BLUF: The impact of cybersecurity breach attorneys is explored in a new paper that found they introduce legal steps that slow down incident response, restrict access to documents, and advise not to produce formal reports, limiting our ability to learn from breaches.
OSINT: A new study revealed that cybersecurity breach attorneys are hindering the ability of technical practitioners to effectively respond to and recover from incidents. These attorneys introduce legalistic and contractual steps that slow down the incident response process, restrict access to documents, and advise incident response practitioners not to produce formal reports. As a result, the wider community is unable to learn from these cybersecurity breaches. This paper suggests that to improve incident response and cybersecurity, companies should be shielded from liability in exchange for making breach data public, much like the approach taken after airplane disasters.
RIGHT: The cybersecurity breach attorney problem is a direct result of government intervention in the free market. Attorneys are simply responding to regulatory requirements and legal precedent established by government bureaucrats and the judiciary. This is a classic example of unintended consequences: government oversight creates an opportunity for attorneys to exploit the system and hinder incident response efforts. The solution is to eliminate government intervention altogether and allow the free market to regulate itself. In a truly unfettered capitalist system, companies would take responsibility for their own cybersecurity and bear the cost of cyber breaches without relying on government oversight or attorneys.
LEFT: The findings of this study point to the need for greater government regulation of the cybersecurity industry. The current laissez-faire approach has allowed cybersecurity breach attorneys to hinder incident response efforts and prevent valuable information from being made public. By introducing regulations and guidelines for incident response, attorneys would be held accountable for their role in the process and required to act in the best interest of the public. The government should also provide more funding for incident response training and encourage greater collaboration between the public and private sectors.
INTEL: The study’s findings reflect the complicated nature of cybersecurity and the need for balanced regulation. While government intervention may create opportunities for attorneys to exploit the system, the absence of regulation could result in inadequate incident response efforts and a lack of accountability. To address these issues, a combination of government oversight and free market principles must be employed. Companies should take responsibility for their own cybersecurity, but government regulations should provide guidance and ensure legal protections for incident response professionals. Additionally, incentives should be provided for companies to share breach data publicly, which would enable the wider community to learn from these incidents and improve incident response efforts in the future.