Privacy Law: Scanning the Legal Horizon...

As our new knowledge-based organizations begin the startup phase, the thought of all of the implications of collecting and storing information may be secondary to raising capital.  However, once you have the core team in place and the business begins to scale, maybe it is time to look over the horizon.

Once you have reached the point in your companies growth curve to consider the hiring of a CFO and even an outside "General Counsel", the regulatory engine must be established within the enterprise.  Today, even the CISO in any major business across the United States has been challenged by rapidly changing digital privacy laws the past two years.

Especially in California, the CalECPA went into effect January 1, 2016 and in general is focused on law enforcement:

The landmark California Electronic Communications Privacy Act bars any state law enforcement agency or other investigative entity from compelling a business to turn over any metadata or digital communications—including emails, texts, documents stored in the cloud—without a warrant. It also requires a warrant to track the location of electronic devices like mobile phones, or to search them.

The simple fact that a company is doing business in the State of California and has employees operating there, puts a significant set of requirements and compliance issues that are top of mind.  This is why you see technology-oriented companies who have their Headquarters based here, developing robust guides for working within federal and state privacy laws.

A "Chief Information Security Officer" is not only charged with protecting the data within a confidentiality, integrity and assurance framework, but also working in tandem with the General Counsel and a Chief Privacy Officer.  The standards and the laws have significant hurdles that also require prudent Operational Risk Management strategies.

Now take all of this into consideration as your begin to plan for implementing an "Insider Threat Program" (InTP) within your organization.  The addition of a Human Resources component, Chief Information Officer and even perhaps 3rd Party Cloud supply chain vendors will all be in play.

So What?

So what is the legal profession in California focused on these days?  Just take a look at the Agenda for a March 2017 event at Berkeley Law:

Cybersecurity Regulatory Enforcement

New regulators, new laws, and new norms are causing cybersecurity responsibilities to proliferate. This discussion will feature insights on how cybersecurity lawyers navigate the growing thicket of information security rules from the perspective of both companies pursued by the FTC and multinationals operating under different legal regimes. It will consider challenges posed by insider breaches and obligations arising from the General Data Protection Regulation.

Practitioners Panel

Privacy practitioners from leading law firms and major online companies will share insights on how to stay afloat in increasingly turbulent waters.

Privacy Award

BCLT is proud to bestow its annual Privacy Award this year on
Susan Freiwald, University of San Francisco Law School
Nicole Ozer, ACLU of California

in recognition of their leadership in securing passage of CalECPA, which establishes the “gold standard” of a judicial warrant for government access to communications, location data and other information about our daily lives.

Keynote: Too Close for Comfort – AI, Cloud Computing, and Privacy 

Recent advances in artificial intelligence, robots, and machine learning are enabled by big data, digital cameras, and cloud computing. These advances open an enormous Pandora’s box in terms of security and privacy. Groundbreaking AI researcher Ken Goldberg will present potential responses, such as a concept for “Respectful Cameras,” a privacy-preserving system for industrial automation. He will explain why claims of an impending “Singularity” are greatly exaggerated and will propose an alternative, “Multiplicity,” where diverse groups of humans work together with diverse groups of machines to innovate and to solve complex problems.

Government Access

With digital evidence central to an increasing number of criminal and foreign intelligence investigations, government demands for access seem to steadily increase. From varying perspectives, this panel will explore emerging issues in government access to data stored with third parties.

Artificial Intelligence and the Right to an Explanation

The General Data Protection Regulation requires that organizations explain to individuals the logic behind decisions rendered by algorithms. This policy is aligned with growing efforts in the machine learning community to improve the interpretability of outputs. This panel will examine a broad range of efforts to address interpretability and potential biases in complex algorithmic systems.

Consent and Contract under EU Data Protection Law

EU privacy regulation continues to have worldwide relevance, especially affecting U.S.-based companies. This session will examine how consumer data can continue to be collected and used given the different approaches in the EU and U.S. to consensual mechanisms for authorizing personal data processing.

The CISO and the entire team of Operational Risk Management professionals at your organization, should be monitoring and creating new strategies to protect the organization.  Scanning the legal horizon on what the new challenges are and how to prepare, is the sign of a sound business strategy.

Startup Strategy: Opportunity of Digital Trust in a New Era...

The startup ecosystem of new ideas for SaaS platforms or mission based digital solutions are becoming evermore robust, in our growing economy.  As a result, Operational Risk professionals are more in demand to help new co-founders adapt to the legal, compliance and consumer transparency requirements, that will soon descend upon them.

It makes sense, that when you are starting a new company you first are focused on the product/mission and who the intended market or user will be.  Yet soon after this is defined and the "Go-to-Market" strategy is in place, there is a tremendous amount of Operational Risk design and implementation of internal capabilities, that will be required.  In just Social Media, here is just one example:

"As social networks continue to mature, they increasingly take on roles they may not have anticipated. Moderating graphic imagery and hate speech, working to address trolling and harassment, and dealing with dissemination of fake news puts companies like Facebook and Twitter in powerful societal positions. Now, Facebook has acknowledged yet another challenge: Keeping your data safe from surveillance. That’s harder than it may sound. When you post something publicly on a social network, anyone can view it—including law enforcement or federal agencies."

Since the dawn of the Internet, new startup companies have been developing algorithms and bots to scour the vast landscape of "data oceans" for relevant content.  As public Internet tools, databases and consumer-oriented web sites were developed for even Blogs (Blogger.com) such as this one, other companies were figuring out how to capture the data content in their searchable systems.

Years later, startups developed ways to develop the API as a new product-set, so that other companies could embed and utilize a set of data or capability and have it more integrated with a new set of functionality or service mission.  What is one company in this category focused on Twitter?  Gnip.com:

"PowerTrack provides customers with the ability to filter a data source’s full firehose, and only receive the data that they or their customers are interested in. This is accomplished by applying Gnip’s PowerTrack filtering language to match Tweets based on a wide variety of attributes, including user attributes, geo-location, language, and many others. Using PowerTrack rules to filter a data source ensures that customers receive all of the data, and only the data they need for your app."

So what?

If you are a startup company that is planning on a pledge to your customers to "Keeping your data safe from surveillance," just as the juggernaut Facebook is also currently doing, you have a tremendous amount of work and new processes/systems to get in place.  You are embarking not only on the steep growth curve of adding new customers and revenue; you are simultaneously under the mandate to help achieve a higher level of "Digital Trust" with those same customers.

Developing the policy alone is only the start.  Here is how Twitter is addressing it:

"To be clear: We prohibit developers using the Public APIs and Gnip data products from allowing law enforcement — or any other entity — to use Twitter data for surveillance purposes. Period. The fact that our Public APIs and Gnip data products provide information that people choose to share publicly does not change our policies in this area. And if developers violate our policies, we will take appropriate action, which can include suspension and termination of access to Twitter’s Public APIs and data products."

How Facebook and Twitter and Snapchat or LinkedIn and all of the hundreds of Social Media companies will scale up enforcement, is now the big question.  Maybe they have the deep pockets and resources to build and operate their "Digital Trust" business unit.  What about the new startup with only 6 or 7 figures in the bank from a seed or even "A" round of funding?

The policy implications and new federal laws being drafted in the United States and the European Union may be good indicators of where the future requirements will be defined for a new startup.  In the EU this week, the G20 finance ministers are converging on the topic of "Cyber Crime" soon after a recent indictment:

"Two intelligence agents from Russia, another G20 member, with masterminding the 2014 theft of 500 million Yahoo accounts. The indictment was the first time U.S. authorities have criminally charged Russian spies for cyber offences including for computer fraud, economic espionage, theft of trade secrets, and wire fraud."

How will the new startup who is focused on addressing transparency, privacy, and surveillance now "Enable Digital Trust of  Global Enterprises."  Here is a glimpse from the latest PwC CEO Survey:

"Yet, if forfeiting people’s trust is a sure-fire route to failure, earning their trust is the single biggest enabler of success. As an example, the progression from assisted to augmented to autonomous intelligence depends on how much consumers and regulators trust machines to operate on their own. That, in turn, depends on whether those who create the machines have the right risk and governance structures, the means to verify and validate their claims independently and the mechanisms to engage effectively with stakeholders."

"In short, trust is an opportunity, not just a risk. Many CEOs recognise as much: 64% think the way their firm manages data will be a differentiating factor in future. These CEOs know that prioritising the human experience in a virtual world entails treating customers with integrity."

Welcome to the new era of achieving Digital Trust...

Legal Risk: Tools for Trusted Governance...

One of the reasons that the United States has endured is because of transparency and the rule of law.  There are several key systems in place for corporations, organizations and governments to decide on the rules, publish them, enforce them and provide people with mechanisms for establishing trust in the system.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) as a discipline interfaces with many of them across the globe.

Policies that are not codified in laws are different across states and global jurisdictions.  The rules that people can rely on and have come to trust for hundreds of years, remain the foundation for our modern civil societies.  It is when the rules are ignored, under utilized or forgotten that disruption and chaos can erupt.

A key principle in modern democracies is that the rule of law is known. Statutes, regulations, court decisions, agency deliberations, and even the minutes of Federal Reserve meetings are published and made available. The operating premise is that, if the rules are accessible, civil order and social continuity will be strengthened and the conduct of those violating the rules is more easily prosecuted. The old saying that “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” rests on an important premise—the law must be published and accessible. The Internet has made much of the content of the rule of law even more accessible. Jeffrey Ritter

The country and the jurisdiction is a key component for knowing the law.  It is in the day of the Internet even more accessible.  Building and achieving trust in an organization, company enterprise or governance body has several tools at their disposal to assist them in the enforcement mechanism.  One of those is an independent panel or group of outsiders who are convened to discover evidence.

A Board of Directors is comprised of both individuals inside the company and outside to help guide the organization.  In a private company, this "Board of Directors" make decisions on the evidence of data and make informed decisions to govern the enterprise.  Some of these decisions may involve what products and services to develop or what people should be selected or released from certain duties and responsibilities.

In the public sector, there is another mechanism that can be utilized, A Grand Jury.  The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury..."

A grand jury is a legal body that is empowered to conduct official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct and to determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may compel the production of documents and may compel the sworn testimony of witnesses to appear before it. A grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning.[1]
What is one example of a notable case where a Grand Jury was used in the process of the rule of law:

The second Watergate grand jury indicted seven lawyers in the White House, including former Attorney General John Mitchell and named President Nixon as a "secret, unindicted, co-conspirator." Despite evading impeachment, Nixon was still required to testify before a grand jury.

An environment of trust includes a vital component of transparent and accessible rules. When there is a reason to discover the truth, we look to the governance factors of those rules. Then we look at the clear evidence, the data to determine the correct course of action in our inquiry.  A Board of Directors or a Grand Jury provides guidance on whether a particular case should be referred to a legal process in a particular jurisdiction.  The rules are clear.  Trust is preserved.

What are the outcomes and benefits of effective Operational Risk Management (ORM):

1. Reduction of operational loss.
2. Lower compliance/auditing costs.
3. Early detection of unlawful activities.
4. Reduced exposure to future risks.

ORM is a continual process that when utilized effectively will provide the four benefits described.  Why any governance organization or body that it interested in transparency and building trust would ignore the process is questionable.

ORM includes legal risk.  This is why the General Counsel of private sector companies include the GC in the team that helps to effectively govern the organization.  They understand the rule of law and the requirement for transparency and factors needed to achieve integrity and trust.

Now think about your organization, your jurisdiction and the process you are utilizing to ensure more effective TrustDecisions.  What can you do different?  What will you do to make it better?  How will you provide the best use of the rules to effectively ensure the integrity and governance of the system?

Here is just one example:

Over 60 people in the U.S. and India face conspiracy and wire fraud charges in the largest crackdown against a telephone scam ever, officials said.

Callers from centers in India posed as federal agents to threaten victims with arrest, imprisonment, fines or deportation if they didn’t pay up, according to an 81-page indictment unsealed Thursday.

At least 15,000 Americans lost more than $300 million collectively during the four-year scam, according to the feds. A Texas grand jury indicted 24 people from nine U.S. states, 32 people from India and five call centers in Ahmedabad, India, earlier this month.

Trade Secrets: Gearing up for DTSA...

The Fortune Global 500 and the smallest research and development organizations in the U.S. have another ruleset to keep their eye on this week.  It is named DTSA or S.1890 - Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 has passed the Senate.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) is preparing for the next addition to national laws.

The attribution of cyberespionage adversaries has been gearing up since the Sony Pictures hack.  The private sector has been hunting and identifying those shadow individuals and nation state special units for years.  Now the lawyers can get more aggressive with civil actions.

The question remains, will another law deter the actions by global organized crime and the intelligence community of some significant nations?  How will attribution and more aggressive civil actions in foreign jurisdictions make a difference?

As a global organization, can you access your database of confidential trade secrets?  No different than the task of the identification of information assets that you are going to protect, you need an inventory.  What are they and where are they?  Everyone knows the formula for "Coca-cola" is written on a single piece of paper that is locked up in a vault in Atlanta, GA right?  Or is it?

There are trade secrets across America that have been stolen by operatives working inside organizations.  They may be preparing to leave the U.S. for another country outside the reach of law enforcement and the legal process for seizing the stolen property.  That is going to change soon.

The EX-Parte Seizure Order is part of the Trade Secrets bill that allows a trade secret owner to obtain an order from a judge for U.S. marshals to seize back the trade secret from the alleged bad actor without prior warning. This is to protect the trade secret owner from having the alleged bad actor skip the country or destroy the evidence before it is recaptured.

Now that Trade Secrets are in the same legal and enforcement category with patents and trademarks, you can predict that your legal budgets will need to be adjusted, upwards.  In general, what is a Trade Secret?

The subject matter of trade secrets is usually defined in broad terms and includes sales methods, distribution methods, consumer profiles, advertising strategies, lists of suppliers and clients, and manufacturing processes. While a final determination of what information constitutes a trade secret will depend on the circumstances of each individual case, clearly unfair practices in respect of secret information include industrial or commercial espionage, breach of contract and breach of confidence.

The effort to make intellectual property a "Trade Secret" is another strategy in itself. The determinations to designate something a trade secret is going to depend on the invention or the data itself. We understand. So what?

A Chinese businessman pleaded guilty Wednesday (March 23) in federal court in Los Angeles to helping two Chinese military hackers carry out a damaging series of thefts of sensitive military secrets from U.S. contractors.

The plea by Su Bin, a Chinese citizen who ran a company in Canada, marks the first time the U.S. government has won a guilty plea from someone involved with a Chinese government campaign of economic cyberespionage.

The resolution of the case comes as the Justice Department seeks the extradition from Germany of a Syrian hacker — a member of the group calling itself the Syrian Electronic Army — on charges of conspiracy to hack U.S. government agencies and U.S. media outlets.

Our adversaries are determined. They are already here. It has been documented for years. Let the next wave of legal indictments and seizures begin. One thing is certain. The "Insider Threat" is still present and your organization can do better. The ability to effectively utilize the correct combination of controls, monitoring, technology and internal corporate culture shifts will make all the difference. What are you waiting for?

Privacy Engineering: Mobile Standards for Digital Trust...

The landscape for software engineering standards within corporate organizations, is now on the radar of Operational Risk Management (ORM) experts.  What are the privacy and security related engineering design standards, that are being utilized at JP Morgan Chase, Citibank or Paypal for mobile App development?

Effective and standardized "Privacy Engineering" of mobile applications at organizations in Critical Infrastructure sectors such as Finance and Banking is just one example.  It is soon to be a greater focus of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and other U.S. regulators.  Why?

"Trust Decisions" are being made by consumers each day, as millions of of mobile banking customers download an application to their Android or iOS smart phones.  The consumer then has immediate exposure to the quality of the software engineering, by the UX/design and developer of the software App.  The standards being utilized by each organization for designing and engineering those Apps with privacy and security, may vary by who developed the application and for what particular operating system.

So what?  U.S. financial institutions software engineering departments and other highly regulated industries will be a continued and concentrated focus by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  Standards for privacy software engineering and disclosure of the rules will become even more of a critical factor.  Why?

As a result, to act within the time constraints of deadlines, the presence of fiercer competition, and the looming threat of higher lost-opportunity costs, you have no choice—you must presume the trustworthiness of the information you acquire to make decisions. Deciding now requires you to acquire the information you need from the most accessible source, with zero time to ask the important questions: “Where did this information come from? Who put this report together? Has the data been confirmed to be accurate? Who actually authored the analysis? Does this bank statement reflect all of our deposits?”

Answering these types of questions is inherent to how we make good decisions. You seek information that serves as fuel for your decision. You work hard to validate that the information can be trusted. You calculate toward your decision, constantly evaluating whether the information holds up its reliability. But in today’s 24/7/365, wired decision-making landscape, there is no time to ask those questions. Those controlling the information you need understand that pressure and require you to presume their digital information is trustworthy and reliable for making your decisions. Thus, to gain control of digital information is to succeed in imposing an enormous handicap—removing your ability to challenge its trustworthiness by asking the right questions.  Source:  Achieving Digital Trust by Jeffrey Ritter.

Is it possible to redesign mobile banking Apps, so that all Android or iOS software engineers must adhere to privacy and security engineering standards of practice?  The human-based "Trust Decisions" about whether to trust an application with personal identifiable information (PII) is currently buried in legal disclosures.  The privacy disclosures are written by lawyers, all different and in most cases never read, by the consumer prior to downloading the App.  Opt-in or Opt-out?

The future of mobile App Privacy and Security Trust engineering for consumers will be in the hands of government regulators soon and in concert with other laws associated with information security, such as the GLBA Safeguards Rule.  "Cyber Trust" indicators or other vital warning systems may be in the works.  Buyer Beware is the theme.

For years consumers have been looking at FDA Nutrition Labels and other Federal oriented tools, to provide more visible and rapidly effective disclosure.  Since the human being is making "Trust Decisions" on whether to download a software application to their computing device, they also may desire a method to quickly ascertain if the App is "Trustworthy."

Can they trust the application according to their particular appetite for risk?  What information will be shared with 3rd parties?  How will your information be used and collected while you are using or not using the application?  Here is one example of how a future warning "Privacy Label" may look before a consumer is permitted to download an application to their computing device.

What does the consumer experience today?  As one example, currently when you visit the App Store on an iOS mobile device such as the iPad, and then search for "Chase", the top choice is an App named Chase Mobile.  When you click on the "Get" button, it changes to "Install".  When you click on "Install" it prompts you to Sign In to iTunes Store.  Once you sign-in, the Chase Mobile App downloads to your device, the button then changes to "Open."

When you open the Chase Mobile App, it opens the first screen to "Log On".  There is a small "Privacy" button in the top left corner of the screen, however there is not an easy to understand Privacy Label that is visible before you actually "Log On" to Chase.  In the case of selecting the Privacy button in the upper left corner, it then reveals dozens of pages of legal documents explaining online privacy policy and U.S. consumer privacy notices.  There is however one easier to view grid, under the privacy notice that is helpful in understanding whether Chase shares personal information and whether as a consumer, you can limit this sharing.

The Critical Infrastructure sectors of the U.S. economy, that has a daily interface with consumers through mobile software Apps are now on notice.  Chief Legal Counsels, Chief Information Officers, Chief Privacy Officers and Software Engineering personnel, must address the reality of human behavior and how "Trust Decisions" impact legal risk and the ultimate perception of the corporate brand.

Velocity: Integrity of Enterprise Architecture...

Operational Risk Management (ORM) is a discipline that requires several elements to remain effective.  Whether you are working on the deck of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) or analyzing data from the corporate Security Operations Center (SOC), your tasks continuously rely on achieving "Trust".

At the core of these decision-making roles, are the processing of rapidly changing data on a split second basis.  The sensors or tools we use day-by-day to assist our quest for greater levels of safety and security, are interdependent minute-by-minute, second-by-second, on the trust of data.  It is imperative at the early stages of process and product development, to effectively test and improve these tools and sensors.  Why?

The "Quality Assurance" phase of any process whether in design, assembly, manufacturing or implementation is based upon a foundation of the quality of trust.  You are reading this now on a device connected to an Internetwork, that has layers of business rules and technology rules that are executed according to industry standards.  The process and the rules have been implemented utilizing QFD and Mean-Time-Between-Failure (MTBF).

There are three vital components of building digital trust in this scenario, for the systems in play and the requirements of end users:

• Authentication
• Data Integrity
• Encryption

All three must be present to provide you with the highest level of assurance, that you are working with a trusted system.

1. How can you be sure that the party you are communicating with, on the other end of the line, is who they claim to be?
2. How can you be sure that the data has not been altered, deleted or changed in transit?
3. How can you be sure that no one can intercept and understand the information being transferred?

All three of these vital components must be present all the time, in order to build integrity and assure your level of trust.  They must be consistent and persistent from end-to-end.  In essence, we are protecting against our adversaries from listening in, tampering with the data and impersonating the destination.

Are you operating any vital component of your business operation, where any of these three components are absent?  Are any of the three not persistent, 100% of the time?  If so, then you are in jeopardy of an erosion of trust with your stakeholders and the increased likelihood of an adverse event.  With your customers, your reputation and probably both.

So what?  How does this translate to your role and the work that you are in charge of, within the operations of your enterprise?  The short answer is, "Velocity and Wealth".  You see, the business rules, technology rules and the legal rules are all connected.  Your job, is to make sure that you understand, your organizations unique "Operational Risk Enterprise Architecture" (OREA).

The velocity at which your business process can execute transactions with integrity, versus your competition or adversary, can mean the difference between victory or defeat.  The margin or profit that you are able to gain by successfully executing millions of your transactions, can mean the difference between prosperity or disadvantage.

Is your organization advertising on Internet web sites?  Is the business model for your company, based upon revenue from advertising?  The trustworthiness of your systems operating with the goal of generating ad revenue, are now at stake.  Informationweek DarkReading explains:

'Xindi' Online Ad Fraud Botnet ExposedBillions of dollars in ad revenue overall could be lost to botnet that exploits 'Amnesia' bug.

Online fraudsters have amassed a botnet of millions of infected machines that exploits a security flaw in a digital advertising technology in order to execute phony online ad impressions.

The so-called Xindi botnet was designed to exploit a known vulnerability called Amnesia (CVE-2015-7266) in implementations of the Open RTB Internet advertising protocol. Unlike most online ad fraud attacks, it doesn't use clickjacking-based click fraud, but rather, generates large numbers of phony ad impressions. According to researchers at Pixalate, which published a report today on the botnet, some 6- to 8 million machines at more than 5,000 enterprises are at risk of being used as bots in Xindi.

Jalal Nasir, CEO of Pixalate, says his firm has spotted traffic from the IP addresses of major Fortune 500 firms, government agencies, and universities, associated with Xindi. While it's unclear if the IP addresses are spoofed or legitimate, he says the IP addresses used by Xindi are owned by those organizations, which include Citigroup; General Motors; Lowe's; Marriott; Wells Fargo; California State University's Office of the Chancellor; Columbia University; the University of Maryland; and many other big-name corporations and colleges. 

The Quality Assurance of the Online Advertising enterprise is in jeopardy.  The trustworthiness of e-commerce and the digital business models executing the rules for producing revenue, are now in question.  How effective is your enterprise in understanding the true business problem and then solving it?

"Bob Liodice, president and CEO of the ANA, whose membership includes more than 640 companies with 10,000 different brands that spend more than $250 billion in marketing and advertising, says the more than $6 billion of losses to advertisers is actually on the low end of estimates. He estimates the number may be closer to $10 billion."

"Achieving Digital Trust" and the "Trust Decisions" to create wealth require that we begin with a sound architecture.  It continues with the widely adopted information governance processes and three factors.  Authentication, Data Integrity and Encryption.  The "Advertising Industry" is not the only business segment at risk.  The next time you open that piece of mail with a new credit card that utilizes the EMV chip, you will begin to understand the true business problem.

You are in control of the velocity of the process of change with your current state. The opportunity for the future state of "Trust Decisions" is now coming into the light.  In your country, industry, company and DevOps team.

Rule of Law: The Privacy vs. Security Paradox...

Chief Privacy Officers and Operational Risk Officers are watching with anticipation as Microsoft argues it's case with the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York, USA on September, 9, 2015.

The trustworthiness of data and the future of "Achieving Digital Trust" for companies and countries is a priority.  The wealth created from the management, storage and processing of data across global borders is at stake.  The "Rule of Law" that intersects with that data and the legal disclosure to government authorities, has been accelerating in countries such as Ireland, Belgium and Brazil.

The company hasn’t always been so eager to comply. A year earlier, it rebuffed a request from the Department of Justice for a suspected drug trafficker’s e-mails. Those were in a data center in Dublin -- and according to Microsoft, the arm of American law enforcement doesn’t extend to Ireland. That set in motion a legal challenge putting Microsoft and its general counsel, Brad Smith, in the lead of a charged battle between the U.S. technology industry and the U.S. government.
More than two dozen companies, including Apple Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc., have filed briefs on Microsoft’s behalf in the case, which is about due process and the right to privacy, and money. Internet service providers may be hard-pressed to sell Web-based products if they can’t promise that digital records stowed in foreign countries will be protected by those countries’ laws -- and from unilateral U.S. search-and-seizure missions.

The privacy vs. security business is apparent and a defensible standard of care remains vital.  Several companies in the data privacy industry have made the decision to establish their legal business entity in Switzerland.  Silent Circle, Proton Mail and Golden Frog are a few examples.  Why?

It is because the business of privacy is becoming a big business.  It is creating wealth.  Data privacy and the use of cloud-based products and services is now so pervasive across borders, that the collision of private companies and governments was inevitable.  Nation states are making it easier for global companies to locate, manage and operate in their data privacy friendly countries.

Digital Trust is at the center of the dialogue.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) surrounds the core conversations as you analyze the implications of building a data-centric business with the ability to comply with all of the regulatory and legal requirements.  The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 is being interpreted in Microsoft v. United States of America:

The Government’s brief confirms this much: Nowhere did Congress say that ECPA should reach private emails stored on providers’ computers in foreign countries. Small surprise for a statute written in 1986, before the creation of the global internet, when the notion of storing emails halfway across the globe was barely imaginable.

Congress can and should grapple with the question whether, and when, law enforcement should be able to compel providers like Microsoft to help it seize customer emails stored in foreign countries. Microsoft has outlined many reasons why Congress would be wary of granting that power: It would establish a norm that would allow foreign governments to reach into computers in the United States to seize U.S. citizens’ private correspondence, so long as those governments may assert personal jurisdiction over whatever company operates those computers. It would offend foreign sovereigns.

Business and Government across the globe are working diligently to create a balanced, legally sound and vital information sharing environment.  Consumers will continue to have a choice, on what vendor, device or data hosting company they utilize for their communications.  The features, functions and benefits will be carefully thought out, by the marketing and business executives.  Yet the question will be asked by each companies respective stakeholders:  What is the value of trustworthiness in the markets we operate in and how will we decide to create "Digital Trust"?

The consumer must also understand how these tools are being utilized by the dark and evil components of our human society.  Citizens must better understand the motivations for government to protect consumers and those organizations who choose to use certain tools on the Internet.  Those who have a fear of government also like the idea of law enforcement protecting their neighborhoods.  There are two sides to the private enterprise:

They aspire to be neutral conduits of data and to sit outside or above politics. But increasingly their services not only host the material of violent extremism or child exploitation, but are the routes for the facilitation of crime and terrorism. However much they may dislike it, they have become the command-and-control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us. If they are to meet this challenge, it means coming up with better arrangements for facilitating lawful investigation by security and law enforcement agencies than we have now.

As private companies and nation states collaborate to attract new business commerce and tax revenues, your privacy and your company will be at the center of the negotiation.  The consumers preference of where you want your data stored and the legal environment where you want your data to be subjected to legal jurisdictions will continue.  For the good guys and the bad guys.  "Achieving Digital Trust" will be with all of us for some time to come.  As mankind evolves and the most valuable assets of our world become virtual, we can only hope "Trust Decisions" and the "Rule of Law" will stand the test of time.

Trust Decisions: The Risk of a Digital Supply Chain...

Are you a business that is operating internationally?  What components of Operational Risk Management (ORM) currently intersect with your international business operations?  The safety and security of your employees who travel into countries with unstable political elements are no doubt of immediate concern.  There may even be a heightened sensitivity with whom your international business executives are meeting with and the tremendous U.S. rule-base associated with OFAC, as one example.

Fortune 500 organizations are all too familiar with these concerns, as major players in international business. The Chief Security Officers (CSO) and other key executives charged with the safety, security and integrity of employees, are focused on those who are traveling and meeting across the globe.  This is considered ORM 101.  This facet of ORM is quite mature and familiar to the Board of Directors who are charged with the Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) of the company.

What is growing more pervasive and continues to plague organizations doing business internationally is the risk of a Digital Supply Chain.  Trusted information and the confidentiality, integrity and assurance of data.  The "Genie" is out of the bottle and even the most mature and risk adverse global organizations, are continuously barraged by sudden incidents that interface with privacy and security of information.

Here is a recent example:

After a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved final orders that settle charges against 14 companies for falsely claiming to participate in the international privacy framework known as the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor. Three of the companies were also charged with similar violations related to the U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor.
The FTC previously announced the settlements in January, February and May of 2014 with the following companies: 

• American Apparel
• Apperian, Inc.
• Atlanta Falcons Football Club, LLC
• Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
• BitTorrent, Inc.
• Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.
• DataMotion, Inc.
• DDC Laboratories, Inc.
• Fantage, Inc.
• Level 3 Communications, LLC
• PDB Sports, Ltd., d/b/a Denver Broncos Football Club
• Reynolds Consumer Products Inc.
• Receivable Management Services Corporation
• Tennessee Football, Inc

Under the settlements, the companies are prohibited from misrepresenting the extent to which they participate in any privacy or data security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization.
Consumers who want to know whether a U.S. company is a participant in the U.S-EU or U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor program may visit http://export.gov/safeharbor to see if the company holds a current self-certification.

Under the settlements, the companies are prohibited from misrepresenting the extent to which they participate in any privacy or data security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization.

So what is the real underlying issue here?  It is about "Trust Decisions".

These organizations were representing themselves as compliant with a U.S.-EU framework designed and established to protect their constituents, under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  The decisions to trust these organizations by an individual or business, regarding the perception that they are in compliance with a framework for privacy and security, is what is true.

How often have you ever made a "Trust Decision," based upon your knowledge that a business is displaying an official seal, mark or a sign that your information is safe and secure?  There are dozens of high profile companies operating across the globe that are in the business of selling "Trust".  Symantec, TRUSTe and GeoTrust to name a few.  The reason that a business buys one of these trusted seals or marks is because it wants to increase it's perception of trust, to the consumer or business that it is engaged with to transact business.

The business wants to display that they are compliant with the particular laws or rules associated with their industry or country.  It wants to create a sense of business assurance or peace of mind for the buyer of their products or services.  When you use one of these seals to assist in making an affirmative "Trust Decision" based upon the display of one of these badges, marks, signs or even special symbols or colors; the consumer still assumes risk of the unknown risks.  So what?

So how many consumers on a daily basis do you think visit this web site to get their free annual credit report? Green Padlock https://www.annualcreditreport.com/index.action

This is the official web site advocated by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for consumers to get a free annual credit report in compliance with Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  When you visit this site, you see that the URL displays a green padlock and the https: designating that the site is using secure protocols to transmit your Personal Identifiable Information (PII).  Or is it?

When you test the Annual Credit Report web site with a SSL security test service, run online by Qualys SSL Labs, https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/ this is their rating, on the security of Annual Credit Report.com as of 6/28/14.

Overall Rating

F

0

20

40

60

80

100

Certificate

100

Protocol Support

0

Key Exchange

80

Cipher Strength

90

Documentation: SSL/TLS Deployment Best Practices, SSL Server Rating Guide, and OpenSSL Cookbook.

This server supports SSL 2, which is obsolete and insecure. Grade set to F.

Experimental: This server is vulnerable to the OpenSSL CCS vulnerability (CVE-2014-0224), but probably not exploitable.

The server supports only older protocols, but not the current best TLS 1.2. Grade capped to B.

The server does not support Forward Secrecy with the reference browsers.  MORE INFO »

This server is not vulnerable to the Heartbleed attack.

Q: What information do I need to provide to get my free report? 

A: You need to provide your name, address, Social Security number, and date of birth. If you have moved in the last two years, you may have to provide your previous address. To maintain the security of your file, each nationwide credit reporting company may ask you for some information that only you would know, like the amount of your monthly mortgage payment. Each company may ask you for different information because the information each has in your file may come from different sources.

On a daily basis, humans are subjected to signs, marks, badges and other indicators that help them make more informed affirmative "Trust Decisions".  Whether it is the "Green Light" at the local intersection or the "Green Padlock" on the web site where we are being asked to give up our Personal Identifiable Information (PII).  The regulatory and private entities that are tasked to ensure that the signs, marks, badges and even colors are in compliance, must also look to their own level of trust of their Digital Supply Chain.

This is just one glaring example of why "Trust Decisions" are so vital to online global e-commerce.  It is also a wake-up call for any organization that is advocating trust by using a digital third party that the consumer relies on every day.  However, the FTC and other government agencies rely on private sector companies to assist them in outsourced services such as hosting Annual Credit Report. com.  The site is hosted by:

IP Location

- Massachusetts - Cambridge - Akamai Technologies Inc.

How confident are you, that your organizations digital supply chain is ensuring safe and secure "Trust Decisions" for your customers?

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."

Legal Risk: Over-The-Horizon Digital Radar...

Operational Risk Management is a primary responsibility with an organizations General Counsel. Why?

"The definition includes Legal risk, which is the risk of loss resulting from failure to comply with laws as well as prudent ethical standards and contractual obligations. It also includes the exposure to litigation from all aspects of an institution’s activities."

So if you are a General Counsel or the Chief Legal Officer, your radar is consistently tuned to the "Over -The-Horizon" (OTH) risks that may impact your company, right?  The fact is that managing risk from the General Counsels office may be significantly different than what managing risk means from the CIOs office.

Loss events associated with peoples workplace behavior are many times treated differently than those events associated with a computer "intrusion" or a data breach, that was also caused by human behavior.  The law is a battleground that continues to keep an entire industry busy with offensive and defensive activities and the transfer of risks from one party to another.

What is the legal risk difference between the diversion of company funds to pay bribes in a foreign country and the theft of company trade secrets?  You see, the laws associated with these loss events have different statutes, penalties and legal risk:

On December 17, 2012, Germany-based insurance and asset management company Allianz SE paid more than $12.4 million to settle with the SEC over violations of the books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA. The activity in question concerned improper payments to government officials in Indonesia. Following common FCPA procedure, Allianz did not deny or admit the SEC’s inquiry. The company disgorged $5.3 million in profits, paid a penalty of $5.3 million, with $1.8 million in prejudgment interest. 

The SEC stated that it uncovered 295 insurance contracts on government projects that were obtained or kept by improper payments totaling $650,626. The payments were made by Allianz’s Indonesian subsidiary. 

The conduct occurred from 2001 to 2008, at which time Allianz was considered an “issuer” under the FCPA because of its activity on the New York Stock Exchange. Even though it was not listed on the exchange, the presence of its bonds and shares on the market made it an issuer and subjecting it to the jurisdiction of the FCPA. The investigation was initiated internally using outside counsel after a whistleblower complaint in 2009.

On December 28, 2012, President Obama signed the Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act. S. 3642 (112th). The Clarification Act is a direct response to the Second Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71 (2nd Cir. 2012). (See details below.) In Aleynikov, the Second Circuit overturned a criminal conviction under the Economic Espionage Act 18 U.S.C. § 1831, et seq., after the court determined that the stolen source code was only used internally for a high-frequency trading system and was not “related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce.” The Clarification Act expands Section 1832(a) to cover internal trade secrets “related to a product or service used in or intended for use in” commerce. In addition to the source code at issue in Aleynikov, this expansion could include internal processes of doing business or gathering information that may not qualify for traditional patent protection. More broadly, the quick reaction shows the importance that Congress attaches to this area of the law and puts individuals and companies on notice that increased indictments may occur down the line.

The ethics, compliance and legal components of Operational Risk Management comes down to "Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care" in your organization.  The risk exposures that face your organization will also occur from a more immediate impact, due to a loss of reputation and potential loss of market value.  On all fronts, the stakes remain high.

The modern day legal enterprise is still reactive and slow to respond to the changing environment around it.  The daily battle with legal risk is slow, compared with other risk management fronts within the institution.  The speed of response and the focus on preventive, preemptive or proactive actions is what sets apart the mental states of all of your security risk professionals.  Some people have seconds or minutes to decide and act, others have the luxury of days, months and years.

Unfortunately, for most the costs associated with legal risk are high, no matter who prevails in an incident or case. This fact alone, is why the introduction of a new generation of automated tools and the memory of computer-based evidence is so important.  Decision Advantage.  The law and the law industry is quickly playing catch up.  Practitioners from the technology and legal industry are now even more integrated, while the courts interpret the implications of their rulings on an accelerating mobile digital global society.

You and your team have a tremendous amount of new knowledge to gain, or your enterprise will be consumed by the volume of new Operational Risks unfolding before it.  How complex could this be?

From 'WarGames' to Aaron Swartz: How U.S. anti-hacking law went astray

The 1983 movie "WarGames" led to an anti-hacking law with felony penalties aimed at deterring intrusions into NORAD. Over time, it became broad and vague enough to ensnare the late Aaron Swartz.

Top Ten Mistakes: Board of Directors Risk...

A few years ago, Randy Myers article in Corporate Board Member Magazine discussed a Top Ten List for the Board of Directors. In light of the current state of corporate performance, we would like to revisit the most common mistakes.

General Counsel to Directors: Your 10 Most Common Mistakes

The in-house lawyers think that you've got a lot to learn about risk, trust, and reward. And when there's trouble, you too often fail to follow the Boy Scout creed: Be Prepared. By Randy Myers

1. Not Asking Questions
2. Failing to Understand the Company and the Risks it Faces
3. Failing to Lead on Ethics and Compliance
4. Not Insisting on a Crisis-Management Plan
5. Speaking out in a Crisis Before the Facts are in
6. Relying on the Wrong Outside Counsel
7. Failing to Understand Attorney-Client Privilege
8. Underestimating Regulators
9. Giving too Much Leeway to Rainmakers
10. Getting Caught Up in the dilemma of False Options

And as Randy so clearly states: "Serving on a corporate board isn't easy. Avoiding these common mistakes should be."

We can't accept that No. 4 even is on this list. No. 2 and No. 3 is ever so common place. And No. 7 is not a surprise. But what continues to amaze even those professionals associated with consulting to the Board of Directors is No. 8.

The Chief Risk Officer (CRO) is the independent keeper of oversight in the corporate enterprise. Should any organization be the subject of an investigation by the SEC, FTC or any other government regulator, they need to look to the CRO. It's the job of any CRO to keep regulator awareness at a high level and to let the business be in charge of risk management. Whenever you see a CRO getting involved in managing the risks of the business, then the independence and clarity of oversight has been extinguished.

The General Counsel and the Chief Risk Officer must work hand-in-hand to follow the Boy Scout creed:

Be Prepared.

RSA Conference: CSO Insomnia Over Insider Threat...

Next week in the U.S. there will be thousands of risk management and security professionals invading the RSA Conference in San Francisco. The myriad of topics, education and case studies are worth examining to see what is on the mind of these thought leaders and practitioners who are also designated speakers. You can even look to the popular press to see what the vibe is on what this years biggest worries will be:

1. Mobile Devices
2. Advanced Persistent Threat
3. Big Data Privacy
4. Hacktavists

However, if you spend some time to drill down on each of these topic areas and really look at the actual presentations of the presenters, some are based upon real cases and research and others are not. The one presentation that caught our eye and continues to be what some savvy CSOs would say keeps them sleeping with one eye open each night, is their insomnia over the "Insider Threat." That person or organized group of unidentified subjects that are there to recruit vulnerable people into initiating or perpetuating crimes against the organization.

Dawn Cappelli runs the Insider Threat Center at the Software Engineering Institute and highlights these areas of concern from their research and analysis of real cases:

The CERT Top 10 List for Winning the Battle Against Insider Threats

Dawn M. Cappelli Director, CERT Insider Threat Center CERT Program, Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University

• 10. Learn from past incidents
• 9. Focus on protecting the crown jewels
• 8. Use your current technologies differently
• 7. Mitigate threats from trusted business partners
• 6. Recognize concerning behaviors as a potential indicator
• 5. Educate employees regarding potential recruitment
• 4. Pay close attention at resignation / termination!
• 3. Address employee privacy issues with General Counsel
• 2. Work together across the organization
• 1. Create an insider threat program NOW!

Number Three on the list is certainly on the top third and for good reason. Employees and the policy decisions on what data is owned by the company and owned by the employee is of grave concern these days in the United States. Now after so many years it looks as if this issue is going to get more heated and see the light of day from a congressional point of view. Yet the CSO must feel that the ability for the safeguards necessary to keep the organization safe and secure are not in place yet. Catherine Dunn of ALMs Corporate Counsel sheds more light on this:

According to a new White House report on consumer data privacy protection, trust is worth a lot of money to U.S. businesses—users have to know their data will be protected if the economic engine of digital innovation is to keep roaring. Ergo, the U.S. needs a privacy framework that’s “flexible” enough to accommodate industry innovation, and comprehensive enough that consumers will feel safe—and keep clicking.

But trust between consumers and companies in the U.S. is only part of the equation. There’s another important element, too: how compatible U.S. safeguards are with those of the rest of the world, and particularly Europe. This new proposal arrives a month ahead of a conference on data protection between E.U. and U.S. officials in Washington, D.C., leading to questions about whether Europe and the U.S. are any closer to getting on the same page when it comes to data privacy.

The answer not only depends on who you ask, but also what section of the White House’s report you’re looking at. The white paper lists seven principles and stresses that these principles should form the basis of voluntary codes of conduct adopted by industry. Once adopted, the Federal Trade Commission would have the power to enforce compliance to those codes. The paper also includes a call for Congress to pass legislation based on these principles, and devotes a section to “international interoperability”—which considers how data can be sent across international borders without violating laws on either side of the transaction.

This is where we need to make sure we understand the difference between what privacy issues have to do with a company employee and the privacy associated with just a U.S. consumer, who is not an employee but perhaps a member, client or customer of the organization.

If we go back to the big worries at RSA and combine this with the employees who are operating at the "Speed of Business" in your enterprise, you begin to see the difference. Actually, if you think about it some more, every employee of the organization has a duty to care for the information inside the organization, in order to better protect the assets of the enterprise but simultaneously the assets of the consumer.

The consumer assets are their "Personal Identifiable Information" (PII) and this represents in many cases what the organized criminals are after in the first place. This is where the outside recruitment threat starts to have its nexus. However, even the highly trained and state sponsored agents who are inside the enterprise to steal corporate or national security secrets are far and few these days. That may be surprising to some, but if you look at how the exfiltration of data is taking place it's almost all automated. No human intervention is required.

If that is the case, then what is Dawn Cappelli and the Insider Threat Team at CERT so concerned about from their research insights:

Criminal enterprises mask their fraud by involving multiple insiders who often work in different areas of the organization and who know how to bypass critical processes and remain undetected. In several cases, management is involved in the fraud. Those insiders affiliated with organized crime are either selling information to these groups for further exploitation or are directly employed by them. Ties to organized crime appear in only 24 cases in the CERT insider threat database and are characterized by multiple insiders and/or outsiders committing long-term fraud.

All of the insiders involved with organized crime attacked the organization for financial gain. The insiders usually were employed in lower level positions in the organization, were motivated by financial gain, and were recruited by outsiders to commit their crimes. The average damages in these cases exceed $3M, with some cases resulting in $50M in losses.

Now you know why your CSO is headed to the RSA Conference this week and why they are sleeping with one eye open these days.

Integrity & Ethics: Whistleblower Risk...

Operational Risk Management in your organization may be in need of a more robust awareness campaign.  Malfeasance and ethical wrongdoing is continuously perpetuated in the workplace when those who are victims or witnesses refuse to speak up. Many fear the retaliation by supervisors or other co-workers. This study emphasizes the issue at hand:

Labaton Sucharow LLP yesterday announced the results of its nationwide Ethics & Action Survey. Conducted by ORC International between November 17-20, the survey questioned 1,000 Americans on their knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace and willingness to come forward and report it. With significant financial rewards and strengthened anti-retaliation and anonymity protections offered under Dodd-Frank, an overwhelming 78% of respondents indicated they would report wrongdoing in the workplace if it could be done anonymously, without retaliation and result in a monetary award. In fact, more than one-third (34%) of respondents knew about wrongdoing in the workplace. However, 68% were unaware that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a new Whistleblower Program designed to protect and reward individuals who report violations of the federal securities laws.

This kind of Operational Risk doesn't have to involve insider trading or the SEC to be an issue.  Do you have a controlling boss or a bully in the organization who uses their position of power to get what they want at any cost or to force you to look the other direction?  What kind of facts point to their behaviors and the actions by others that contribute to a caustic and toxic work place setting or to further perpetuate the situation?  Whether it is your Fortune 500 public company or your tiny 501(c)3 non-profit does not matter.  When over one-third of the respondents of the ORC Ethics and Action Survey knowingly ignore or are afraid to report incidents of wrongdoing or ethics violations the culture is broken and in need of repair.  The people who have the fiduciary duty to see that this kind of behavior is deterred also have the responsibility to provide the tools and the mechanism for those being victimized and those who are observing the malfeasance to anonymously defend themselves.

So what should you do as an Operational Risk professional to make sure this doesn't happen to the people in your respective organization?  Here is a good start:

Many corporations have internal compliance programs for corporate misconduct. These programs are, in theory, designed to provide an audience for workers who want to report unethical or illegal corporate conduct. Whether to utilize internal compliance reporting procedures is not an easy question to answer. As a general proposition, some believe that where the wrongdoing is pervasive—as in the case of securities fraud—an internal compliance program will not provide an adequate means of redress. Some believe that where the issue involves massive overbilling to the Government, or an allegation that a corporation is receiving significant dollars in unlawful revenue through fraudulent conduct, the internal compliance system will not work.

It's imperative that you also become aware of and communicate to employees and volunteers what their rights are outside the formal processes that are in place within the organization. Sometimes the nature of the ethics violations will not easily fall into the category for the internal compliance department.

So even "A Decade After the Fall of Enron" the laws and the rules provide us with a false sense of security from the corporate and workplace malfeasance that so many U.S. citizens are being subjected to on a daily basis.  And based upon the current-state-of-play around the beltway in Washington, DC you can expect that the coordination and cooperation is increasing by the minute.

The increased collaboration among the alphabet soup of enforcement and regulatory agencies is also due to a collateral effect of the current financial crisis: declining agency budgets. In the current downward budget cycle, agencies are working in concert more than ever before. This trend is exacerbated by a change in the mission of the FBI in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world, shifting resources to counterterrorism and creating a need for other agencies to play an increased role. The overarching lesson from this increased collaboration is clear: Gone are the days that inside or in-house counsel can assume that the state or federal agency with whom they are dealing is acting alone; it is increasingly likely there are additional state or federal agencies involved, resulting in overlapping criminal, civil or regulatory exposure.

If you are charged with the position of the Senior Operational Risk professional in your organization, this topic of wrongdoing in the workplace can not be overlooked any longer.  It is not too late to create a "Defensible Standard of Care" and to turn the word "Integrity" into a cultural pursuit for all to aspire to, before it is too late.

Deepwater Energy Risk: Protecting Business Performance...

The Operational Risk professionals are applying the use of effective software tools in the Energy Sector. After all, the core disciplines of OPS Risk lie with safety and security and the current reality of deepwater drilling beyond 8,000 feet of ocean is here now.

There are few organizations that understand the risks associated with drilling and capturing precious natural resources under these demanding conditions more than the Marine Well Containment Company, (MWCC) based in Houston, TX USA. This new and quickly expanding consortium of ten energy exploration companies have banded together to address the "All Hazards" requirements as a result of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. Never before, have so few private sector energy companies converged to take on readiness, and managing operational risks with so much capital and mission focus.

Simultaneously, others close to the maritime risk management industry such as Lloyds Register Group have embarked on the bold mission to assist organizations like MWCC in the future quest for our insatiable thirst for energy. They too, understand the necessity for mitigation and prevention of another Macondo incident where a blowout preventer failed:

ModuSpec BV and Scandpower AS, members of the Lloyd’s Register Group, are developing a new tool with origins from the nuclear power industry that may prove highly useful to subsea engineers, offshore drilling managers, and regulators.

Operational Risk Management (ORM) is the process that evaluates the likelihood of a casualty occurring while comparing it to its associated consequences. BOP Monitor, a new tool under development by Scandpower applies ORM principles in a highly specific manner to one of the most important, and highly complex systems on board a drilling rig, the blow out preventer.

Last year’s Deepwater Horizon disaster cast an enormous spotlight on blow out preventer technology because the one sitting atop the Macondo Well failed to accomplish its mission, and millions of gallons of oil spilled into the sea. A one-in-a-million chance? Perhaps. In the decades since subsea blowout preventers have been used, countless have worked as-designed mitigating the disastrous consequences we all saw last summer. As the industry moves toward the arctic however, failure of these systems is absolutely not an option and risk management is of utmost importance to operators and coastal states.

The combination of MWCC and Lloyds Register to address the challenges ahead in deepwater drilling is a natural, in the Gulf of Mexico and beyond. Perhaps even more so, is the division Lloyds Register Quality Assurance (LRQA) who are experts in Business Assurance and protecting business performance. They are the people who go beyond the words in a regulation or international standard to apply a holistic and multi-faceted approach to your business achieving higher performance. MWCC will need that business assurance and performance management going forward if they are to work in concert with the United States regulatory agencies such as Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation Enforcement (BOEMRE).

All of the plans and processes will not be enough for those operators who are drilling in deepwater. This is exactly why exercising and testing those people, plans and processes will be a verified requirement:

Tracking and verification of exercise requirements for spill responders is an BOEMRE function that ensures that all responders have the required experience and expertise to respond to an offshore facility spill. Operators are required to conduct annual Spill Management Team “table top” exercises. These drills are required to test the Spill Management Team’s organization, communication, and decision-making in managing a response. The operator is also required to conduct an annual deployment exercise of the equipment staged at onshore locations identified in their plan. Each type of equipment staged onshore must be deployed and operated every 3 years. The operator is required to exercise their entire response plan every 3 years. Another exercise that tests the ability of the operator to communicate information in a timely manner is the required annual notification exercise required for every facility that is manned on a 24-hour basis. The operator must notify BOEMRE at least 30 days prior to these drills occurring. This notice provides an opportunity for BOEMRE to witness the exercise or to request changes in the frequency or location of the exercise, equipment to be deployed and operated, or deployment procedures or strategies. BOEMRE can also evaluate the results of these exercises and advise the owner/operator of any needed changes in response equipment, procedures or strategies.

The operational risk readiness factor is at the core of all of the exploration companies as it pertains to the Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS). All of the MWCC consortium companies will already be well versed in "Operating Integrity Management Systems" yet, as all ten come together to work on a combined solution, a baseline of standards and guidelines will be paramount to their inevitable success.

Remember, all of this focus is on the prevention of another "All Hazards" incident. Much of which stems from the lack of confidence in equipment or procedures being replicated by humans, at just the right moment and if an emergency condition presents itself. That is why testing and exercising the multi-facets of the entire spectrum of threats is necessary, beyond those related just to the equipment integrity or failure:

More specifically, the goal of an offshore energy exploration and production safety regime must ensure that:

• Life, environment and property are protected in an effective, consistent, transparent and predictable way; both for those directly affected and involved in offshore operations.

• Risks are properly evaluated and all prevention and mitigation measures are identified;

• Control measures are implemented and maintained by all parties in accordance with mandatory risk assessments as well as what is prescribed by regulation;

• Conditions of safeguards, facilities, procedures, personnel and organizations are continuously monitored throughout the lifetime for proper functioning and compliance with all regulatory requirements and to assure that risks do not increase;

• Technical innovation and efficiency improvements can be implemented safely and responsibly.

And then there is the kind of risk, that many are still not thinking about in the Gulf of Mexico. The risk that exists in other offshore drilling regions of the globe today:

Gunmen attack ExxonMobil supply vessel kidnapping one, wounding another

September 30, 2011

By Dorothy Davis

Industry sources have reported that gunmen have attacked a ship supplying an ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM) oil rig off the coast of Nigeria, kidnapping one crew member and injuring another.

Nigel Cookey-Gam, a spokesman for the ExxonMobil subsidiary Mobil Producing Nigeria (MPN) told The Associated Press that the kidnapping happened early Friday (09/30) off the coast of Nigeria's Akwa Ibom state.

"Mobil Producing Nigeria, operator of the joint venture with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, confirms that in the early hours of Friday, some armed men attacked a supply vessel near one of our platforms, offshore Akwa Ibom State," Cookey-Gam offered in the official statement. “The incident has been reported to security and relevant government agencies”

According to ExxonMobil, MPN is the second largest oil producer in Nigeria having begun production of crude oil in February 1970 from the Idoho field, located off the coast of Akwa Ibom State.

Violence and extortion driven kidnappings have been prevalent in Nigeria’s oil and gas -rich southern delta since 2006 when militants kicked-off a series of attacks targeting oil companies. In 2009 a government amnesty program offering Niger Delta rebels an unconditional pardon and cash payments brought about a short period of reprieve, but has not been successful in quelling the targeted violence in mostly impoverished the region.

Deepwater Energy Risk in the next decade will be expanding off the coast of Brazil and in the Arctic:

In a warming and changing Arctic, China is stepping up its activities in the Arctic Ocean Basin. While China’s interests and policy objectives in the Arctic Ocean Basin remain unclear, Beijing is increasingly active and vocal on the international stage on issues that concern the region. To that end, China is actively seeking to develop relationships with Arctic states and participate in Arctic multilateral organizations such as the Arctic Council. The region includes a rich basket of natural resources: The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 25 percent of the world’s undiscovered hydrocarbon resources are found in the Arctic region along with 9 percent of the world's coal along with other economically critical minerals. There is presently scarce open source information on China's Arctic policy and very few public pronouncements on the Arctic by Chinese officials.