On August 25, 2010, the German government approved a draft law concerning special rules for employee data protection, originally proposed by the Federal Ministry of the Interior. A background paper on the draft law was published on August 25, 2010. The draft law would amend the German Federal Data Protection Act (the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz or “BDSG”) by adding provisions that specifically address data protection in the employment context. Currently, employee data protection is regulated by (1) general provisions in the BDSG, (2) the new Section 32 of the BDSG introduced by the most recent reform in September 2009, (3) the Works Constitution Act, (4) guidance from state data protection authorities, and (5) comprehensive case law from federal and local labor courts.
The draft law covers nine key subject areas:
Employer Internet Searches: Employers may use public information found through web searches, but may only use information from social networks if the networking platform is intended to present professional qualifications.
Medical Exams: Medical assessments are permitted only as necessary to determine whether an employee can fulfill job requirements.
Automated Data Scanning: Allowed in anonymized or pseudonymized form to detect criminal activity or other serious violations. If unauthorized activity is suspected, data may be associated with specific individuals. Employers must document the circumstances of the screening, and inform the relevant employee after the screening.
CCTV: Covert monitoring is prohibited. CCTV may be used only if employees receive proper notice, and only in particular areas or for certain reasons (e.g., quality control, security of facilities or entrance). No monitoring of locker rooms or similar locations is permitted.
Tracking: Collection of employee data via tracking systems (e.g., GPS) is only allowed during working hours, and only if the tracking serves to ensure employee safety or is used to coordinate the work force (e.g., transport companies). Covert tracking of employees is prohibited.
Biometric Data: Such data may be collected, processed or used only for authorization and authentication purposes when there are no prevailing employee protection considerations. Photographs of employees may be used for other purposes if the employee has provided consent.
Telephone, Internet and Email Monitoring: If a company allows employees to use telecommunications services for business purposes only, the draft law distinguishes between employer monitoring of phone calls versus monitoring email and Internet use.
The draft law allows traffic and content data from email and Internet use to be collected, processed, and used, where necessary to (1) ensure the orderly functioning of the telecommunications network and services, (2) promote data security, (3) facilitate billing, and (4) occasionally monitor performance and behavior, but only if there is no overriding employee privacy interest. With respect to occasional monitoring for performance and behavior control purposes, and associating data with a specific employee, the affected employee must be notified of the monitoring as soon as such notice would not adversely impact the purpose of the processing or use.
Telephone calls may be monitored only where there is a legitimate employer interest, and if the employee and the other party to the communication have been informed about, and have consented to, the monitoring. If making telephone calls is one of the employee’s primary job functions, (e.g., call center agents), monitoring is permitted for occasional checks without specific notice to the employee, provided general notice regarding monitoring has been provided beforehand and the other party to the communication is informed and consents to the monitoring. Afterward, the employer must notify the employee without undue delay of the collection, processing and use of the phone data.
The draft law does not regulate or provide clarification regarding monitoring in cases where the employer expressly or implicitly allows for private use of telecommunications services by employees.
Works Council Agreements: Companies still may enter into works council agreements, but such agreements must not compromise the level of protection provided by law.
Security Breach Notification: Employers must notify affected employees if it is determined that employee data has been unlawfully disclosed to a third party. In the event of a serious threat to the rights or protected interests of an employee, the employer must also notify the competent data protection authority.
The approved draft law now goes before the German Parliament, where it is expected to undergo further discussions and may be amended. The first reading is expected in November 2010, leaving open the possibility that the law may be passed this year.
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