Cyber Law Watch – Page 44 – Insight on how cyber risk is being mitigated and managed across the globe

Apple sends passionate message to customers following court order to hack iPhone

Feb 18 2016

A US District Court has ordered Apple to assist US law enforcement agents to bypass the security features, disable the auto-erase function and ultimately access the data contained within an iPhone 5C that was used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, Syed Rizwan Farook.

Apple’s CEO Tim Cook responded to the order with an open letter to customers discussing the privacy and security implications of the order and calling for public discussion on the issue.

Read Apple’s Customer Letter here.

Access the Court Order here.

Gone in a ‘Flash’ – Google ditches Adobe for HTML5

Feb 17 2016

By Cameron Abbott and Meg Aitken

Google has recently announced a plan to shift away from displaying ads built using Adobe Flash Player, instead opting for the HTML5 platform.

While the Adobe Flash plug-in technology has arguably been the premier tool for producing interactive media and animated video displays for some time, it has been criticised for employing inadequate security controls, leaving it susceptible to attacks by malware hackers.

Even Adobe itself is aware of the superior capabilities of HTML5. Adobe attempted to respond to the shift away from plug-in technology last year by rebranding the Flash Player and launching the ‘Animate CC’, which was touted as “Adobe’s premier web animation tool for developing HTML5 content while continuing to support the creation of Flash content”.

Google’s not sold, and has been blogging to encourage advertisers to convert their Flash Player ads HTML5 in order to influence a wider audience for some time, even providing ‘how to guides‘. From 30 June 2016, Google will no longer allow advertisers to upload new display ads built using Adobe Flash, and from January 2017, all ads built in the Adobe Flash format will not be supported by Google.

Access Google’s update here.

Hold the phone…is “metadata” personal information? Who knows?

Feb 12 2016

By Cameron Abbott, Simon McDonald and Meg Aitken

The ongoing debate surrounding what “metadata” actually is, and how it should be characterised under privacy laws has once again resurfaced. This time, the Federal Court will have a chance to decide on the issue, following a decision by the Privacy Commissioner to appeal a finding that denied a journalist access to metadata on the basis that it was not personal information.

Way back in 2013, a then technology journalist for Fairfax, Ben Grubb, asked Telstra to provide him with metadata and other information held by it in relation to his mobile phone on the basis that it constituted ‘personal information’ under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act) and he was therefore entitled to it.

Telstra did provide some information to Mr Grubb (including his outgoing call records, bills and the customer details they had stored for him), however it submitted that the “metadata” produced from his mobile phone use on Telstra’s network was not personal information, as it was not linked to him in a way that made his identity apparent or reasonably ascertainable.

Unsatisfied with this answer, Mr Grubb lodged a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner. In May 2015, the Commissioner held that Telstra ‘cross-matched’ data across its mobile network in such a way that it was possible to determine a customer’s identity and that Telstra was therefore in breach on NPP 6.1 (as it then was) by refusing to provide Mr Grubb with access to his personal information.

Telstra appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia (AATA). Taking a strangely narrow approach to the issue, Deputy President Forgie ruled that the mobile network data was not personal information for the purpose of the Privacy Act. Instead, she said that the metadata was actually information about the service provided by Telstra and the delivery of that service, rather than about Mr Grubb and his mobile phone use. On that basis, Telstra was not obliged to provide Mr Grubb with access to the information, despite it being generated directly from his use of Telstra’s services.

Seem contrary to the deliberately broad concept of personal information that is designed to protect individuals? We agree, and so does the Privacy Commissioner. ‘Stay on the line’ to see how the Federal Court approaches the issue.

Access the determination and reasons for determination of Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim in Ben Grubb and Telstra Corporation Limited [2015] AICmr 35 (1 May 2015) here.

Access the AATA decision of Deputy President S A Forgie in Telstra Corporation Limited and Privacy Commissioner [2015] AATA 991 (18 December 2015) here.

Access the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner’s Press Release here.

Privacy concerns over Westfield’s ticketless parking system

Feb 05 2016

By Cameron Abbott, Meg Aitken and Shirley Chen

Westfield has sidelined the SMS feature of its ticketless parking system this week due to concerns it breached Australian privacy laws.

Westfield’s newfangled ticketless parking system attempted to make parking quicker and easier for shoppers by scanning car number plates on entry and exit of their carparks, and sending an SMS notification to registered parkers recording their entry time and an alert message when their free parking time was nearly up. To register for the service, users were merely required to provide a name, license plate number and phone number (with no verification).

Privacy experts raised the alarm that any person could register false details and track another person’s physical location via the SMS notifications. This was a particular worry for those in domestic violence situations and could also potentially enable stalking or thieves to determine when homeowners had left their houses. The feature’s Terms and Conditions failed to address any of these issues.

The SMS service is currently suspended as internal investigations are conducted, though the rest of the ticketless parking system and app continue to operate.

Learn more about the ticketless parking system here.

Read the ITNews report on the issue here.

‘EU-US Privacy Shield’ agreed for trans-Atlantic data flow

Feb 04 2016

By Cameron Abbott and Meg Aitken

A new trans-Atlantic data transfer framework has been agreed between the European Commission and the United States this week. Known as the ‘EU-US Privacy Shield’, the new arrangement is intended to offer greater legal certainty for businesses and afford EU citizens increased protection when their data is transferred across the Atlantic to the US.

The new regulations will replace the US-EU Safe Harbor framework, which was invalidated by the European Court of Justice last October on the basis that the generalised access that public authorities had to the data and content of electronic communications violated fundamental privacy rights. Read our earlier blog post on the Safe Harbour decision here.

The key features of the new EU-US Privacy Shield are:

Stronger obligations on US companies to protect the personal data of EU citizens
More robust enforcement powers granted to both EU and US regulators, including greater monitoring and prosecution by the US Department of Commence and Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Clearer conditions, limitations, redress avenues and safeguards for data transferred across the Atlantic
Expanded obligations for US companies to prove compliance
Several new avenues for EU citizens to lodge complaints about data misuse, including the establishment of a new independent privacy Ombudsman

The new Privacy Shield is still awaiting final approval from the College of Commissioners and will be subject to further review by the Article 29 Working Party before it is introduced. Much of the detail has not been released, so while the principles have been articulated, the impact on the obligations of affected companies is still far from clear.

Read the European Commission press release here for further details.

Our US and EU colleagues have drafted a more detail description which can be accessed here for further information.

Scary statistics reveal 39,000 reported cybercrime incidents in 2015

Feb 01 2016

By Cameron Abbott and Meg Aitken

Following its launch in November 2014, the Australian Cyber Online Reporting Network (ACORN) has revealed it fielded 39,000 reports of cybercrime from individuals and organisations in 2015. Fraud was the most commonly reported cybercrime, with 19,232 reports being made to ACORN last year.

Prominent data analytics group and credit bureau, Veda revealed similarly worrying statistics in the Veda 2015 Cybercrime and Fraud Report, noting that in 2015, 1 in 4 Australians reported being a victim of identity theft at some stage, up 7% from 2014. The report also suggests that Australians are becoming increasingly concerned about the risk of cybercrime and identity theft.

Veda has projected that 2016 will see even greater numbers of cybercrime attacks on individuals, firms and government agencies as the ‘Internet of Things’ further develops, reliance on social media grows and a profound amount of personal information and data continues to be collected.

Read the ACORN quarterly statistics reports here.

Malware attacks a Melbourne hospital’s outdated IT system

Jan 29 2016

By Cameron Abbott and Meg Aitken

Don’t say we (and Microsoft) didn’t warn you, a prominent Melbourne hospital’s IT system that runs on an outdated and unsupported Windows operating system, Microsoft XP, was hacked last week.

Microsoft recently activated the end-of-life phase for Windows 8, 9 and 10 and encouraged users to transition to the company’s supported operating systems in order to prevent security incidents. The same process was undertaken for Microsoft XP in 2014; however the hospital continued to use the platform in some departments.

The pathology department was the primary victim of the attack and staff were reportedly forced to manually process blood tissue and urine samples while the electronic system was compromised. Fortunately, highly sensitive patient information is not believed to have been accessed by the hackers.

It has been reported that the hospital is now expediting plans to upgrade its IT systems.

Access the media release here.

Microsoft cuts support for Internet Explorer 8, 9 and 10

Jan 13 2016

By Cameron Abbott and Meg Aitken

Today, Microsoft will initiate the ‘end-of-life’ phase for the company’s older Web browsers, Internet Explorer 8, 9, and 10. Customers using the outdated browsers will be sent an ‘end-of-life upgrade notification’ as technical support and security updates have now ceased.

Microsoft has encouraged the several hundred million users who currently operate the outdated browsers to upgrade to Internet Explorer 11 or Microsoft Edge, which they suggest offers better-quality security and improved performance.

While users currently running Internet Explorer 8, 9 and 10 will still be able to use their browsers, Microsoft has warned there is a significant security risk of continuing to run the outdated versions. Without the periodic security updates and routine technical support, the outdated browsers will be vulnerable to cyber-attacks, malware and other security threats.

Australian Corporations have an obligation to keep materials secure under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and should therefore consider the risk that using the unsupported browsers may not be sufficient to meet this requirement.

Access the Microsoft release here.

Mandatory data breach notification legislation up for discussion

Dec 04 2015

By Jim Bulling, Cameron Abbott, Michelle Chasser and Meg Aitken

The Attorney-General’s Department has released for discussion, an exposure draft bill regarding mandatory reporting of serious data breaches. Notification requirements will apply to companies and information subject to the Privacy Act.

Under the proposal, a company would have up to 30 days after it is aware of a breach, or ought reasonably to be aware of a breach, to assess whether a data breach is a ‘serious data breach’. A serious data breach occurs if:

there is unauthorised access or disclosure of information; and
there is a real risk of serious harm to any of the individuals to whom the information relates.

When considering whether there is a real risk of serious harm to an individual the draft legislation lists a number of factors that should be considered including:

the kind of information;
whether the information is in a form that is intelligible to an ordinary person;
whether the information is protected by security measures;
the kinds of person who could obtain the information;
the nature of the harm; and
any mitigation steps taken by the company.

If the company determines that a serious data breach has occurred, it must notify the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) and the affected individuals as soon as practicable. The draft legislation also gives the OAIC additional powers to direct companies to undertake notification.

The proposal has a number of differences from the previous attempts to legislate mandatory data breach reporting which were made in 2013 and 2014. Most notably, previously the trigger for notification involved a belief that there had been a data breach, the current draft requires a company to be aware, or when it ought reasonably to be aware, of a breach. Additional types of specific harm are included in the current draft, however, this is unlikely to have a major impact in practice.

Currently, data notification is only mandatory for unauthorised access to eHealth information under the My Health Records Act 2012. However, the OAIC operates a voluntary data breach notification scheme which also uses the real risk of serious harm notification threshold.

The exposure draft and accompanying discussion paper can be found here. Submissions are due by 4 March 2016.

APRA raising the bar on Cybersecurity

Dec 01 2015

By Jim Bulling

At the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) conference held in Brisbane in the last week of November, Stephen Glenfield, APRA’s General Manager of the South West region indicated that an area of significant interest for APRA during 2016 would be the extent to which superannuation funds were prepared for cybersecurity risks.

Mr Glenfield indicated that APRA would be conducting a thematic review of superannuation funds during 2016 which was designed to provide APRA with much more detailed information about the processes that superannuation fund trustees were putting in place to protect their funds and their members from cybersecurity breaches.

As thematic reviews carried out by APRA are usually precursors to further regulatory or prudential reform, this announcement should alert superannuation funds to expect more comprehensive regulatory requirements in relation to the cybersecurity risks in the near future.

It is expected that APRA will be particularly interested in understanding how superannuation fund risk management frameworks address cybersecurity risks and how trustee boards are involved in the oversight of cybersecurity risk management. A likely focus of the reviews will be investigating the measures which superannuation funds have established to:

identify critical assets and data
protect such assets and data
promptly detect when breaches have occurred
respond to breaches including communications and reporting
recover from breaches including reinstatement of systems and learnings from incidents.

This initiative comes on the back of ASIC’s release during March of this year of its Report 429 on Cyber Resilience and underlines how Australia’s financial system Regulators are becoming much more concerned about cybersecurity risks.