An important role of the computer security profession invol ✓ Solved

Question One: An important role of the computer security profession involves efforts to uphold policy and training. What does the Supreme Court of Canada say about the role that an organization’s computer use policy and practices may play in the assessment of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a work laptop computer where employees are permitted to use the laptop computer for personal matters? What do you recommend to an organization should be done to address this situation?

Question Two: You are the IT systems security manager of the organization. Your organization is based in Edmonton but does share some employee data with a benefits service provider in Toronto. A breach has occurred affecting both customers and employee information held by your organization. Some of your customers are in the United States and some are in Europe. Discuss and contrast your organization’s obligations to report a breach under Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) and under the Personal Information Protection Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Discuss the circumstances when the company is subject to report a breach under each of these laws and the variables that should be considered in making the assessment. Discuss other applicable considerations in this case.

Paper For Above Instructions

The role of computer security professionals is increasingly vital in today’s digital age where organizations face numerous cybersecurity threats. This role includes ensuring the development, implementation, and enforcement of effective computer use policies that also uphold training and awareness efforts. In the context of Canadian law, particularly regarding privacy expectations, the Supreme Court of Canada has provided guidance that emphasizes the significance of an organization’s computer use policy.

In the landmark case, R v. Cole, the Supreme Court of Canada deliberated on whether employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in workplace equipment, specifically in this case, a work laptop. The Court concluded that while employees have a degree of privacy in their work laptops—especially when they are allowed to use these laptops for personal matters—this expectation is contingent upon the organization’s policies regarding computer use. The Supreme Court noted that if an employer has a clear policy that specifies monitoring or inspection of employee devices, it could diminish the employees’ reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus, organizations need to create explicit and accessible computer use policies that inform employees about their privacy rights and any monitoring practices that they may be subject to.

To address this situation, organizations should first evaluate their computer use policies. They need to ensure that these policies are well-documented, communicated, and understood by all employees. It is recommended that organizations provide training sessions to inform employees about their rights, expected behavior when using company devices, and the implications of misuse. Furthermore, policies should include clear guidelines on the extent of permissible personal use and the organization’s right to monitor activity. With such policies in place, employers can clarify privacy expectations and potentially mitigate risks associated with unauthorized access to personal information.

In the second question, concerning the obligations to report a data breach, it is essential to differentiate Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) and the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Both acts focus on the protection of personal information in the hands of organizations but with some notable differences especially regarding breach reporting.

PIPA governs how private sector organizations in Alberta collect, use, and disclose personal information. Under PIPA, organizations are required to notify individuals if their personal information is compromised in a breach and if there is a real risk of significant harm resulting from that breach. This reporting obligation is contingent upon the assessment of risk related to the breach, including factors such as the sensitivity of the compromised data and the likelihood of exposure (Alberta Legislative Assembly, 2019). Organizations are expected to take timely actions to minimize harm, which includes notifying affected customers and reporting the incident to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta.

On the other hand, PIPEDA has a broader scope, covering personal information held by organizations across Canada, including federal jurisdictions. Under PIPEDA, organizations also have a responsibility to report breaches of security safeguards involving personal data. However, the definition of significant harm under PIPEDA is slightly more expansive, including physical harm, reputational harm, and emotional distress, making overall compliance and response more complex (Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2020).

When determining the assessment criteria for breach reporting under both laws, organizations must consider various factors. These include the type of data involved, the circumstances surrounding the breach, the potential impact on individuals, and whether any remedial actions can mitigate risks. In cases where sensitive customer data is leaked, such as in a breach affecting customers in both the United States and Europe, additional considerations arise regarding cross-border privacy regulations, including compliance with regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applicable in the European Union.

In addition to these obligations, organizations must also reflect on operational considerations such as internal incident response plans for effectively managing data breaches. Training staff on breach identification and response, as well as timely communication with affected parties, must be integral components of these strategies. Given the dual obligation under both PIPA and PIPEDA, organizations should ensure that their privacy management framework is robust enough to comply with both provincial and federal regulations.

In conclusion, the role of computer security professionals extends beyond mere enforcement of policies to encompass continuous training, awareness, and establishing a culture of privacy within organizations. Understanding the legal frameworks like PIPA and PIPEDA is imperative for creating effective incident response mechanisms and fulfilling compliance requirements. Organizations must take proactive measures to safeguard personal information while ensuring their policies are adaptative to the evolving digital landscape.

References

  • Alberta Legislative Assembly. (2019). Personal Information Protection Act. Retrieved from [URL]

  • Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. (2020). PIPEDA Breach of Security Safeguards Regulations. Retrieved from [URL]

  • R v. Cole, 2012 SCC 53. Retrieved from [URL]

  • General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). (2016). EU Regulation 2016/679.

  • Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta. (2021). Breaches & Responsibilities. Retrieved from [URL]

  • Canadian Cybersecurity Strategy. (2019). Government of Canada. Retrieved from [URL]

  • COMMISSIONER OF CANADA. (2020). Breach Notification: A Guide for Businesses. Retrieved from [URL]

  • Privacy by Design. (n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]

  • ISACA. (2019). Cybersecurity Fundamentals Study Guide. Retrieved from [URL]

  • Canadian Internet Registry Authority (CIRA). (2020). Canadian Cybersecurity Landscape Report. Retrieved from [URL]