Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On November 9, 2009, Connecticut’s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, announced an investigation of whether Blue Cross and Blue Shield (“BCBS”) violated Connecticut’s data breach notification law by waiting until two months after a data breach had occurred to notify affected Connecticut residents.  The data breach, which Attorney General Blumenthal called “one of the most sizable and significant in Connecticut’s history,” involved the theft of a laptop containing confidential unencrypted data from the car of a BCBS employee in late August.  BCBS notified affected Connecticut residents of the breach in late October.

In a closed session on November 5, 2009, the 31st International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners adopted the International Standards on the Protection of Personal Data and Privacy (the “Standards”).  Although the document is advisory in nature and is not legally binding, it offers guidance to States that have not yet adopted comprehensive data protection laws.  The Spanish Data Protection Agency, which acted as the secretariat for drafting the Standards, held two meetings that included more than fifty privacy enforcement agencies, privacy advocates and businesses before hosting a final drafting session that was reserved for recognized data protection authorities.

Every year since 2005, the United States, the European Commission and the Article 29 Working Party on Data Protection meet to review the latest developments in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework, as well as changes in privacy compliance, information security and data protection.  This year’s  International Conference on Cross Border Data Flows, Data Protection and Privacy occurs November 16 - 18 and features leading experts who will examine these issues and others, as well as changes made to the approval process for binding corporate rules.  Join our privacy professionals, Martin ...

Background

On November 9, 2009, the UK's Ministry of Justice launched a consultation seeking the public's views on the proposed implementation of a maximum penalty of £500,000 (approximately US$837,950) for serious breaches of the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (the "DPA").  This Consultation follows the Information Commissioners' publication of draft guidance this week, explaining the circumstances in which a fine will be imposed.  The launch of the Consultation puts to rest recent speculation as to the level of fine likely to be imposed for a deliberate or serious breach of the DPA, including for data security breaches.

The DPA imposes obligations on data controllers that process personal data to: (i) process personal data fairly and lawfully; (ii) obtain personal data only for specified lawful purposes, and not further process personal data in any manner incompatible with such purposes; (iii) ensure that personal data are adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are processed; (iv) ensure that personal data are accurate and, where necessary, kept up-to-date; (v) keep personal data only for as long as is necessary for the purposes for which they are collected; (vi) process personal data in accordance with individuals' rights; (vii) implement appropriate technical and organizational measures against unauthorized or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data; and (viii) not transfer personal data to a jurisdiction outside the European Economic Area unless that jurisdiction affords adequate protection levels for individuals' rights and freedoms in relation to the processing of personal data.

In 1980, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) first published privacy guidelines that included an accountability principle.  Since that time, little work has been done to define accountability or to describe what it means for organizations to be accountable for the responsible use and protection of data.  In an effort to fill that gap, The Centre for Information Policy Leadership has authored “Data Protection Accountability: The Essential Elements” which articulates the conditions organizations would have to meet to be accountable.  

Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba, the Spanish Minister of the Interior, spoke in contrasting tones today of the difficulties of finding the right balance between security and privacy.  The theme "Striving for a Balance Between Security and Privacy" was debated during the first plenary session of the 31st International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in Madrid.

On October 30, as reported by the Bureau of National Affairs (“BNA”), the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation stated that final amendments to its information security regulations had been filed with the Massachusetts Secretary of State.  The Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth have been the subject of much commentary and a series of amendments as regulators seek to address concerns expressed by businesses over the stringent and specific nature of the regulations.  The most recent round of amendments was announced August 17, 2009.

The FTC today announced that it would, for the fourth time, delay enforcement of the Identity Theft Red Flags Rule.  The enforcement date is now June 1, 2010 for creditors and financial institutions subject to FTC jurisdiction.  The agency stated that the delay was requested by members of Congress, who are currently considering a bill that would limit the rule's scope.  That bill (which would exclude certain entities with 20 or fewer employees from the rule's definition of "creditor" and also would provide a mechanism for other entities to apply for that exclusion) recently passed the ...

The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) released an interim final rule to incorporate the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH Act”) categories of violations and tiered civil penalty amounts.  The interim final rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009 and takes effect on November 30, 2009.  The rule applies to violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 2003 (“HIPAA”) that occur on or after February 18, 2009.

It is being reported that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed this morning with the American Bar Association's argument that the FTC's Identity Theft Red Flags Rule ("Red Flags Rule" or the "Rule") does not apply to lawyers.  The Rule implements Section 114 and 315 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (the "FACT Act").  In relevant part, the Rule requires creditors and financial institutions that offer or maintain certain accounts to implement an identity theft prevention program.  The program must be designed to detect, prevent, and mitigate the risk of identity theft. The FTC has interpreted the definition of "creditor" broadly.  The Commission has taken the position in publications and numerous panels that lawyers and law firms meet the definition of creditor because they allow clients to pay for legal services after the services are rendered.  For law firms (as well as for other entities that the FTC deems subject to its enforcement jurisdiction), November 1, 2009 is the deadline for compliance with the provisions of the Rule that require implementation of an identity theft prevention program.