On April 11, 2011, India adopted new privacy regulations, known as the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 (the “Rules”). The Rules are final versions of the draft regulations issued in February 2011 and impose wide-ranging obligations on any “body corporate” (company) that “collects, receives, possesses, stores, deals or handles” personal information. These obligations require companies to provide privacy policies, restrict the processing of sensitive personal data, restrict international data transfers and require additional security measures. The Rules introduce an omnibus privacy law that is similar in many respects to existing EU data protection law, but which raises some fundamental challenges for India’s numerous outsourcing vendors, and their customers.
Key Provisions
The Rules impose a number of additional obligations on organizations, as summarized below.
- Privacy Policy – The body corporate, or any person on its behalf, that “collects, receives, possesses, stores, deals or handles” personal information must provide a privacy policy that clearly sets out its practices and policies, identifies any sensitive personal data collected and processed, explains the purposes for which the data is collected and used, discloses specific information in relation to the newly defined category of “sensitive personal data,” and provides for reasonable security practices and procedures.
- Definition of Sensitive Personal Data – Sensitive personal data is now a defined term, although the definition is narrower than had originally been proposed in draft regulations. Mirroring EU data protection law to some extent, sensitive personal data includes physical, physiological and mental health conditions, medical records and history, and sexual orientation. The definition also includes biometric data, passwords and financial information such as bank account details, credit and debit card details. Information that is freely available or accessible in the public domain or furnished under the Right to Information Act 2005 is excluded from the definition of sensitive personal data.
- Restrictions on Data Collection and Processing – At the point of collection of any data, individuals must be made aware of the fact that their data are being collected, the purpose for which the data are collected, the intended recipients of the data and the contact details of both the agency collecting the data and the agency that will retain the data. Further, all data is subject to a restriction on any processing for secondary purposes. It must be processed only for the purpose for which it was collected.
- Additional Restrictions for Sensitive Personal Data – The prior written consent of an individual is required before their sensitive personal data may be processed. Consent may be obtained by letter, fax or email. The provider of the sensitive personal data must be given the option, at the outset, not to provide data and may withdraw their consent to the processing at any time. In addition, sensitive personal data may only be collected for a lawful purpose connected with a function or activity of the body corporate, and the collection of the data must be necessary for that purpose. Sensitive personal data may not be retained for longer than required for the purpose for which it may lawfully be used.
- Rights of Access and Correction – Individuals have the right to review the information about them and to ensure that inaccurate or deficient data is corrected or amended, as feasible.
- Disclosure to Third Parties – Information (including sensitive personal data) may only be provided to a third party with the consent of the provider of the information. There are exceptions where the disclosure has been agreed to contractually, is required for legal compliance purposes, or where the disclosure is to government agencies mandated to obtain the information for specific purposes. The body corporate processing the information (or any person on its behalf) may not publish it and any third party recipient is prohibited from further disclosing the information.
- International Data Transfers – A body corporate or another person on its behalf may transfer sensitive personal data or information to another body corporate or person in India or abroad where the same level of data protection is assured. The Rules also stipulate that “the transfer may be allowed only if it is necessary” for the performance of a lawful contract with the provider of the data or with their consent.
- Security – The Rules state that a body corporate will be taken to have complied with reasonable security practices and procedures where they have implemented those practices and have a comprehensive documented information security program and policies that contain managerial, technical, operational and physical control measures commensurate with the information assets and nature of the business. In the event of a security breach, the organization must be able to demonstrate that it has implemented its documented security control measures when asked to do so. An organization that has implemented International Standard IS/ISO/IEC 27001 or an approved industry code of practice is deemed to have complied with reasonable security practices and procedures, provided that compliance with the standard or code of practice has been audited annually.
It is not yet clear how the Rules will apply in practice, particularly in the context of data processing activities outsourced to India. There is some ambiguity as to the extent to which the Rules will apply to local outsourcing vendors and/or to off-shore arrangements where data processing remains within the corporate group, albeit in India. Existing contract terms also will be relevant to any assessment of whether existing data processing arrangements require amendment in light of the Rules. Organizations with operations in India, or which use vendors based in India, will need to review their existing data processing arrangements in light of these new requirements.
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