Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On October 26, 2012, three resolutions were adopted by the closed session of the 34th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners and have been published on the conference website. Below we provide an overview of these resolutions.

Reporting from Washington, D.C., Hunton & Williams partner Frederick Eames writes:

Elections have consequences. What are the consequences of the 2012 election on U.S. federal privacy, data security and breach notice legislation? We outline some key developments in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate and explain how these developments might affect legislative priorities and prospects for the 113th Congress beginning in 2013.

The Polish Data Protection Authority (Generalny Inspektor Ochrony Danych Osbowych or “GIODO”) announced that it will host the 35th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners on September 23-27, 2013, in Warsaw, Poland. The first two days will be dedicated to the closed session, with the open sessions and side events taking place September 25-27.

In February 2013, the GIODO will facilitate the Global Accountability Project for which the Centre for Information Policy Leadership acts as Secretariat.

On October 26, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission finalized its settlement agreements with two businesses that allegedly exposed thousands of customers’ sensitive personal information by allowing peer-to-peer (“P2P”) file-sharing software to be installed on the companies’ computer systems. The approved settlements prohibit Georgia auto dealer Franklin’s Budget Car Sales, Inc. (“Franklin”) and Utah-based debt collector EPN, Inc. (“EPN”) from misrepresenting their privacy and information security practices and requires both businesses to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program subject to biennial, independent, third-party audits for 20 years. The settlement with Franklin also bars the company from violating the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) Safeguards Rule and Privacy Rule.

On November 7, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had settled charges against payday lending and check cashing companies alleged to have improperly disposed of consumers’ personal information. In its complaint, the FTC maintained that PLS Financial Services, Inc., and The Payday Loan Store of Illinois violated the FTC’s Disposal Rule as well as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s Privacy Rule and Safeguards Rule by disposing of documents that contained consumers’ Social Security numbers, bank account numbers and credit reports in unsecured dumpsters near the companies’ payday lending and check cashing retail stores. The FTC also alleged that the companies violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting that they would reasonably protect consumer information.

On October 29, 2012, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) served private sector financial services company The Prudential Assurance Company Limited (“Prudential”) with a monetary penalty of £50,000 in connection with a serious violation of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”). The violation concerned a mix-up involving Prudential customer details. In March 2007, the customer records of two individuals who shared the same first name, surname and date of birth were mistakenly merged into a single customer record. Over the course of the following three years, mortgage and pension policy information relating to each customer was routinely sent to the wrong individual until Prudential took steps to separate the two customers’ records in September 2010.

On October 31, 2012, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published a consultation on changes to the notification process in the UK (the “Consultation”), which will be open for comment until November 30, 2012. The purpose of the Consultation is to provide the ICO with feedback on its proposed changes regarding: (1) whether an online and telephone payment service would be beneficial to data controllers, (2) whether the inclusion of contact details for information requests is useful and (3) whether the format of the public register should become narrative-based. The ICO is also seeking input regarding whether these changes would make the public register more meaningful and notification simpler for data controllers.

On October 24, 2012, the UK Justice Select Committee (the “Committee”), appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the UK Ministry of Justice, published its opinion on the proposed General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”) and proposed Police and Criminal Justice Data Protection Directive (the “Proposed Directive”). In the opinion, the Committee agrees that new proposals are necessary, both to update the existing data protection framework and to “confer on individuals their new rights and freedoms.” The Committee expresses reservations, however, regarding a number of key issues, and concludes that the European Union data protection proposals “need to go back to the drawing board.” The Committee notes that in its present form, the Proposed Regulation will not produce a “proportionate, practicable, affordable or effective system of data protection in the EU.”

On October 26, 2012, following the Justice Council’s meeting, Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, delivered a speech highlighting that the Commission’s proposed data protection law reform package is currently at a crucial stage in the negotiation process. Commissioner Reding stated that “[a] high level of data protection will turn the European Union into an international standard setter” and that “[o]nly a high level of data protection will generate trust between citizens and private enterprises.” Commissioner Reding conceded, however, that “[w]e do not want rules that place an excessive burden on business,” and that the Commission is prepared to make certain concessions relating to the draft proposals in order to “strike the right balance.”

On October 23, 2012, just two weeks after issuing a series of reports highlighting the UK Information Commissioner’s Office’s (“ICO’s”) concerns regarding data protection compliance within the public sector, the ICO has imposed a monetary penalty of £120,000 and issued an enforcement notice against Stoke-on-Trent City Council (“Stoke Council”) in relation to a serious data breach. The breach involved the transmission of sensitive personal information related to a child protection case by email in an unmarked and unprotected manner to the incorrect email address.