RHTLaw Taylor Wessing Intellectual and Property Technology Partner Jack Ow wrote an article published in CIO Asia titled “Privacy, cybercrime and the law in a post-ransomware world”.The article was first published in the 23 June 2017 edition of CIO Asia.Privacy, cybercrime and the law in a post-ransomware worldSource: CIO AsiaDate: 23 June 2017Author: Jack OwIn an age where data has become a valuable commodity that is the object of cybercrime, organisations and cybersecurity professionals must work within applicable legal frameworks in preventing, detecting and responding to cybercrime and cyberattacks.This vendorwritten piece has been edited by Executive Networks Media to eliminate product promotion, but readers should note it will likely favour the submitter's approach.Weeks before the Wannacry ransomware attacks, I became another victim of cybercrime earlier in April 2017.My bank's SMS notification alerted me to a €2,800 transaction on my credit card in a restaurant in Vienna one afternoon. The last I checked, I was in Singapore. Within the next minute, I was on the phone with the bank. As we were verifying the unauthorised transaction, a second SMS notification alerted us to another €1,300 that was transacted on the same card at the same location.It was somewhat ironic, because I had highlighted recent amendments to the Singapore Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act (CMCA) that was passed by the Singapore parliament just days before the unauthorised credit card transactions. Like most victims of cybercrime, it is unlikely for me to have the full facts behind the unauthorised collection, circulation and use of my credit card details, but I believe that the recent amendments to our cybercrime laws are a necessary step in the correct direction to address the proliferating ease of obtaining valuable and/or sensitive personal data, for commissioning or facilitating other offences.Buyer Beware: Using Hacked Personal Data Could Be A CrimeWith the changes to our cybercrime laws, there will be, understandably, some initial uncertainty among individuals and companies in the scope and application of the laws, especially if they are in the business of cybersecurity, or have cybersecurity concerns.One of the main objectives for amending the CMCA is to criminalise dealings in hacked personal data for illicit purposes. In particular, the changes address the roles of, and close the gaps under the existing law against, "middlemen" that trade in such personal data, but are not directly involved in the computer hacking offences. (See: Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (3 April 2017), 2nd Reading, Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill)).As a consequence, the legislative changes would also mean that individuals and companies, including cybersecurity professionals, are obliged to exercise due care when dealing with personal data obtained through hacking.For any personal data obtained or retained by individuals and companies to which the origin is unclear, including where such personal data may have been the product of hacking ("Hacked Personal Data"), individuals and companies must ensure that such Hacked Personal Data is not collected or used for the purpose of committing, or in facilitating the commission of, any offence ("legitimate purpose").To the extent that individuals and companies supply, offer to supply, transmit or make available, by any means (each an "act of supplying") such Hacked Personal Data, they must (i) ensure that any act of supplying the Hacked Personal Data is only for a legitimate purpose, and (ii) be able to prove that they did not know, or have any reason to believe, that the hacked personal data will be, or is likely to be used, to commit, or facilitate the commission of, any offence.In other words, dealings in Hacked Personal Data could attract criminal liability under Singapore law, unless it is collected and used only for a legitimate purpose, and due care has been exercised in its disclosure, both in terms of the nature of the contents actually disclosed and the party to whom it was disclosed.When Public Domain is Not Public KnowledgeIn addition to the issues that could attract criminal liability under the CMCA, individuals and companies dealing with Hacked Personal Data for legitimate purposes need to be aware of other concurrent legal obligations.Under the Singapore Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (PDPA), the collection, use and disclosure of any personal data by an organisation requires the consent of the individual to which the person data pertains, unless the organisation can rely on exemptions under the PDPA, for example, where:1) the collection, use and/or disclosure of the personal data is necessary:to respond to an emergency that threatens the life, health or safety of the individual or another individual; or
for any investigation or proceedings; or
for evaluative purposes; or2) the personal data is publicly available.The application of these exemptions under the PDPA may not be straightforward with regard to dealings with Hacked Personal Data, as the PDPA has ascribed specific meanings and parameters on what constitutes "investigation", "proceedings", "evaluative purposes", and "publicly available".Individuals and organisations also must not forget that confidential data do not automatically lose their confidential status when they are made available in the public domain. This was clarified by the Singapore Court of Appeal in the recent decision of Wee Shuo Woon v HT S.R.L.