NO SAFE HARBOUR…AND A HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

In Schrems v Data Protection Commission (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-362/14), the European Court of Justice looked at whether the Irish Data Protection Commissioners Office had the authority to examine claimant’s concerns regarding the transfer of his personal data under the Safe Harbour Framework from Facebook’s Irish subsidiary to its parent company, Facebook Inc., in the United States of America.

The Court ruled that the Safe Harbour agreement on data transfers from the EU to the US is invalid, as it fails to ensure adequate protection for that data, as required by the Data Protection Directive.  The Court has invited the Irish Data Protection Commissioner to consider suspending the transfer of European Facebook users’ personal data to the US.  The Court also found that national data protection authorities must examine claims from subjects that a transfer of their personal data to a non-EEA country violates their right to privacy even if the country receiving that information has been found by the European Commission to ensure an adequate level of protection for that data.

This judgment has far-reaching consequences.  Thousands of companies share data with US group companies and US-based service provides, such as Microsoft and Google, relying on the Safe Harbour arrangements to enable transfer of that personal data.  Now they will need to consider whether they can continue with this, and develop ways of doing so.  Just as interesting will be the effect the decision has on the flow of data between the EU and the US, and on the relationship between the countries.  UK companies who transfer such data to the US should look to review their data privacy compliance process and ensure that the fundamentals are in place and being followed, all the while eagerly awaiting a new Safe Harbour Framework, which it is hoped will be released sooner rather than later.

Meanwhile, here at LNTV HQ, preparations for Halloween are in full flow.  This does not mean dressing the office in cobwebs and pumpkins, but buying trick or treat chocolates and sweets, eating them, and then returning to the shop for more.  It’s all in the interests of supporting the British confectionary industry you understand 😉

Have a spooky week….

AN EXTRA HOUR…AND THE MODERN SLAVERY ACT 2015

Here at LNTV HQ many of us looked forward to the extra hour in bed on Saturday night, together with lighter mornings as we wait at train stations to start our commute, but the pay off is that evenings will now be getting darker earlier, and that is something we are not such great fans of.  Someone from the team who shall remain unnamed for fear of deserved reprisals, has even declared that they have bought their first Christmas present.  Don’t worry, appropriate action will be taken.

Meanwhile in the studio we were fortunate enough to have Richard Kenyon, Head of Employment and Pensions from Fieldfisher LLP, to talk to us about the new Modern Slavery Act 2015, and its implications for companies and organisations.  Here is a brief extract from that upcoming programme:

Interviewer: What requirement does s.54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 impose on organisations?

Richard Kenyon: Section 54 requires commercial organisations to produce an annual slavery and human trafficking statement for each financial year, and that needs to set out what the organisation has done, the steps its taken during that year to ensure that slavery is not taking place either anywhere in the organisation or anywhere in its supply chain.  And once the statement’s been prepared it needs to be approved in the case of a company – by the directors, the board of directors of the company, signed off by one of those directors and then published on the company’s website with a link – a prominent link from the webpage.

Interviewer: And what information should be in a slavery and human trafficking statement?

Richard Kenyon: Well, the type of information that should be included is really left up to the organisation.  The Act does give a high level framework of the type of information that might be included, and that includes a number of things.  First of all, a description of the organisation itself and its supply chain, then the policies that the organisation has in relation to modern slavery, the type of due diligence exercises it carries out within its organisation and its supply chain, how it identifies risk and what sort of Key Performance Indicators it puts in place to ensure that its supply chain are not engaging in modern slavery and, finally, the type of training of the employees in the organisation that the organisation undertakes.

Interviewer: Given that an organisation can discharge its duty simply by stating that its taken no steps, why does the government think that any organisation is going to go to some considerable trouble to supply this information?

Richard Kenyon: That’s right that an organisation can comply with the legislation by putting out a statement that says we’ve taken absolutely no steps to ensure that modern slavery isn’t taking place.  But the government is introducing this legislation in a kind of compliance and social shaming way, so that the statement itself will open up the organisation to public view, and the idea is that through pressure from NGOs and the public, and through peer group pressure, that organisations will want to show that they take this issue seriously. And therefore, peer group pressure will result in more and more information coming into the public domain as organisations take more and more steps is the idea.

Interviewer: So which organisations does this requirement apply to?

Richard Kenyon: Well, it applies to commercial organisations, which is bodies corporate or partnerships, which produce goods or services and which have a turnover of £36 million or more, some of which is done in the UK, so it’s businesses that are operating in the UK which have a turnover of £36 million or more.

Interviewer: And there was some debate, wasn’t there, about where to set the threshold of turnover?  How did they arrive at £36 million and what are the reasons behind it?

Richard Kenyon: Well, the government consulted over a number of figures, the lowest was £36 million and the highest was a billion. In fact, only 7% of the respondents to the consultation suggested that it should be a billion pound turnover. The government ultimately settled for £36 million largely because, first of all, that was the number that the majority of respondents to the consultation requested; secondly, there is in the Companies Act a definition of medium sized businesses which is businesses which have a turnover of £36 million or less, so £36 million or more is large businesses. And the rationale is that large businesses will have the commercial clout to push this issue down through their supply chains by requiring their suppliers to provide information about what they’re doing in relation to modern slavery.

http://www.lawcolmedia.com

CYBER SECURITY FOR LAW FIRMS

Recently we were lucky enough to have Steve Wilmott, Director of Intelligence and Investigations at the Solicitors Regulation Authority in the studio to discuss cyber security matters as part of our upcoming Practice Management & Compliance channel programme, ‘Cyber Security for Law Firms’.  Here is an exert from that forthcoming interview:

Interviewer: Why might law firms be targeted for cyber security attacks and what parts of the firm are particularly vulnerable?

Steve Wilmott: Well, law firms are very reliant on information and they use that information to simply move clients’ money from one account to another, whether it be to a client or whether it be to another law firm, for example, if there was a conveyance in a house purchase.  And they rely on that information to have the right bank account and the right details so that an individual or a firm receives the money when they should.  Now what we’ve seen in relation to phishing, and we call it – and another terminology is e-mail diversion, is within the course of that transaction a firm may receive an e-mail very late in the transaction to say we are the corresponding firm, we’ve just changed our banking details, don’t send the money to our usual account, this is our new account, please send it there.  Law firms are hugely attractive to criminals and organised crime, and the main reason is they hold huge amounts of money in their client accounts, sometimes many, many millions of pounds.  Only two years ago the Financial Action Task Force – when they undertook a money laundering evaluation of law firms internationally – said the same, that law firms are hugely attractive to organised crime for that very reason.

Interviewer: Attacks and breaches can come from different sources, so what are the main categories that these fall under?

Steve Wilmott: Well, the one that we’re seeing by far is criminal attacks, and they’re simply designed to obtain money criminally, through a criminal act, from solicitors’ firms.  We get one or two where it may well be a disgruntled employee and that usually involves a destruction of data, destruction of information, which can have an effect on a law firm, but the principal one is trying to obtain money from law firms through a criminal act.

Interviewer: And in what ways do a law firm’s own employees present a risk to cyber security?

Steve Wilmott: Well, all law firms should have practices and procedures in place to make sure that the person they are speaking to is genuine, and that they keep their passwords, in particular, secure. If they receive, for example, instructions to send money to another bank account via e-mail or the internet then it’s very wise to make sure that there is a policy in place to ensure the veracity of that change by making further inquiries and not just relying on the initial contact.  What we’ve also found as well is that clients of law firms are receiving information from criminals, for example, they’re just about to pay a deposit on a house, or Stamp Duty to a solicitor, and what we found there is that they’ve also received similar e-mails and those e-mails have said we are your solicitor, we’re just about to receive money from you, but we’ve just changed our bank account, please send it to this account.  It’s still the same law firm, but it’s another bank account, and of course that bank account is operated by criminals, and substantial amounts of money have been stolen direct from clients in that respect rather than law firms.

Interviewer: So if a solicitor or a law firm thinks they’ve been the subject of an attack what’s the best thing for them to do?

Steve Wilmott: If you think you’re under attack and whether this be by e-mail or by telephone contact then immediately stop the contact. If it’s a telephone call then stop that telephone call.  Do not use the telephone that you are using, so do not use any numbers to call that have been given by the individual that has contacted you.  So terminate the call and use another telephone, and use trusted contacts that you can call to try to ensure the veracity of that original call.  Now they can be very clever, sometimes the telephone screen that identifies the caller, the criminals can manipulate that so that it looks as if it is from a genuine bank, so ignore that.  Also ignore any other call, telephone numbers, other than the ones that you know and trust. But the main thing is if you have any form of concern whatsoever then you must terminate that transaction and seek independent means of establishing the veracity of that contact.  The second thing is if you have been the subject of a fraud then immediately contact the police, your insurer and your bank, importantly, and the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, all of which can help you in various means to assisting in trying to establish, one, who’s done this, two, what the impact on that business will be and, thirdly, trying to recover some of the money that may have been taken.  Perhaps, the three most important things is security software, keeping passwords safe and also, actually, making sure that your banking details are as secure as can be.

A big thanks to Steve for giving up his time to come and speak to us on this important subject.  Until next time…

http://www.lawcolmedia.com

SEXISM IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION

It all started with a comment on a LinkedIn profile, and from that acorn, mighty oak trees seemingly started to grow.

On 8th September, Charlotte Proudman, associate tenant barrister at Mansfield Chambers, named Alexander Carter-Silk, senior partner of Brown Rudnick LLP, as someone who had sent her a message on business-oriented social networking site LinkedIn, which she deemed to be inappropriate.  The message, titled ‘PICTURE’ read:

“Charlotte, delighted to connect, I appreciate that this is probably horrendously politically incorrect, but that is a stunning picture !!!

You definitely win the prize for the best Linked in picture I have ever seen

Always interest [sic] to understant [sic] people’s skills and how we might work together

Alex”

Ms Proudman replied:

“Alex

I find your message offensive.  I am on linked-in for business purposes and not to be approached about my physical appearance or to be objectified by sexist men.  The eroticisation of women’s physical appearance is a way of exercising power over women.  It silences women’s professional attributes as their physical appearance becomes the subject.

Unacceptable and misogynistic behaviour.  Think twice before sending another woman (half your age) such a sexist message.

Charlotte”

Seeking an apology from Mr Carter-Silk, Ms Proudman also said she had contacted the CEO of Brown Rudnick LLP to complain, and would also be referring the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.  Mr Carter-Silk commented “Most people post pretty unprofessional photos on Linked in, my comment was aimed at the professional quality of the presentation on linked in which was unfortunately misinterpreted.”

The internet then virtually exploded with people expressing their views, with some calling Ms Proudman’s retort ageist, and her “a twit“, “a silly little lady with an exaggerated sense of self-regard“, a “jumped up feminist” and “a stupid immature female“, and others calling Mr Carter-Silk “a twit“, “a sexist pig from another era“, “inappropriate“, and “a fool“.  And so the argument continued between those on either side of the debate.

And then, just as we thought the whole issue was about to cool, Lord Sumption gave an interview in the Evening Standard in which he said that rushing to achieve equal representation for women at the top of the legal profession could inflict “appalling consequences” on the quality of British justice.  He said that to avoid inflicting damage, those wanting equality would have to be wait, stating:

“It takes time.  You’ve got to be patient…We have got to be very careful not to do things at a speed which will make male candidates feel that the cards are stacked against them.  If we do that we will find that male candidates do not apply in the right numbers.”  He continued “The Bar and the solicitors’ profession are incredibly demanding in the hours of work and the working conditions are frankly appalling.  There are more women than men who are not prepared to put up with that.  As a lifestyle choice, it’s very hard to quarrel with it, but you have to face the consequence which is that the top of the legal profession has fewer women in it than the profession does overall.”

Comments such as these in the interview piece led to Ms Proudman writing an article expressing her concern at the comments:

“His comments encapsulate his deepest fears that power vested in the old boys’ network could come under siege“.  Shadow Justice Secretary and former lord chancellor Lord Falconer also commented that hearing “such comments from one of our senior judges is deeply worrying, not least because the record on diversity is already poor.”

So let’s take solicitors as an example.  As at 2013, 51.4% of solicitors were male, and 48.6% female.  The overall proportion of female court judges is just over 25%.  It therefore seems that female solicitors in the legal profession are willing to put up with the “incredibly demanding” hours of work and the “frankly appalling” working conditions, but even worse, they are then not being given the opportunity to reach the highest potential of those careers.  Which raises the question, how patient do women have to be, Lord Sumption?

Until next time…