Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On October 20, 2011, Mexico’s Ministry of Economy made public an update to its proposed Regulations to the Federal Law for the Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties. The new draft regulations, which contain changes made in light of public comments on the prior version, will take effect if they receive final executive approval, which may happen later this year. The updates to the draft regulations include:

• Rules specific to cloud computing
• Clarification of notice requirements
• Clarification of consent requirements
• Exemptions for certain business contact ...

On October 17, 2011, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) launched a public consultation on cloud computing (the “Consultation”). The Consultation seeks to gather opinions from stakeholders (clients, providers, consultants) regarding cloud computing services for businesses, to identify legal and technical solutions that address data protection concerns while taking into account the economic interests involved.

On September 13, 2011, the Singapore Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (the “Ministry”) published a Proposed Consumer Data Protection Regime for Singapore, outlining possible ideas for a data privacy framework and soliciting comments from the public. A few of the suggestions from the Ministry’s proposal that appear most likely to be reflected in a final data privacy law are outlined below.

On October 7, 2011, the Constitutional Court of Colombia approved a landmark omnibus data protection law.  According to its press release, the Court approved almost all provisions in the legislation, known as Ley estatutaria No. 184/ 10 Senado, 046/10 Cámara, but it took issue with Article 27 (which addresses the government’s processing of certain data), Article 29 (which addresses the expunging of certain criminal records) and Articles 30 and 31 (which both address intelligence and counterintelligence databases).  Many of the remaining provisions reflect a strong European influence.  Some highlights include:

• With certain exceptions, the law prohibits the processing of personal data without the data subject’s prior consent.  When the personal data are sensitive data (e.g., health data), the consent must take the form of an explicit authorization.
• The law permits cross-border transfers of personal data to countries that lack adequate data protection laws only in specified circumstances, such as (1) when the data subject has given express and unequivocal consent for the transfer (2) the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract between the data subject and the data controller, or (3) with the approval of the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce.
• The processing of children’s personal data is generally prohibited.
• Data subjects have access rights.

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.

On September 15, 2011, the data protection authority of the German federal state of Hamburg (the “DPA”) published a press release confirming that Google has significantly improved compliance with respect to the implementation of Google Analytics in Germany.  This finding is the result of two years of fruitful dialog between Google and the DPA, which was acting on behalf of the conference of German data protection authorities responsible for the private sector (the “Düsseldorfer Kreis”).

On July 6, 2011, Mexico’s Secretary of Economy, in conjunction with the Federal Institute for Access to Information and Data Protection (“IFAI”), released wide-ranging privacy regulations for public comment.  The regulations establish rules and guidelines for the implementation of Mexico’s Federal Law on the Protection of Personal Data in the Possession of Private Parties (Ley Federal de Protección de Datos Personales en Posesión de los Particulares), which became effective one year ago.  Among the topics covered are jurisdictional issues, details regarding ...

On June 13, 2011, the Polish Data Protection Authority (Generalny Inspektor Ochrony Danych Osbowych or “GIODO”) hosted a conference in Warsaw on the use of binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) for international data transfers.  The conference was notable as the first on this topic in Poland, and was designed to introduce BCRs to a Polish audience and to promote their use.  The audience of approximately 70 people heard presentations by the Polish Inspector General for Data Protection, Wojciech Rafał Wiewiórowski, as well as representatives of the Belgian, French, Polish ...

Reporting from Israel, legal consultant Dr. Omer Tene writes:

On January 31, 2011, the European Commission formally approved Israel’s status as a country providing “adequate protection” for personal data under the European Data Protection Directive.  The decision is restricted to automated international data transfers from the EU, as well as to non-automated data transfers that are subject to further automated processing in Israel.  It will allow unrestricted transfers of personal data from the EU to Israel, for example between corporate affiliates or from European companies to data centers in Israel.

On January 24, 2011, the data protection authority of the German state of Rhineland-Palatinate issued a press release regarding significant breaches of data protection law by companies that maintain websites and create user profiles.

On November 25, 2010, the German data protection authorities responsible for the private sector (also known as the “Düsseldorfer Kreis”) issued a resolution on the minimum requirements for the qualifications and independence of company data protection officers (“DPOs”).  This initiative follows inspections carried out within companies that revealed a generally insufficient level of expertise among DPOs given data processing complexities and the requirements set by the Federal Data Protection Act.  The DPAs recognize that a DPO’s workload depends primarily on the size and number of data controllers the DPO supervises, industry-specific factors related to data processing and the level of protection required for the types of personal data being processed.  Changes with respect to these factors frequently increase the burden on DPOs without a compensating increase in resources needed to ensure proper oversight.

On October 11, 2010, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) released guidance (the “Guidance”) on data protection issues related to the outsourcing of data processing activities to non-EU countries (Les questions posées pour la protection des données personnelles par l’externalisation hors de l’Union européenne des traitements informatiques).

The Guidance was prepared following interviews held in 2009 by the CNIL’s international affairs department with consultancy groups, law firms advising on outsourcing deals, and companies actively engaged in offshore activities.  The interviews were conducted to provide the CNIL with insight regarding the impact of data protection requirements on outsourcing activities.  The Guidance is part of a broader analysis of the concepts of data controller and data processor carried out by the Article 29 Working Party (see the Working Party’s Opinion on the concepts of controller and processor).

On October 7, 2010, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) released its first comprehensive handbook on the security of personal data (the “Guidance”).  The Guidance follows the CNIL’s “10 tips for the security of your information system” issued on October 12, 2009, which were based on the CNIL’s July 21, 1981 recommendations regarding security measures applicable to information systems.

The Guidance reiterates that data controllers have an obligation under French law to take “useful precautions” given the nature of the data and the risks associated with processing the data, to ensure data security and, in particular, prevent any alteration or damage, or access by non-authorized third parties (Article 34 of the French Data Protection Act).  Failure to comply with this requirement is punishable by up to five years imprisonment or a fine of €300,000.

Under a Washington law effective July 1, 2010, certain entities involved in payment card transactions may be liable to financial institutions for costs associated with reissuing payment cards after security breaches.  Designed to encourage the reissuance of payment cards as a means of mitigating harm caused by security breaches, Washington H.B. 1149 applies to three types of entities:  businesses, processors and vendors.  Under the law, a business is an entity that “processes more than six million credit card and debit card transactions annually, and who provides, offers, or sells goods or services to . . . residents of Washington.” A processor is any entity, other than a business, that “directly processes or transmits [payment card] account information for or on behalf of another person as part of a payment processing service.” A vendor is any “entity that manufactures and sells software or equipment that is designed to process, transmit, or store [payment card] account information or that maintains account information that it does not own.”

On February 16, 2010, the Article 29 Working Party adopted Opinion 1/2010 (the “Opinion”) providing further clarification and guidance on the interpretation of the concepts of “data controller” and “data processor” in the context of the EU’s Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.

On February 5, 2010, the European Commission adopted a new set of standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) for transfers of personal data from data controllers in the EU to data processors outside the EU.  View the European Commission press release.

On March 17, the Article 29 Working Party released its Opinion 3/2009 (dated March 5) on standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data from data controllers in the EU to data processors outside the EU. The Opinion deals with proposed changes to the European Commission's decision 2002/16 containing standard clauses for controller to processor transfers. The Opinion discusses proposals to update these clauses to accommodate data transfers to sub-processors, in light of increased global outsourcing. Although not mentioned in the Opinion, the March 17 Opinion is based on the proposal made in October 2006 to the European Commission by three business groups (the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union (AmCham EU) and the Federation of European Direct and Interactive Marketing (FEDMA)). The proposal of the three business groups would amend the existing clauses from 2002 to bring them into line with business realities.