The Efficacy of Cybersecurity Regulation

D. Thaw
{"title":"The Efficacy of Cybersecurity Regulation","authors":"D. Thaw","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2241838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cybersecurity regulation presents an interesting quandary where, because private entities possess the best information about threats and defenses, legislatures do – and should – deliberately encode regulatory capture into the rulemaking process. This relatively uncommon approach to administrative law, which I describe as Management-Based Regulatory Delegation, involves the combination of two legislative approaches to engaging private entities' expertise. This Article explores the wisdom of those choices by comparing the efficacy of such private sector engaged regulation with that of a more traditional, directive mode of regulating cybersecurity adopted by the state legislatures. My analysis suggests that a blend of these two modes of regulating is superior to either method alone.Federal regulation of cybersecurity through HIPAA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and the Federal Trade Commission's enforcement heavily involves private organizations subject to the regulation in the establishment of the actual practices and standards to which those organizations are held. By contrast, the state cybersecurity laws – a form of disclosure-based regulation that de facto achieves directive regulation – detail specific standards developed without industry input.This Article compares the efficacy of those two modes of regulating using a mixed-methods empirical approach. Qualitative data based on interviews with Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) at leading multinational corporations details the practical effects of how regulation drives cybersecurity practices. Analysis of quantitative data describing security breach incidents reveals that a blend of the two types of regulation is substantially more effective at preventing such incidents than is either method alone. These results provide insight into ways to mitigate the risks of deliberate regulatory capture while still leveraging the unique knowledge private entities have about what are the most salient cybersecurity threats and defenses.","PeriodicalId":81326,"journal":{"name":"Georgia State University law review","volume":"30 1","pages":"14710"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Georgia State University law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2241838","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

Cybersecurity regulation presents an interesting quandary where, because private entities possess the best information about threats and defenses, legislatures do – and should – deliberately encode regulatory capture into the rulemaking process. This relatively uncommon approach to administrative law, which I describe as Management-Based Regulatory Delegation, involves the combination of two legislative approaches to engaging private entities' expertise. This Article explores the wisdom of those choices by comparing the efficacy of such private sector engaged regulation with that of a more traditional, directive mode of regulating cybersecurity adopted by the state legislatures. My analysis suggests that a blend of these two modes of regulating is superior to either method alone.Federal regulation of cybersecurity through HIPAA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and the Federal Trade Commission's enforcement heavily involves private organizations subject to the regulation in the establishment of the actual practices and standards to which those organizations are held. By contrast, the state cybersecurity laws – a form of disclosure-based regulation that de facto achieves directive regulation – detail specific standards developed without industry input.This Article compares the efficacy of those two modes of regulating using a mixed-methods empirical approach. Qualitative data based on interviews with Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) at leading multinational corporations details the practical effects of how regulation drives cybersecurity practices. Analysis of quantitative data describing security breach incidents reveals that a blend of the two types of regulation is substantially more effective at preventing such incidents than is either method alone. These results provide insight into ways to mitigate the risks of deliberate regulatory capture while still leveraging the unique knowledge private entities have about what are the most salient cybersecurity threats and defenses.
网络安全监管的有效性
网络安全监管呈现出一个有趣的困境,因为私人实体拥有有关威胁和防御的最佳信息,立法机构确实——也应该——故意将监管捕获编码到规则制定过程中。这种相对不常见的行政法方法,我称之为基于管理的监管授权,涉及两种立法方法的结合,以吸引私人实体的专业知识。本文通过比较此类私营部门参与监管的效力与州立法机构采用的更传统的、指令性的网络安全监管模式的效力,探讨了这些选择的智慧。我的分析表明,这两种调节模式的混合优于单独使用任何一种方法。通过HIPAA, gramm - leach - billey和联邦贸易委员会对网络安全的联邦监管在很大程度上涉及到私人组织,这些组织在建立实际实践和标准方面受到监管。相比之下,国家网络安全法——一种基于信息披露的监管形式,实际上实现了指令监管——详述了在没有行业投入的情况下制定的具体标准。本文采用混合方法的实证方法比较了这两种调节模式的效果。基于对领先跨国公司首席信息安全官(ciso)访谈的定性数据,详细说明了监管如何推动网络安全实践的实际影响。对描述安全漏洞事件的定量数据的分析表明,在防止此类事件方面,两种监管类型的混合比单独使用任何一种方法都要有效得多。这些结果为减轻故意监管捕获风险的方法提供了见解,同时仍然利用私营实体对最突出的网络安全威胁和防御的独特知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书