international waters of e-commerce, privacy and legal jurisdictions will forever shape our future. The decisions made on what constitutes an adversarial attack in the cyber domain, will not be as easy as the dawn of the nuclear age. Policy makers today have to weave the potential implications into a sophisticated decision tree that crosses the complex areas of intelligence, diplomacy, defense, law, commerce, economics and technology.

The new digital "Rule Sets" are currently being defined by not only nation states but the "Non-State" actors who dominate a segment of the global digital domains. The same kinds of schemes, ploys, communication tactics and strategies are playing out online and what has worked in the physical world, may also work even better in the cyber-centric environment. Corporations are increasingly under estimating the magnitude of the risk or the speed that it is approaching their front or back door steps.

The private sector is under tremendous oversight by various regulators, government agencies and corporate risk management. Yet the "public-private" "tug-of-war" over information sharing, leaks to the public press and Wikileaks incidents has everyone on full alert. As the government has outsourced the jobs that will take too long to execute or that the private sector already is an expert, operational risks have begun to soar.

As the private sector tasks morph with the requirements of government you perpetuate the gap for effective risk mitigation and spectacular incidents of failure. Whether it is the failure of people, processes, systems or some other clandestine event doesn't matter. The public-private paradox will continue as long as the two seek some form of symbiosis. The symbiotic relationship between a government entity and a private sector supplier must be managed no differently than any other mission critical resource within an unpredictable environment.

Once an organization has determined the vital combination of assets it requires to operate on a daily basis, then it can begin it's quest for enabling enterprise resiliency. The problem is, most companies still do not understand these complex relationships within the matrix of their business and therefore remain vulnerable. The only path to gaining that resilient outcome, is to finally cross that "Digital Rubicon" and realize that you no longer can control it.

The first step in any remediation program, is first to admit the problem and to accept the fact that it exists. Corporate enterprises and governments across the globe are coming to the realization that the only way forward is to cooperate, coordinate and contemplate a new level of trust.

Washington Post: US eyes preemptive cyber-defense strategy: "The command - made up of 1,000 elite military hackers and spies under one four-star general - is the linchpin of the Pentagon's new strategy and is slated to become fully operational Oct. 1.

Military officials have declared that cyberspace is the fifth domain - along with land, air, sea and space - and is crucial to battlefield success.

"We need to be able to protect our networks," Lynn said in a May interview. "And we need to be able to retain our freedom of movement on the worldwide networks."

Another senior defense official said, "I think we understand that in order for us to ensure integrity within the military networks, we've got to be able to reach out as far as we can - once we know where the threat is coming from - and try to eliminate that threat where we can."

FRE 502: Evidence & Digital Discovery...

What could the implications of this ruling be for employees in New York state? Scott v Beth Israel Med. Ctr. Inc.

The writing is on the wall with the attorney-client privilege and Federal Rules of Evidence 502. A review of current e-mail policy may also be in order at your institution if you plan on achieving "A Defensible Standard of Care."

On December 11, 2007, Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced S. 2450, a bill adding new Evidence Rule 502 to the Federal Rules of Evidence. The legislation addresses waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work product protection and is identical to proposed Evidence Rule 502, which was approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States and transmitted to Congress for its consideration in September 2007.

Here are comments by the BLT:

If approved, the legislation would allow litigants to avoid waiving privilege on inadvertent disclosures if parties took reasonable efforts to vet the documents and asked for the return of any privileged information in a timely manner.

"The surging use of email and other electronic media has forced parties to spend billions of dollars and countless hours to guard against the unintentional release of such information," Leahy's office reported. Specter added that the new rule would help ensure that "the wheels of justice will not become bogged down in the mud of discovery.”

Stephen D. Whetstone, Esq. of Stratify says this:

Given the increased risks and costs, it is no surprise that many companies are trying to wrest control over the discovery process. More companies are now directing outside their counsel to leverage technology to automatically organize huge data collections, help understand foreign languages and detect privilege and thereby drive down the costs and mistakes that result from fatigued human review. The rule-makers get it, too. The Advisory Committee Notes to proposed FRE 502 provide: "Depending on the circumstances, a party that uses advanced analytical software application and linguistic tools in screening for privilege and work product may be found to have taken 'reasonable steps' to prevent inadvertent disclosure."

In short, in the 12 months since adoption of the new discovery rules, the sky did not fall. But, for some, it grew darker and more expensive to prop up.

In case you haven't noticed your CIO in the General Counsel's office lately, you soon will. The use of automated tools for Electronic Content Management (ECM) have converged with the tools for Disaster Recovery Management (DRM). In the middle of the pile of documents, email and other electronically stored information (ESI) is something called effective Records Management.

Managing information that is discoverable through email from Party A to Party B using the internal e-mail system provided by the employer to the third parties outside of the organization including lawyers is the nexus here. How can an organization make sense of it all and keep the GC from pointing fingers at the CIO?

The answer begins with building awareness and education with all employees in the organization, not just the legal staff and IT. It begins the moment any employee opens the word doc or excel spreadsheet. The second you reply to that IM or e-mail on your PDA . Only through effective education and policy management will the enterprise learn how to modify behavior regardless of what tools and systems are put in place to organize, sort and query ESI.

"Whether building the castle walls or defending the crown jewels, knowing the right questions can make all of the difference."

The beginning of your educational journey starts here: CastleQuest

General Counsel: Information Security Nexus...

A "Defensible Standard of Care" is a hot topic these days around the Board of Directors Audit Committee conference table. Information Security standards are consistently being discussed by the CIO and CSO in the context of compliance. So where is the nexus? Why is it so critical to enabling the enterprise business resilience of a global institution?

The answers lie in the fundamental understanding that the Board of Directors and the "C" Suite are both working towards the same focal point. Their motive is almost identical. To be able to provide the evidence and the testimony that keeps their integrity and reputation intact. The ISO 27001 controls addresses this directly:

Clause A.15.1 Compliance with legal requirements

Objective: To avoid breaches of any law, statutory, regulatory or contractual obligations, and of any security requirements.

Welcome...

This blog will explore trusted information and the nexus of information security and the law.