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​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition