Big data, big problem?

Geldards LLP Chairman David Williams (pictured) looks at the legal challenges surrounding the obtaining and utilising of data – from both a consumer and professional services perspective.

It is quite unnerving the amount of information we actually give out about ourselves. We let companies know our personal details, social behaviour, consumer preferences, spending habits and even our whereabouts. The phrase ‘Google

it’ no longer involves typing, you simply ask the question out loud and an assistant of some description replies. We are even letting technology listen to our conversations and register what we are saying. Have you ever had a conversation about a brand or product, and a couple of minutes later seen an advert online or received an email about it? Today, we really can’t get away from it. Should we be scared about how

much data we are giving away, or do we just all know the deal? In 2017, the average time spent on social media per day was 135 minutes. You get a free service to connect with family and friends, but you give your data away and it is used to profile you. But, is this

now going too far? The press has been dominated recently with the story of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. Facebook insisted this was not a data breach, but did acknowledge it was a ‘breach of trust’. Up until this point, people have been comfortable with the deal we have, but that has all changed. I have seen Facebook and the like described as ‘surveillance’

companies, I think that is correct. However, should we be

bothered if we don’t have anything to hide? Big data knows I am a cyclist, so shows me information about bikes regularly. This can get annoying, but it is not a big issue. The concern starts for me when I think my Google Assistant is listening to my family conversations. To add to these challenges from

a consumer perspective, as a firm we also need to look at it from a legal perspective and this multiplies the challenges significantly. Can anybody honestly say they read the

terms and conditions? In a recent research exercise undertaken in London, commuters were offered superfast Wi-Fi access if they signed up to the associated T&Cs – a large number of people did just this without realising that they had agreed to a “Herod Clause” which “assigned their first-born child to the provider for the duration of eternity” as part of the deal. If you were to read every set of conditions from everything you were signed up to it would take you around 75 days. It is all about knowing what the law is, and as a law firm it is our responsibility to communicate it as clearly as possible to our clients. We also have a responsibility to

keep our own data we store safe and confidential. I recently noticed WhatsApp claims ‘messages to this chat and calls are now secured with end-to-end encryption.’ Does this mean anything you say or send in a WhatsApp conversation is never

seen by anybody? If this is the case, should we, as a business, be communicating on WhatsApp? This obviously has its down sides. We would be communicating about work and the confidentiality would be welcomed. However, we don’t want terrorist-

related conversations to be confidential and last year this affected 80% of investigations into terrorism. This takes me back to my initial point, is this just a deal we need to accept? On a lighter note, I spend a lot of

time out of the office and everywhere I go I seem to see a Geldards pen. The marketing team tell me they are just good quality pens but with the amount of data we give out, through various devices, I am beginning to wonder if they’re bugged!*

*Note, Geldards pens are NOT bugged.

New law to protect UK from cyber attacks

New measures to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure and digital services from cyber attacks and computer network failure have come into force. Bosses of firms in health, water,

energy, transport and digital infrastructure will now be expected to have robust safeguards in place against cyber threats and report breaches and network outages to regulators within 72 hours or they face fines of up to £17m. The new law announced by

Digital Minister Margot James will help reduce the number of damaging cyber attacks affecting the UK. The National Cyber Security

Centre (pictured), set up by the Government in October 2016 as part of GCHQ, has already

responded to more than 950 significant incidents, including WannaCry. It will also give new regulators

powers to assess critical industries and make sure plans are in place to prevent attacks. The regulator will have the power to issue legally- binding instructions to improve security, and – if necessary – impose significant fines.

‘The National Cyber Security Centre, set up by the Government in October 2016 as part of GCHQ, has already responded to more than 950 significant incidents’

Digital Minister Margot James

business network June 2018 61

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72