Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On January 14, 2011, the European Network and Information Security Agency (“ENISA”), which was created to enhance information security within the European Union, published a report entitled “Data breach notifications in the EU” (the “Report”).

Currently, there is wide debate throughout the EU regarding data breach notification requirements.  The debate stems from recent high-profile data breach incidents and the introduction of mandatory data breach notification requirements for telecommunication service providers imposed by EU Directive 2009/136/EC (amending EU Directive 2002/58/EC, the “e-Privacy Directive”), which must be integrated into EU Member States’ national laws by May 25, 2011.  The goal of the Report is to assist Member States, regulatory authorities and private organizations with their implementation of data breach notification policies.

On January 13, 2011, a Bill (Projet de loi organique relatif au Défenseur des droits) containing several amendments to the French Data Protection Act was preliminarily adopted by the French National Assembly.  If enacted, the Bill would amend several key provisions of the French Data Protection Act, including revisions regarding the powers of the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”), and the role of Chairman of the CNIL.  The amendments are summarized below.

On January 12, 2011, Adobe Systems Incorporated (“Adobe”) announced in its Adobe Flash Platform Blog that it is working with browser vendors to integrate control features into browser user interfaces that will allow users to more easily control local shared objects (“LSOs”) on their computers.  Local shared objects, often referred to as Flash cookies, store information about online activity, including things like browsing history, login details and preferences.  In August 2010, we reported on several lawsuits that had been filed against online advertising networks for, among other things, using Flash cookies to re-create deleted browser cookies.

Earlier this month, the Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) published its December 15, 2010 Recommendation on Mobile Mapping (Recommandation d’initiative en matière de Mobile Mapping, or “the Recommendation”).  The Recommendation defines Mobile Mapping as “technology by which a vehicle equipped with a camera and/or a scanner can digitally record all data on a specific road, including by taking 360° photos.”  The scope of the Recommendation covers not only applications such as Google Street View, but also other types of Mobile Mapping such as mapping by public authorities, mapping for tourism, real estate applications and GPS navigation mapping.

On January 11, 2011, Michelle O’Neill, U.S. Department of Commerce Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade, held a briefing on her November 2010 meetings in Brussels with European data protection authorities.  She discussed a data protection and privacy forum that was convened in November at which she met with several high-level European regulators, including Jacob Kohnstamm, Viviane Reding and Peter Hustinx.  O’Neill mentioned “the right to be forgotten” as a current hot-button issue in Europe.  Commissioner Reding, who is firmly in charge of the reconsideration of the EU Data Protection Directive, focused on ensuring easier compliance with EU data protection rules and greater harmonization among Member States.  O’Neill stated that Peter Hustinx was encouraged by the work ongoing in the United States, including the “Green Paper” issued by the Department of Commerce.  He considers the various U.S. efforts a basis for further dialogue with U.S. authorities.  O’Neill noted that comments to the EU consultation are due January 15, 2011.  The Department of Commerce intends to file a response.

In late December 2010, consumers filed two class action lawsuits against Apple Inc., claiming that several applications they downloaded from Apple’s App Store sent their personal information to third parties without their consent.  Specifically, the consumers claim that Apple allowed third party advertising networks to follow user activity through the Unique Device Identifiers that Apple assigns each device that downloads applications.  The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, also named several application developers such as Pandora and The Weather Channel as co-defendants.

Early this week, the Article 29 Working Party issued its December 16, 2010 Opinion on applicable law, providing guidance on the scope of EU data protection law and the practical implications of Article 4 of the EU Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC, the “Directive”).

The purpose of the Working Party’s Opinion 8/2010 (the “Opinion”) is twofold.  First, it intends to clarify the current scope of EU data protection law with regard to the processing of personal data within and outside the European Economic Area (the “EEA”).  The clarifications by the Working Party are aimed at enhancing legal certainty for data controllers, providing a clearer framework for individuals and stakeholders and avoiding legal loopholes and potential conflicts between overlapping national data protection laws.  Throughout the Opinion, practical examples are used to demonstrate the clarifications, such as in the context of centralized HR databases, geolocation services, cloud computing and online social networks.  Furthermore, in light of the general revision of the EU data protection framework, the Opinion includes suggestions to improve the existing applicable law provisions in the EU Data Protection Directive.

The Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams has issued the following statement about the U.S. Department of Commerce’s “Green Paper” released on December 16:

The Centre for Information Policy Leadership congratulates the Department of Commerce on the release of its Green Paper, entitled “Commercial Data Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy: A Dynamic Policy Framework,” and commends the Department for the extensive outreach and research it conducted to inform the document. 

On December 18, 2010, President Obama signed into law the “Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010” (S.3987), which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to the applicability of identity theft guidelines to creditors.  The law limits the scope of the Federal Trade Commission’s Identity Theft Red Flags Rule (“Red Flags Rule”), which requires “creditors” and “financial institutions” that have “covered accounts” to develop and implement written identity theft prevention programs to help identify, detect and respond to patterns, practices or specific activities that indicate possible identity theft.

On December 14, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in United States v. Warshak that a “subscriber enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of emails” stored, sent or received through a commercial internet service provider (“ISP”).  According to the court, the government must have a search warrant before it can compel a commercial ISP to turn over the contents of a subscriber’s emails.

In 2008, a jury sitting in the Southern District of Ohio convicted defendants Steven Warshak, Harriet Warshak and TCI Media, Inc. of various crimes relating to defrauding customers of Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, Inc.  Before trial, Warshak’s motion to exclude thousands of emails that the government obtained from his ISP was denied.  The defendants appealed their convictions, arguing that the government’s warrantless seizure of Warshak’s private emails violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.