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​ 

May 6, 2026
Thailand has introduced new requirements for online social media platforms to verify the identity of paying advertisers before publishing their advertisements. On May 5, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Commission published the Notification on Measures for Prevention of Technology Crime for Online Social Media (No. 2) in the Government Gazette. The notification, which aims to prevent technology crimes such as fraud and scams, takes effect 180 days after publication (i.e., on November 1, 2026). Mandatory Advertiser Identity Verification Online social media service providers must verify the identity of every advertiser before publishing an advertisement. Verification remains valid for up to one year from the most recent verification date. The notification requires social media providers to use either of the following methods when verifying advertisers: Document-based verification: Examine government-issued identity documents (e.g., national ID, passport, or juristic person registration certificate), cross-check the connection between the advertiser and the identity documents (e.g., facial comparison with photo ID), and ensure that the identity documents are verifiable against reliable sources. Digital identity verification: Use an identity verification system with a level of assurance no lower than that prescribed by the Electronic Transactions Commission. Advertiser Data Collection and Retention Service providers must collect and retain certain data—including name, identification number, and contact details—from the start of the advertising service and for a minimum of 90 days after the end of the advertising service relationship. The same requirements apply where there is a third-party payer, such as an ad agency. Implications for Affected Businesses The notification raises two key areas of concern for affected businesses: Social media platforms must implement know-your-advertiser (KYA) onboarding as described above, including document upload and identity matching processes. The 180-day implementation window requires immediate technical and operational planning. The collection and retention of national ID cards, passport copies, and other personal
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a