You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

November 20, 2015

Cyber Security Preparedness: It’s a Dangerous World Out There

Informed Counsel

Virtually all of us are dependent on the use of the Internet and Internet-connected devices. People are plugged in, online, and in constant communication through wired and wireless telecommunication networks coupled to the Internet.

By virtue of this dependency, we entrust Internet-enabled applications, programs, and connected devices with our most private communications and personal and financial details. Yet we read, almost on a daily basis, of hacks and compromises on a gargantuan scale, of the very systems we entrust with our private business and personal data.

The disclosures of Edward Snowden and others have increased public awareness about the need to be mindful of cyber security and cyber threats in our IT-centric world of smartphones, Internet, and Cloud-based services.

Businesses are faced with many of the same cyber security risks as individuals, but businesses are made to bear greater legal and financial responsibility in the event of a compromise.

Today, cyber security, including data protection, is a board-level critical business risk area. A major compromise of a corporate IT system may raise significant business continuity and business reputation risks, in addition to possible lawsuits by customers and actions by the government/regulators, such as investigations, penalties, and fines. Companies now find their risk management committees devoting more and more time to cyber security issues.

The cyber risk landscape is highly dynamic, making ongoing proactive prevention necessary but difficult. Moreover, it is very difficult for a business to keep a breach of its IT system private, irrespective of legal obligations or attempts to control public disclosure that a system has been hacked.

Worse still, the detection of a compromise or hack often happens many months or even years after the initial compromise. Clearly, dealing with cyber risks requires diligent attention. But given the dynamic nature of cyber risks, what areas should a business focus on when establishing a program of cyber security preparedness?

Cyber security preparedness necessarily involves much more than board supervision and risk management committee oversight. It also requires a review of what cyber security processes, structures, and mitigation measures government regulators expect in each of the jurisdictions where a company does business and/or where the relevant data resides. Going beyond legal issues, the review must also take account of practicalities, including costs, perceived risk, and objective reasonableness.

One key component of such a review is an assessment of vendor risk management, which has become even more important given the broad adoption of Cloud services. The review should include consideration of vendor policies, procedures, and contracts to ensure the sufficiency of security obligations and legal remedies to protect the company against a compromise by, or through, any of its vendors.

Cyber security risk assessment has also become a core component of due diligence, particularly in mergers and acquisitions. In addition to considering whether there are any ongoing regulatory investigations or enforcement actions relating to breaches or other compromises, a due diligence review should address whether the target company has critical data assets (e.g., personally identifying information of customers and/or credit card data) and whether the target has experienced data breaches, and if so, provide an explanation of the damage and how it was mitigated. It should also take account of the risk of future breaches, and more generally, whether the target’s cyber security program is adequate using both industry benchmark standards as well as legal requirements.

For example, a cyber security program should include an incident response plan that is tested through tabletop exercises with senior management, technology representatives, and legal counsel, and it should be kept up to date, taking account of new threats that are identified. The incident response plan should be developed using multiple scenarios to realistically simulate potential incidents including Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) intrusions, data theft, insider attacks, and denial of service attacks. The plan must also take account of the type of business.  For example, retailers should consider point-of-sale attack scenarios.

While important, detection is merely the first step. Businesses should also have in place policies and procedures for a proper response, providing for appropriate escalation within the organization’s management structure, mitigation of risk, and preservation of forensic evidence once a compromise is discovered. It should also protect attorney-client privilege materials and the company’s legal rights, in case lawsuits or government or regulatory investigations subsequently arise.

In today’s world, companies need to take a proactive stance in dealing with cyber security.  Companies’ dependence on IT systems and Cloud-based services will only increase, and cyber security will continue to become ever more important. Companies must prepare for attacks from the inside as well as from outside third parties (including both criminally-motivated individuals as well as state-sponsored attacks).

Company executives, hand in hand with legal counsel and the technology team, must work together to continually evaluate a company’s preparedness and develop and implement defense and mitigation strategies to prevent and limit damage due to cyber attacks.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must