Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On June 21, 2010, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published its Opinion on a new security bill, the Loi d'orientation et de programmation de la performance de la sécurité intérieure (referred to as “LOPPSI”), which was adopted by the French National Assembly on February 16, 2010, and recently amended by the Senate's Commission of Laws on June 2, 2010.

In a recently published decision rendered on June 16, 2010, the Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court ruled that an Internet access provider may store IP addresses for seven days, and therefore, customers have no right to demand immediate deletion of their IP addresses.  The Court’s ruling upheld a decision originally rendered by the regional court of Darmstadt.

The claimant had requested that Deutsche Telekom AG delete the dynamic IP address assigned and stored for each Internet session immediately upon disconnection by a user.  Up to that point, the Internet provider had been retaining IP addresses for 80 days after each billing cycle.  In June 2007, the lower court granted the claimant request, imposing a maximum retention period of seven days for IP addresses.  The Internet provider reduced its IP address retention period accordingly, based on an agreement with the German federal data protection authority.

Hunton & Williams is pleased to announce its 2010 rankings from Chambers and Partners and The Legal 500 United States.  The firm was ranked #1 in both surveys for its Privacy and Information Management practice.

Once again, the firm was ranked in "Band 1" for Privacy and Data Security by both the Chambers USA and Chambers Global guides.  Chambers notes, "the team is particularly praised for its international expertise, especially in matters involving the European Union, such as cross-border data transfers."  Clients note that the firm "is a major competitor, especially on data ...

On July 6, 2010, the Irish government formally objected to the adequacy procedure initiated by the European Commission that would have allowed the free flow of European personal data to Israel, over concerns of the possible use of the information by Israeli officials.  This political move follows recent revelations regarding forgery of European passports, including several from Ireland, and their alleged use by Israel’s intelligence services.

On July 7, 2010, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office published a new code of practice for the collection of personal data online.  Launching the new code at a data protection conference, UK Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said, “the benefits of the internet age are clear: the chance to make more contacts, quicker transactions and greater convenience.  But there are risks too.  A record of our online activity can reveal our most personal interests.  Get privacy right and you will retain the trust and confidence of your customers and users; mislead consumers or collect information you don’t need and you are likely to diminish customer trust and face enforcement action from the ICO.”

On July 8, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to modify the Privacy, Security and Enforcement Rules promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.  The modifications implement changes made by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the “HITECH” Act) enacted in 2009.

On July 6, 2010, Mexico’s Ley Federal de Protección de Datos Personales en Posesión de los Particulares came into force.  As we previously reported, on April 27, 2010, the Mexican Senate unanimously approved this landmark federal data protection law governing the collection, processing and disclosure of personal data by the private sector.  Pursuant to the adoption of the new law, the Mexican Federal Institute of Access to Public Information has changed its name to the Federal Institute of Access to Information and Data Protection.

As reported by the IAPP, the Institute’s ...

Bret Taylor, the Chief Technology Officer of Facebook, announced this week on the Facebook Blog that the company will enhance privacy protections pertaining to third-party applications.  When a Facebook user logs into a third-party application with his or her Facebook account, the application will only be able to access the public parts of the user’s Facebook profile.  If the application wants to access private sections of a user’s Facebook profile, the application has to explicitly ask the Facebook user for permission.  For example, if a greeting card application wants to ...

The Australian government recently released an exposure draft of legislation that would fundamentally reform the Australian Privacy Act and would unify public and private sector privacy principles.  The exposure draft includes thirteen principles intended to protect individuals from the risks associated with the sharing of personal information.

Of particular interest to the international business community, Principle 8 addresses the cross-border disclosure of personal information.  The principle states that an entity must take reasonable steps to ensure that an overseas recipient does not breach the Australian Privacy Principles with respect to personal information being disclosed, but provides an exception if the entity reasonably believes that (i) the recipient of the information is subject to a law or binding scheme that provides protection that is substantially similar to protections provided by the Australian Privacy Principles, and (ii) there are mechanisms available for affected individuals to enforce such protection.

On June 24, 2010, the Article 29 Working Party adopted Opinion 2/2010 (the “Opinion”) providing further clarification on online behavioral advertising.  The Working Party also issued a press release on this topic.  Although the scope of the Opinion is limited to online profiling, its interpretation of Article 5(3) of the amended e-Privacy Directive provides some useful clarifications regarding the legal framework applicable to online behavioral advertising and the use of cookies.  We provide a short analysis of the Opinion below.

Opt-in?  Browser setting as opt-in?  Opt-out?  The Opinion clarifies the Working Party’s interpretation of the new Article 5(3) and Recital 66 of the e-Privacy Directive.  According to the Working Party, Article 5(3) and Recital 66, along with the General Data Protection Directive (“Directive 95/46/EC”), require prior opt-in consent since “prior opt-in consent mechanisms are better suited to deliver informed consent.”