Photo of Kate M. Growley, CIPP/G, CIPP/US

Kate M. Growley is a counsel in the Washington, D.C. office of Crowell & Moring, where she is a member of the firm's Privacy & Cybersecurity, Government Contracts, and Litigation groups. Her practice covers a wide range of counseling and litigation engagements, including cybersecurity compliance reviews, risk assessments, incident response, law enforcement cooperation, regulatory investigations, data breach class actions, trade secrets litigation, and health care disputes.

Kate is a Certified Information Privacy Professional for both the U.S. private and government sectors (CIPP/US, CIPP/G) and has been named a “Rising Star” by both Law360 (2018) and the American Bar Association's Science & Technology Section (2016).

 

 

Security ratings firm BitSight recently released a report citing a gap in cybersecurity performance between the U.S. Government and contractors. 

The report was the result of a comparative security assessment between 1,212 randomly selected government contractors and 122 federal agencies. The assessment found that federal agencies were at least 15 points better than the mean

The Information Security Oversight Office (“ISOO”) within the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) recently issued guidance for all non-executive branch entities  (such as elements of the legislative or judicial branches of the Federal Government; state, tribal or local government elements; and private organizations including contractors) concerning controlled unclassified information (“CUI”).  Specifically, the ISOO  issued CUI Notice 2018-01, which provides CUI guidance regarding information sharing agreements with non-executive branch entities (herein “IS agreements”) that are not governed by the forthcoming CUI Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Clause.  Examples of applicable IS agreements include certain contracts, grants, licenses, memoranda of understanding, and information-sharing arrangements.  The ISOO guidance provides both mandatory and recommended language for inclusion in IS agreements:

Continue Reading

Less than two weeks after the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published a draft version of NIST SP 800-171A, Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information, on November 28, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) announced today that the comment period has been extended to January 15, 2018.  This gives interested

On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights announced a $400,000 settlement with Metro Community Provider Network arising from MCPN’s alleged failure to implement adequate security management processes to safeguard electronic protected health information in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Security Rule. This settlement followed

Last week, a federal court sentenced a former systems administrator convicted of accessing his former employer’s computer network and uploading malicious code designed to disrupt and damage the company’s manufacturing operations.

Brian P. Johnson worked for years as an information technology specialist and systems administrator at Georgia-Pacific’s Port Hudson, LA facility.  In February 2014, Georgia-Pacific

Last week, we highlighted our colleagues’ post in Crowell’s Trade Secrets Trends focusing on recent comments submitted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce regarding the need to stem the cyber theft of intellectual property.  Today, we once again turn to our sister blog to highlight an example of how that theft plays out in the

Earlier this month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce submitted comments in response to the National Institute of Standards & Technology’s request for information regarding cybersecurity and the digital economy. The Chamber’s comments focused on specifics such as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, but it also discussed more

The Second Circuit today issued a much-anticipated ruling holding that U.S. firms are not required to turn over user data stored overseas, even in the face of a government warrant.  This decision arose from Microsoft’s December 2014 appeal of a civil contempt ruling against the tech giant for refusing to turn over the personal data

The Panama Papers Leak – An overview on histories’ biggest data leak; Article 29 Working Party about to release opinion on EU-U.S. Privacy Shield; EU: GDPR and PCJ DPD about to be approved next week – final consolidated text published by Council; US: New HIPAA Audit Protocol Released as a Guidance Tool for phase two of Compliance Audits; U.S. Sneak News: Defend Trade Secrets Act, NPRM and Sony Settlement Approval. EU: GDPR, PCJ DPD and PNR Directive adoped by Parliament; U.S.: House Judiciary Committee approves E-Mail Privacy Act; Senate to require airlines to report cyberattacks; FTC issues online tool identifying applicable law for health apps; Global: Turkey releases first comprehensive Data Protection law; Connected cars found vulnerable for cyberattacks; Data Breaches May Waive Attorney-Client Privilege?; Encryption Continues to Dominate Privacy Headlines; Hospital Settles with HHS for $ 2.2 Million in HIPAA Action; Southern District of New York Adds Ransomware Conspirator to Hacking Case; European and Canadian Data Protection Authorities Investigate IoT Devices; Norway Requires Data Breach Notification for Individuals

The Panama Papers Leak – An overview on histories’ biggest data leak

On April 3, 2016, reports revealed that a set of 11.5 million confidential documents (“the Panama Papers”), providing detailed information about more than 200,000 offshore companies connected to Panamanian legal service provider Mossack Fonseca, had been made available to German Daily Newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung by an anonymous source in 2015.

The documents, which form part of the biggest data leak in history, reveal aspects on (potential) exploitations of offshore tax regimes and other illegal purposes, such as fraud or drug trafficking. Among the people concerned are not only big companies, but also twelve national leaders among 143 politicians, celebrities, government officials or other law firms. The Süddeutsche Zeitung, given the scope of the leak, involved the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and about 400 other journalists in 76 different countries to investigate and analyze the documents. ICIJ has promised to publish a full list of companies involved in early May 2016.

Mossack Fonseca, the leaked firm, defended its commercial conduct, stating that itself would always comply with applicable laws and carry out thorough due diligence on its clients. However, the leak will have a huge impact on the offshore business, as the biggest selling point of this business, secrecy, has been massively cracked.


Continue Reading