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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

10/4/2016
10:30 AM
Peter Merkulov
Peter Merkulov
Commentary
Connect Directly
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Privacy Shield's Drama Is Far From Over

Businesses are working with trading partners to take responsibility for protecting private data in case the US-EU framework fails.

It's been a couple of months since the EU-US Privacy Shield data-sharing framework went into effect. Adoption of the measure was a nail-biter because of redrafts and threats from European privacy advocates that they'd challenge it. The agreement was adopted on July 12 and is now the basis under which cross-border transfer of individuals' private information between Europe and the US is governed. But while business leaders on both sides of the Atlantic breathed a collective sigh of relief, the drama is far from over.

The same privacy advocates whose lawsuit overturned Safe Harbor — the original cross-border data-sharing framework — and who are considering taking action against Privacy Shield over what they believe are inadequate systemic protections are now watching and waiting. The Article 29 Working Party, Europe's governing body of privacy authorities, has agreed to give Privacy Shield one year before it takes action. What's more, Europe's new omnibus data privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), with its stringent penalties for violators — as high as 4% of an organization's global revenue — goes into effect in May 2018, raising the stakes further.

For organizations that rely on Privacy Shield as their trans-Atlantic data trade policy, things remain uncertain — and it seems that many organizations are deciding to play it safe. 

According to the 2016 International Association of Privacy Professionals-Ernst & Young (IAPP-EY) Annual Privacy Governance Report, 54% of companies currently transfer data between Europe and the United States. Of US firms, 73% had previously been certified under Safe Harbor, but only 42% are currently certified or plan to seek certification under Privacy Shield. Most will rely on standard contractual clauses to set the rules.

The IAPP-EY numbers strongly suggest that companies have decided to look for a middle ground. Rather than build their trans-Atlantic compliance programs on Privacy Shield's uncertain foundation, companies are collaborating with trading partners to take responsibility for protecting private data and establishing obligations that they can rely on, should Privacy Shield meet the same fate as Safe Harbor. Under the circumstances, that is a wise course of action, but to be effective it requires that companies take certain steps to ensure data sharing meets EU standards both now and for the future, including complying with GDPR. Even for those companies that have been certified under Privacy Shield, or that plan to do so, creating data-sharing programs that can stand on their own is a good idea, whether or not Privacy Shield is challenged or voided after July 2017.

What does all this mean for companies? It means investing in education and training so that all parties understand the rules and the stakes. It means a thorough re-examination of current data management practices and a retooling of those practices with a look ahead to GDPR. It also means backing it all up with the technical underpinning to ensure proper governance and documentation. Should there be any questions or accusations of wrongdoing, you must be able to prove compliance — and good faith.

In the period between the voiding of Safe Harbor and the adoption of Privacy Shield, trans-Atlantic data transfer did not cease; it continued as it will now until July of next year. And it will continue whether the promised challenges are successful or not. There is too much at stake: $260 billion in US-EU trade depends on it.

Related content:

Peter Merkulov serves as chief technology officer at Globalscape. He is responsible for leading product strategy, product management, product marketing, technology alliances, engineering and quality assurance teams. Merkulov has more than 16 years of experience in the IT ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
7 Truths About BEC Scams
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer,  6/13/2019
DNS Firewalls Could Prevent Billions in Losses to Cybercrime
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  6/13/2019
Cognitive Bias Can Hamper Security Decisions
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  6/10/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-12855
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-16
In words.protocols.jabber.xmlstream in Twisted through 19.2.1, XMPP support did not verify certificates when used with TLS, allowing an attacker to MITM connections.
CVE-2013-7472
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-15
The "Count per Day" plugin before 3.2.6 for WordPress allows XSS via the wp-admin/?page=cpd_metaboxes daytoshow parameter.
CVE-2019-12839
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-15
In OrangeHRM 4.3.1 and before, there is an input validation error within admin/listMailConfiguration (txtSendmailPath parameter) that allows authenticated attackers to achieve arbitrary command execution.
CVE-2019-12840
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-15
In Webmin through 1.910, any user authorized to the "Package Updates" module can execute arbitrary commands with root privileges via the data parameter to update.cgi.
CVE-2019-12835
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-15
formats/xml.cpp in Leanify 0.4.3 allows for a controlled out-of-bounds write in xml_memory_writer::write via characters that require escaping.