Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On April 23, 2014, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff enacted the Marco Civil da Internet (“Marco Civil”), Brazil’s first set of Internet regulations. The Marco Civil was approved by the Brazilian Senate on April 22, 2014. President Rousseff signed the law at the NETMundial Internet Governance conference in São Paulo, a global multistakeholder event on the future of Internet governance.

On March 18, 2014, Brazilian lawmakers announced the withdrawal of a provision in pending legislation that would have required Internet companies to store Brazilian users’ data within the country.

Brazilian lawmakers, including José Eduardo Cardozo, the Minister of Justice of Brazil, and Ideli Salvatti, the Secretariat of Institutional Relations, held several consensus-building meetings with party leaders over the past two weeks to reach a voting agreement on the Marco Civil da Internet (“Marco Civil”), a draft bill introduced in the Brazilian Congress in 2011. The Marco Civil would establish Brazil’s first set of Internet regulations, including requirements regarding personal data protection and net neutrality.

The Luxembourg data protection authority (Commission nationale pour la protection des donées, “CNPD”) has stated that it will not investigate complaints relating to the alleged involvement of Microsoft Luxembourg (“Microsoft”) and Skype Software S.a.r.l. and Skype Communications S.a.r.l. (collectively, “Skype”) in the PRISM surveillance program. The PRISM surveillance program involves the transfer of EU citizens’ data to the U.S. National Security Agency (the “NSA”).

On July 24, 2013, the Conference of the German Data Protection Commissioners at both the Federal and State levels issued a press release stating that surveillance activities by foreign intelligence and security agencies threaten international data traffic between Germany and countries outside the EEA.

On July 18-19, 2013, the European Union Justice and Home Affairs Council held an informal meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania, where Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, openly criticized the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

On June 25, 2013, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Privacy Commission”) and the Belgian Ministry of Justice agreed on a Protocol establishing new rules for the approval of international data transfer agreements.

On July 1, 2013, the Republic of Croatia joined the European Union, increasing the number of EU Member States to 28. As of the day of its accession, Croatia must implement the acquis communautaire (the complete body of the EU legislation), which includes the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (“Data Protection Directive”).

On June 3, 2013, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) published an article outlining the importance of binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) for data processors, and describing how to use them.

On January 10, 2013, the rapporteur to the EU Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (“LIBE”), Jan Philipp Albrecht, presented his draft report (the “Report”) on the proposed amendments to the European Commission’s proposed General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”) to the LIBE Committee.

On July, 19, 2012, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) issued an Opinion finding that the Principality of Monaco ensures an “adequate level of protection” for personal data within the meaning of the European Data Protection Directive (Article 25 of Directive 95/46/EC) (the “Directive”). Under the Directive, strict conditions apply to personal data transfers to countries outside the European Economic Area that are not considered to provide an “adequate” level of data protection.

On August 21, 2012, the European Commission formally approved Uruguay’s status as a country providing “adequate protection” for personal data within the meaning of the European Data Protection Directive (Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC). This follows the Article 29 Working Party’s earlier favorable Opinion issued in 2010, and takes into account certain interpretative assurances and clarifications provided by Uruguay. Accordingly, transfers of personal data from the EU to Uruguay may now take place without additional intergovernmental guarantees and in accordance with applicable data protection provisions.

On July 1, 2012, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted WP196 (the “Opinion”) setting out an analysis of the legal framework associated with cloud computing, as well as recommendations directed at both data controllers and data processors in the European Economic Area (the “EEA”). The Opinion identifies two data protection risks associated with the deployment of cloud computing services, namely: (1) lack of control over the data and (2) lack of information on data processing. Cloud computing and the range and geographical dispersion of the various parties involved also have raised significant uncertainty in terms of applicable law, which the Working Party previously analyzed in its Opinion 8/2010. Below is an overview of the different topics covered in the Opinion issued on July 1.

On June 6, 2012, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted WP 195 (the “Opinion”) setting out the requirements for Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) for processors. Similar to WP 153, the Opinion lists the requirements to be covered in the processor BCRs application form and the BCRs document itself. The Opinion likely will be welcomed by processors, in particular those that provide large-scale, multinational data processing services.

On March 19, 2012, the European Commission hosted this year’s Safe Harbor Conference in Washington, D.C., to address the transfer of data from Europe to the United States. Although it appears the Safe Harbor framework will remain unchanged for the time being, it seems unlikely the United States will be considered adequate, or even interoperable, with the EU for purposes of cross-border data transfers.

On June 17, 2011, the National Assembly of the Republic of Angola passed Law 22/11 on Personal Data Protection.  The omnibus privacy legislation applies to the automated and non-automated processing of personal data by controllers based or operating in Angola, or subject to, or using equipment governed by, Angola’s laws.  Some highlights of the law are listed below.

The Department of Commerce released an English translation of Peru’s Law for Personal Data Protection (Ley de Protección de Datos Personales, Ley No. 29733).  The law passed Peru’s Congress on June 7, 2011, and was signed by the president July 2, 2011.  Peru’s adoption of this new law is in keeping with a recent trend in Latin America, where Uruguay, Mexico and Colombia also have passed privacy legislation.

As reported in BNA’s Privacy Law Watch, on July 2, 2011, Peruvian President Alan García signed the Personal Data Protection Law (Ley de Protección de Datos Personales, Ley No. 29733), making Peru the latest Latin American country to adopt EU-style omnibus privacy legislation.  Implementing rules for the new law are to be drafted in the next few months.

On June 7, 2011, the Congress of the Republic of Peru passed the Personal Data Protection Law (Ley de Protección de Datos Personales, Proyecto de Ley 4079/2009-PE).  If signed into law, the bill would make Peru the newest member of the group of Latin American countries with EU-style omnibus privacy legislation.  The broad-ranging legislation would do the following, among other things:

On April 4, 2011, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) issued an Opinion finding that New Zealand ensures an adequate level of data protection within the meaning of the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (the “Data Protection Directive”).  The Working Party’s assessment in the Opinion focuses on the New Zealand Privacy Act 1993 and is based primarily on a comparison of the Act and relevant case law, against the provisions of the Data Protection Directive.

On October 15, 2010, the Article 29 Working Party published an Opinion finding that Uruguay ensures an adequate level of protection within the meaning of the European Data Protection Directive (Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC).

This Opinion was issued pursuant to an official request Uruguay filed with the European Commission in October 2008.  While the Article 29 Working Party’s Opinion is an important step toward adequacy, the European Commission must now make a formal decision that the Uruguayan legal framework provides an adequate level of data protection under EU data protection law.  The European Commission will take the Article 29 Working Party’s Opinion into account when determining whether to issue an “adequacy decision” in the coming months.  As recently illustrated by the adequacy procedure for Israel, this process may prove to be difficult.

On September 2, 2010, police in New Zealand issued a statement to confirm that there was no evidence Google committed a criminal offense in relation to the data it collected from unsecured WiFi networks during the Street View photography capture exercise.  The case has now been referred back to the New Zealand Privacy Commissioner.  A spokesperson from the New Zealand police force took the opportunity to underline the need for Internet users to make sure that security measures are properly implemented when using WiFi connections in order to prevent their information from being improperly accessed.

On July 6, 2010, the Irish government formally objected to the adequacy procedure initiated by the European Commission that would have allowed the free flow of European personal data to Israel, over concerns of the possible use of the information by Israeli officials.  This political move follows recent revelations regarding forgery of European passports, including several from Ireland, and their alleged use by Israel’s intelligence services.

On June 18, 2010, the data protection authority of the German federal state of Schleswig-Holstein published a press release and a comprehensive legal opinion on cloud computing.  The opinion provides an overview of cloud computing and discusses various practical and legal matters, including:

• Applicable law issues
• The legal basis for cloud computing and related processor and controller issues
• Problems associated with the possibility of third-party access
• The minimum requirements for data processor relationships and service provider contracts under the new German data protection law
• Technical and organizational security measures
• The legal landscape for clouds located outside the European Union