On October 29, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”) released for public comment “Draft Measures on Security Assessment of Cross-border Data Transfer” (“Draft Measures”). The CAC, in its third legislative attempt to build a cross-border data transfer mechanism in China, issued the Draft Measures three days before the November 1, 2021 effective date of the Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”).
Scope and Application
If made final, the Draft Measures would apply to cross-border transfers of personal information and “important data” collected and generated in China under certain circumstances.
Data handlers would be subject to mandatory security assessments by the CAC in the following circumstances:
- transfer of personal information and important data collected and generated by critical information infrastructure (“CII”) operators (as defined under China’s Cybersecurity Law);
- transfer of important data;
- transfer of personal information by data handlers who process over 1 million individuals’ personal information;
- cumulatively transferring personal information of more than 100,000 individuals. or “sensitive” personal information of more than 10,000 individuals; or
- other conditions to be specified by the CAC.
The proposed thresholds for triggering such mandatory security assessment generally are lower than what was expected, and likely will impact many international companies.
Self-Security Assessment
A data handler subject to a mandatory security assessment would first need to conduct a self-security assessment that addresses the following criteria:
- the legality, propriety and necessity of the proposed cross-border transfer/processing conducted by the data recipient outside of China;
- the volume, scope, type and sensitivity of the data to be transferred, and the potential risks to national security, public interests and the legitimate interests of individual and entities;
- whether relevant management and technical measures implemented by the data exporter and data importer in connection with the transfer will ensure the security of data to be transferred outside of China;
- the risk of data leakage, damage, corruption, loss or misuse, and whether individuals may easily defend their rights; and
- whether the data transfer agreement adequately allocates relevant responsibilities for data protection.
Mandatory Security Assessment
Data handlers would need to submit certain materials in connection with a mandatory security assessment, including an application form, the data handler’s self-security assessment, and the relevant data transfer agreement. In evaluating a data handler’s mandatory security assessment, the CAC would focus on:
- the legality, propriety and necessity of the cross-border transfer;
- the data protection laws and regulations of the data recipient’s jurisdiction, the security of the data being transferred, and whether the protections provided by the data recipient satisfy Chinese laws and regulations and mandatory national standards;
- the volume, scope, type and sensitivity of the data being transferred and the risk of leakage, damage, corruption, loss and misuse;
- whether the data transfer agreement adequately allocates responsibilities for data protection;
- compliance with Chinese laws, administrative regulations and departmental regulations; and
- other matters that are deemed necessary by the CAC.
Data Transfer Agreement
The data transfer agreement between the data handler and data recipient would need to include the following content:
- the purpose, method and scope of the cross-border transfer, and the method and purpose of processing by the data recipient;
- the location where the data will be stored outside of China and the data retention period (as well as the measures to be taken upon expiration of the retention period, termination of the data transfer agreement, or otherwise when the purpose of processing has been met);
- provisions restricting re-transfer of the data to other individuals or entities;
- the security measures to be taken in the event of a material change to the data recipient’s business or relevant legal requirements, or if the recipient otherwise cannot ensure the security of the data;
- liability for violations of contractual data security responsibilities, as well as binding and enforceable dispute resolution provisions;
- in the event of a data leak or other breach, provisions requiring the data recipient to respond appropriately and safeguard the rights and interests of individuals’ personal information.
Procedure of Mandatory Security Assessment
Upon receipt of the data handler’s application, the CAC would confirm whether it will accept the application within seven business days. After issuing the notice of acceptance, the CAC would have 45 business days to complete the assessment. This period could be extended in complex cases or where the CAC requires supplementary documents, but generally the timeline should not exceed 60 business days.
Re-Assessment
The CAC’s mandatory security assessment result would be effective for two years. During this period, the data handler would need to conduct a re-assessment in connection with any of the following conditions:
- changes to the purpose, means, scope and type of the cross-border transfer or processing of personal information and/or important data by the data recipient;
- an extension of the retention period for the personal information and/or important data;
- changes to laws applicable to the data recipient, material changes to the recipient’s business, or amendments to the data transfer agreement that might affect the security of the transferred data; or
- other circumstances that might affect the security of transferred data.
Given that the PIPL is now effective, companies should prepare for the finalization of these Draft Measures and ensure they have plans in place to address compliance with cross-border transfer requirements.
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