Guidance to First Responders in COVID-19

first responders

The Office for Civil Rights, which is the HIPAA enforcement arm of U.S Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), issued guidance today on how entities subject to HIPAA (covered entities) may disclose protected health information (PHI) about an individual who has been exposed to COVID-19 to law enforcement, paramedics, other first responders, and public health authorities in compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

In its guidance, OCR explains the circumstances under which a covered entity may disclose PHI, such as the name or other identifying information about individuals, without their HIPAA authorization, and provides examples including:

· When needed to provide treatment;

· When required by law;

· When first responders may be at risk for an infection; and

· When disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat.

Today, OCR clarified the regulatory permissions that a covered entity may use to disclose PHI to first responders and others so they take the necessary precautions or use personal protective equipment. OCR is also careful to remind all covered entities to take reasonable steps to limit the PHI used or disclosed to that which is the “minimum necessary” to accomplish the purpose for the disclosure, which is frankly a good recommendation for all PHI related disclosures, pandemic or not. Even though these are extraordinary times, we must be sure to protect one another’s privacy while also striving to protect the health of our first responders during this crisis. OCR is careful to strike that balance in today’s guidance. 

Clients and friends can find the guidance here https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/covid-19-hipaa-and-first-responders-508.pdf

Stay safe and healthy!

 

If you need further information, contact us here.

TeleHealth Restrictions Lifted

telehealth appointment

State and Federal Governments ease regulatory enforcement to expand access to telehealth

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Ohio and federal officials have recently taken two dramatic actions to greatly increase the public’s access to medical and mental healthcare via “telehealth.” This article will focus on mental healthcare providers; however, the subject actions apply equally to medical healthcare providers.

Now on to the subject actions:

Action 1: The Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) at the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) recently issued a notification that it would exercise its enforcement discretion to not impose penalties against covered entities for failing to comply with HIPAA requirements regarding the good faith provision of telehealth. Chiefly, this means that providers can use their discretion to utilize “non-public facing audio or video communication products” to provide telehealth without concern of an enforcement action for failing to comply with HIPAA security requirements. Per the notice, “non-public facing” products include Apple FaceTime, Facebook Messenger video chat, Google Hangouts video, Zoom, or Skype. Examples of public-facing products are Facebook Live, Twitch, Instagram Live, or Tik Tok. Generally, any application in which you would be “streaming” should be considered “public-facing.”

This is a significant departure from HIPAA guidelines which in general require providers to ensure confidentiality and security, most importantly encrypted transmission. However, the notice does encourage providers to seek out applications that claim to meet HIPAA security requirements and that will provide a Business Associate Agreement. Ultimately, while the OCR may not fine a provider for non-compliance, the notice does not address what the OCR will do in the event of a data breach.

Given the plethora of options available, any provider, regardless of size, should be able to provide telehealth utilizing a reasonably secure and HIPAA compliant platform.

Action 2: On March 19, 2020, Gov. DeWine signed executive order 2020-05D, declaring a public emergency requiring immediate adoption and/or amendment of administrative rules pertaining to telehealth. For example, the Ohio Dept. of Mental Health and Addiction (“ODMHA”) substantially amended the interactive videoconferencing requirements of OAC 5122-29-31, including:

1. Eliminates the requirement that videoconferencing be secure. OAC 5122-29-31(A).

2. Permits the use of telephone calls and email as “interactive videoconferencing” under the rule. See id.

3. Eliminates the requirement of a face-to-face initial appointment prior to participating in telehealth.

Similarly, the Ohio Counselor, Social Worker, Marriage & Family Therapist (“CSWMFT”) Board approved Emergency Rule 4757-5-13, which notably modified the rule in several ways, including:

1. Eliminates the requirement of a face-to-face initial appointment prior to participating in telehealth. See OAC 4757-5-13(A)(7).

2. Relaxes the requirements for informed consent.

3. Permits verbal informed consent in cases in which written informed consent cannot be obtained. See OAC 4757-5-13(A)(7).

4. Eliminates and/or modifies security and encryption requirements for telehealth in accordance with the HIPAA guidelines set forth in Action 1.

These changes are significant departures from the original version of the rules and HIPAA guidelines.

Ohio providers subject to the CSWMFT Board should note that there are strict location requirements for telehealth based on the location of the client/patient at the time services are rendered. The location of the client determines the jurisdiction for the counseling. So, if the provider and client are located in Ohio at the time of service, the telehealth is “provided” in Ohio. If the provider is in Ohio and the patient is located in Arizona at the time of service, telehealth is “provided” in Arizona. Many states have similar rules. Please also note, that providers using telehealth need to be careful to avoid accidentally practicing outside of a jurisdiction in which they are licensed.

Law related to Covid-19 is rapidly changing, which is creating a fluctuating, complex, and potentially dangerous regulatory environment. If you have any questions regarding your organization’s telehealth compliance, please contact Ickes\Holt.

ICKES \ HOLT

Ickes Holt Featured Speakers at All Ohio Counselor’s Conference

ickes holt featured speakers

Ickes Holt had the pleasure to present a seminar at the All Ohio Counselor’s Conference (“AOCC”) in Columbus. From their website:

Supported by the Ohio Counseling Association (OCA) and the Ohio School Counselors Association (OSCA), the All Ohio Counselors Conference is the leading professional development conference in the state of Ohio for licensed counselors, counseling students, supervisors, and counselor educators who work in a clinical/community, school, college, addiction, private practice, or other related setting.

Ickes Holt presented a 90 minutes seminar on Information Security and Privacy for Mental Health Professionals. The seminar focused on educating mental health professionals about the Privacy and Security Rules of HIPAA and associated regulations, as well as external and internal threats, ethical handling of subpoenas, and how to accept and bear the legal and ethical obligations imposed by HIPAA. The seminar focused on implementing a written information security program and best practices regarding psychotherapy notes and addressable items, such as encryption.

Ickes Holt believes that mental health professionals remain an under-educated and under-served area in information security and privacy law. A unique sector of healthcare, mental health professionals maintain some of the most important and sensitive information possible about their patients. Further, the entire basis of the patient-counselor relationship is based in confidentiality and trust. It is imperative that patients trust their counselor so they can receive the help they need. Finally, mental health professionals keenly understand the sensitive nature of the patient-counselor relationship and greatly value confidentiality.

For these reasons, Ickes Holt is committed to supporting mental health professionals maintain and safeguard patient privacy. If your mental health care practice has questions about HIPAA, information security, patient privacy, or issues regarding lawful disclosures of patient information, please feel free to contact us today. We are happy to help.

Cybersecurity in America’s Dairyland

cyber security in dairy land

On November 7, 2016, ICKESHOLT attorneys Jim Ickes and Joel Holt journeyed to Joel’s home-state of Wisconsin to record a webinar for the National Business Institute (http://www.nbi-sems.com/Home.aspx) entitled: “Cybersecurity: the Ultimate Guide.”

Suffice it to say, the name and scope of the seminar presented quite a challenge.  However, while neither Jim nor Joel would willingly label the presentation as the “ultimate guide”, they are proud of how it turned out.  The seminar is a robust, comprehensive, and rapid-fire excursion through the most prominent federal information security/cybersecurity laws, including HIPAA, GLBA, and FTC Act Section 5.  The seminar also touches on State laws, threat vectors, emerging technology, pending legislation, and the role of counsel in the information security space, including regulatory compliance and advocating an organizational culture of security.  It is a lot of information crammed into 3 hours.

Most importantly, Jim and Joel produced what has to be the granddaddy of all webinar written materials: a 70 page treatise on their topics.  Again, while trying to maintain some semblance of humility, Jim and Joel are quite proud of this document and are confident readers will come away with a good working knowledge of the topics covered.

Finally, Jim and Joel had the privilege to work with panelists Joe Carney and Victoria Ferrise, both of whom are attorneys at Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC, in Akron, Ohio, as well as Jeff Grady, Director of Security & Compliance at Three Pillars Technology in Madison, Wisconsin.  The result is 6 hours of informative, and hopefully not too monotonic, CLE credit.  If you are interested in participating in the seminar, it will broadcast nationally on Nov. 30, 2016.  Please check out this link:  Cybersecurity: the Ultimate Guide.

If you have questions about information security, feel free to contact us.  We love to talk about this stuff.

Encryption Prescription

encryptions and hipaa

Regardless of the actual legitimacy of the HIMSS Study, it raises an important discussion point regarding encryption. So, with due respect to the pundits advocating caution, I will presume it to be reliable.  When viewed as reliable, the HIMSS Study presents compelling statistics with immediate impact to the healthcare industry.

The Numbers Regarding Encryption.

According to the HIMMS Study, approximately 32% of hospitals and 52% of non-acute providers do not encrypt data in transit.  Further, 39% of acute providers and 52% of non-acute providers do not encrypt data at rest.   The overarching gist of the HIMMS Study is that a significant percentage of healthcare organizations (“HCOs”) do not encrypt data, either at rest or in transit.  But, what’s the big deal?

The Rules Regarding Encryption.

HIPAA does not necessarily require encryption.  However, encryption is an addressable implementation specification.  See 45 CFR 164.312(a)(2)(iv).   Importantly, “addressable” does not mean “optional.”  Instead, “addressable” means that a covered entity must “[i]mplement the implementation specification if reasonable and appropriate” under the circumstances for that covered entity.  See 45 CFR 164.306(d)(3).  If a covered entity determines that an addressable item is not reasonable and appropriate, it must document why and implement an equivalent measure, if the substitute measure is reasonable and appropriate.  Clearly, if encryption is reasonable and appropriate for a covered entity, failure to implement encryption violates HIPAA’s Security Rule.  Thus, the operative question is whether encryption is reasonable and appropriate.

In 2016, encryption tools are readily available and there is no excuse for failing to encrypt data at rest.   For example, Windows OS includes BitLocker Drive Encryption onboard.  Further, there are numerous affordable encryption options for Windows.[v]   Mac offers FireVault 2 encryption standard with OS X.  Firevault 2 encrypts not only the hard drive, but removable drives as well.  FireVault is a respectably robust encryption tool, especially for individuals or small business.  Mac users also have additional options for encryption.[vi]

Data in transit is a bit more technical.  I do not claim to be a CISSP – my knowledge base is in the law, not hardware and software.  So, for purposes of this article, let’s just consider that “data in transit” entails methods with which we are all familiar – email, fax, and text.  All of these transmissions may be encrypted by employing various programs, services, and technology, many of which are readily available and affordable.

People will undoubtedly argue about the viability of, and protection afforded by, these encryption tools.  For example, you can Google numerous articles discussing the security flaws in Firevault 2 and BitLocker.  Encryption options for faxing and texting usually fare no better.

The good news is that HIPAA does not demand that the encryption WORK – but only that covered entities “[i]mplement a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt” ePHI.  See 45 CFR 164.312(a)(2)(iv).   HIPAA defines encryption as “the use of an algorithmic process to transform data into a form in which there is a low probability of assigning meaning without use of a confidential process or key.”  See 45 CFR 164.304.  So, the mere fact that a covered entity implements encryption methods meeting technical requirements[vii] satisfies HIPAA’s basic requirement.  Of course, covered entities must also keep safeguards up to date and monitor overall effectiveness in protecting information assets.

Finally, it should be stated that encrypting data relieves a covered entity from data breach notification requirements in many states, including Ohio.  In Ohio, data breaches exposing “personal information” must, under certain circumstances, be reported to the individuals.  See R.C. 1349.19(B)(1).  Information is only “personal information” “when the data elements are not encrypted, redacted, or altered by any method or technology[.]”  R.C. 1349.19(A)(7)(a).

In closing, it is arguable that encryption is currently reasonable and appropriate for 100% of covered entities.  Under that postulation, then, according to the HIMSS Study, between 32% to 52% of HCOs are violating HIPAA and perhaps do not even realize they are doing so.  While HIPAA’s Privacy and Security Rules go far beyond encryption, perhaps it is a good, objective starting point for covered entities.  Stakeholders in covered entities (and business associates) should ask:

  • Do we store data? If so, do we encrypt that data?

  • Do we transmit data? If so, how?  Email, fax, or text?

  • Do we encrypt the data we transmit? How?

  • Is encryption reasonable and appropriate for our organization?

  • If not, do we have the justifications documented?

Based on this self-analysis, covered entities should contact an information security lawyer to help them: (1) conduct a thorough and confidential analysis of existing information security policies and procedures; and (2) develop and implement an information security regimen tailored to foster an organizational culture of security.

[i] http://www.itworld.com/article/3110506/healthcare-it/many-hospitals-transmit-your-health-records-unencrypted.html

[ii] outpatient clinics, rehabilitation facilities and physicians’ offices.  See note iv, infra.

[iii] 2016 HIMSS Cybersecurity Survey, available at: http://www.himss.org/sites/himssorg/files/2016-cybersecurity-report.pdf

[iv] For example, the HIMSS Study was sponsored by FairWarning.  FairWarning is a provider of information security services and has a considerable market in … you guessed it … the healthcare industry.  Sure, it seem convenient that a study exposing a lack of information security in healthcare is sponsored by a seller of information security to healthcare. In fact, the lawyer in me demands the injection of a healthy dose of skepticism.

However, in fairness, as an information security attorney, I could be accused of the same sort of fear-mongering designed to scare people into hiring me.  But, I know this to be patently untrue.  No reasonable person would consider identification of critical issues and application of sound legal advice to mitigate those issues as “fear mongering.”  It is no different that advising a business owner to incorporate to avoid the risk of exposing personal assets to creditors.  So, because I know my motives are pure, I am inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to others.

[v] http://www.toptenreviews.com/software/security/best-encryption-software/

[vi] http://www.toptenreviews.com/software/security/best-mac-encryption-software/

[vii] HHS has issued guidance on encryption standards, namely referring to NIST guidelines.  For example, encryption for data at rest must be consistent with NIST Special Publication 800-111.  Encryption for data in transit must comply with other specifications, including NIST Special Publications 800-52,

 

The ADA’s Dental Debacle

ADA dental debacle

Talk about the ever-changing world of information security and data privacy. Literally, something new, interesting, or terrible occurs daily.

The latest giant balloon in the “parade of horribles” is the American Dental Association (“ADA”) providing its members with a free, electronic copy of the 2016 Dental Procedure Codes – with one small catch.  The handy, searchable PDF was stored on malware-laced USB drives.  Woops.

In other words:  Ransomware.So to recap:  one benefit of a paid membership in the ADA is a potential malware infection.  According to Krebs on Security, “Mike” (presumably a dentist) was suspicious of the USB drive and took a look at the code.  Mike discovered that one of the files on the USB drive tried to open a well-known malware distribution website.  Apparently, this website “is used by crooks to infect visitors with malware that lets the attackers gain full control of the infected Windows computer.”

On the surface, the ADA’s idea is merely just a bad idea.  If one looks deeper, however, there is a next level disconnect about protecting PHI.  Think about it.  According to the ADA’s instructions, a covered entity is supposed to: (1) “flip out” a USB drive obtained in the mail; (2) “plug [it] into the USB port” on their computer; and (3) “open … the file on your computer.”  WHAT?   A dental office’s computer contains PHI (and likely other provider specific sensitive information).  While “reasonable safeguards” under HIPAA is up for interpretation, I am pretty sure that it does not include plugging random USB drives into computers and networks containing PHI.

Let’s think about this.  HIPAA’s Privacy Rule requires “reasonable and appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards.”  Covered entities must ensure the confidentiality and integrity of PHI, as well as “identify and protect against reasonably anticipated threats to the security or integrity of the information.”  HIPAA’s Security Rule mandates that the information is not made available or disclosed to unauthorized persons.  While the Security Rule does not dictate measures, covered entities must consider certain things, most notably: the likelihood and possible impact of potential risks.

It seems that “Mike” considered the “likelihood and possible impact” of inserting an unknown USB drive and opening unknown files.  But I am willing to bet that many or most would not, either from ignorance, inattention, or explicit faith in the ADA.  In the current landscape, none of these are acceptable reasons for failing to consider the likelihood and possible impact.  Covered entities, and all organizations in general, must build an organizational culture of security where, like “Mike”, a natural suspicion arises when faced with a seemingly harmless, but unknown, situation.   Please be like Mike.  Trust or do not trust.  But always verify.

One more thing.  The approximately 37,000 USB drives were “manufactured in China by a subcontractor of an ADA vendor[.]” [Insert forehead slap here].  So, let’s get this straight.  The ADA: (1) unknowingly sent malware laced USB drives to its members; (2) provided them specific instructions to potentially infect their computers with ransomware; (3) failed to include in those instructions anything resembling steps to securely access the USB; and (4) obtained those USB drives from a subcontractor of a vendor in China.  If you’re keeping score at home, that’s strikes 1, 2, 3 and 4.  But the ADA didn’t stop there.

In an email statement, the ADA exacerbated the problem by committing the cardinal sin of incident response:  failing to take ownership of the problem and downplaying the threat:

“Upon investigation, the ADA concluded that only a small percentage of the manufactured USB devices were infected … Of note it is speculated that one of several duplicating machines in use at the manufacturer had become infected during a production run for another customer. That infected machine infected our clean image during one of our three production runs. Our random quality assurance testing did not catch any infected devices. Since this incident, the ADA has begun to review whether to continue to use physical media to distribute products ….  Your anti-virus software should detect the malware if it is present.”

Seems pretty specific for “speculation.”

In this statement the ADA essentially acted like its mistake was no big deal.  Further, it not so subtly transferred responsibility to the members.  Did you catch it?  “Your anti-virus software should detect the malware if it is present.”  Translation:  if you have proper cyber security in place our mistake won’t hurt you.  If you don’t have proper cyber security in place, our mistake is your fault for not having proper cyber security.

Not only is this a peevish and puerile response to a serious screw-up, it is also not accurate.  According to Krebs on Security:

“It’s not clear how the ADA could make a statement that anti-virus should detect the malware, since presently only some of the many antivirus tools out there will flag the malware link as malicious.”

Nice job, ADA [golf clap].

What’s even more curious about the ADA’s post-incident position is that cheap USB drives manufactured in China containing malware are not a new threat.  They are, in fact, a very common threat.  According to one security consultant, this fact “… is why the ADA’s decision to use them is so disconcerting[.]”   The point is, that in 2016, use of untested USB drives should always be suspicious – and therefore, connecting them to information systems should warrant consideration of the “likelihood and possible impact[.]”  In fact, according to that same consultant “connecting untested thumb drives to information systems containing sensitive data like personal health information violates the most fundamental rules of InfoSec[.]”

Now, you might be saying … “well, the ADA didn’t violate any rule.”  Perhaps this is true.  However, the ADA’s dental debacle clearly demonstrates the great divide between where we are and where we should be related to information security.  To say that the ADA does not have any culpability is ludicrous.  The ADA has a responsibility to its paying members.  At the very least the ADA shouldn’t contribute to the immense threats that its members already face.[[i]][[ii]]

Ickes Holt is a full-service, team-driven, and client focused law firm in Northeast Ohio concentrating on information security and governance. Information is the DNA of modern organizations and Ickes Holt is dedicated to advising clients on how to protect its information. Please contact us to discuss establishing or improving the information governance policies for your organization.

[i]   http://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/04/dental-assn-mails-malware-to-members/;
[ii] http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/american-dental-association-sends-malware-infected-usb-drives-its-members

Internet of Things Institute: Day One Takeaways

computer scientists

Day 1 of the ABA Internet of Things Institute:  So, come to find out, the Internet of Things (“IoT”) is not the precursor to SkyNet or a rampant abuse of power by Big Brother.  It is fascinating, and yes, slightly frightening.  The simple fact is, the IoT is just like any other rapid advance in technology – it is power that can be used for good or ill.  It provides safer cars, more productive businesses, and cleaner, more efficient energy grids.  It also provides more pervasive avenues for malefactors to hack into our daily lives.  But the bottom line is, the IoT is not going away, so it is imperative to understand it and implement sound security practices.

Some takeaways from Day 1: 

  • The IoT is a broad term for a world where everyday objects are connected, have software and are networked.
  • Computer scientists predicted the IoT in the 1980’s.
  • The most commonly known examples of the IoT are consumer goods like thermostats and light bulbs with sensors to monitor how many people are in a room at a given time and software to interpret that data to more efficiently allocate energy consumption.
  • Consumer products are just the beginning:  more necessary and beneficial uses include smart energy grids, smart water solutions, smart cities and infrastructure, autonomous cars, agricultural improvements, and medical products like medicine pumps, defribulators, and monitoring devices for the aged (which will double in population by 2050).
  • We need to understand that connected devices are nothing more than computers, and computers can be programmed to do whatever you want.  So yes, that smart refrigerator can be hacked to send out malicious emails.
  • Because of this threat, we need to rely on sound engineering principles and strong encryption when developing IoT devices.
  • Manufacturers of IoT devices need to remember that they are actually developing software and not just cool gadgets.
  • Consumer protection must always be at the forefront of development.
  • Computer scientists were able to convert first generation electronic voting machines into Pac-Man games.
  • Industry cannot rely on Congress to legislate IoT security.  We have to rely on Industry sector regulation and consumer protection laws.
  • You cannot regulate what you can’t define.  According to one U.S. Senator, the IoT is moving too fast, its too big, and it changes every day.
  • The IoT is currently a $2 Trillion economy and will grow to $11 Trillion by 2025.
  • Don’t fear autonomous cars – 95% of auto accidents are due to driver error.  Autonomous vehicles will make roads safer, including not only individual vehicles, but the trucking industry as well.
  • The IoT is expected to create a 10-25% savings in energy consumption and manufacturing processes for industry.  Business will have to implement IoT devices to remain competitive.
  • The IoT is the 4th industrial revolution and will fundamentally change organizational behavior, as well as perceptions of privacy, security, ownership and interpersonal relationships.
  • Good with the Bad:  the IoT will also unquestionably create difficult societal, business, and ethical problems, such as job loss or restructuring, privacy and security issues, cyber-terrorism threats, cross-border data flow issues, data ownership issues, and dangerous digital divides (access, literacy, and acceptance of IoT).
  • Abuses and abusers will evolve.  Bad actors will remain bad actors.  The IoT will not change human behavior, but will give bad actors new tools to be bad actors.
  • There will be an estimated 30 billion IoT devices by 2030.
  • The raw cost of utilizing encryption is approximately 2 cents per device.
  • HIPAA and HITECH require healthcare providers to encrypt patient personal health information.
  • Cloud computing raises significant legal and ethical issues for every organization that uses the Internet.
  • The key to safely navigating the IoT and protecting your organizational information and the information of those you serve is security by design and front end engineering.
  • Cyber liability insurance is a good idea, but not the cure – coverage is not always sufficient, insurance companies may seek to deny coverage, and insurance does not fix the problems caused by a breach or recover the information lost.
  • The value in the IoT is the aggregation of data that by itself is useless.
  • Privacy concern and policy discussions must be viewed in context with the beneficial uses of the IoT.
  • 42% of consumers believe that privacy concerns outweigh the benefits of the IoT because the focus is on the consumer products, not the societal benefits.
  • IoT devices are increasingly becoming threat vectors.
  • IoT devices and software that utilize the collected data could be protectable intellectual property even though the data itself is not.

One thing is certain.  The IoT presents the greatest potential for human connectedness and technological advances in history while simultaneously presenting the greatest potential for security and privacy abuses.  The idea of a global community where information flows freely for the betterment of humanity is an exciting one.  However, we must temper that laudable goal with the stark reality that the same technology that frees us can also be used by bad actors to compromise that freedom.

In the immortal words of Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben:  with great power comes great responsibility.  Attorneys and other professionals specializing in information security and privacy must be at the forefront of the IoT.  So too must others (traditional attorneys, healthcare providers, financial services professionals, business owners, and governmental leaders) understand the benefits and threats posed by the IoT and seek advice from people best equipped to shepherd them through this new age.

Ickes Holt is a full-service, team-driven, and client focused law firm in Northeast Ohio concentrating on information security and governance. Information is the DNA of modern organizations and Ickes Holt is dedicated to advising clients on how to protect its information. Please contact us to discuss establishing or improving the information governance policies for your organization.

Hungry, Hungry HIPAA

HIPAA compliance

One recent case that didn’t get much attention, but should have, clarifies Ohio health care providers’ potential exposure for the unauthorized disclosure of patient health information (“PHI”).  On August 14, 2015, the Second District Court of Appeals decided Sheldon v. Kettering Health Network. [i]   In Sheldon, the Second District addressed patients’ rights related to the unauthorized disclosure of PHI.  Although the plaintiff was ultimately unsuccessful, the court affirmatively held that the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) does not prevent a patient for asserting a common law tort claim for unauthorized disclosure of medical information.  On February 10, 2016, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to review the correctness of the Second District’s decision.  At that point, Sheldon effectively removed more than fifteen (15) years of gray area on the matter.[ii]

Prior to Sheldon, the Ohio Supreme Court decided Biddle v. Warren Gen. Hosp.[iii]  In Biddle, the Court held that, in Ohio, a physician can be held liable under Ohio common law for unauthorized disclosures of medical information.  The cause of the “gray area” was that the Supreme Court decided Biddle before HIPAA’s privacy-rule regulations were published on December 28, 2000 and before its security-rule regulations took effect on April 21, 2003.[iv]   The Sheldon case provides considerable clarity on exactly how HIPAA and the HITECH Act coexist with Ohio common law tort claims.

One point verified by Sheldon is that, according to Ohio law,  HIPAA does not allow a private cause of action.[v]  However, the Second District then concluded that HIPAA does not preempt an Ohio state law claim for the independent tort recognized by the Ohio Supreme Court in Biddle:

“[T]he unauthorized, unprivileged disclosure to a third party of nonpublic medical information that a physician or hospital has learned within a physician-patient relationship.”

The Second District went on the refer to such actions as “Biddle claims.”   The Second District went a step further in addressing how the standards delineated in the HIPAA regulations interact with Biddle claims.

The Second District held that violation of HIPAA does not provide for negligence per se claims.  The Court reasoned that to allow such a claim would essentially override HIPAA’s explicit prohibition of private causes of action.[vi]   However, buried in the Sheldon decision is one sentence that should send a shiver down the spines of physicians and the attorneys who represent them:

“[T]he violation of an administrative rule does not constitute negligence per se; however such a violation may be admissible as evidence of negligence.”[vii]

Essentially, HIPAA may not allow for a private cause of action, but according to Sheldon, a health care provider’s HIPAA dirty laundry can still be heard by a jury in conjunction with a Biddle claim.

More troubling is that recent Federal case law, although only persuasive authority for Ohio state claims, will make it much easier to get these types of cases to a jury.

In  July 2015, the Federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Remijas v. Nieman Marcus Group, LLC[viii]a case involving a massive data breach.  The Seventh Circuit overruled the trial court’s ruling in holding that “injuries [of customers] associated with resolving fraudulent charges and protecting oneself against future identity theft do” provide sufficient standing to maintain a cause of action for those affected by a data breach.[ix]  Thus, in situations where a data breach has occurred, but no actual identity theft has occurred, Remijas establishes the framework for plaintiffs’ lawyers to overcome the heretofore solid defense of lack of standing due to intangible and speculative damages.   Although no Ohio court has applied the reasoning of Remijas, there is now a viable legal argument to be made in Ohio state law negligence claims.

With the spate of data breaches in the health care industry occurring around the country (including several in the state of Ohio), HIPAA covered entities must take action to ensure that information security processes and procedures are in place. Not only because the impending threat of litigation or the fact that the Department of Heath and Human Services has announced that 200 new HIPAA audits are in the pipeline for 2016.[x]  It is simply the right thing to do.  Perhaps the Hippocratic oath, in our digital age, should extend to patients’ identity as well as their health and wellness.

Ickes Holt is a full-service, team-driven, and client focused law firm in Northeast Ohio concentrating on information security and governance. Information is the DNA of modern organizations and Ickes Holt is dedicated to advising clients on how to protect its information. Please contact us to discuss establishing or improving the information governance policies for your organization.

 

[i] Sheldon v. Kettering Health Network, 40 N.E.3d 661(App. 2d Dist. 2015)

[iii] Biddle v. Warren Gen. Hosp. , 86 Ohio St.3d 395, 401,1999-Ohio-115, 715 N.E.2d 518 (1999)

[iv]Sheldon at 671

[v] Id. at 670 citing Henry v. Ohio Victims of Crime Comp. Program, S.D.Ohio No. 2:07-cv-0052, 2007 WL 682427 (Feb. 28, 2007)

[vi] Id. at 674

[vii]Id. citing Chambers v. St. Mary’s School, 82 Ohio St.3d 563, 1998-Ohio-184, 697 N.E.2d 198 (1998)

[viii] Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015)

[ix] Id.

[x] Raths, David, OCR’s Samuels Describes Launch of Phase 2 of HIPAA Audit Program, Health Care Infomatics, March 19, 2016

Information Security and Privacy Round-Up: Memphis Neurology & Fazio Mechanical

identity theft in memphis

Information security and privacy is an incredibly broad and pervasive topic.  It spans across industries, relates to private and public sectors, affects small business to publicly traded companies, is governed by federal and state legislation, is enforced by regulators and courts, and incorporates IT and legal solutions.  Information is the DNA of the modern world.  It is everywhere – our computers, our phones, our cars, our homes, our businesses, the cloud.  We have unprecedented access to each other, and as a result, other people have unprecedented access to our information. The boundaries of information security are continually being stretched by the dramatic leaps in technology and ever shifting societal norms.

Events in the information security realm occur so quickly that it is difficult, even for privacy professionals, to keep current.  This article will provide an overview of some recent information security cases, both which illustrate the concept that small to mid-sized business are the most vulnerable to, and least equipped to prevent, information security attacks.

Memphis Neurology Case:  In February, the U.S. Attorneys’ office indicted Jeremy Jones on charges of identity theft, fraud, and conspiracy.  Jones is accused of conspiring to steal the identities of more that 145 patients of Memphis Neurology, as well as customers of car dealerships and other people he knew.  Jones used the stolen identities to apply for loans and credit cards, and to open banks accounts in the victims’ names.   The estimated loss to the defrauded financial institutions is $1,660,587.30.

The Memphis Neurology case presents significant information security concerns, namely, insider threats and access controls.  Memphis Neurology is a regional, private neurological practice with five locations.[i]  The practice has been in business since the 1970’s.  Jones allegedly conspired with an employee of Memphis Neurology to steal patient information from the practice’s database.[ii]   The scheme allegedly began in 2011 and continued through 2015.[iii]

This case underscores the importance of: (1) training employees about information security: (2) clearly communicating to employees the consequences for intentional and unintentional security breaches; (3) properly screening potential employees during the hiring process; (4) conducting periodic audits of information security practices for efficacy and potential breaches; and (5) ensuring access to patient information is properly limited to authorized employees, including organizational and physical security.  These items are crucial components to an overall information security governance program, which is required by HIPAA and the FTC Act, as well as necessitated by the modern world in which small to mid-sized medical practices operate.

Jeremy Jones is facing criminal charges.  The financial institutions are facing the loss of $1,660,587.30.  But, what about Memphis Neurology?  What are the potential consequences to the practice?  First, they almost certainly lost existing and future customers.  Second, they face potential investigation and enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission and/or the Department of Health and Human Services.  An investigation and enforcement action will cost Memphis Neurology significantly in legal fees and lost productivity.  Further, the FTC and HHS are not averse to levying heavy financial penalties for violations.  Finally, while neither the FTC Act or HIPAA provide a private right of action, there is an increasing trend of state courts adopting federal statutory/regulatory frameworks as the “standard of care” in common law negligence actions.[iv]  This trend could expose Memphis Neurology to state court negligence lawsuits brought by the patient victims.

Target Breach-Fazio Mechanical.  Most people are aware of the Target breach in 2013.  In fact, most people probably held their breath waiting for notice from the retail giant that their information had been compromised.  The fallout from the Target breach has been staggering:

  • 110 million customers’ information exposed
  • Immediate 50% drop in profits at the time of the breach from the previous year
  • Consumer and media backlash
  • Approximately $252 million spent to manage the breach
  • An escrow account of $10 million set aside for compromised customers
  • Ongoing litigation and regulatory action
  • Target CEO ousted
  • Potential personal exposure to fines and monetary damages for Target executives[v]

What is not commonly known is the source of the hack leading to the Target breach.  According to Krebs on Security, hackers gained access to Target’s network via one of its vendors, Fazio Mechanical, a Pennsylvania based refrigeration company.[vi]  According to investigators, the Target breach “traces back to network credentials” issued to Fazio by Target.   Fazio has stated that its data connection to Target “was exclusively for electronic billing, contract submission and project management[.]”[vii]

It appears that Target’s network credentials were stolen by means of email “phishing” attack sent to employees at Fazio.  Facts indicate that one or more Fazio employees opened the phishing email, thus infecting Fazio’s system and delivering Target’s network credentials to the hackers.  The hackers then planted malware on Target’s system and began stealing credit card data from thousands of Target’s registers nationwide.

Target receives and retains an immense amount of customer information.  As the recipient of this information, Target had a duty to ensure that the third party vendors with which it works have adequate security controls.  There is no question that Target should have done a better job of auditing Fazio’s information security controls and ultimately bears responsibility for the breach.   However, while Target is certainly culpable for the breach (namely failing to timely act on the breach[viii] and sending out inadequate data breach notifications[ix]), it was undoubtedly prepared for the possibility of an attack.  Six months prior to the breach, the retailer had started installation of a $1.6 million malware detection tool designed by FireEye.  FireEye is a leading cyber security firm who provides services to the CIA and the Pentagon.  Target employed a security squad in Bangalore to monitor its system 24/7.[x]  Despite these measures and obscene financial resources, Target was hacked and is now facing reputational damage, lawsuits, and regulatory enforcement.

And it is, in large part, Fazio’s fault.

True, if it wasn’t Fazio, it likely would have been another vendor.  Or perhaps, malefactors could have penetrated Target’s system directly.  However, the facts surrounding the Target breach point blame directly to an unremarkable, “mom and pop” business lacking any information security policies and practices.  In stark contrast to Target’s measures, Fazio primarily relied on the free version of Malwarebytes Anti-Malware (“MBytes”) to detect malicious software on its systems.[xi]  It is unknown if Fazio employed any actual information security protocols, but based on their use of MBytes, it seems likely that they did not.

What is more inexplicable was Fazio’s response to its role in the Target breach.  In a press release, Fazio stated it was “the victim of a sophisticated cyber attack operation,” and further that its “IT system and security measures are in full compliance with industry practices.”[xii]  Clearly, Fazio was out of its depths concerning the technical aspects of information security as well as willfully or unintentionally ignorant of its duties under applicable state and federal law.

First, phishing attacks are not “sophisticated.” Phishing attacks are common.  They are not targeted, but instead use a “blast” approach to distribute the poison pill email as widely as possible.  In fact, email phishing attacks are so unsophisticated that they can be defeated by simply ignoring and deleting the email.[xiii]

Second, while MBytes is a reputable malware program, it is seriously limited.  The free version is an on-demand scan and kill program, which means a user must actually run the scanner or set it to run at scheduled times.  Also, the free version of Mbytes does not offer real-time protection against threats.  Real-time protection means that the software actually blocks or stops malware that is actively trying to infect a system.  Imagine a pop-up blocker, which is a real-time protector.  A pop-up blocker that did not protect in real-time would effectively allow the pop-up to appear, and then only remove the pop-up when the user prompts it to do so.  Essentially, a non-real time malware program is ineffective to prevent malware infections.

Third, Fazio clearly was not in compliance with industry practices.  We have already discussed the limited capabilities of free MBytes above.  Further, the free version of Mbytes is made explicitly for individual users and its license prohibits corporate use.[xiv]  Fazio violated this license, which is definitely not an industry standard. Finally, there is no evidence that Fazio employed any reasonable information security policies and procedures, let alone a written program including preventative measures, training, incident response strategy, and data breach notification plan.  Thus, Fazio quite literally failed to meet the requirements of state and federal information security laws, which ARE the industry standard.[xv]

Information security is not a problem for “big” companies.  Information security is not IT’s problem.  Information security is everyone’s problem.  Do you think your organization is somehow protected from phishing attacks?  It happened to Fazio Mechanical.  Fazio’s role in the Target breach proves that the “little guys” cannot ignore their place in the global marketplace.   According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, 621,955,664 records have been breached in the U.S. since state data breach notifications laws went into effect in 2005.  Those are only the ones that have been reported—experts think the figure is actually much larger.[xvi]

In this modern age, it is best practice to assume that your organization has already been breached or will be breached in the future.  The only way to prevent a breach is to put solid information security policies and procedures into place, train your employees, and regularly test your network security.

Ickes Holt is a full-service, team-driven, and client focused law firm in Northeast Ohio concentrating on information security and governance. Information is the DNA of modern organizations and Ickes Holt is dedicated to advising clients on how to protect its information. Please contact us to discuss establishing or improving the information governance policies for your organization.


 

[i]       http://www.memphisneurology.com/

[ii]      http://www.commercialappeal.com/blogs/news/on-the-docket/Memphis-man-indicted-for-allegedly-using-stolen-identities–369166781.html

[iii]      http://www.hipaajournal.com/man-indicted-for-5-year-identity-theft-spree-used-memphis-neurology-data-8321/

[iv]      http://www.thompsonhine.com/publications/de-facto-private-right-of-action-under-hipaa-is-ohio-next

[v]      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-dezenhall/a-look-back-at-the-target_b_7000816.htmlhttps://www.privacyandsecuritymatters.com/2015/02/target-data-breach-price-tag-252-million-and-counting/; http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/05/target-ceo-steps-down/8713847/

[vi]      http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/fazio-mechanical-services/

[vii]     https://ickesholt.com/old/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Target-Breach-Statement.pdf

[viii]     http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-13/target-missed-warnings-in-epic-hack-of-credit-card-datahttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-dezenhall/a-look-back-at-the-target_b_7000816.html;

[ix]      http://www.pcworld.com/article/2089104/target-breach-notifications-are-a-perfect-example-of-what-not-to-do.html

[x]      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-13/target-missed-warnings-in-epic-hack-of-credit-card-data

[xi]      http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/fazio-mechanical-services/

[xii]     https://ickesholt.com/old/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Target-Breach-Statement.pdf;  http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/fazio-mechanical-services/

[xiii]     http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/fazio-mechanical-services/

[xiv]     http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/fazio-mechanical-services/

[xv]     See http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/fazio-mechanical-services/

[xvi]     http://www.cnbc.com/2013/12/19/why-did-target-take-so-long-to-report-the-breach.html

Events on Corroborate Experts’ Identification of Ransomware as 2016 Top Threat

ransomware hacker

On February 5, 2016, Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center was the target of a ransomware attack, in which malefactors seized control of the hospital’s computer systems and demanded a ransom in exchange for returning control.[i]  Initial reports indicated that the malefactors demanded 9,000 bitcoin, or $3.6 million, to unlock the system.[ii]  On February 17, 2015, the hospital paid a ransom of 40 bitcoin, or $17,000, to the malefactor.  The hospital was locked out of their system for almost two weeks, with no access to patient records.[iii]  More importantly, during this time, the malefactor had complete access to the patient records and other non-public privacy information of both the hospital’s patients and employees.

Ransomware is malicious software that allows a malefactor to infiltrate an organization’s systems, access and encrypt the organization’s data, and demand payment from the organization to decrypt or otherwise release the data.  Ransomware effectively allows a malefactor to hold an organization’s data, or even it’s entire system, hostage.[iv]  Ransomware attacks grew 113% in 2014.[v]  There were a total of 8.8 million ransomware attacks in 2014, up from 4.1 million in 2013.[vi]   Most experts anticipate that ransomware attacks will be a leading threat vector in 2016.

The Online Trust Alliance reports that malefactors have begun to intentionally select targets based on a variety of factors, including the value of the data, the size of the company, market value, and much more.[vii]  While targeted ransomware attacks are increasing in frequency, many malefactors still automatically send ransomware to large numbers of people in hopes that they will open it.  Organizations must be cognizant of, and prepared to deal with, both targeted and spammed ransomware attacks.

Researchers continue to discover new ransomware variants in greater numbers than ever before.[viii]  Many of these variants have new stealth functionalities.  For example, certain ransomware will stealthily encrypt the organization’s data in anticipation of eventual system backups.  When the system backs up, the ransomware and encrypted data will then “infect” both the organization’s system and all backups, making it that much more challenging for an organization to avoid paying the ransom. [ix]  Other real world examples of ransomware include threats to release the organization’s information to the Internet if the ransom is not paid.  Finally, as with all ransom situations, there remains the possibility that a malefactor will not relinquish control of the organization’s data and/or systems, or will follow through on the threat to release the data to the Internet even after the ransom is paid.  In many instances, however, the FBI is advising victims to pay the ransom.  This fact is a telling indicator of the overall inability of organizations and government to effectively deal with ransomware attacks.[x]

Additionally, the “ransomware-as-a-service” business model will continue to grow.[xi]  Ransomware-as-a-service allows inexperienced cybercriminals to access ransomware for free or for a nominal fee.  Once the target pays the ransom, the original author of the ransomware receives a 5% to 20% fee.[xii]  The availability of ransomware to a segment of people who do not have the knowledge or experience to code it themselves realistically creates a whole new breed of “lay” cybercriminals.   Additionally, the proliferation of ransomware creates a layer of anonymity for the actual author, which in turn reduces the risk exposure because they are not the one “pulling the trigger.”  The reduced risk of selling ransomware to a third party may embolden more experienced and talented hackers to engage in increasingly more frequent and diverse attacks, and for little reason other than making a quick buck.  The commoditization of cybersecurity threats is a dangerous development to which all organizations should pay heed.

Ransomware is typically contained in an infected attachment or link, and, once downloaded or opened by any employee, it locks all files on the device until the target pays a ransom to unlock it.[xiii]  This can occur on any electronic device connected to a company’s systems, including computers, tablets, or smartphones.[xiv]  Therefore, it is essential for organizations to: (1) educate themselves and their employees on information security and awareness, including current and emerging threats; (2) provide consistent and frequent training on email and Internet usage protocols; (3) monitor all employees’ use of computers and company issued mobile devices; and (4) restrict or limit employees’ use of personal computers, mobile devices, and wearable devices, or implement a Bring Your Own Device (“BYOD”) policy.  These minimum steps should be an organization-wide priority for 2016.


[i] Richard Winton, Hollywood hospital pays $17,000 in bitcoin to hackers; FBI investigating, Los Angeles Times, February 18, 2016, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hollywood-hospital-bitcoin-20160217-story.html.

[ii] Darlene Storm, Hollywood hospital hit with ransomware: Hackers demand $3.6 million as ransom, ComputerWorld, February 15, 2016, http://www.computerworld.com/article/3032310/security/hollywood-hospital-hit-with-ransomware-hackers-demand-3-6-million-as-ransom.html

[iii] Richard Winton, Hollywood hospital pays $17,000 in bitcoin to hackers; FBI investigating, Los Angeles Times, February 18, 2016, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hollywood-hospital-bitcoin-20160217-story.html.

[iv] Security Magazine, Ransomware Attacks to Grow in 2016, November 23, 2015, http://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/86787-ransomware-attacks-to-grow-in-2016.

[v] Symantec, Internet Secuirty Threat Report, 2015, 7, https://www4.symantec.com/mktginfo/whitepaper/ISTR/21347932_GA-internet-security-threat-report-volume-20-2015-social_v2.pdf.

[vi] Symantec, Internet Security Threat Report, 2015, 17, https://www4.symantec.com/mktginfo/whitepaper/ISTR/21347932_GA-internet-security-threat-report-volume-20-2015-social_v2.pdf.

[vii] Darlene Storm, Hollywood hospital hit with ransomware: Hackers demand $3.6 million as ransom, ComputerWorld, February 15, 2016, http://www.computerworld.com/article/3032310/security/hollywood-hospital-hit-with-ransomware-hackers-demand-3-6-million-as-ransom.html.

[viii] Security Magazine, Ransomware Attacks to Grow in 2016, November 23, 2015, http://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/86787-ransomware-attacks-to-grow-in-2016.

[ix] McAfee Labs, 2016 Threats Predictions, 2015, 24, http://www.mcafee.com/us/resources/reports/rp-threats-predictions-2016.pdf.

[x] Steven Norton, ‘Ransomware’ Attacks to Grow in 2016, Says Intel’s McAfee Labs, The Wall Street Journal, November 10, 2015, http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2015/11/10/ransomware-attacks-to-grow-in-2016-says-intels-mcafee-labs/.

[xi] McAfee Labs, 2016 Threats Predictions, 2015, 24, http://www.mcafee.com/us/resources/reports/rp-threats-predictions-2016.pdf.

[xii] Dan Turkel, There are now programs that anyone can use to extort money from you, Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/ransomware-as-a-service-is-the-next-big-cyber-crime-2015-12.

[xiii] Stacy Collett, Five New Threats to Your Mobile Device Security, CSO Online (May 21, 2014), http://www.csoonline.com/article/2157785/data-protection/five-new-threats-to-your-mobile-device-security.html.

[xiv] Stacy Collett, Five New Threats to Your Mobile Device Security, CSO Online (May 21, 2014), http://www.csoonline.com/article/2157785/data-protection/five-new-threats-to-your-mobile-device-security.html.


 

[1] Richard Winton, Hollywood hospital pays $17,000 in bitcoin to hackers; FBI investigating, Los Angeles Times, February 18, 2016, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hollywood-hospital-bitcoin-20160217-story.html.

[1] Darlene Storm, Hollywood hospital hit with ransomware: Hackers demand $3.6 million as ransom, ComputerWorld, February 15, 2016, http://www.computerworld.com/article/3032310/security/hollywood-hospital-hit-with-ransomware-hackers-demand-3-6-million-as-ransom.html

[1] Richard Winton, Hollywood hospital pays $17,000 in bitcoin to hackers; FBI investigating, Los Angeles Times, February 18, 2016, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hollywood-hospital-bitcoin-20160217-story.html.

[1] Security Magazine, Ransomware Attacks to Grow in 2016, November 23, 2015, http://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/86787-ransomware-attacks-to-grow-in-2016.

[1] Symantec, Internet Secuirty Threat Report, 2015, 7, https://www4.symantec.com/mktginfo/whitepaper/ISTR/21347932_GA-internet-security-threat-report-volume-20-2015-social_v2.pdf.

[1] Symantec, Internet Security Threat Report, 2015, 17, https://www4.symantec.com/mktginfo/whitepaper/ISTR/21347932_GA-internet-security-threat-report-volume-20-2015-social_v2.pdf.

[1] Darlene Storm, Hollywood hospital hit with ransomware: Hackers demand $3.6 million as ransom, ComputerWorld, February 15, 2016, http://www.computerworld.com/article/3032310/security/hollywood-hospital-hit-with-ransomware-hackers-demand-3-6-million-as-ransom.html.

[1] Security Magazine, Ransomware Attacks to Grow in 2016, November 23, 2015, http://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/86787-ransomware-attacks-to-grow-in-2016.

[1] McAfee Labs, 2016 Threats Predictions, 2015, 24, http://www.mcafee.com/us/resources/reports/rp-threats-predictions-2016.pdf.

[1] Steven Norton, ‘Ransomware’ Attacks to Grow in 2016, Says Intel’s McAfee Labs, The Wall Street Journal, November 10, 2015, http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2015/11/10/ransomware-attacks-to-grow-in-2016-says-intels-mcafee-labs/.

[1] McAfee Labs, 2016 Threats Predictions, 2015, 24, http://www.mcafee.com/us/resources/reports/rp-threats-predictions-2016.pdf.

[1] Dan Turkel, There are now programs that anyone can use to extort money from you, Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/ransomware-as-a-service-is-the-next-big-cyber-crime-2015-12.

[1] Stacy Collett, Five New Threats to Your Mobile Device Security, CSO Online (May 21, 2014), http://www.csoonline.com/article/2157785/data-protection/five-new-threats-to-your-mobile-device-security.html.

[1] Stacy Collett, Five New Threats to Your Mobile Device Security, CSO Online (May 21, 2014), http://www.csoonline.com/article/2157785/data-protection/five-new-threats-to-your-mobile-device-security.html.