Today, companies are looking for solutions that can archive inactive data from little used enterprise applications. Those applications can be decommissioned, saving the company the expense of keeping them running for little payback. But the question not addressed early enough in the project is what to do with all of the application’s legacy data – delete it or save it (and where). By migrating the legacy data to an intelligent archive, organizations can preserve the value of legacy application data, ensure regulatory compliance, and address any legal concerns.
On September 2, 2016, Archive360 and other industry leaders filed a motion to join Microsoft’s lawsuit against the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”),  challenging the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”). Aside from the business benefits of cloud computing, cost savings, efficiency, and protection against hackers, cloud computing has now provided law enforcement a new tool to conduct extensive and unannounced searches. The DOJ may obtain customer’s data, including e-mails, photos, and business documents, from third-party service providers such as Microsoft, Google, or Apple. Under the “gag order” portion of the law, the government can bar those providers from notifying their customers that the government has sought access to the customer’s electronic stored information.  Prior to the advent of cloud based computing, if the government wanted to search such records it had to serve a warrant on the business thereby notifying them that their data was the subject of a search. Businesses could then challenge the subpoena or limit the extent of the documents sought; these procedural safeguards are lost if a business does not know its data is being delivered and reviewed.
Companies that transmit data from Europe to the US have become vulnerable to unexpected financial costs from EU members. Brexit may be the most visible headline from the EU but a lesser-known threat poses more of a compliance concern. We reported last Fall about the potential fallout expected after the EU’s decision in the Schrems case invalidating the Safe Harbor Agreement and what US companies could expect were they not to change course before the EU’s January 2016 deadline. [i] Specifically, our concern was that an individual EU member State could impose its own rules and fine companies in the absence of a common plan subjecting US companies to potentially 28 different sets of privacy rules. Germany has now fired the first shot in this new privacy skirmish.
The United States and the global technology community are engaged in a fight over national security and privacy, with national security winning the last round against Apple. On February 16, 2016, a United States federal judge directed Apple to assist the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) by creating software to operate as a “back door” to bypass its own encryption protections on the ubiquitous iPhone. In a case involving the FBI’s investigation of a tragic shooting in California, Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, quickly issued a public rebuke of the Order. Citing Apple’s concerns that the tool they have been ordered to create is a ”key to an encrypted system…that unlocks the data, and…[O]nce the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes.”
Topics: Data Privacy