On November 18, 2014, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams (the “Centre”) held the second workshop in its ongoing work on the risk-based approach to privacy and a Privacy Risk Framework. Approximately 70 Centre members, privacy regulators and other privacy experts met in Brussels to discuss the benefits and challenges of the risk-based approach, operationalizing risk assessments within organizations, and employing risk analysis in enforcement. In discussing these issues, the speakers emphasized that the risk-based approach does not change the obligation to comply with privacy laws but helps with the effective calibration of privacy compliance programs.
The workshop was kicked off by Bojana Bellamy, the Centre’s President, and Fred Cate, Senior Policy Advisor for the Centre, who had prepared a discussion draft of the Centre’s second white paper on the risk-based approach to privacy, The Role of Risk in Data Protection. The paper is now being finalized with learnings from the workshop for wider distribution in the coming weeks.
Fred Cate also moderated the first panel on the benefits and challenges of the risk-based approach, during which he, Commissioner Julie Brill of the Federal Trade Commission, Peter Hustinx of the European Data Protection Supervisor, Florence Raynal of the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”), JoAnn Stonier of MasterCard, and Danny Weitzner of Massachusetts Institute of Technology discussed questions such as (1) what is driving the recently intensified focus on risk assessments as a privacy compliance tool in the modern information age, and (2) what is the risk-based approach’s potential for more effectively calibrating compliance and implementing existing privacy principles and legal obligations. The panelists also discussed examples of instances where risk assessments are currently required or used under existing legal regimes, including the EU Data Protection Directive and the FTC Act, as well as the types of harms to individuals and society that can or should be considered in the context of privacy risk assessments and whether government (legislatures or regulators) should provide more guidance on risk assessments.
During lunch, Luca DeMatteis, Italian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Justice Counselor (Cooperation in Criminal Matters and Data Protection), Permanent Representation of Italy to the EU, discussed the progress of the Council’s expert working group on the proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation (“Proposed Regulation”) and how the Council intends to incorporate the risk-based approach in the Proposed Regulation.
The second panel on operationalizing risk assessments within organizations considered different approaches businesses currently take in assessing potential privacy risks and the privacy-related impact of their products and services. The panel comprised of representatives of Acxiom, Apple, Google, Nokia and Accenture. It also included Naomi Lefkovitz, Senior Privacy Policy Advisor of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) at the U.S. Department of Commerce, who discussed NIST’s privacy engineering initiative and Privacy Risk Model. A key message from this panel was that the ongoing work on the risk-based approach to privacy is not about substituting risk assessments for compliance with legal requirements but about developing a methodology for complying with the law more effectively.
During the third panel, Richard Thomas, Global Strategy Advisor for the Centre and former UK Privacy Commissioner, Jacob Kohnstamm of the Dutch Data Protection Authority, Manuela Siano of the Italian Data Protection Authority (the Garante), David Smith of the UK Information Commissioner’s Office, and Wojciech Rafal Wiewiórowski of the Polish Data Protection Authority, discussed the use of risk assessments in privacy enforcement. Particular points of focus included:
- the value of risk assessments in facilitating effective enforcement prioritization,
- whether enforcement authorities should consider societal harms in addition to harms to individuals when making enforcement decisions, and
- the role of enforcement authorities in providing guidance on the relevant factors to consider in organizational risk assessments.
The objectives of the Centre’s Privacy Risk Framework Project are discussed in detail in the Centre’s June 2014 white paper, A Risk-based Approach to Privacy: Improving Effectiveness in Practice. The paper notes how the Privacy Risk Framework project elaborates on the Centre’s earlier work on organizational accountability by seeking to develop analytical tools and a common framework and methodology for risk assessments that are needed to effectively implement key aspects of accountability.
The Centre has tentative plans to hold its Risk Workshop III on March 4, 2015, in the margins of the IAPP Global Privacy Summit in Washington, D.C.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- Iowa
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott H. Kimpel
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code