KRONOS Payroll Ransomware Attack Implicates Potential Data Breach Notification Obligations

Kathie McDonald-McClure Cyber Security and Cyber Crime, data breach; notification, Data Privacy & Security , , , , , ,

By: Kathie McDonald-McClure

UKG, Inc., a company that provides payroll support services known as KRONOS for many U.S. companies, began notifying its customers on December 12, 2021, that the KRONOS Private Cloud (KPC) had been attacked by ransomware.  (See UKG Kronos Private Cloud Status Updates.) The KPC products include Workforce Central, TeleStaff, Healthcare Extensions and Banking Scheduling Solutions. UKG reports that the KPC solutions may be unavailable for “several weeks.”  Affected companies are diligently working to find alternative solutions to process their payrolls in the interim. UKG has created a KPC Incident Resource Hub to assist customers impacted by the KPC disruption in services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) reported that the ransomware attack has impacted many hospitals and health systems that rely on KRONOS for timekeeping, scheduling and payroll.  John Riggi, AHA’s Senior Advisor for Cybersecurity and Risk, said, “A lack of the availability of those services could be quite disruptive for health care providers, many of whom are experiencing surges of COVID-19 and flu patients. … This attack once again highlights the need for robust third-party risk management programs that identify mission-critical dependencies and downtime preparedness. … [W]e urge all third-party providers that serve the health care community to examine their cyber readiness, response and resiliency capabilities.” 

In addition to the immediate payroll issues, if the ransomware attack compromises employee personal information, then it may trigger a data breach notification for these employers under state breach notification laws. 

Continue reading →

FTC Warns That Health Apps Must Notify Consumers of Data Breaches

Margaret Young Levi Data Privacy & Security , ,

By: Margaret Young Levi

On September 15, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Policy Statement cautioning that health apps and connected devices that collect or use consumers’ health information must comply with the Health Breach Notification Rule and notify consumers when their health data is breached.

The Health Breach Notification Rule (codified at 16 C.F.R. § 318) protects individually identifiable health information created or received by vendors of personal health records. The Rule requires vendors of personal health records to notify U.S. consumers, the FTC, and sometimes the media when there has been a breach of security of unsecured identifiable health information. Persons that fail to comply with the Rule may be subject to monetary penalties of up to $43,792 per violation, per day.

The Health Breach Notification Rule became effective in 2009, but the FTC has not enforced it to date. However, because health care applications continue to proliferate and to collect increasingly personal and sensitive health information, the FTC issued this Policy Statement to place health apps on notice that the Rule will be enforced going forward and to clarify that they are considered to be “vendors of personal health records” covered under the Rule. 

The FTC explains that the developer of a health app or connected device is considered a “vendor of personal health records” under the Rule if it is capable of drawing information from multiple sources, such as a combination of direct inputting by a consumer, syncing with a consumer’s fitness tracker, or even interfacing with the phone calendar. The Rule does not apply to vendors of personal health records who are already covered by HIPAA. 

In addition, the FTC reminds vendors of personal health records that a “breach of security” is not limited to cyberattacks by third parties, but includes any acquisition of identifiable health information of an individual in a personal health record without the individual’s authorization.  The FTC states that “[i]ncidents of unauthorized access, including sharing of covered information without an individual’s authorization, triggers notification obligations under the Rule.” 

If a breach occurs, then health apps should examine state data breach notification laws to determine if they apply as well. 

OCR Issues Guidance on HIPAA, COVID-19 Vaccination and the Workplace

Margaret Young Levi HIPAA, Privacy & Security , ,

By: Margaret Young Levi

On September 30, 2021, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued welcome guidance concerning when the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) applies to disclosures and requests for information about whether a person has received a COVID-19 vaccine—and when it does not apply.

The guidance aims to clear up misperceptions about who can ask questions about vaccination. In general, OCR reminds that HIPAA only applies to HIPAA covered entities, such as health care providers (physicians, hospitals, etc.) and health plans, and it does not apply to employers or employment records. The guidance addresses common workplace situations, provides helpful examples, and answers frequently asked questions for HIPAA covered entities, businesses, and the public.

HIPAA does not prohibit businesses, individuals, or HIPAA covered entities from asking whether their customers or clients have received a COVID-19 vaccine. HIPAA does not prohibit any person, whether an individual or a business or a HIPAA covered entity, from asking individuals whether they have received a COVID-19 vaccine. First, OCR makes it clear that HIPAA only applies to HIPAA covered entities, and it does not apply to other individuals or entities. Second, even though HIPAA regulates how and when HIPAA covered entities may use or share information about COVID-19 vaccinations, it does not limit the ability of covered entities to ask patients or visitors whether they have been vaccinated.

The guidance clarifies that HIPAA does not apply when an individual:

  • Is asked about their vaccination status by a school, employer, store, restaurant, entertainment venue, or another individual.
  • Asks another individual, their doctor, or a service provider whether they are vaccinated.
  • Asks a company, such as a home health agency, whether its workforce members are vaccinated.
Continue reading →

Senators Propose U.S. Cybersecurity Incident Notification Law

Kathie McDonald-McClure Cyber Security and Cyber Crime , , , ,

This post was originally published on July 21, 2021. See important “Update” below.

UPDATE: On March 15, 2022, President Biden signed H.R. 2471, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, which includes the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (“The CIRCI Act”). The CIRCI Act, which appears as Division Y in H.R. 2471, has several elements proposed by the initial Senate Bill that was the subject of this article with some variations. CISA has 24 months to issue implementing regulations.

——————————————————

In light of the escalation in ransomware and other cyber threats, a bi-partisan group of U.S. Senators has released a cybersecurity notification bill titled “Cyber Incident Notification Act of 2021.” Under the proposed bill, a “covered entity” would be required to report a “cybersecurity intrusion” or “potential cybersecurity intrusion” to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within 24 hours of confirmation of the intrusion.  Covered entities also would be required to submit updated cybersecurity threat information to CISA within 72 hours after the discovery of new information. The requirement for updates would continue until the incident is mitigated or any follow-up investigation is completed.

Although the term “cybersecurity intrusion” would be defined in future rulemaking with public comment, the bill provides, at a minimum, that the term include ransomware if it falls into one of six broad categories. The categories include ransomware involving a nation-state, an advanced persistent threat cyber actor, or a transnational organized crime group. The categories also include ransomware that results in or has the potential to result in harm to national security interests, the U.S. economy, or to public confidence, civil liberties, or public health and safety. In essence, it would encompass most types of ransomware.

The term “covered entity” also is to be defined by future rulemaking but, per the bill, “shall include, at a minimum, Federal contractors, owners or operators of critical infrastructure, as determined appropriate by the Director based on assessment of risks posed by compromise of critical infrastructure operation, and nongovernmental entities that provide cybersecurity incident response services.” CISA’s list of critical infrastructure sectors include: Information Technology, Communications, Healthcare and Public Health, Emergency Services, Financial, Energy, Food and Agriculture, Commercial Facilities, Critical Manufacturing, among others. For a full list of CISA’s current “critical infrastructure” sectors and a detailed description of each, click here. 

To incentivize compliance, the law would allow the CISA Director to assess a civil penalty up to 0.5 percent of the entity’s gross revenue from the prior year for each day it violates the requirements under the law or under rules promulgated under the law. The Director would be allowed to “take into account mitigating or aggravating factors, including the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with respect to the covered entity, the covered entity’s ability to pay, degree of culpability, and history of prior violations.”

Click here to read the full Senate Bill.

A Supreme Development in Employer Computer Protection

WyattLLP Data Privacy & Security, Health Information Technology, HITECH Law ,

By: Courtney Samford, contributing author Blake Sims, Wyatt Summer Associate

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is pexels-mikhail-nilov-6930431-1024x617.jpg

Employers commonly supply computer and work devices to employees and state that the electronics may only be used for business related purposes, and employers have always had the ability to discipline employees who violate computer use policies through improper use. In some Federal Court of Appeals Circuits, employers may have been able to rely on threats of criminal and civil liabilities under 18 U.S.C. § 1030 to further deter improper use. On June 3, 2021, however, an evenly split conservative-liberal majority of the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Van Buren v. United States, holding that an individual only violates the Section 1030 of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act “when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—that are off limits to him.” Van Buren v. United States, No. 19-783 (Sup. Ct. June 3, 2021).

Continue reading →