Approaching Cybersecurity Law · 2018-11-20 · This presentation provides insight in how to...

ApproachingCybersecurityLawAGuideforInformationSecurityProfessionals

DavidJacksonNovember20,2018

ISSANationalCapitalChapterMeeting

Biography

Mr.JacksonisamemberoftheISSADCandNOVAchapters,andheholdsCISSP,CEH,andCIPPcertifications. HeworksasaregulatoryattorneyforagovernmentcontractorintheWashingtonDCarea,andheisaregularcontributortotheISSAJournal. Mr.JacksonhasaJ.D.fromtheUniversityofKansas,andanLL.M.fromtheUniversityofArkansas.

Abstract

ApproachingCybersecurityLaw- AGuideforInformationSecurityProfessionals

Cybersecuritylawisaconfusingsubject. Therearemanydifferenttypesoflaws,whichaffectdifferentorganizationsindifferentways. Thispresentationprovidesinsightinhowtoconsidercybersecuritylawasadiscipline,anddispelsthenotionthatlawasatoolisallpowerful. Infact,lawcanbequitelimited,slow,andbackwardlooking.Finally,thepresentationendswithadiscussionofthefutureofcybersecuritylaw,andhowtoidentifythecomingtrends.

TonightWeWillCover:

• HowtoViewCybersecurityLaw

• LawisNotAllPowerful– It’sImperfect

• FutureofCybersecurityLaw

Topic1HowtoViewtheCybersecurityLawLandscape

MostCybersecurityLawisLearnedfortheCISSPExam• CISSPDomain1– Law• Cybercrime• IntellectualProperty• Privacy• DifferentLegalSystems

ChallengesinUnderstandingtheLawinCISSPDomain1• It’sconfusing.Ahodgepodgeoftopics.• It’soverwhelming.Alotofforeigninformation.• Itneedssomeorganization.Aroadmap.

BettertoViewCybersecurityLawbyWhoisImpacted

Individuals

International

GovernmentBusinesses

IndividualsBusinessesGovernment

U.S.

LawsthatImpactIndividuals

• 2CategoriesofIndividuals• GeneralPublic• Criminals

• CybersecuritylawsaredesignedtoseparatetheCriminalsfromtheGeneralPublic• Butalso,perhaps,toencourageE-Commerce

Individuals

LawsSeparatingIndividualsandCriminals

• HackingGovernmentsorBanks• OrganizedCrime• SellingTradeSecrets• IdentityTheft• SellingPasswordstoAccounts

LawsEncourageE-Commerce?

• WhyE-Commerce• ReducesCosts• ImprovesAccuracy• Faster

• WhyEncourage• FrameworkforGlobalElectronicCommerce(90s)• Don’twanttokillthe“GoosethatLaystheGoldenEgg”

• NotExplicitlyStated• MoreofanInference– I’msuggestingthatthelawencouragese-commerce.

LawsthatImpactBusinesses

Notallbusinessesareaffectedbyallcybersecuritylaws– OnlyCertainBusinesses…

• Telecom• HealthCare• GovernmentContractors• Banks

Businesses

LawsthatImpactBusinessescon’d

… AndonlyCertainTypesofData

• HealthInformation• FinancialInformation• VideoRecords(BlockbustertoNetflix)• SchoolRecords• GovernmentData

BusinessandGovernmenthaveaBifurcatedRelationship• Partnership• ShareData• WorkTogetheronInvestigatingThreats

• Regulation• EnforceRegulations• PenalizeViolations

• Thelinescangetblurred!

LawsthatImpactGovernment

• SpecificGovernmentAgencies• LawEnforcement• Military• ExecutiveAgencies

• HowlawsimpacttheGovernment• LimitpowerwithintheUS• DefendUSInterestsinternationally

Government

WhichPartsofGovernmenthavetheirPowerLimited• LawEnforcement• Surveillance

• Military• DomesticOccupation

• GovernmentAgencies• PrivacyAct• AdministrativeProceduresAct

HowdoesInternationalfitintothismodelofCybersecurityLaw?• Inaglobaleconomy,andinanelectronicworld,thebordersarelessrestrictive.

• Samegroupofparticipants• Individuals• Businesses• Government

• PrimarilyUSGovernmentfacilitatedrelationship

• Canbedifficulttoenforceacrossborders

WhatTypesofLegalIssuesImpactInternational?• Individuals• Extradition

• Businesses• ExportControlledTrade• TradeSecretTheft

• Governments• Cyberwar• Cyberterrorism• Cyberespionage

PuttingitalltogetherintoaCybersecurityLawLandscape

Individuals

International



Extradition ExportControlCyberwar

U.S. SurveillanceProtectData

PartnershipRegulation

Topic2Thelawisn’tAllPowerful– It’sImperfect

Lawisn’tAllPowerful– Let’sDispelsomeMyths

Myths• Lawcanapplyeverywhere

• Lawappliestoanynewsituation

• Lawkeepsupwiththechangesofthetimes

Actuality• Lawislimited

• Lawisbackwardlooking(atfirst)

• Lawisslowtochange

TheLawisLimited – HowisitLimited?

• Thelawislimitedtocertainpeopleandcertainsituations

• Forourpurposes,thejournalismquestionsmaybemoreusefultounderstandthoselimitations:

• Who – theparty/partiesinvolved• What – theactionsinquestion• Where – thejurisdiction• When – thecircumstancesaroundtheactions• How – theenforcementmechanism• Why– thepolicyreasons

Let’susetheComputerFraudandAbuseActasanExample• ComputerFraudandAbuseAct(CFAA)wasthefirstbigcybersecuritylaw.(18U.S.C.§ 1030)• Criminalizesunauthorizedaccesstogovernmentandfinancialinstitutioncomputers.• TheDOJhasapracticemanualonCFAAtoprovidemoreguidanceonpriorcaselaw.• Theactuallawissomewhatconvoluted,soI’mabridgingthelawslightlyforourdiscussion.

Here’stheCFAAinSimplifiedForm

• Whoever,intentionallyaccessesacomputerwithoutauthorization,orexceedsauthorizedaccess,• andtherebyobtainsinformationcontainedinafinancialrecordofafinancialinstitution…• orinformationfromadepartmentoragencyoftheUnitedStates,…

• shallbepunished …byafineorimprisonment…• TheU.S.SecretService,theFBI,theSecretaryofTreasuryandtheAttorneyGeneralshallhavetheauthoritytoinvestigate.

HowtheCFAAcanbeanalyzedwiththejournalismquestions• Who – Whoever

• NaturalPerson(versusalegalperson– Corporation)• What –IntentionallyAccessesaComputer

• Withoutauthorization• Exceedsauthorization

• Where – Federal(implied– 18USC)• When – obtaininformationfrom:

• federalgovernment• financialinstitution

• How – FinesPrison/SecretService,Treasury,FBI/AG• Why – notrelevant– policyargumentsareweaker

• 1980s- movieWarGames

WhereistheCFAALimited?

• TheCFAAappliesonlytocertainsituations• FederalGovernment/FinancialInstitutioncomputers• WithoutAuthorization/ExceedsAuthorization• FederalLawEnforcementInvestigates

WheretheCFAADoesNotApply

• Notyourneighbor’scomputer.• (notafederalorbankcomputer)

• Notfilingyourstatetaxreturn.• (authorized)

• NotmistypingaURLintoyourwebbrowser.• (notintentional)

LawisLimited- InConclusion

• Onlycertain:• People• Locations• Activities• Circumstances

• Policy– the“Why”Doesn’tReallyMatter.• KeyisUnderstandingtheLimits.

LawLooksBackward(beforeitlooksforward)• Ourlegalsystemisbasedonprecedent – whatdecisionscamebefore– “StareDecisis”(letdecisionstand)• Thisforceseverylegalanalysistostartwithwhatlawcamebefore.• Howdoesthisnewsituationfitwithapriorlegalissue?

Let’sReturntothe1990sforanExample– AOLand“Spam”• AOLwasamajortargetfor“spam”(nowknownasunsolicitedcommercialemail).• In1990s,AOLsuedspammersaspartofitsanti-spamstrategy.• Itwasdifficultbecausethelawsdidn’teasilyaddressthisnewphenomenon.• ExpensivetoProsecute.• BTW,IworkedatAOLfightingspaminthe1990s.

AOLWonLawsuitsinPartUsing“TrespasstoChattels”• Definitions

• Tort– civilwrong– intentional- OldCommonLaw(fromEngland)• Chattelsarethings.• Trespassinthiscase=Interference (“damagessufferedbyreasonofthelossofitsuse.”)

• Seee.g.,AmericaOnline,Inc.v.IMSet.al.,24F.Supp.2d548(E.D.Va.,1998)

• So,thelawthatwasviolatedwas• Someonehadinterferedwiththeuseandenjoymentofsomeoneelse’sthingsthatcauseddamagethatcouldbecalculated.(thisishighlysimplifiedlanguage)

• ForAOL–• SpammershadinterferedwithAOL’suseandenjoymentofitsmailserverstoserveemailtoitsuserbase,andcostAOLtimeandmoneytoprocesstheextraemails,and”burdenedtheirequipment”(mailservers)

ChallengestothisLegalTheory

• Spamemailisjustemail.Youprovidetheserviceofemailtoyourusers,itgoeswiththeterritory.• 1st amendmentviolation?Nostateaction.• Increasedcostofmailserverscouldbeattributedtotheincreaseinmembership- moreusers,moremailservers– notthisemail.• Interferencerequiredshowingvolumethatdamagedbusiness– whatcausedtheburdentotheequipment?

TheLawLooksForwardandPassesCAN-SPAM• Afewyearslater,CongresspassesCAN-SPAM(Pub.L.108-

187,2003).

• Changesthelegalquestionfrominterference tounsolicited.• DropstheVolumeanalysisrequirement.• Unwantedisenough.• Damagesquantifiedbyemailasaunitandnotinaggregate.• But,Lawlooksbackwardbeforeitcanlookforward.

TheLawisSlowtoChange

• Oneofthebiggestchallengestoaddressingcybersecuritylawneeds,isthatthelawmakingprocessissoslow.• Cybersecuritythreatsarisequickly,anditcanbefrustratingtoseeklegalactiononlytofindthatthereisnoeasyfix– noapplicablelawforasituation.• Inordertotalkaboutwhythelawisslowtochangeweneedtolookathowlawsaremade.

HowLawsareMade– aCivicsReview• U.S.Constitution:ThreeBranchesofGovernment

• There’saBalanceofPowers

CongressMakesthelaw

PresidentEnforcesthelaw

CourtsInterpretsthe

law

HowtheLawsAreMadeamongtheThreeBranches• Butitisaserialprocesstoo:

• Ofcourse,theprocessisnotstrictlyserial- Courtscanreviewstatutes.• Thepointisthatmakingalawisajourneythroughthethreebranchesandtheirlawmakingprocesses.

CongressLegislativeStatutory

Makesthelaw

AgenciesAdministrativeRegulatory

Enforcesthelaw

CourtsJudicial

Interpretsthelaw

CaseorControversy

AuthorizingStatute

LegislativeProcess– WhyAreTheresoManyLawsinCongress?• Let’sreviewthenumbersbasedon“cyber*”inthiscurrentCongressionalsession.• BillisproposedinHouse(491)• Committee(132)

• Hearing• Report• Vote

• FullFloorVote(98)• SameProcessSenate(27)• Presidentsigns(19)– thenitbecomeslaw.• Manybillsareproposed,butveryfewbecomelaw!

RegulatoryProcess– HowGovernmentAgenciesMakeLaws• FederalRegisterasPaperofRecord(www.federalregister.gov)• Theprocesstocreateanewregulation:

• UnifiedAgenda(www.reginfo.gov)• NoticeofProposedRuleMaking• NoticeandCommentPeriod(www.regulations.gov)• FinalRule

• Therearesubsteps withinthisprocess.Thenumbersvarydependingontheissueandhowmanycommentsarereceived.• Commentsfromthepubliccanaffecttheregulation.• OnlytheFinalRulesmatter!Andonlyaftertheireffectivedate!!

JudicialProcess– HowCourtsDetermineWhetheraLawisGood?• Inordertosue- needacaseorcontroversy• Therearethreelevelsofreview:

• DistrictCourt• CourtofAppeals• SupremeCourt

• StartatDistrictCourt,thenappeal,andappeal.• ThisthreelevelsystemsappliestoStateCourtsandFederalCourts• Note:StateSupremeCourtdecisionscanbereviewedbytheU.S.SupremeCourt.Mirandav.Arizona forexample.

JudicialProcesswithNumbers

2409Federalcasesinvolvingcyber(approximately)• DistrictCourt(1,610)67%• CourtofAppeals(562)23%• SupremeCourt(237)10%

• OnlyafewgototheSupremeCourt.

• Thekeyisthatthecasedecisiononlyappliestothejurisdictionofthecourt.

LawMakingisaSlowProcess

• Legislative– 2yearcycle• NewCongress– startsover

• Regulatory– 4-8yearcycle• NewAdministration– startover?

• Judicial– 6– 15years• Eachcasecantakemonths/yearstobedecidedateachlevel.

• Very,Veryslow.10to20yearsintotal.• Alotofproposals,veryfewnewlaws.• Verypoliticaltoo.

InConclusion:TheLawisNotAllPowerful.• TheLawisImperfect:

• TheLawisLimited– certainpeople,certainsituations• TheLawLooksBackward– precedent– whatlegalissueshappenedprior?

• TheLawSlow toChange– thelawmakingprocesscantakeyears

• Therealityisthatthelawisoftentheantithesistotechnology• TechnologycanApplyBroadly• ItLooksForward• ItisVeryQuicktoChange

• ThisdichotomybetweenLawandTechnologycreatestensionbetweentheLegalandTechnologycommunities

Topic3WhatistheFutureofCybersecurityLaw

TheFutureofCybersecurityLaw–WheredoWeBegin?• Inordertounderstandthefutureofcybersecuritylaw,westartwiththerelationshipbetweentechnology,business,andlaw.

• AsImentionedtechnologychangesquickly.Thelawslowly.• Thereareactually2lagsbetweenlawandtechnology.

Technology Business Law

Law

1st Lag– IfChangeweretoStartSimultaneously,LawwouldLagBehind

TechnologyBusiness

• Technologychangesquickly– Moore’sLaw18mo.• Businesschangesabitslower– 5– 10yearstostartanewbusinessandachievescale.

• Lawchangesveryslowly– 10– 20yearsaspreviouslydiscussed.

Law

2nd Lag– ChangeisalsoSerial

Technology

Business

• Youhavetohavetechnologicalinnovationfirst.Sothelagiscumulative.• Cybersecuritylawdevelopmentlagsfarbehindtechnologyinnovation.

ThefutureofCybersecurityLawisintheNexusofBusinessandLaw• Betweentechnologyandbusinessistheideaofwhatcanbemonetizedorcommercialized.WhatisScalable.

• WhatproblemsarisefromscalingthatBusinessescan’taddressthroughtechnology?Whatarethesurprises?• That’sthefutureofcybersecuritylaw.Howtoaddressthesurprises.• Emailasanexample- RFC822(1980),ISPs(1990s),Spam(late90s),CAN-SPAM(2003).

Technology Business Law

Scalable Surprises

NewCybersecurityLawstoKnow

ByJurisdiction:

• California• SupremeCourt• FTC• RegulatoryAgencies• Europe• Congress

California– PushingtheFederalEnvelopein2018• InternetofThingslaw(SecurityofConnectedDevices,SB327,Cal.Civ.Code,Title1.81.26,§ 1798.91.04et.seq.)

• Manufacturers(notdistributors)• Connecteddevices(IPorBluetooth)• Reasonablesecurityfeature(natureandfunctionofdevice)

• CaliforniaConsumerPrivacyAct(AB375,Cal.Civ.Code,Title1.81.5,§ 1798.100et.seq.)• Effective1/1/2020• Consumerscanrequestthatbusinessdisclosethepersonalinformationcollectedandwhathas

beendonewiththatinformation.GDPRlike.• InresponsetoCambridgeAnalytica (FacebookisinCalifornia)

• NetNeutralitylaw(CaliforniaInternetConsumerProtectionandNetNeutralityActof2018,SB822,Cal.Civ.Code,Title15,§ 3100et.seq.)

• Unlawfultoblock,impair,ordegrade,lawfulInternettrafficbasedoncontent,application,service,ordevice

• Forbothfixed(broadband)andmobileInternetserviceproviders

Afewoverallthoughts:• CaliforniatendstobeProgressive– embracingchangesfirst.• AlltechnologyroadsleadtoCalifornia.(SiliconValley)• InferredPoliticalFightbetweenCaliforniaandtheU.S.Government.

SupremeCourt

• Carpenterv.U.S.(No.16-402,2018)• CellSiteLocationInformation(12,898locationpointsover127days)

• Question– reasonableexpectationofprivacy- cellphonesaselectronictrackersinyourpocket

• CourtRuled:LawEnforcementneedsawarrantforcelllocationdata

• Surveillance– 4th Amendmentand”new”technology• CareFirst,Inc.v.Attias (No.17-641,2017)

• CertDeniedFeb.20,2018• LowerCourtRulingstands(Attias v.CareFirst,Slip.Op.16-1708,DCCt.App.,2017)

• Courtheldthatdamagescouldbeawardedforthreatoffutureidentitytheftresultingfromadatabreach.

• Unusual– courtsHATEtospeculateaboutfutureharm- the“maybes”• So,whatdoesthismeanforCybersecurityInsuranceclaims/databreach

costs?

FTCandCybersecurity• UnfairorDeceptiveActsorPracticesinorAffectingCommerce isabroadumbrellaofauthorityunder§5.

• FTCv.Wyndham(3rd Cir.No.14-3514,2015)• FTC– haspursuedcasesagainstcompanieswithdeficientcybersecurity

practices• Wyndhamhadthreedatabreaches– itfailedtousereadilyavailablesecurity

measures(likefirewalls)– claimedtobethevictim• WyndhamclaimedFTCdidn’thavetheauthoritytoregulatecybersecurity

matters.• Businessesmustprotectcustomerpersonalinformation,andFTCcanpursue

caseswherethebusinessesdon’t.• LabMD v.FTC(11th Cir.,No.16-16270,2017)

• Factsofthiscaseareodd– billingmangerforalabwithafilesharingprogram/securitycompanydownloadedpersonaldataof9,300consumers/senttheinformationtotheFTC

• FTCclaimedabroadfailureofLabMD toprotectpersonaldata,buttheclaimwastoobroad.Theceaseanddesistordermustbespecifictothecaseinpoint.

• Takentogether,FTChaspowertoregulatecybersecurityindatabreaches,butthatpowerisproportionaltotheincident.

RegulatoryAgencies

SEC• CommissionStatementandGuidanceonPublicCompanyCybersecurityDisclosures(83FR8166,Feb.26,2018)• Mustinforminvestorsaboutcybersecurityincidentsandrisksbasedon:• Materialityofriskand• Importanceofcompromisedinformation

DOD• DODGuidanceforReviewingSystemsSecurityPlansandtheNISTSP800-171SecurityRequirementsNotYetImplemented(83FR17807,Apr.24,2018)

• DODdraftedguidanceforcontractorstouseinimplementing800-171andisseekingcomments.Admissionthattherearechallengeswithmeetingtheserequirements?Frombothsides?

• ConsiderthebifurcatedroleofGovernmentandBusiness– sharinginformationasapartnershipandregulatoryenforcement.

Europe

GeneralDataProtectionRegulation(GDPR)(EU)2016/679• ImplementationDate:May25,2018• PrivacyShield– CurrentU.S.DataSharingScheme-beingsuedinEuropeanCourt– likeSafeHarbor?• DataSecurityConcerns

• Processing– broad• Pseudonymized/AnonymizedData– assumestraceability• GeneralSecurityRequirement– Art32,CIATriad• MonitoringandProfiling(AI)

CongressionalActions

• InthisCongress– NoBIGchanges• NISTSmallBusinessCybersecurityAct(Pub.L.115-236,Aug.14,2018)

• CongressdirectsNISTtodevelopCybersecurityFrameworkforSmallBusinessesoutofexistingfunding

• DHS- CybersecurityandInfrastructureSecurityAgencyActof2018(H.R.3359,Pub.L.115-TBD,Nov.16,2018)• ReorganizetheDHSCybersecuritydepartments(internalchangeinoperations)

• InthepreviousCongress– afewchanges• CybersecurityInformationSharingAct2015(Pub.L.114-113)

• CreatesframeworkforbusinessestosharecyberthreatswiththeGovernmentwhocanreportbacktothewholesubscribership

• TradeSecretsAct2016(Pub.L.114-153)• Createsafederalrightofactionfortradesecrettheftcases.

• Point– lawschangeslowlyandinfrequently.

NewBusinessRisksontheHorizon–LookingintoaCrystalBall• CEHArmy

• Risk- HackBack?• Privateindustrywithoffensivecapability

• Botnets• Howtoassessliability– Masters,Bots,Networks?• DOJGuidance2015easierprosecution– subpoenascanbefiledcentrally

• IoT• RiskofInsecurity– Californiaaheadoftime,orrightontime?• Wearabletech– timeandlocationinformation– cellphonesashomingdevices– whataboutFitbits?

• Blockchain• Bitcoin- FinancialRegulation- inadecentralizedenvironment?• Supplychain/e-contracts– puttingattorneysoutofbusiness?• Traceability/Integrity- Riskofunplannedforking?

RevisitingtheCybersecurityLawLandscape

Individuals

International



Extradition ExportControlCyberwar

U.S. SurveillanceProtectData

PartnershipRegulation

PerennialIssuesthatAriseintheCybersecurityLawLandscape• Individuals

• Surveillance– 4thAmendment– Warrants?• E-CommerceEncouragement– Riskofdatabreach

• Business• Regulation– howfartogotoincreasesecurity• Partnership– howmuchsharing,whatcanchangeovertime• InternationalBusinessTransactions– exports,foreignpolicy

• Government• InternationalCriminalEnforcement– extradition,internationalsurveillance,protectingtradesecrets

• JustWarinCyberTimes– borderlessconflict- atimebeyondthenationstate?

InConclusion

• Cybersecuritylawcanbeorganizedbywhoisimpactedbythelaw– Individuals,Businesses,Government,International• Lawasacybersecuritytoolisnotallpowerful– it’slimited,backwardlooking,andslowtochange.Theoppositeoftechnology.• ThefutureofCybersecurityLawliesinthenexusbetweentechnology,business,andlaw.Wediscussed:(1)thenewlawsin2018,(2)thewhat’scomingnext,and(3)thewhat’salwaysatissue.

AdditionalResources

• HabeasData,Privacyvs.RiseofSurveillanceTech,CyrusFarivar,MelvilleHousePublishing,2018.• CybersecurityLaw,JeffKosseff,JohnWiley&Sons,2017.• FederalLawsRelatingtoCybersecurity:OverviewofMajorIssues,CurrentLaws,andProposedLegislation,EricA.Fisher,December12,2014,CRSReportR42114,CongressionalResearchService.• Websites

• www.congress.gov (AllLegislativeActions)• www.federalregister.gov (DailyNewspaperforAgencies)• www.ncsl.org (CybersecurityResearchatStateLevel)

[email protected]

Approaching Cybersecurity Law · 2018-11-20 · This presentation provides insight in how to...

Documents

Transcript of Approaching Cybersecurity Law · 2018-11-20 · This presentation provides insight in how to...