United States: The Cybersecurity Debate: Voluntary Versus Mandatory Cooperation Between the Private Sector and the Federal Government

Cyber attacks and security breaches have become an increasingly significant risk of doing business. During the first quarter of 2013, numerous social media sites and iconic news media outlets, including Facebook, Twitter, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, announced incidents of targeted cyber attacks that put the privacy of their customers at risk. [1] Criminal groups have learned that there is money to be had in the "profession" of cyber hacking. Cybercrime is now a multimillion-dollar industry serving those interested in buying and selling stolen personal data. [2] The impact on businesses is staggering: In 2012, cybercrimes cost U.S. companies an average of $8.9 million. [3] When factoring in, among other things, cybersecurity insurance, lost business opportunities, lawsuits, and mitigating adverse publicity, costs can quickly accrue. As a result, some companies have also seen the merits of enlisting well-intentioned hackers to identify system vulnerabilities. In 2012, Google announced that it was willing to pay up to $1 million in rewards to those who were able to hack its Google Chrome browser. [4] The well-known search engine explained that it wanted to test Google Chrome's strength against cybercrime and identify any existing security flaws that could be fixed. [5]

An absence of federal legislation and cybersecurity infrastructure has forced companies like Google to resort to such unusual measures in the war against cyber attacks and cybercrime. While most companies understand that their value is oftentimes tied to how well they keep consumers' information secure, they have, for years, been awaiting Congress' action in implementing heightened private sector/public sector cooperation and even cybersecurity regulation—that will not leave them bankrupt in the process. For the past several years, Congress has been unsuccessful in its attempts to adopt cybersecurity legislation that appeases both the corporate community and civil liberty groups. A heated debate has arisen concerning the best ways to regulate cybersecurity. While companies welcome input from the government about cybersecurity issues and efforts to combat cybercrime, they cringe at the notion of reporting obligations and mandates that require them to purge personal user information before sharing data concerning cybercrime threats with government entities. Instead, companies are demanding immunity from civil suits stemming from the disclosure of personal information during mandatory information sharing. Business owners are also weary of government involvement in the creation and implementation of business practices. On the other side of the debate lie technology-focused lobbying groups that dislike the promotion of information sharing without the burden of first cleansing data of all personal user information. They also reject the idea of an internet "kill switch" that would give government the power to shut down the internet in the event of a national emergency.

For years, Congress has failed to resolve the mandatory regulation versus voluntary cooperation debate. As a result, the business community has been left with the responsibility of protecting sensitive consumer data without governmental support or direction. Many believe 2013 will be the year of passage of the first cybersecurity law. This White Paper provides a review of failed prior legislative efforts, starting first with the Cybersecurity Act of 2010. This White Paper also provides a review of the Obama administration's approach to cybersecurity without legislation, namely: the Obama administration's Executive Order on cybersecurity and the measures it is taking to share governmental information about cyber threats with the corporate community.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2010

In April 2009, Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller IV introduced the Cybersecurity Act of 2010. Senators Evan Bayh, Barbara Mikulski, Bill Nelson, and Olympia Snowe cosponsored the bill. [6] Senator Snowe was the only Republican among the bill's sponsors. The fairly expansive and comprehensive legislation focused on creating guidelines and regulations for cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors. [7] The proposed legislation placed significant reporting and compliance requirements on public companies and authorized the President to initiate rulemaking for "critical infrastructure information systems"—information systems considered so vital to the United States that their debilitation or destruction would have crippling effects on the nation's safety and security. [8] Further, the bill charged the President to design a comprehensive national cybersecurity emergency plan. [9] The proposed bill gave the President power to employ what would be known as an internet "kill switch" as part of the mandated cybersecurity emergency plan. [10] This "kill switch" would allow the President to shut down certain portions of the internet in cases of national emergency. [11]

The notion of the internet "kill switch" stirred opposition against the bill, creating concerns that it gave the President too much discretionary power and infringed on civil liberties. [12] Critics also argued that the bill required an unwarranted increase in government spending and contained a number of measures that were both disruptive and detrimental for the cybersecurity industry. [13] The reporting and compliance requirements on the private sector were also feared to have the same effect as the "security frameworks" provision in Sarbanes-Oxley, which burdened publicly traded companies with extensive documentation and expenses related to ensuring compliance. [14] As a result of these reporting requirements, the private sector believed it was being overregulated and underfunded. In the end, the bill never received widespread support and ultimately died in the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. [15]

The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010

On June 10, 2010, Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut introduced the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010. [16] The bill was cosponsored by Democratic Senator Thomas Carper and Republican Senator Susan Collins. [17] The proposed legislation again directed the President to create a cybersecurity emergency plan that included the authority to seize control of, or even shut down, portions of the internet. [18] In an effort to allay fears that the bill provided the same controversial discretionary power for a presidential "kill switch" as that described in the Cybersecurity Act of 2010, Senators Lieberman and Collins issued a press release stressing that the bill only affected critical infrastructures—not the entire scope of the internet. [19] The press release failed to subdue critics' concerns, who warned that the bill created the potential for absolute power. [20]

The proposed legislation also required private companies, like broadband providers, search engines, and software firms, to comply with any emergency measures established by the Department of Homeland Security. Failure to comply meant facing hefty fines. [21] In addition, the new bill called for improvement to the nation's cybersecurity framework by establishing national committees on cybersecurity. [22] It also directed the President to appoint a single director of cybersecurity to oversee infrastructure implementation and national policy. [23]

What most differentiated this bill from its predecessor was its focus on business protections. The bill granted companies immunity from civil suits when they could show that a federal regulation or command caused a programming error that resulted in damage to customers. [24] Companies would also receive indemnification from the federal government when the harm caused to customers was the result of a federal emergency order. [25]

This time, the need for greater regulation in the private sector contributed to the bill's failure. In an effort to avoid the backlash against the reporting requirements contained in the Cybersecurity Act of 2010, the new bill shifted much of the burden from the private sector to the public sector by creating regulations and requirements that affected only the federal government. [26] While the bill tried to alleviate the financial burdens that would be placed on private industry, it was then criticized for leaving the private sector underregulated. Critics again attacked Congress for its failure to find a "sweet spot" between the business community and privacy interests.

Critics, including the nation's largest technology-focused lobbying group, were also focused on the possibility of another internet "kill switch." [27] Despite receiving bipartisan support from Democratic Representative Jay Rockefeller and Republican Representative Olympia Snowe, the bill failed to gain widespread support. [28]

International Cybercrime Reporting and Cooperation Act

The International Cybercrime Reporting and Cooperation Act was introduced by Democratic New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in August 2011. [29] Gillibrand's proposed legislation focused on cybersecurity efforts overseas as it addressed multilateral efforts to prevent and investigate cybercrime on an international level. [30] The bill required the President to provide an annual presidential report to Congress that discussed foreign countries' use of information and communications technologies ("ICT") and their responses to cybercrime on a domestic and international level. [31] The bill also promoted foreign assistance to potential cybercrime havens by requiring the President to develop programs designed to combat cybercrime abroad in countries with low ICT levels. [32] Further, the bill directed the President to identify countries of cyber concern and impose restrictions on those countries that failed to comply with appropriate benchmarks. [33]

The internationally focused bill was referred to various subcommittees, including Foreign Affairs, Ways and Means, and Financial Services, but it ultimately fell victim to subcommittee debate and, like other attempts at cybersecurity regulation, never moved past the committee stage. [34]

The Cybersecurity Act of 2012


On February 14, 2012, Independent Senator Joe Lieberman made yet another attempt at cybersecurity legislation through the introduction of the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. [35] Republican Senator Susan Collins and Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein, John Rockefeller, and Sheldon Whitehouse were cosponsors. [36] Unlike its predecessors, the bill's directives were aimed at federal agencies, instead of the President. The bill also aimed to protect critical U.S. infrastructure through joint collaboration between the government and the private sector. [37]

The proposed legislation directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to consult with owners of critical infrastructure and formulate an action plan to protect the nation's critical systems. [38] The bill also asked federal agencies to adopt best practices that would motivate employees to demonstrate leadership in cybersecurity. [39] Further, it required the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate with private sector and academic experts to develop risk management strategies. [40] The expansive legislation also touched on education programming. The bill required the development of new education and recruitment programs and directed the Secretary of Education to develop curriculum standards to include cybersecurity issues from elementary school through higher education. [41]

The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 encountered strong opposition from Republican senators, including Senator John McCain, who sided with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. [42] Opponents largely consisted of business leaders, who argued that the bill's regulations intruded into private business operations, thereby increasing private sector costs. [43] While businesses believed the bill gave the government too much power in regulating their own security, supporters of the bill contended that there could be no guarantees that companies would self-regulate if left to their own devices. [44] Republicans promptly initiated a filibuster in the Senate, and thus there was never a final vote on the measure. [45]

President Obama's Executive Order: "Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity"

Frustrated with Congress' lack of progress in adopting cybersecurity legislation, President Obama identified cybersecurity among the top issues to address in his second-term agenda. [46] On February 12, President Obama issued an Executive Order titled "Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity." [47] The Executive Order was signed just hours before the President's State of the Union Address, in which he again highlighted the need for a cybersecurity framework.

The Executive Order dramatically broadened existing information sharing programs, making it easier for private companies in control of the nation's critical infrastructure to share information about cyber attacks with the government.

Section 9(a) of the Executive Order provides that within 150 days, i.e., by July 12, the Secretary of Homeland Security "shall use risk-based approach to identify critical infrastructure where a cybersecurity incident could reasonably result in catastrophic regional or national effects on public health or safety, e-commerce security, or national security." The Section includes a carve-out for "commercial information technology services." Section 9(e) provides that the Secretary is to notify confidentially the owners and operators of critical infrastructure of their designation as such and shall provide to them the basis for that determination. The owner and operators may request reconsideration.

Section 2 of the Executive Order defines the key term "Critical Infrastructure" as "systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters." Debates have already broken out and lobbying commenced regarding which firms will be found to provide "critical infrastructure" and which firms will be exempt "commercial information technology service" providers. For example, telecommunication service providers such as AT&T and Verizon have questioned why firms that provide digital services—such as Google, Apple, and Microsoft—should be exempted. [48] Marcus Sachs, Vice President of National Security Policy for Verizon, argues that email is "critical infrastructure": "If email went away this afternoon, we would all come to a stop. Hell yeah, email is critical." [49] Others add that it is not realistic to expect to protect telecommunications "critical infrastructure" unless information technology products that use telecommunications networks are also considered because hackers will naturally attack the weakest link in any network.

Section 7 provides that the Secretary of Commerce shall direct the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to lead the development of a framework to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure (the "Cybersecurity Framework"). The Director is ordered to publish a preliminary version of the Cybersecurity Framework within 240 days,i.e., by September 30. The final version is due within one year,i.e., by February 12, 2014.

Section 8 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a "voluntary program" to support the adoption of the Cybersecurity Framework by owners and operators of critical infrastructure and other interested parties. In particular, Section 8(d) directs the Secretary to "coordinate establishment of a set of incentives designed to promote participation in the program." Section 8(e) provides that the Secretary of Defense and Administrator of General Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, shall make recommendations to the President and others "on the feasibility, security benefits and relative merits of incorporating security standards, into acquisition planning and contract administration."

Under Section 10(a), within 90 days of publication of the preliminary Cybersecurity Framework, i.e., by December 29, various federal agencies are directed to issue a report to the President "that states whether or not the agency has clear authority to establish requirements based upon the Cybersecurity Framework to sufficiently address current and projected cyber risks to critical infrastructure, the existing authorities identified, and any additional authority required." Under Section 10(b), if current regulatory requirements are deemed insufficient, then within 90 days of the publication of the final Cybersecurity Framework, i.e., by May 13, 2014, the agencies are directed to propose risk-based, efficient and coordinated actions to mitigate cyber risks. Under Section 10(c), within two years after the publication of the final Cybersecurity Framework, the agencies are directed, "in consultation with owners and operators of critical infrastructure, [to] report to CMB or any critical infrastructure subject to ineffective, conflicting or excessively burdensome cybersecurity requirements."

In an effort to address the fact that Executive Orders generally lack any actual legal enforcement, President Obama offered incentives to companies to voluntarily adopt the standards initiated under the Cybersecurity Framework. [50] Despite this work-around, critics argued that the Executive Order failed to provide companies with sufficient protections that would induce any voluntary cooperation. [51] Private companies willing to participate faced a significant risk: Information sharing with the government could lead to additional liabilities and lawsuits because the data that would be given to the federal government could include private information from customers. As a result, critics questioned whether companies will participate without additional protections and safeguards, such as legal immunity from civil suits. [52] Regardless, analysts predicted that the President's Executive Order would serve as the starting point for congressional action on meaningful cybersecurity legislation. [53]

CISPA

On February 12—the very same day that President Obama issued his Executive Order on cybersecurity—Republican Representative Mike Rogers and Democratic Representative Dutch Ruppersberger introduced the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act ("CISPA"). [54] The proposed bill required the Director of National Intelligence to establish procedures that would allow the federal government, including the intelligence community, to share cyber threat information with the private sector. [55] Upon receipt of such information, private entities would thereafter be prohibited from further disclosure of the cyber threat information to third parties. [56] The bill also allowed companies to pass user information to the federal government and absolved private sector firms of the responsibility or requirement to remove personal information before sharing it with the government. [57] Further, CISPA provided broad legal immunity to companies that collected and shared inaccurate cyber threat information, as long as they were able to prove that the information was provided in good faith. [58]

Allowing companies to pass unsanitized user information to the government, however, stirred significant outcry from civil liberty groups, which argued that the bill could lead to significant violations of privacy rights. [59] The broad grant of immunity to cooperating companies also initiated opposition from the White House. [60] The administration argued that the scope of liability protections granted to businesses was too broad and that more targeted liability protections were needed. [61] On April 18, the House of Representatives passed CISPA with a vote of 288–127, despite strong opposition from privacy advocate groups and a veto threat from the White House. [62]

Currently, CISPA's future looks grim as it sits stalled in Senate subcommittee. Privacy rights lobbying groups and internet activists have come together in strong opposition of the bill, declaring a violation of privacy rights. [63] Outspoken Democratic senators, like Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, have vowed to fight the bill and prevent its passage. Understanding and accepting the bill's likely demise, both Senator Jay Rockefeller and Georgia Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss have decided to "start from scratch," and are working on new legislation aimed at bridging the gap between corporate interests and privacy rights. [64]

While legislators continue to search for the seemingly elusive balance between effective cybersecurity regulation, business interests, and privacy protections, businesses are left to fend off cybercrimes on their own. As cybercrimes increase, businesses will be forced to focus their attention and resources on collateral business obligations, rather than the promotion of their respective services and products. Google illustrates one of the most innovative ways in which to engage the battle against cybercrime, and it also underscores the importance of cybersecurity. In an effort to avoid the unwanted costs and distractions associated with data breaches, businesses must now make it a priority to be vigilant in their efforts to combat cybercrime. The first steps in establishing proper cyber protections should begin with conducting risk assessments to identify system vulnerabilities. Identifying internal weaknesses will assist businesses in establishing internal policies and protections that will strengthen their security measures and fortify their data.

Further attempts at passing cybersecurity legislation are expected for the remainder of 2013. In order to successfully do so, Congress will need to offer substantive guidance to those businesses seeking ways to improve their cybersecurity without overstepping in internal business management and day-to-day operations. Further, it will need to find equilibrium between business interests and privacy protections. Until effective cybersecurity legislation comes to fruition, businesses must understand that it is up to them to protect their consumers, and their ultimate bottom line.

Banking Regulators Urge Banks to Take Action

U.S. regulators are not waiting on Congress to take action to combat cyber attacks. For example, federal officials and the banking industry are preparing for a major cyber "war game" exercise titled "Quantum Dawn 2" involving banking regulators, the Department of Homeland Security, and major banks and securities firms represented by the Securities Industry and Financial Management Association. [65] Moreover, Treasury Department officials and other officials have been conducting classified and nonclassified briefings with bank officials. [66] Finally, federal financial regulators are advising bank executives to change the way they think about cyber attacks and to consider them as they do more traditional risks, such as credit and interest rate risk, when they make strategy decisions. Taking it a step further, federal regulators are telling banks that they will be judged on their preparations against cyber attacks when regulators evaluate their operational risks. [67]

Conclusion

The advice and warnings that federal financial regulators are now providing to bank executives should be heeded by all private sector firms. While the private sector should remain involved in congressional attempts to pass cybersecurity legislation, it should not wait on legislation to take action. The risks are simply too great.

Footnotes

[ 1] Joanna Stern, "Facebook Hacked; No User Data Compromised," ABC News, Feb. 15, 2013, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-hacked-month-user-datacompromised/story?id=18515870#.UYFVeKK-1Bk; Dan Milano, "250,000 Twitter Accounts Hacked: Don't Panic, Here's What to Do," ABC News, Feb. 1, 2013, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2013/02/250000-twitter-accounts-hacked-dont-panic-heres-what-to-do; Jethro Mullen, "New York Times, Wall Street Journal Say Chinese Hackers Broke into Computers," N.Y. Times, Jan. 31, 2013, http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/tech/china-nyt-hacking;Nicole Perlroth, "Wall Street JournalAnnounces That It, Too, Was Hacked by the Chinese," N.Y. Times, Jan. 31, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/technology/wall-street-journal-reports-attack-by-china-hackers.html?_r=0.

[2] David Goldman, "Cybercrime: A Secret Underground Economy," CNN Money, Sept. 17, 2009, http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/16/technology/cybercrime.

[3] 2012 Cost of Cyber Crime Study: United States (Ponemon Institute, Working Paper, October 2012) http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012_US_Cost_of_Cyber_Crime_Study_FINAL6%20.pdf.

[4] Andy Greenberg, "Google Will Offer $1 Million in Rewards for Hacking Chrome in Contest," Forbes, Feb. 28, 2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/02/28/google-will-offer-1-million-in-rewards-for-hacking-chrome-in-contest; see "The Digital Arms Race," The Economist, March 30, 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/business/21574478-market-software-helps-hackers-penetrate-computer-systems-digital-arms-trade.

[5] Greenberg, supra note 4.

[6] The Cybersecurity Act of 2010, S. 773, 111th Cong. (2010).

[7] Id.

[8] Id. §§ 3-4.

[9] Id. § 201(b).

[10] Id. § 18.

[11] Id.

[12] Jeremy A. Kaplan, "New Cybersecurity Act Eliminates Internet Kill Switch," FoxNews, Mar. 18, 2010, http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/03/18/obama-no-longer-internet-president/; see Jon Stokes, "President's Veto Power Over Internet Removed in Amended Bill," Ars Technica, March 22, 2010, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/presidents-veto-power-over-internet-removed-in-amended-bill.

[13] Richard Stiennon, "Rockefeller's Cybersecurity Act of 2010: A Very Bad Bill," Forbes, May 4, 2010, http://www.forbes.com/sites/firewall/2010/05/04/rockefellers-cybersecurity-act-of-2010-a-very-bad-bill.

[14] Id.

[15] See S. 773, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN00773:@@@L&summ2=m& (accessed March 26, 2013).

[16] Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, S. 3480, 111th Cong. (2010).

[17] Id.

[18] Bianca Bosker, "Internet 'Kill Switch' Would Give President Power to Shut Down the Web," The Huffington Post, June 17, 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/internet-kill-switch-woul_n_615923.html; Declan McCullagh, "Senators Propose Granting President Emergency Internet Power," CNET, June 10, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20007418-38.html.

[19] Press Release, United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, "Myth vs. Reality: The Facts About S. 3480," June 23, 2010, http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/01/Myth-v-Reality.pdf.

[20] See Bosker, supra note 18.

[21] Id; McCullagh, supra note 18.

[22] S. 3480, §§ 101-102.

[23] Id.

[24] Id. § 249.

[25] Id.

[26] See S. 3480.

[27] Bosker, supra note 18; see McCullagh, supra note 18.

[28] See McCullagh, supra note 18.

[29] The International Cybercrime Reporting and Cooperation Act, S. 1469, 112th Cong. (2011).

[30] Id.

[31] Id § 3.

[32] Id § 4.

[33] Id § 5.

[34] S. 1469 (112th): International Cybercrime Reporting and Cooperation Act Summary, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1469.

[35] The Cybersecurity Act of 2012, S. 2105, 112th Cong. (2012).

[36] Id.

[37] See id.

[38] Id. § 202. The bill defined "covered critical infrastructure" as systems or assets that, if damaged or accessed without authorization, could reasonably lead to the interruption of life-sustaining services sufficient to cause a mass casualty event with an extraordinary number of fatalities or mass evacuation with a prolonged absence, catastrophic economic damage to the United States, or severe degradation of national security. "Catastrophic economic damage" was defined to include the failure or substantial disruption of a U.S. financial market, transportation system, or other systematic, long-term damage to the U.S. economy. Commercial information technology products were excluded.

[39] Id. § 243.

[40] Id. § 601.

[41] Id. § 407(c)(2).

[42] Michael Schmidt, "Cybersecurity Bill is Blocked in Senate by G.O.P. Filibuster," N.Y. Times, August 2, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/us/politics/cybersecurity-bill-blocked-by-gop-filibuster.html?_r=0.

[43] Heather Kelly, "5 Big Tech Issues Await Obama in Second Term," CNN, Nov. 14, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/13/tech/innovation/obama-tech-policy.

[44] Id.

[45] Schmidt, supra note 42.

[46] See David Goldman, "President Obama Cracks Whip on Cybercrime," CNN, Feb. 12, 2013, http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/12/president-obama-cracks-whip-on-cybercrime/?iref=allsearch.

[47] Exec. Order No. 13,636, 78 Fed. Reg. 11,739 (Feb. 19, 2013).

[48] Eric Engleman, "National Security—Fighting An Order to Fight Cybercrime," Bloomberg Business Week, March 11-17, 2013, pp. 30-31.

[49] Id.

[50] Steve Holland, "Obama Signs Executive Order for Better Protection from Cyber Attacks," NBC News, Feb. 12, 2013, http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/obama-signs-executive-order-better-protection-cyber-attacks-1C8349540; Goldman, supra note 46.

[51] Goldman, supra note 46.

[52] See Id.

[53] Arik Hesseldahl, "Obama's Cybersecurity Order Aims for a Restart with Congress," All Things D Blog (Feb. 13, 2013, 7:26 PM), http://allthingsd.com/20130213/obamas-cybersecurity-order-aims-for-a-restart-with-congress.

[54] Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, H.R. 624, 113th Cong. (2013). This was not the first time CISPA was introduced to the House of Representatives. Both Representatives Rogers and Ruppersberger sponsored the bill the year before. CISPA originally died in 2012 after the Senate failed to approve the bill because of looming privacy concerns.

[55] Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, H.R. 624, 113th Cong. (2013) § 3(a)(1).

[56] Id. § 3(a)(5).

[57] Id. § 3; Jason Koebler, "Lawmakers to 'Start from Scratch' After CISPA Bill is Shelved," US News and World Report, April 26, 2013, www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/26/lawmakers-to-start-from-scratch-after-cispa-bill-is-shelved; Chenda Ngak, "As CISPA Cybersecurity Bill Passes House, Privacy Advocates Mobilize," CBS News, April 18, 2013, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57580334/as-cispa-cybersecurity-bill-passes-house-privacy-advocates-mobilize.

[58] Id. § 3(b)(3)(A); Koebler, supra note 57.

[59] Koebler, supra note 57.

[60] Id.

[61] Id.

[62] Ngak, supra note 57.

[63] Julian Sanchez, "CISPA is Dead. Now Let's Do a Cybersecurity Bill Right," Wired, April 26, 2013, http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/04/cispas-dead-now-lets-resurrect-it/; see Id; Koebler, supra note 57.

[64] Koebler, supra note 57.

[65] Michael R. Crittendon, "A Call to Arms for Banks—Regulators Intensify Push for Firms to Better Protect Against Cyber attacks," The Wall Street Journal, June 15-16, 2013, B1 and B2.

[66] Id.

[67] Id.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Mauricio F. Paez
Richard J. Johnson
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions