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 //

Privacy

6/28/2019
10:00 AM
Matthew Karnas
Matthew Karnas
Commentary
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

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
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
tdsan
50%
50%
tdsan,
User Rank: Ninja
6/29/2019 | 6:04:58 PM
Where is the teeth in the GDPR policies?
https://www.nathantrust.com/gdpr-fines-penalties

14/06/2019
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.

 

12/06/2019
Austrian Supreme Court green-lights GDPR case against Facebook

Datenschutzbehörde
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

 

22/05/2019
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

26/04/2019
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.

16/11/18
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?

T
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
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.
tdsan
50%
50%
tdsan,
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.

Todd
SOC 2s & Third-Party Assessments: How to Prevent Them from Being Used in a Data Breach Lawsuit
Beth Burgin Waller, Chair, Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Practice , Woods Rogers PLC,  12/5/2019
Navigating Security in the Cloud
Diya Jolly, Chief Product Officer, Okta,  12/4/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
The transition from DevOps to SecDevOps is combining with the move toward cloud computing to create new challenges - and new opportunities - for the information security team. Download this report, to learn about the new best practices for secure application development.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19698
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
marc-q libwav through 2017-04-20 has a NULL pointer dereference in wav_content_read() at libwav.c.
CVE-2019-4428
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
IBM Watson Assistant for IBM Cloud Pak for Data 1.0.0 through 1.3.0 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session....
CVE-2019-4611
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
IBM Planning Analytics 2.0 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. IBM X-Force ID: 168519.
CVE-2019-4612
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
IBM Planning Analytics 2.0 is vulnerable to malicious file upload in the My Account Portal. Attackers can make use of this weakness and upload malicious executable files into the system and it can be sent to victim for performing further attacks. IBM X-Force ID: 168523.
CVE-2019-4621
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
IBM DataPower Gateway 7.6.0.0-7 throug 6.0.14 and 2018.4.1.0 through 2018.4.1.5 have a default administrator account that is enabled if the IPMI LAN channel is enabled. A remote attacker could use this account to gain unauthorised access to the BMC. IBM X-Force ID: 168883.