Data-driven products and services are often marketed with the potential to save users time and money or even lead to better health and well-being. Still, large shares of U.S. adults are not convinced they benefit from this system of widespread data gathering. Some 81% of the public say that the potential risks they face because of data collection by companies outweigh the benefits, and 66% say the same about government data collection. At the same time, a majority of Americans report being concerned about the way their data is being used by companies (79%) or the government (64%). Most also feel they have little or no control over how these entities use their personal information, according to a new survey of U.S. adults by Pew Research Center that explores how Americans feel about the state of privacy in the nation.
Episode 1: Tracking privacy from a risk standpoint
Risks vs. rewards of data collection and profiling: 81% of Americans think the potential risks of data collection by companies about them outweigh the benefits, and 66% say the same about government data collection about them. Relatedly, 72% of adults say they personally benefit very little or none from company data collection about them, and 76% say this about the benefits they might get from government data collection.
There are some differences by age on some privacy issues: People in different age groups have varying views on some key privacy and surveillance issues. Americans ages 65 and older are less likely than those ages 18 to 29 to feel they have control over who can access things like their physical location, purchases made both online and offline and their private conversations. At the same time, older Americans are less likely to think they benefit from data collection: Just 17% of those 65 and older believing they benefit from the data government collects about them, and only 19% think the same about data collected by companies.
There are differences by race and ethnicity on some privacy issues: Black Americans are more likely than white Americans to say they believe the government is tracking all or most of what they do online or on their cellphone (60% vs. 43%). Similar gaps are present in views about offline activities: 47% of black adults think all or most of their offline activities are tracked by the government, compared with just 19% of white adults.
Today, providers are using clinical applications such as computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems, electronic health records (EHR), and radiology, pharmacy, and laboratory systems. Health plans are providing access to claims and care management, as well as member self-service applications. While this means that the medical workforce can be more mobile and efficient (i.e., physicians can check patient records and test results from wherever they are), the rise in the adoption rate of these technologies increases the potential security risks.
A major goal of the Security Rule is to protect the privacy of individuals' health information while allowing covered entities to adopt new technologies to improve the quality and efficiency of patient care. Given that the health care marketplace is diverse, the Security Rule is designed to be flexible and scalable so a covered entity can implement policies, procedures, and technologies that are appropriate for the entity's particular size, organizational structure, and risks to consumers' e-PHI.
For companies, the GDPR requires meaningful changes in the way they collect, store, share, and delete data. Failure to comply could result in steep fines, potentially costing a company up to 4 percent of its global revenue. One company incurred a fine of $180 million for a data breach that included log-in and payment information for nearly 400,000 people. 1 1. The fine was imposed by the Information Commissions Office, the British data regulator, and is currently under regulatory process review. Another was fined $57 million for failure to comply with GDPR. A side effect of this regulation is an increased awareness among consumers of their data-privacy rights and protections. About six in ten consumers in Europe now realize that rules regulate the use of their data within their own countries, an increase from only four in ten in 2015.
Another difficult aspect of privacy regulation has to do with the deletion and porting of data: regulations allow consumers to request that their data be deleted or that enterprises provide user data to individual consumers or other services. For many companies, these tasks are technically challenging. Corporate data sets are often fragmented across varied IT infrastructure, making it difficult to recover all information on individual consumers. Some data, furthermore, may be located outside the enterprise, in affiliate or third-party networks. For these reasons, companies can struggle to identify all data from all sources for transfer or deletion.
Evaluate the volume and types of subcontracted activities and the subcontractors' geographic locations. Evaluate the third party's ability to assess, monitor, and mitigate risks from its use of subcontractors and to ensure that the same level of quality and controls exists no matter where the subcontractors' operations reside. Evaluate whether additional concentration-related risks may arise from the third party's reliance on subcontractors and, if necessary, conduct similar due diligence on the third party's critical subcontractors.
Ensure that the contract establishes the bank's right to audit, monitor performance, and require remediation when issues are identified. Generally, a third-party contract should include provisions for periodic independent internal or external audits of the third party, and relevant subcontractors, at intervals and scopes consistent with the bank's in-house functions to monitor performance with the contract. A bank should include in the contract the types and frequency of audit reports the bank is entitled to receive from the third party (e.g., financial, SSAE 16, SOC 1, SOC 2, and SOC 3 reports, and security reviews). Consider whether to accept audits conducted by the third party's internal or external auditors. Reserve the bank's right to conduct its own audits of the third party's activities or to engage an independent party to perform such audits. Audit reports should include a review of the third party's risk management and internal control environment as it relates to the activities involved and of the third party's information security program and disaster recovery and business continuity plans.
Prohibit the third party and its subcontractors from using or disclosing the bank's information, except as necessary to provide the contracted activities or comply with legal requirements. If the third party receives bank customers' personally identifiable information, the contract should ensure that the third party implements and maintains appropriate security measures to comply with privacy regulations and regulatory guidelines. Specify when and how the third party will disclose, in a timely manner, information security breaches that have resulted in unauthorized intrusions or access that may materially affect the bank or its customers. Stipulate that intrusion notifications include estimates of the effects on the bank and specify corrective action to be taken by the third party. Address the powers of each party to change security and risk management procedures and requirements, and resolve any confidentiality and integrity issues arising out of shared use of facilities owned by the third party. Stipulate whether and how often the bank and the third party will jointly practice incident management plans involving unauthorized intrusions or other breaches in confidentiality and integrity.
Include in contracts with foreign-based third parties choice-of-law covenants and jurisdictional covenants that provide for adjudication of all disputes between the parties under the laws of a single, specific jurisdiction. Understand that such contracts and covenants may be subject, however, to the interpretation of foreign courts relying on local laws. Foreign courts and laws may differ substantially from U.S. courts and laws in the application and enforcement of choice-of-law covenants, requirements on banks, protection of privacy of customer information, and the types of information that the third party or foreign governmental entities will provide upon request. Therefore, seek legal advice to ensure the enforceability of all aspects of a proposed contract with a foreign-based third party and other legal ramifications of each such arrangement.
The OCC expects the bank's ongoing monitoring of third-party relationships to cover the due diligence activities discussed earlier. Because both the level and types of risks may change over the lifetime of third-party relationships, a bank should ensure that its ongoing monitoring adapts accordingly. This monitoring may result in changes to the frequency and types of required reports from the third party, including service-level agreement performance reports, audit reports, and control testing results. In addition to ongoing review of third-party reports, some key areas of consideration for ongoing monitoring may include assessing changes to the third party's
Bank employees who directly manage third-party relationships should escalate to senior management significant issues or concerns arising from ongoing monitoring, such as an increase in risk, material weaknesses and repeat audit findings, deterioration in financial condition, security breaches, data loss, service or system interruptions, or compliance lapses. Additionally, management should ensure that the bank's controls to manage risks from third-party relationships are tested regularly, particularly where critical activities are involved. Based on the results of the ongoing monitoring and internal control testing, management should respond to issues when identified including escalating significant issues to the board. 2ff7e9595c
Comments