Today I published an updated and strengthened Privacy Policy on this website. The policy is one component of the considerable work required to prepare for the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – due to come into effect on May 25, 2018.

Initially fairly daunting for a small operator, I came to appreciate that the GDPR also presents an opportunity to build strong relationships and trust on the basis of a real commitment to the security, privacy and confidentiality of my clients and the users of my website and other channels.

Equal treatment for everyone

While the GDPR focuses on protecting the personal information of EU citizens, I strongly believe that data privacy is a right that belongs to you, wherever you are.

Given the fact that the GDPR is widely seen as the global gold standard for personal privacy – a standard that sits above (and in many cases, significantly above) those set in other countries and jurisdictions – means that you can expect me to apply equally the principles and rights associated with the regulation to everyone, everywhere.

OK, so what does this mean in practice?

The new Privacy Policy should give you a good idea what this means in terms of the day-to-day collection, management and use of your personal information, as well as your rights to access and control that information.

Behind the scenes, I have been reducing the amount of data I hold on my clients and others. For example, personal information about a client is now reduced to the bare minimum once a project has finished or a contract expired. In addition, personal information about all business contacts has been taken off the cloud and stored locally, encryption beefed up, and passwords strengthened and changed more regularly.

Much of my business comes from referrals, which means I do little or no direct or email marketing, online commerce, or online customer support. This may change as I continue to expand my business, and in all cases will involve me clearly telling you what information is being collected about you, why it is being collected, and who, if anyone, it may be shared with and for what reason.

Stay in touch

Protecting your personal privacy is not just about hitting a deadline – it is an ongoing process.

Stay tuned to this blog for further updates, and do send any feedback, comments or questions you have to privacy@charliepownall.com.

There has been much talk in the PR/communications industry about GDPR, mostly concerning marketing and media relations from a compliance perspective. There has also been considerable discussion in the legal and cybersecurity worlds about what GDPR means for data breach reporting.

By contrast, there has been relatively little guidance on how communicators should prepare to handle data breaches under the EU’s tough new regulatory regime. Given the volume of high-profile breaches, widespread anxiety about privacy, and low levels of trust in companies, it is essential that companies get their communications response right.

GDPR notification and communications grey areas

The GDPR ups the ante significantly. Article 29 requires the mandatory notification to customers (in addition to regulators) of a data breach, data loss, or data leak within 72 hours if it is seen to pose a ‘high risk’ to the rights and freedoms of individuals in terms of identity theft or fraud, financial loss, damage to reputation, discrimination, or emotional distress.

Despite clarification from the EU Article 29 working party in the form of Guidelines of Personal Data Breach Notification (pdf), some operational, legal – and reputational – grey areas exist, notably concerning:

  • Timing – what constitutes a ‘reasonable’ degree of certainty that a breach has occurred
  • Level of risk – how to define that a risk to individuals’ rights and freedoms is ‘high’
  • Loss of availability – whether a breach is temporary, or permanent.

These grey areas, outlined in more detail in the slides below, may cause companies to delay or even avoid the disclosure of a known breach.

 

How PRs should prepare for GDPR

Here are five steps for PR/communications teams to prepare for the likelihood of having to respond to a data breach under GDPR:

  1. Understand GDPR and notification requirements, grey areas and best practices
  2. Educate leadership, legal, IT, security and other stakeholders about customer and stakeholder privacy needs and expectations; cyber/data breach reputation trends, risks and impact; and the role of communications in data breach preparation and response
  3. Ensure PR/communications is represented on relevant cybersecurity committees and teams
  4. Develop/update your corporate data breach response and crisis communications plans by assessing and prioritising different types of data breach risks to your organisation, including the reputational risks to your organisation, and for the individuals impacted; and developing communications plans for different types of breach
  5. Test and update these plans regularly – specifically data breach protocols and processes; messaging and content; your digital/social media dialogue and feedback capabilities; and leadership decision-making and team dynamics.

UK Infomation Commissioner Elizabeth Denham says the ICO will be proportionate in how the ICO levies sanctions and fines. Nobody wants a fine, yet the long-term reputational impact can be far more onerous.

Are you ready for a data breach? Test your reputational defences with Charlie Pownall’s Data Breach Preparedness and Response advisory and training services.

The reaction to Marriott International’s listing of Tibet, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan as separate countries on a rewards club survey demonstrates the double-edged nature of visibility and success in China.

Marriott has built a tidy business in China and it’s speedy and wholesome apologies may have dampened the furore a little. However, legitimate questions remain as to how the company allowed such a basic error to happen in the first place (it was apparently a supplier fault).

Nikkei Asian Review asked for my thoughts on how foreign organisations operating in China should prepare for the risks that come with the territory – some of which have been tackled previously on this blog.

Here is Nikkei’s article.

And below is my full response to the journalist – whose questions have been edited for clarity.

Do you think foreign companies are becoming more vulnerable to political mistakes in China with the popularity of social media and rising nationalist sentiment?

Foreign companies operating in China have long been exposed to rumour-mongering and allegations of various types, from poor product safety and customer service to unfair pricing, corruption, sexual misconduct and threats to security.

Social media certainly fans the flames faster and makes these kinds of accusations inherently more emotive.

Yet most of these accusations have been – and remain – tacitly encouraged or directly started by Beijing, often through the mainstream media, which gives them a high level of credibility, not least at a time when the nationalist pot is being actively stirred.

Do you think these companies are aware of the political sensitivity of certain topics in China? What most common mistakes they made besides categorising Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau as countries? Can you give an example?

Most companies are aware of the many challenges of doing business in China and do their best not to cross political red lines such as Tibet, or to leave themselves open to accusations of discrimination against the Chinese people.

However, mistakes continue to be made.

Over-pricing and under-investment in customer service are common errors, leading foreign firms open to accusations of profiteering, ineptitude or arrogance.

And not instilling in foreign employees working in the country high standards of professional and personal behaviour can be a recipe for disaster – as Daimler discovered in 2016 when a senior executive was caught delivering a racist tirade against locals in a Beijing car park.

How can foreign companies doing business in China avoid political risks?

The huge size of China’s market, the unpredictability or Chinese consumers, and the opaque nature of much decision-making in the country means it is essential that companies operating in the country develop a close understanding of the local political, socio-economic, cultural and media context.

They must also proactively build relationships with the authorities and opinion-formers of different kinds.

China’s newfound significance on the world stage also poses risks. Like it or not, foreign companies need to appreciate that all their business activities – and not just those in China – are now more likely to be seen in a Chinese context, and that their foreignness will play out in any resultant incident or crisis in the country.

Accordingly, corporate governance at all levels must be increasingly sensitive to this new reality, and companies able to react quickly and appropriately when trouble happens.

A ruling that UK supermarket chain Morrisons is ‘vicariously’ liable for a payroll data leak of almost 100,000 staff by a disgruntled former employee has many legal ramifications. It also has significant potential reputational implications.

To reiterate: Aggrieved that he has been discovered running an eBay sales business through Morrison’s mailroom, then senior auditor Andrew Skelton copied and uploaded the salaries, bank details, national insurance information, postal addresses and telephone numbers of nearly 100,000 of his colleagues to a file-sharing website.

Three months later, seemingly unable to attract a buyer, Skelton sent the data to three newspapers (all of which covered the story but refused to publish the data). Within days, Skelton has been identified and arrested. He was convicted and imprisoned in July 2015.

5,518 current and former employees subsequently decided to take Morrisons to court in the first data leak class action in the UK and, in December 2017, they won on the basis of vicarious liability (in which Morrisons, as his employer, was seen to be responsible for Skelton’s actions as the data controller). The ruling is seen as unusual as the leak did not result in any reported concrete financial loss for employees.

Legal commentators have noted that while the ruling can be contested at Courts of Appeal (Morrisons have confirmed their intention to appeal), and compensation is yet to be determined, an increase in data privacy class actions in the UK and a rise in legal payouts is now possible.

The ruling also potentially poses greater reputational risks for companies suffering employee-driven data leaks, including:

  • The threat of significant negative media coverage as a result of class action litigation
  • Increased scrutiny from regulators, politicians and other decision-makers
  • The perception that leadership is insufficiently knowledgeable about and/or invested in IT/cybersecurity
  • The erosion of staff loyalty and the company’s ability to recruit new talent
  • Reduced customer loyalty and loss of sales.

As if they haven’t got enough on their plates with GDPR, the Morrisons data leak ruling adds to pressure on companies to:

  • Reinforce their overall IT/cybersecurity governance and management
  • Strengthen their Incident Response and Crisis Communications Plan(s) 
  • Enhance their leadership and employee data privacy communication, training and education programmes.

Plenty for communicators, as well as for company leaders, lawyers and IT/cybersecurity teams to sink their teeth into over the coming weeks and months.

Are you ready for a data breach? Test your reputational defences with Charlie Pownall’s Data Breach Preparedness and Response advisory and training services.

%d bloggers like this: