On September 28, 2023, the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”) released the “Provisions on Regulating and Facilitating Cross-Border Data Flows” for public comment (the “Proposal”). The deadline for public comment on the Proposal was October 15, 2023.
The Proposal: (1) exempts certain processing activities from China’s data transfer restrictions; (2) revises the thresholds triggering a formal data transfer security assessment; and (3) enables more flexibility for data transfers from China’s pilot free trade zones.
Exempt Data Processing Activities
Under the Proposal, the following processing activities would not be subject to China’s current transfer rules:
- Transfers arising from international trade, academic cooperation, transnational manufacturing, marketing and other activities that do not involve personal information or “important data.”
- Transfers necessary for performing and concluding a contract to which an individual is a concerned party, such as cross-border shopping, flight and hotel reservations, cross-border remittance and visa processing.
- Transfers necessary for HR management to comply with employee policies formulated in accordance with law.
- Transfers of data not collected within the territory of China.
- Transfers of data in emergency situations (e.g., to protect the life, health and property safety of an individual).
In addition, unless a data handler has been notified by a Chinese authority that the data it is processing constitutes “important data” or the Chinese authority otherwise publicly classifies the data as “important data,” the data handler is not required to undergo a data transfer security assessment on the basis that it processes “important data.”
Revised Volume Thresholds Triggering Data Transfer Security Assessments
The Proposal would change the volume thresholds triggering a formal data transfer security assessment. In particular, if it is estimated that personal information of less than 10,000 individuals will be transferred outside of China within one year, then a data handler would not be subject to China’s restrictions on data transfers.
Moreover, if it is estimated that personal information of more than 10,000 individuals but less than one million individuals will be transferred outside of China, the organization may rely on the standard contract issued by the CAC for the transfer and there is no need to conduct a transfer security assessment.
Flexibility for Transfers from Pilot Free Trade Zones
The Proposal would give pilot free trade zones (e.g., the Shanghai Free Trade Zone) the authority to formulate a list of data which would be subject to the transfer rules (i.e., a negative list). Data falling outside the scope of the negative list could be transferred abroad without the need to comply with the transfer rules.
Possible Impact of the Proposal on Data Transfers Outside of China
While the Proposal is still in draft form, it would, if passed, have a significant positive effect on transfers of data outside of China by international companies.
At the same time, while the Proposal would significantly revise the regulatory requirements for transferring data outside of China, certain aspects of the current transfer regime would remain unchanged. Based on the Proposal, separate consent would still need to be obtained for transfers where consent is the legal basis for the transfer. In addition, even though certain data handlers may no longer be subject to the CAC data transfer security assessment or be required to file the CAC standard contract, they would still be required to fulfil basic compliance requirements under the Personal Information Protection law of China (the “PIPL”) with respect to transfers of data outside of China. For instance, the data handler would still need to prepare a personal information security impact assessment (“PIPIA”) in relation to the transfer and maintain the report in its internal files for a period of three years. The data handler must also ensure that the recipient of the data provide an equivalent level of data protection as is required under the PIPL.
Furthermore, certain aspects of the Proposal would require further clarification from the CAC. For example, will data handlers that have previously transferred personal information of over one million individuals but only expect to transfer a limited amount of personal information in the next 12 months be expected to undergo a security assessment? Will transfers of sensitive personal information involving more than 10,000 individuals still trigger the requirement to undergo a security assessment? How should data handlers calculate the one year period referenced by the Proposal when estimating the volume of data to be transferred outside of China.
While it is not certain when exactly the Proposal may pass, it is possible that the Proposal will be finalized before November 30, 2023, which is the deadline for companies to file the CAC standard contract for transfers relying on that data transfer mechanism under the PIPL.
Search
Recent Posts
- Website Use of Third-Party Tracking Software Not Prohibited Under Massachusetts Wiretap Act
- HHS Announces Additional Settlements Following Ransomware Attacks Including First Enforcement Under Risk Analysis Initiative
- Employee Monitoring: Increased Use Draws Increased Scrutiny from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
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 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
- 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 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