This is a relatively long post. Specific areas covered:
- Legal issues
- Cloud service agreements (contracts)
- Third-party access to documents stored in the cloud (e-discovery)
3.1.1 Legal frameworks governing data protection and privacy
Conflicting requirements in different jurisdictions, and sometimes within the same jurisdiction. Legal requirements may vary according to
- Location of cloud provider
- Location of cloud consumer
- Location of data subject
- Location of servers/datacenters
- Legal jurisdiction of contract between the parties, which may be different than the locations of those parties
- Any international treaties between the locations where the parties are located
18.104.22.168 Common themes
Omnibus laws: same law applicable across all sectors
22.214.171.124 Required security measures
Legal requirements may include prescriptive or risk based security measures.
126.96.36.199 Restrictions to cross-border data transfer
Transfer of data across borders can be prohibited. The most common situation is a based on transferring personal data to countries that do not have “adequate data protection laws”. This is a common theme in the GDPR. Other examples are data covered by national security legislation.
For personal data, transfers to inadequate locations may require specific legal instruments to be put in place in order for this to be considered compliant with the stricter region’s legal requirements.
188.8.131.52 Regional examples
- Privacy act of 1988
- Australian consumer law (ACL)
The privacy act has 13 Australian privacy principles (APP’s) that apply to all sectors including non-profit organizations that have an annual turnover of more than 3 million Australian dollars.
In 2017 the Australian privacy act was amended to require companies to notify affected Australian residents and the Australian Information Commissioner of breaches that can cause serious harm. A security breach must be reported if:
- There is unauthorized access or disclosure of personal information that can cause serious harm
- Personal information is lost in circumstances where disclosure is likely and could cause serious harm
The ACL protects consumers from fraudulent contracts and poor conduct from service providers, such as failed breach notifications. The Australian Privacy Act can apply to Australian customers/consumers even if the cloud provider is based elsewhere or other laws are stated in the service agreement.
China has introduced new legislation governing information systems over the last few years.
- 2017: Cyber security law: applies to critical information infrastructure operators
- May 2017: Proposed measures on the security of cross-border transfers of personal information and important data. Under evaluation for implementation at the time of issue of CCSP guidance v. 4.
The 2017 cybersecurity law puts requirements on infrastructure operators to design systems with security in mind, put in place emergency response plans and give access and assistance to investigating authorities, for both national security purposes and criminal investigations.
The Chinese security law also requires companies to inform users about known security defects, and also report defects to the authorities.
Regarding privacy the cybersecurity law requires that personal information about Chinese citizens is stored inside mainland China.
The draft regulations on cross-border data transfer issued in 2017 go further than the cybersecurity law.
- New security assessment requirements for companies that want to send data out of China
- Expanding data localization requirements (the types of data that can only be stored inside China)
The relevant Japanese legislation is found in “Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI). There are also multiple sector specific laws.
Beginning in 2017, amendments to the APPI require consent of the data subject for transfer of personal data to a third party. Consent is not required if the receiving party operates in a location with data protection laws considered adequate by the Personal Information Protection Commission.
EU: GDPR and e-Privacy
The GDPR came into force on 25 May 2018. The e-Privacy directive is still not enforced. TechRepublic has a short summary of differences between the two regulations (https://www.techrepublic.com/article/gdpr-vs-epPRrivacy-the-3-differences-you-need-to-know/):
- ePrivacy specifically covers electronic communications. It is evolved from the 2002 ePrivacy directive that focused primarily on email and sms, whereas the new version will cover electronic communications in general, including data communication with IoT devices and the use of social media platforms. The ePrivacy directive will also cover metadata about private communications.
- ePrivacy includes non-personal data. The focus is on confidentiality of communications, that may also contain non-personal data and data related to a legal person.
- The have different legal precedents. GDPR is based on Article 8 in the European Charter of Human Rights, whereas the ePrivacy directive is based on Article 16 and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – but also Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights: “Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.”
The CSA guidance gives a summary of GDPR requirements:
- Data processors must keep records of processing
- Data subject rights: data subjects have a right to information on how their data is being processed, the right to object to certain uses of their personal data, the right to have data corrected or deleted, to be compensated for damages suffered as a result of unlawful processing, and the right to data portability. These rights significantly affect cloud relationships and contracts.
- Security breaches: breaches must be reported to authorities within 72 hours and data subjects must be notified if there is a risk of serious harm to the data subjects
- There are country specific variations in some interpretations. For example, Germany required that an organization has a data protection officer if the company has more than 9 employees.
- Sanctions: authorities can use fines up to 4% of global annual revenue, or 20 million EUR for serious violations, whichever amount is higher.
EU: Network information security directive
The NIS directive is enforced since May 2018. The directive introduces a framework for ensuring confidentiality, integrity and availability of networks and information systems. The directive applies to critical infrastructure and essential societal and financial functions. The requirements include:
- Take technical and organizational measures to secure networks and information systems
- Take measures to prevent and minimize impact of incidents, and to facilitate business continuity during severe incidents
- Notify without delay relevant authorities
- Provide information necessary to assess the security of their networks and information systems
- Provide evidence of effective implementation of security policies, such as a policy audit
The NIS directive requires member states to impose security requirements on online marketplaces, cloud computing service providers and online search engines. Digital service providers based outside the EU but that supply services within the EU are under scope of the directive.
Note: parts of these requirements, in particular for critical infrastructure, are covered by various national security laws. The scope of the NIS directive is broader than national security and typically requires the introduction of new legislation. This work is not yet complete across the EU/EEC area. Digital Europe has an implementation tracker site set up here: https://www.digitaleurope.org/resources/nis-implementation-tracker/.
Central and South America
Data protection laws are coming into force in Central and South American countries. They include security requirements and the need for a data custodian.
North America: United States
The US has a sectoral approach to legislation with hundreds of federal, state and local regulations. Organizations doing business in the United States or that collect or process data on US residents or often subject to multiple laws, and identification of the regulatory matrix can be challenging for both cloud consumers and providers.
- The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)
- The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 1996 (known as HIPAA)
- The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA)
Most of these laws require companies to take precautions when hiring subcontractors and service providers. They may also hold organizations responsible for the acts of subcontractors.
US State Law
In addition to federal regulations, most US states have laws relating to data privacy and security. These laws apply to any entity that collect or process information on residents of that state, regardless of where the data is stored (the CSA guidance says regardless of where within the United States, but it is likely that they would apply to international storage as well in this case).
Security breach disclosure requirements
Breach disclosure requirements are found in multiple regulations. Most require informing data subjects.
Knowledge of these laws is important for both cloud consumers and providers, especially to regulate the risk of class action lawsuits.
In addition to the state laws and regulations, there is the “common law of privacy and security”, a nickname given to a body of consent orders published by federal and state government agencies based on investigations into security incidents.
Especially the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has for almost 20 years the power to conduct enforcement actions against companies whose privacy and security practices are inconsistent with claims made in public disclosures, making their practices “unfair and deceptive”. For cloud computing this means that when a certain way of working changes, the public documentation of the system needs to be updated to make sure actions are not in breach of Section 4 of the FTC Act.
1.3.2 Contracts and Provider Selection
When data or operations are transferred to a cloud, the responsibility for the data typically remains with the collector. There may be sharing of responsibilities when the cloud provider is performing some of the operations. This also depends on the service model of the cloud provider. In any case a data processing agreement or similar contractual instrument should be put in place to regulate activities, uses and responsibilities.
184.108.40.206 Internal due diligence
Prior to using a cloud service both parties (cloud provider and consumer) should identify legal requirements and compliance barriers.
Cloud consumers should investigate whether it has entered into any confidentiality agreements or data use agreements that could limit the use of a cloud service. In such cases consent from the client needs to be in place before transferring data to a cloud environment.
220.127.116.11 External due diligence
Before entering into a contract, a review of the other party’s operations should be done. For evaluating a cloud service, this will typically include a look at the applicable service level, end-user and legal agreements, security policies, security disclosures and compliance proof (typically an audit report).
18.104.22.168 Contract negotiations
Cloud contracts are often standardized. An important aspect is the regulation of shared responsibilities. Contracts should be reviewed carefully also when they are presented as “not up for negotiation”. When certain contractual requirements cannot be included the customer should evaluate if other risk mitigation techniques can be used.
22.214.171.124 Reliance on third-party audits and attestations
Audit reports could and should be used in security assessments. The scope of the audit should be considered when used in place of a direct audit.
3.1.3 Electronic discovery
In US law, discovery is the process by which an opposing party obtains private documents for use in litigation. Discovery does not have to be limited to documents known to be admissible as evidence in court from the outset. Discovery applies to all documents reasonably held to be admissible as evidence (relevant and probative). See federal rules on civil procedure: https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-v-disclosures-and-discovery/rule-26-duty-to-disclose-general-provisions-governing-discovery/.
There have been many examples of litigants having deleted or
lost evidence that caused them to lose the case and be sentenced to pay damages
to the party not causing the data destruction. Because of this it is necessary
that cloud providers and consumers plan for how to identify and extract all relevant
documents relevant to a case.
126.96.36.199 Possession, custody and control
In most US jurisdictions, the obligation to produce relevant information to court is limited to data within its possession, custody or control. Using a cloud provider for storage does not remove this obligation. Some data may not be under the control of the consumer (disaster recovery, metadata), and such data can be relevant to a litigation. The responsibility of a cloud provider to provide such data remains unclear, especially in cross-border/international cases.
Recent cases of interest:
- Norwegian police against Tidal regarding streaming fraud
- FBI against Microsoft (Ireland Onedrive case)
188.8.131.52 Relevant cloud applications and environment
In some cases, a cloud application or environment itself could be relevant to resolving a dispute. In such circumstances the artefact is likely to be outside the control of the client and require a discovery process to served on the cloud provider directly, where such action is enforceable.
184.108.40.206 Searchability and e-discovery tools
Discovery may not be possible using the same tools as in traditional IT environments. Cloud providers do sometimes provide search functionality, or require such access through a negotiated cloud agreement.
Preservation is the avoidance of destruction of data relevant to a litigation, or that is likely to be relevant to a litigation in the future. There are similar laws on this in the US, Europe, Japan, South Korea and Singapore.
220.127.116.11 Data retention laws and record keeping obligations
Data retention requirements exist for various types of data. Privacy laws put restrictions on retention. In the case of conflicting requirements on the same data, this should be resolved through guidance and case law. Storage requirements should be weighed against SLA requirements and costs when using cloud storage.
- Scope of preservation: a requesting party is only entitled to data hosted in the cloud that contains data relevant to the legal issue at hand. Lack of granular identifiability can lead to a requirement to over-preserve and over-share data.
- Dynamic and shared storage: the burden of preserving data in the cloud can be relevant if the client has space to hold it in place, if the data is static and the people with access is limited. Because of the elastic nature of cloud environments this is seldom the case in practice and it may be necessary to work with the cloud provider on a plan for data preservation.
- Reasonable integrity: when subject to a discovery process, reasonable steps should be taken to secure the integrity of data collection (complete, accurate)
- Limits to accessibility: if a cloud customer cannot access all relevant data in the cloud. The cloud consumer and provider may have to review the relevance of the request before taking further steps to acquire the data.
18.104.22.168 Direct access
Outside cloud environments it is not common to give the requesting party direct access to an IT environment. Direct hardware access in cloud environments if often not possible or desirable.
3.1.3,8 Native production
Cloud providers often store data in proprietary systems that the clients do not control. Evidence is typically expected to be delivered in the form of PDF files, etc. Export from the cloud environment may be the only option, which may be challenging with respect to the chain of custody.
Forensic authentication of data admitted into evidence. The question here is whether the document is what it seems to be. Giving guarantees on data authenticity can be hard, an a document should not inherently be considered more or less admissible due to storage in the cloud.
22.214.171.124 Cooperation between provider and client in e-discovery
e-Discovery cooperation should preferably be regulated in contracts and be taken into account in service level agreements.
126.96.36.199 Response to a subpoena or search warrant
The cloud agreement should include provisions for notification of a subpoena to the client, and give the client time to try to fight the order.
The CSA guidance makes the following recommendations
- Cloud customers should understand relevant legal and regulatory frameworks, as well as contractual requirements and restrictions that apply to handling of their data, and the conduct of their operations in the cloud.
- Cloud providers should clearly disclose policies, requirements and capabilities, including its terms and conditions that apply to the services they provide.
- Cloud customers should perform due diligence prior to cloud vendror selection
- Cloud customers should understand the legal implications of the location of physical operations and storage of the cloud provider
- Cloud customers should select reasonable locations for data storage to make sure they comply with their own legal requirements
- Cloud customers should evaluate and take e-discovery requests into account
- Cloud customers should understand that click-through legal agreements to use a cloud service do not negate requirements for a provider to perform due diligence