Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On September 8, 2015, representatives from the U.S. Government and the European Commission initialed a draft agreement known as the Protection of Personal Information Relating to the Prevention, Investigation, Detection and Prosecution of Criminal Offenses (the “Umbrella Agreement”). The European Commission’s stated aim for the Umbrella Agreement is to put in place “a comprehensive high-level data protection framework for EU-U.S. law enforcement cooperation.” The Umbrella Agreement has been agreed upon amid the ongoing uncertainty over the future of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor, and was drafted shortly before the release of the September 23 Advocate General’s Opinion in the Schrems v. Facebook litigation. The content of the Umbrella Agreement is in its final form, but its implementation is dependent upon revisions to U.S. law that are currently before Congress.

On September 15, 2015, the Office of Compliance, Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a Risk Alert outlining its latest cybersecurity examination priorities for SEC-registered broker-dealers and investment advisers.

On August 20, 2015, the Bavarian Data Protection Authority (“DPA”) issued a press release stating that it imposed a significant fine on a data controller for failing to adequately specify the security controls protecting personal data in a data processing agreement with a data processor.

On September 2, 2015, the Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) announced an investigation into the data sharing practices of charities in the United Kingdom. The announcement follows the publication of an article in a UK newspaper highlighting the plight of Samuel Rae, an elderly man suffering from dementia. In 1994, Rae completed a survey, which resulted in a charity collecting his personal data. The charity, in turn, allegedly shared his contact details with other charities, data brokers and third parties. Over the years, some of those charities and third parties are reported to have sent Rae hundreds of unwanted items of mail, requesting donations and, in some cases, attempting to defraud him. The legal basis on which Rae’s details were shared remains unclear, although the ICO has noted that the distribution may have resulted from a simple failure to tick an “opt-out” box on the survey.

On September 2, 2015, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) published the results of an Internet sweep of 54 websites visited by children and teenagers. The sweep was conducted in May 2015 to assess whether websites that are directed toward, frequently used by or popular among children comply with French data protection law. As we previously reported, the sweep was coordinated by the Global Privacy Enforcement Network (“GPEN”), a global network of approximately 50 data protection authorities (“DPAs”). The CNIL and 28 other DPAs that are members of the GPEN participated in the coordinated online audit. A total of 1,494 websites and apps were audited around the world.

On August 14 and August 26, 2015, the Conference of the Data Protection Commissioners of the Federal Government and the Federal States (Länder) issued a detailed position paper (“Position Paper”) and a press release on the main issues for the trilogue negotiations on the proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “Regulation”). In the Position Paper and press release, the participating German Data Protection Commissioners (“German DPAs”) request the trilogue partners to focus on the following issues:

On July 30, 2015, the Bavarian Data Protection Authority (“DPA”) issued a press release stating that it imposed a significant fine on both the seller and purchaser in an asset deal for unlawfully transferring customer personal data as part of the deal.

On August 11, 2015, the Online Trust Alliance, a nonprofit group whose goal is to increase online trust and promote the vitality of the Internet, released a framework (the “Framework”) for best practices in privacy and data security for the Internet of Things. The Framework was developed by the Internet of Things Trustworthy Working Group, which the Online Trust Alliance created in January 2015 to address “the mounting concerns and collective impact of connected devices.”

On August 3, 2015, Neiman Marcus requested en banc review of the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, No. 14-3122. As we previously reported, the Seventh Circuit found that members of a putative class alleged sufficient facts to establish standing to sue Neiman Marcus following a 2013 data breach. During that breach, hackers gained access to customers’ credit and debit card information.

On July 27, 2015, Giovanni Buttarelli, the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”), published Opinion 3/2015 on the reform of Europe’s data protection laws, intended to “assist the participants in the trilogue in reaching the right consensus on time.” The Opinion sets out the EDPS’ vision for the regulation of data protection, re-stating the case for a framework that strengthens the rights of individuals and noting that “the time is now to safeguard individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms in the data-driven society of the future.”

On July 1, 2015, Connecticut’s governor signed into law Public Act No. 15-142, An Act Improving Data Security and Agency Effectiveness (the “Act”), that (1) amends the state’s data breach notification law to require notice to affected individuals and the Connecticut Attorney General within 90 days of a security breach and expands the definition of personal information to include biometric data such as fingerprints, retina scans and voice prints; (2) affirmatively requires all businesses, including health insurers, who experience data breaches to offer one year of identity theft prevention services to affected individuals at no cost to them; and (3) requires health insurers and contractors who receive personal information from state agencies to implement and maintain minimum data security safeguards. With the passing of the Act, Connecticut becomes the first state to affirmatively require businesses to provide these security services to consumers.

On July 6, 2015, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China published a draft of the country’s proposed Network Security Law (the “Draft Cybersecurity Law”). A public comment period on the Draft Cybersecurity Law is now open until August 5, 2015.

On June 11 and 12, 2015, Asia Pacific Privacy Authority (“APPA”) members, invited observers and guest speakers from the government, private sector, academia and civil society, met in Hong Kong to discuss privacy law and policy issues at the 43rd APPA Forum. At the end of the open session on day two, APPA issued its customary communiqué, setting forth the highlights of the discussions of the open and closed sessions. The Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner, who hosted the APPA meeting, also hosted a conference on big data and privacy on June 10.

On May 13, 2015, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval (R-NV) signed into law A.B. 179 (the “Bill”), which expands the definition of “personal information” in the state’s data security law. The law takes effect on July 1, 2015. Under the Bill, personal information now includes:

On April 8, 2015, a New York Assemblyman introduced the Data Security Act in the New York State Assembly that would require New York businesses to implement and maintain information security safeguards. The requirements would apply to “private information,” which is defined as either:

• personal information consisting of any information in combination with one or more of the following data elements, when either the personal information or the data element is not encrypted: Social Security number; driver’s license number or non-driver identification card number; financial account or credit or debit card number in combination with any required security code or password; or biometric information;
• a user name or email address in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account; or
• unsecured protected health information (as that term is defined in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule).

On April 13, 2015, the Senate of Washington State unanimously passed legislation strengthening the state’s data breach law. The bill (HB 1078) passed the Senate by a 47-0 vote, and as we previously reported, passed the House by a 97-0 vote.

On November 16, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission will host a workshop in Washington, D.C., to examine the benefits and privacy risks associated with “cross-device tracking.” The workshop intends to highlight the types of cross-device tracking techniques and how businesses and consumers can benefit from these practices. The workshop also will address related privacy and security risks, and discuss whether self-regulatory programs apply to these practices.

On March 4, 2015, the House of Representatives of Washington passed a bill (HB 1078), which would amend the state’s breach notification law to require notification to the state Attorney General in the event of a breach and impose a 45-day timing requirement for notification provided to affected residents and the state regulator. The bill also mandates content requirements for notices to affected residents, including (1) the name and contact information of the reporting business; (2) a list of the types of personal information subject to the breach; and (3) the toll-free telephone numbers and address of the consumer reporting agencies. In addition, while Washington’s breach notification law currently applies only to “computerized” data, the amended law would cover hard-copy data as well.

On December 5, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) published a Working Document on surveillance, electronic communications and national security. The Working Party (which is comprised of the national data protection authorities (“DPAs”) of each of the 28 EU Member States) regularly publishes guidance on the application and interpretation of EU data protection law. Although its views are not legally binding, they are strongly indicative of the way in which EU data protection law is likely to be enforced.

On October 6, 2014, the Irish Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (“ODPC”) announced its success in bringing prosecution proceedings against M.C.K Rentals Limited (“MCK”), a firm of private investigators, and its two directors, for breaches of the Irish Data Protection Acts 1998 and 2003. Specifically MCK and its directors were found to have (1) obtained personal data without the prior authority of the data controller who was responsible for the data and (2) disclosed the personal data obtained to various third parties.

On August 8, 2014, a court in Shanghai found a foreign couple guilty of illegal collection of personal information. British national Peter Humphrey was sentenced to two and a half years of imprisonment and a fine of RMB 200,000, and his wife was sentenced to two years of imprisonment and a fine of RMB 150,000. In addition, Humphrey will be deported after serving his term.

On June 25, 2014, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama Administration is looking to pass legislation that would provide EU citizens with a right to judicial redress in U.S. courts if their personal information that was shared for law enforcement purposes is later intentionally or wilfully disclosed. The announcement was made during the EU-U.S. Ministerial Meeting on Justice and Home Affairs in Athens, Greece, which was co-chaired by the Attorney General and aimed to advance EU-U.S. cooperation in efforts to stop transnational crime and terrorism. The announcement also relates to the ongoing negotiations of the new “umbrella” EU-U.S. Data Protection and Privacy Agreement (“DPPA”).

In March 2014, the State Postal Bureau of the People’s Republic of China (the “SPBC”) formally issued three rules (the “Rules”) establishing significant requirements regarding the protection of personal information: (1) Provisions on the Management of the Security of Personal Information of Postal and Delivery Service Users (the “Security Provisions”); (2) Provisions on the Reporting and Handling of Security Information in the Postal Sector (the “Reporting and Handling Provisions”); and (3) Provisions on the Management of Undeliverable Express Mail Items (the “Management Provisions”). The Rules, each of which became effective on its date of promulgation, were issued in draft form in November 2013 along with a request for public comment.

On November 27, 2013, the State Post Bureau of the People’s Republic of China (the “SPBC”) released five draft normative rules for solicitation of public comment. Three of these rules, respectively entitled Provisions on the Management of the Security of Personal Information of Postal and Delivery Service Users (the “Draft Provisions”), Provisions on the Reporting and Handling of Security Information in the Postal Sector (the “Reporting and Handling Provisions”), and Provisions on the Management of Undeliverable Express Mail Items (the “Management Provisions”) contain significant requirements regarding the protection of personal information. The deadline for submitting comments on the rules is December 27, 2013.

On November 15, 2013, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) released a report (the “Report”) finding that the current federal statutory privacy scheme contains “gaps” and “does not fully reflect” the Fair Information Practice Principles (“FIPPs”). The Report focused primarily on companies that gather and resell consumer personal information, and on the use of consumer personal information for marketing purposes.

Provisions of the economic stimulus legislation (known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”)), recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, require certain entities to notify affected individuals, government agencies and the media of breaches of “unsecured protected health information.” Additional provisions substantially revise regulations promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). While these provisions are specifically limited to the context of health data, they have ...