Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Endpoint //


10:00 AM
Matthew Karnas
Matthew Karnas
Connect Directly
E-Mail vvv

How GDPR Teaches Us to Take a Bottom-Up Approach to Privacy

Looking at underlying security needs means organizations are more likely to be in compliance with privacy regulations.

As we pass the one-year anniversary of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and look ahead to the upcoming enforcement of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) on January 1, 2020, what do privacy best practices look like? How should organizations approach compliance?

With the introduction of major, new regulatory rules and requirements, privacy has become an enhanced area of focus for many organizations. That focus has often focused on compliance-related activities, one regulation at a time. But when it comes to privacy, organizations often don't realize that compliance shouldn't be their sole focus — solving their underlying security and data problems should be the real goal. Approaching privacy via a top-down, checklist mentality simply to meet regulation provides a limited, perfunctory privacy stance that delivers little real security. Adjusting to a bottom-up approach — that is, shifting the focus to address underlying security needs and utilizing data management best practices — sets up organizations to achieve both regulatory compliance and a strong privacy posture.

A Bottom-Up Approach to Privacy
A bottom-up, security-driven, and data-focused approach is a better solution for meeting privacy requirements like GDPR. A bottom-up approach is tailored to an organization's specific needs. It secures and manages data based on those unique needs as well as the requirements of a regulatory body: It can incorporate compliance while still prioritizing customers and their data over checking boxes. Part of the bottom-up approach to tailoring a privacy program is to thoroughly understand threats and risks as they relate to the security and management of underlying customer data. This facilitates identification of key privacy use cases, appropriate program design adjustments, and prioritization efforts. 

There are multiple elements to building an effective privacy program but the following considerations are commonly overlooked when chasing compliance: privacy by design, which supports bottom-up data protection and process automation.

Privacy by Design
Long before its incorporation into GDPR, the concept of privacy by design was developed by recognized privacy expert Dr. Ann Cavoukian. Privacy by design and its foundational principles involve embedding privacy into underlying processes, objectives, operations, and technologies by default. In an effort to make privacy by design more practical when designing and implementing solutions that meet GDPR requirements, a group of European privacy experts examined privacy-by-design concepts through privacy use cases, strategies, and implementation tactics. Their work provides a framework in terms that are more easily applied to data and processes and more relatable from software and engineering perspectives. 

Effective privacy by design explicitly serves customers and their privacy needs. It drives both data protection (such as security engineering, including pseudonymization) and process automation (such as data subject access requests, including "delete my data") efforts.

Data Protection
Securing customer data from the bottom up requires a strong data security program as a foundation. This provides an overall direction and approach for data security and includes policies, standards, and procedures that align with the tenets of privacy by design. To implement these tactics, it is necessary to understand both the locations and types of data — you can't protect what you don't know exists. The utilization of technology should be one component of protecting data; it is important to use technology where necessary as part of a multifaceted of program instead of purchasing products and expecting them to deliver compliance and security singlehandedly.

Process Automation
Successful privacy programs require operationalized processes that are repeatable, auditable, and automated. As privacy demands increase from both internal and external customers, adding additional staff resources provides only limited scalability; automated processes become increasingly critical. In particular, data subject access requests are a common process to automate, but there are others that benefit from operationalization, such as:

  • Data classification and mapping
  • Data privacy impact assessment
  • Third-party data management
  • Data incident response

Even when automated, privacy-related processes should be treated as operational: They should be reviewed and maintained on a dynamic, day-to-day basis and not treated as a static, one-off set of procedures. Organizations should adopt operationalized privacy as part of their perspective and culture.

Privacy regulations such as GDPR will continue to be introduced in an effort to compel organizations to properly secure and handle customer data. But regulatory compliance alone doesn't guarantee an organization has an effective privacy program. Regulations provide top-down mandates to meet but minimal guidance on how to achieve an effective privacy program that addresses the unique needs of a specific organization. To truly advance privacy, as well as compliance, organizations must dig deep to understand the root causes of their individual privacy challenges and implement approaches with a bottom-up mentality. 

Related Content:

Matthew Karnas is the Cybersecurity & Risk Practice Lead at Sila and has over 18 years of experience providing professional services to Fortune 500 companies and the Federal government across multiple verticals and agencies. Matt brings a unique mix of technical and ... View Full Bio

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
User Rank: Ninja
6/30/2019 | 2:46:17 PM
Re: Security vs. Privacy
Interesting, why do they have to be on opposite ends (again more rhetorical), we should be able to work together. It seems we need more people from the DevSecOps or SecDev teams with a background in both arenas.

User Rank: Ninja
6/30/2019 | 7:50:31 AM
Security vs. Privacy
It makes sense that if Security and Privacy are at opposite ends of the spectrum that there best practice approaches would juxtapose in the same manner.
User Rank: Ninja
6/29/2019 | 6:04:58 PM
Where is the teeth in the GDPR policies?

Facebook's EU regulator says it 'remains to be seen' if Mark Zuckerberg is serious about privacy

Country: Ireland
Company: Facebook
Industry: Social Media

The Irish regulator conducting nearly one dozen investigations into Facebook isn't convinced by Mark Zuckerberg's privacy push.


Austrian Supreme Court green-lights GDPR case against Facebook

Country: Austria
Privacy Regulator: Datenschutzbehörde
Company: Facebook
Industry: Social Media

A potential landmark case against Facebook for violating General Data Protection Regulation rights has been given the go-ahead by the Austrian Supreme Court


Data protection watchdog launches statutory inquiry into Google's Ad Exchange

Country: Ireland
Industry: Adtech
Company: Google
Non-compliance: GDPR Compliance

The purpose of the inquiry is to establish whether processing of personal data carried out at each stage of an advertising transaction is in compliance with the relevant provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), including the lawful basis for processing, the principles of transparency and data minimisation, as well as Google's retention practices

Ireland's data watchdog to investigate Facebook passwords leak

Country: Ireland
Industry: Social Media
Company: Facebook 
Non-compliance: Data Breach/Passwords 

Ireland's Data Protection Commission (DPC) has launched a statutory investigation into the revelation that Facebook stored hundreds of millions of user passwords insecurely.

Microsoft menaced with GDPR mega-fines in Europe for 'large scale and covert' gathering of people's info via Office  

GDPR Fines & Penalties
Country: Netherlands
Industry: Software
Company: Microsoft

Non-compliance: Consent. Microsoft broke Euro privacy rules by carrying out the "large scale and covert" gathering of private data through its Office apps.

It seems like the organizations from the list are Microsoft, Facebook and Google. There have been a number of hacks in the US that are not listed (HPE, Apple, IBM, SuperMicro, NorthrupGrumman, Accenture Federal, Lockheed Martin, NSA, and the list goes on)

Lets look at the timelines - https://carnegieendowment.org/specialprojects/protectingfinancialstability/timeline

From a compliance standpoint, I don't see HSBC, US Credit Union, City of Atlanta, Baltimore, Florida (small cities), OPM, Albany NY (https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/10/politics/ransomware-attacks-us-cities/index.html).
Meanwhile, Baltimore's ransomware attack is one of 22 against state and local government entities so far in 2019, Armor notes. Other victims including Washington, Pennsylvania; Amarillo, Texas; Cleveland Airport, Cleveland, Ohio; Augusta City Center, Augusta, Maine; Stuart, Florida; Imperial County, California; Garfield County, Utah; Greenville, North Carolina; Albany, New York; Jackson County, Georgia; Schools System of Taos, New Mexico; Del Rio, Texas; Atlanta, Georgia; and Leominster, Massachusetts. - Dark Reading

It is good to have policy in place but if we continue to have organizations that don't feel the sting of GDPR, then what are we gaining?

COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/14/2020
Lock-Pickers Face an Uncertain Future Online
Seth Rosenblatt, Contributing Writer,  8/10/2020
Hacking It as a CISO: Advice for Security Leadership
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
7 New Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities That Could Put Your Enterprise at Risk
In this Dark Reading Tech Digest, we look at the ways security researchers and ethical hackers find critical vulnerabilities and offer insights into how you can fix them before attackers can exploit them.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of authentication in the network relays used in MEGVII Koala 2.9.1-c3s allows attackers to grant physical access to anyone by sending packet data to UDP port 5000.
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2020-10751. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2020-10751. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2020-10751 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2017-18270. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2017-18270. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2017-18270 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none.
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of mutual authentication in ZKTeco FaceDepot 7B 1.0.213 and ZKBiosecurity Server 1.0.0_20190723 allows an attacker to obtain a long-lasting token by impersonating the server.