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​ 

July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to