White House Holds Cybersecurity Summit at Stanford University

Feb 18, 2015

Reading Time : 4 min

By: Francine E. Friedman, Natasha G. Kohne, Matthew Thomas (Senior Public Policy Specialist) David S. Turetsky, Visiting Professor, College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security, and Cybersecurity at the University of Albany

The EO encourages private organizations to develop information sharing and analysis organizations (ISAOs), which may be nonprofits, membership organizations or a private company.  It also directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to fund a non-profit organization to develop a common set of voluntary standards for ISAOs, and clarifies the agency’s authority to enter into agreements with ISAOs.  Further, the EO adds DHS to the list of Federal agencies that may approve classified information sharing arrangements and takes steps to ensure that information sharing entities can appropriately access classified cybersecurity threat information.

While broadening the ability of the federal government to share threat information, the EO also emphasizes personal privacy.  Under the EO, private sector ISAOs must agree to abide by a common set of voluntary privacy standards, which must include privacy protections, such as data minimization, for ISAO operation and ISAO member participation.  Additionally, agencies collaborating with ISAOs under the EO will be required to coordinate their activities with their senior officials for privacy and civil liberties and ensure that appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties are in place and are based upon the United States Federal Trade Commission’s Fair Information Practice Principles.

The President’s Remarks

In addition to stressing the importance of information sharing and signing the EO, the president highlighted several companies working to support the administration’s cybersecurity initiatives.  “I want to acknowledge, by the way, that the companies who are represented here are stepping up as well. . . .  You’ve got companies from Apple to Intel, from Bank of America to PG&E, who are going to use the Cybersecurity Framework to strengthen their own defenses.  As part of our BuySecure Initiative, Visa and MasterCard and American Express and others are going to make their transactions more secure.  Nationstar is joining companies that are giving their companies [customers] another weapon to battle identity theft, and that's free access to their credit scores.”  The president also announced a “Cyber Threat Alliance,” that includes companies like Palo Alto Networks and Symantec, which will work to implement the threat sharing protocols that are stipulated under the EO.

The president, several high-ranking administration officials, and a number of participating business leaders also called on Congress to pass information sharing legislation that could provide business with liability protections for the sharing of appropriate threat information.  The president emphasized that this is not a partisan issue.  The president and certain administration members also called on Congress to fund the Department of Homeland Security, with funding currently scheduled to run out late this month.

The president emphasized evolving cybersecurity and privacy issues as a major challenge of this century, implicating national security, economic security and prosperity, and family security.  The technologies that “empower us” he said can “undermine us.”  He discussed threats, needs, opportunities and actions in these areas, and said further privacy proposals from the administration would be coming later this month.

Our partner, David Turetsky, was invited by the White House to attend the summit, and also attended meetings at Stanford organized by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) the day before.  His observations from the summit and those meetings include:

  • Unauthorized Access Will Occur:  Companies repeatedly said that there are only two kinds of companies, those who know they have been hacked and those who do not know it.  Speakers emphasized that monitoring and earlier detection are important as are other efforts to make entry, exfiltration and destruction more expensive and less valuable for intruders (e.g., through two-factor authentication rather than passwords, up-to-date encryption, certain storage techniques, etc.), but the expectation is that entry will occur.
  • Cyberattacks Can Affect All Sectors:  Some speakers noted that after the Target data breach, many other companies distinguished that experience by noting they are not in the retail space.  The Sony experience has changed that perspective for many.
  • Cybersecurity is a Key Component of Risk Management Strategy:  Some companies find that the threat landscape changes so rapidly, in turn affecting their cybersecurity risk profile, that they reassess and budget for security monthly rather than annually; some also said that they think of these issues as fundamental to “trust” and directly related to their investment in their brand, which enters into their assessment of the stakes in this area.
  • Private Sector Facing Increasingly Sophisticated Attacks:  Experts noted that there used to be a lot of talk about military-grade cybersecurity protection but that grade of protection is increasingly moving into the commercial sector, an occurrence that reflects that sometimes the same or even more sophisticated attacks are made on the commercial sector.
  • Compliance Burdens May Hinder Security and Mitigation Efforts:  In certain industries that are also subject to state regulation, a couple of speakers noted with concern that they are increasingly spending time and effort on “compliance” rather than improving cybersecurity; others noted that there are some laws that are impediments to consumer protection, with one stating that one such law can prevent a company from texting all of its customers after a security breach, preventing a method to make timely and effective notification that can limit the window for fraud. 
  • Cybersecurity by Design:  Speakers noted that opt-in security is usually not effective and that often users do not cooperate.  There has to be an effort to design security in.  Some observed that perhaps the highest level of security requirements should attach to senior IT and other executives who have the most access, since their credentials may be the most valuable to hackers.
  • Greater IT/Security Training:  Some participants suggested more training needs to happen at many levels. For instance, some claimed that that possibly 25 types of programming errors account for the lion’s share of software vulnerabilities and that this can be improved substantially through training and much better feedback.
  • Cyber Attacks Can Have Physical Consequences:  The problems encountered down the road could be far worse in terms of impact than those encountered so far.  Some examples given by speakers who said they were looking ahead include possible manipulation of industrial control systems worse than that which recently damaged a German steel plant, and the changing of sensitive records, such as medical records, that could result in serious harm, including death.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.