Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

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 28, 2012, the UK Ministry of Justice outlined its negotiating position on the proposed EU Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”) in its published “Summary of Responses - Call for Evidence on Proposed EU Data Protection Legislative Framework” (the “Summary”).

The Call for Evidence sought to gain perspective and solicit feedback on how the Proposed Regulation would impact organizations and individuals in the UK. The responses received from the private sector were the most significant, which is not surprising given the potentially huge impact on business.

As we previously reported, on May 3-4, 2012, the European data protection authorities’ (“DPAs’”) Spring Conference was held in Luxembourg, and the Data Protection Commissioners closed the conference by issuing a resolution on European data protection reform. In their resolution, the Data Protection Commissioners expressed general satisfaction with the ongoing modernization of the data protection frameworks of the European Union, the Council of Europe and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

On May 3, 2012, Viviane Reding, Justice Commissioner and European Commission Vice-President, delivered a speech during the European data protection authorities’ (“DPAs’”) Spring Conference, which was held in closed sessions in Luxembourg. In her speech, Commissioner Reding discussed how the proposed EU Data Protection Regulation aimed to empower the DPAs and addressed some of the DPAs’ primary concerns with the reform.

Join Hunton & Williams at the 2012 Europe Data Protection Intensive, now hosted by the International Association of Privacy Professionals (“IAPP”) in London, April 25-26, 2012. Hunton & Williams privacy professionals will be featured speakers in the following sessions:

On March 23, 2012, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted an Opinion on the European Commission’s data protection law reform proposals, including the draft Regulation that is of particular importance for businesses. The Working Party’s Opinion serves as the national data protection authorities’ contribution to the legislative process before the European Parliament and the European Council.

On March 26, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission issued a new privacy report entitled “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers.” The report charts a path forward for companies to act in the interest of protecting consumer privacy.

In his introductory remarks, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz indicated his support for Do Not Track stating, “Simply put, your computer is your property; no one has the right to put anything on it that you don’t want.” In later comments he predicted that if effective Do Not Track mechanisms are not available by the end of this year, the new Congress likely would introduce a legislative solution.

On March 22, 2012, the 83rd Conference of the German Data Protection Commissioners came to an end in Potsdam. The attendees indicated their general support for the European Commission’s proposed reform package aimed at modernizing and harmonizing data protection laws in the EU, but insist that Member States should have the authority to implement more stringent data protection measures for the area of public administration.

On March 20, 2012, the Senate of the Philippines unanimously approved the omnibus Data Privacy Act of 2011, also known as “An Act Protecting Individual Personal Information in Information and Communications Systems in the Government and the Private Sector, Creating for This Purpose a National Data Protection Commission, and for Other Purposes” (S.B. 2965). Once signed into law, the legislation will impose a privacy regime modeled on the EU Data Protection Directive. It features significant notice, consent and data breach notification requirements, and it imposes direct ...

On January 25, 2012, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published an initial statement welcoming the European Commission’s proposed new General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”), and commended the Commission’s efforts to strengthen the rights of individuals, recognize important privacy concepts such as privacy by design and privacy impact assessments, and include accountability requirements.

The American Bar Association’s (“ABA’s”) House of Delegates adopted a non-binding resolution urging courts to consider foreign data protection and privacy laws when resolving discovery issues. The full text of the resolution is as follows:

“RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges that, where possible in the context of the proceedings before them, U.S. federal, state, territorial, tribal and local courts consider and respect, as appropriate, the data protection and privacy laws of any applicable foreign sovereign, and the interests of any person who is subject to or benefits from such laws, with regard to data sought in discovery in civil litigation.”

On February 7, 2012, the UK Ministry of Justice launched its Call for Evidence on the European Commission’s proposed general data protection regulation and criminal justice data protection directive (the “Proposals”). The Ministry is looking to gain perspective and solicit feedback on how the Proposals likely would impact organizations and individuals in the UK.

On January 26, 2012, the German Data Protection Commissioners (“DPAs”) of the federal states Rhineland-Palatinate and Hesse held a joint press conference to present their views on the European Commission’s legislative proposal for a comprehensive reform of current EU data protection rules. The day before, the European Commission proposed replacing the existing EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC with a Regulation that would be directly applicable in all European Member States and therefore not require implementing legislation on the national level.

On January 25, 2012, the European Commission released a data protection law reform package, including its proposed General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”). The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) has reacted positively to the Proposed Regulation, in particular commending efforts to strengthen the rights of individuals, the recognition of important privacy concepts such as privacy by design and privacy impact assessments, and new accountability requirements to ensure organizations properly demonstrate and document their data protection safeguards and procedures.

On December 28, 2011, UK Information Commissioner Christopher Graham outlined the ICO’s agenda for 2012 in a post on the ICO blog, highlighting the European Commission’s proposals for reviewing the EU data protection framework, the post-legislative scrutiny process with respect to the UK Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and the ICO’s Information Rights Strategy. The Commissioner cautioned against allowing data protection compliance to fall by the wayside in the current, tough economic climate, especially given the inevitable reputational damage caused by big data breaches and the ICO’s power to impose fines.

On January 25, 2012, the European Commission published its long-awaited legislative package to reform EU data protection rules. The package includes a regulation that covers data processing in the private sector and by public authorities and a directive covering data processing for criminal justice purposes, as well as a communication, a report on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation, and an impact assessment with a summary.

On January 17, 2012, the European Commission initiated expedited infringement proceedings against Hungary over recent changes to its Constitution which are considered incompatible with EU law. The proceedings follow a number of changes made to the Hungarian Constitution that came into effect on January 1, 2012. Of particular concern to the Commission are amendments affecting the independence of the national data protection authority. The Hungarian government has one month to comply, or face enforcement proceedings in the European Court of Justice.

According to a spokesperson at the European Commission, the publication of the proposal for the review of the EU Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) has been postponed until late February or March 2012. The draft proposal was scheduled to be officially released in late January after it was leaked in December 2011. According to various sources, the proposal received negative responses from several Directorates-General over the course of the “inter-service consultation,” some of whom have voiced their concern that the proposed new framework would be stricter than the current legal framework and thus may have a negative impact on businesses. For example, parts of the proposal, such as the right to be forgotten, are viewed by some as potentially too burdensome for companies.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has confirmed that the European Commission will host this year’s Safe Harbor Conference in Washington, D.C., on March 19, 2012. The venue marks a change from the tradition of previous sessions which have taken place in the host authority’s capital city (Washington, D.C. or Brussels). The Conference will follow the release of the European Commission’s draft revisions to the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46, which are expected on or around January 25, 2012. The widely leaked draft of the proposal does not contain language pertaining to the ...

In early December 2011, drafts of two legal instruments prepared by DG Justice of the European Commission to reform the EU data protection framework entered interservice consultation. This process will give other Directorates-General of the Commission the opportunity to comment on the drafts before they are formally released as legislative proposals; accordingly, changes to the drafts are likely. Following this comment period, the drafts will enter the EU legislative process, which is likely to take at least two to three years before they become law. It is believed that Justice Commissioner and Commission Vice-President Viviane Reding will formally announce final versions of the drafts at an appearance at the World Economic Forum in late January 2012.

On November 16, 2011, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published its Annual Activity Report for 2010 (the “Report”) highlighting its main 2010 accomplishments and outlining some of its priorities for the upcoming year. This year’s Report covers events that occurred since last year’s publication of the Annual Activity Report for 2009.

On October 10-12, 2011, the Council of Europe’s Bureau of the Consultative Committee of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Automatic Processing of Personal Data (known as the “T-PD-Bureau”) met in Strasbourg, France, to discuss, among other things, amending the Council of Europe’s Convention 108 and Additional Protocol. Convention 108 (together with the Protocol), which underlies the European Union’s legal framework for data protection, is the only legally-binding international convention that addresses data protection. Amendment of the Convention is also closely linked to the current review of the EU data protection framework.

On July 13, 2011, the Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) signed a Protocol with the Ministry of Justice which significantly simplifies the authorization procedure for binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) under Belgian law.  The Protocol was just made public on the Belgian DPA's website. 

On July 13, 2011, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”), adopted an Opinion on the concept of consent as a legal basis for processing personal data, which includes recommendations for improving the concept in the context of the ongoing review of the EU data protection framework.  The Opinion also analyzes the conditions for valid consent under EU data protection law (that consent must be “freely given,” “specific,” “unambiguous,” “explicit,” “informed,” etc.), and clarifies the obligations of data controllers seeking consent.  In addition, the Opinion provides examples of valid and invalid consent with respect to company social media, medical research, body scanners, PNR data and online gaming.

On June 28-30, 2011, the Council of Europe’s Bureau of the Consultative Committee of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Automatic Processing of Personal Data (known as the “T-PD-Bureau”) met in Strasbourg, France, to discuss, among other things, amending the Council of Europe’s Convention 108.  Convention 108, which underlies the European Union’s legal framework for data protection, is the only legally-binding international convention that addresses data protection.  Amendment of the Convention is thus closely linked to the current review of the EU data protection framework, and many of the same actors are involved in both exercises.

On June 15, 2011, European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) Peter Hustinx gave a press conference to present his annual report for 2010.  The annual report provides an overview of the EDPS’ main activities in 2010 and sets forth key priorities and challenges for the future.

In his speech, Hustinx focused primarily on the review of the EU data protection framework and the Data Retention Directive.  He referenced his recent Opinion in which he concluded that the Data Retention Directive does not meet general EU data protection requirements and that the European Commission should explore the possibility of replacing it with alternative measures such as data preservation through a “quick freeze” procedure.  Hustinx also stated his intention to keep a close eye on any developments with respect to RFID technology, cloud computing and online enforcement of intellectual property rights.

As reported yesterday, on June 16 and 17, 2011, the Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union hosted a high-level international data protection conference in Budapest.  The following are some highlights from the second day’s events:

• During the “New principles in the field” panel, Professor Paul De Hert of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel gave an explanation of the case I v. Finland, which was decided by the European Court of Human Rights on July 17, 2008, and which both he and European Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx agreed was a key document for the concept of accountability in European data protection law.  Endre Szabó of the Hungarian Ministry of Public Administration and Justice noted that the principle of accountability had not yet been fully accepted by all members of the European Council.

On May 16, 2011, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted an Opinion on geolocation services on smart mobile devices (the “Opinion”).  The Opinion clarifies the legal framework and obligations applicable to geolocation services such as maps and navigation tools, geo-personalized services, geotagging of content on the Internet, child control and location-based advertising.

On April 4, 2011, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) issued an Opinion to clarify the legal framework applicable to smart metering technology in the energy sector (the “Opinion”).

Smart meters are digital meters that record energy consumption and enable two-way remote communication with the wider network for purposes such as monitoring and billing, and to forecast energy demand.  Smart meters are intended to allow the industry to better regulate energy supply, and to help individuals reduce consumption.  According to the Working Party, however, the analysis and exchange of smart metering information has the potential to be privacy-invasive.

On April 5, 2011, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted an Opinion on the current EU personal data breach framework and recommendations for future policy developments (the “Opinion”).

In 2009, the revised e-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC (the “e-Privacy Directive”) introduced a mandatory data breach notification regime for the telecommunications sector.  Pursuant to the e-Privacy Directive, telecommunications and internet service providers are required to report certain data breaches to their national regulator and to affected individuals.

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 April 6, 2011, the European Commission formally requested that Germany immediately comply with a March 9, 2010 judgment (C-518/07) by the European Court of Justice (the “Court”) concerning the independence of German data protection authorities (“DPAs”).

As we previously reported, the Court ruled in March 2010 that Germany had failed to properly implement the requirement that DPAs are to act with “complete independence” in exercising the functions entrusted to them, as explicitly provided by the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. According to the Commission, 15 out of Germany’s 16 federal states have not yet undertaken any action to rectify the violation identified in the Court’s judgment. In its formal notice letter, the Commission ordered Germany to comply with the Court’s judgment within two months or risk a fine or penalty imposed by the Court.

On March 16, 2011, a meeting of the “European Privacy Platform” group of the European Parliament was held in Brussels.  The meeting provided important insights into the likely structure and content of proposed revisions to the European Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC that the European Commission has been working on for the past several months.

The Council of the European Union (the “Council”) released its conclusions following meetings held on February 24 and 25, 2011, regarding the European Commission’s November 4, 2010 Communication proposing “a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union” which we reported on last November.

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 17, 2011, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP (the “Centre”) released a response to the European Commission’s consultation paper, “A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union.”  In its response, prepared by Richard Thomas, former UK Information Commissioner and Global Strategy Advisor of the Centre, the Centre calls for a modernized European framework for data protection that addresses the realities of the digital age.

Earlier this month, the Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) published its December 15, 2010 Recommendation on Mobile Mapping (Recommandation d’initiative en matière de Mobile Mapping, or “the Recommendation”).  The Recommendation defines Mobile Mapping as “technology by which a vehicle equipped with a camera and/or a scanner can digitally record all data on a specific road, including by taking 360° photos.”  The scope of the Recommendation covers not only applications such as Google Street View, but also other types of Mobile Mapping such as mapping by public authorities, mapping for tourism, real estate applications and GPS navigation mapping.

On January 11, 2011, Michelle O’Neill, U.S. Department of Commerce Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade, held a briefing on her November 2010 meetings in Brussels with European data protection authorities.  She discussed a data protection and privacy forum that was convened in November at which she met with several high-level European regulators, including Jacob Kohnstamm, Viviane Reding and Peter Hustinx.  O’Neill mentioned “the right to be forgotten” as a current hot-button issue in Europe.  Commissioner Reding, who is firmly in charge of the reconsideration of the EU Data Protection Directive, focused on ensuring easier compliance with EU data protection rules and greater harmonization among Member States.  O’Neill stated that Peter Hustinx was encouraged by the work ongoing in the United States, including the “Green Paper” issued by the Department of Commerce.  He considers the various U.S. efforts a basis for further dialogue with U.S. authorities.  O’Neill noted that comments to the EU consultation are due January 15, 2011.  The Department of Commerce intends to file a response.

Early this week, the Article 29 Working Party issued its December 16, 2010 Opinion on applicable law, providing guidance on the scope of EU data protection law and the practical implications of Article 4 of the EU Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC, the “Directive”).

The purpose of the Working Party’s Opinion 8/2010 (the “Opinion”) is twofold.  First, it intends to clarify the current scope of EU data protection law with regard to the processing of personal data within and outside the European Economic Area (the “EEA”).  The clarifications by the Working Party are aimed at enhancing legal certainty for data controllers, providing a clearer framework for individuals and stakeholders and avoiding legal loopholes and potential conflicts between overlapping national data protection laws.  Throughout the Opinion, practical examples are used to demonstrate the clarifications, such as in the context of centralized HR databases, geolocation services, cloud computing and online social networks.  Furthermore, in light of the general revision of the EU data protection framework, the Opinion includes suggestions to improve the existing applicable law provisions in the EU Data Protection Directive.

On December 1, 2010, the European Parliament hosted a Privacy Platform on the European Commission’s recent Communication proposing “a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union,” which is aimed at modernizing the current EU data protection framework.

The panel, hosted by European Parliament Member Sophie in ‘t Veld, included:

• The Head of Cabinet of the European Commission’s Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, Martin Selmayr (in Commissioner Viviane Reding’s absence);
• The Chairman of the Article 29 Working Party, Jacob Kohnstamm; and
• The European Data Protection Supervisor, Peter Hustinx.

The Platform was very well attended, bringing together a wide range of stakeholders from both the public and private sectors.

As the EU released new data protection proposals recommending stricter controls on individual online privacy, Hunton & Williams Brussels counsel Wim Nauwelaerts appeared on BBC TV and spoke to the Associated Press and The New York Times.  The articles also were featured globally in Forbes Magazine, Bloomberg Businessweek, CNBC, The International-Herald Tribune, The Parliament Magazine and other media sources.  London partner Bridget Treacy spoke with The Wall Street Journal, and the firm’s practice head Lisa Sotto spoke with The Washington Post

On November 4, 2010, the European Commission (the “Commission”) released a draft version of its Communication proposing “a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union” (the “Communication”) with a view to modernizing the EU legal system for the protection of personal data.  The Communication is the result of the Commission’s review of the current legal framework (i.e., Directive 95/46/EC), which started with a high-level conference in Brussels in May 2009, followed by a public consultation and additional targeted stakeholders’ consultations throughout 2010.  Although the Commission considers the core principles of the Directive to still be valid, the Communication equally acknowledges that the existing legal framework for data protection in the European Union is no longer able to meet the challenges of rapid technological developments and globalization.

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.

The Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (generally referred to as “Convention 108”), enacted in 1981, is the only legally-binding international treaty dealing with privacy and data protection.  The Convention is also of fundamental importance in providing the underlying legal framework for instruments such as the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46.  So far, 42 countries have become parties to Convention 108.

As the European Commission reviews the EU Directive, the Council of Europe also is preparing to review Convention 108.  The review will be conducted by the Council of Europe’s Consultative Committee on data protection (referred to as T-PD) in a process that will likely take several years.  The T-PD, which meets at the Council of Europe’s headquarters in Strasbourg, is primarily composed of representatives of national governments and data protection authorities, with the International Chamber of Commerce being the only private-sector entity with formal observer status.  The group has commissioned a legal study from an outside consultant to analyze Convention 108 and provide any recommended revisions by the end of 2010, and the T-PD will begin discussions at its upcoming meeting in November.

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.

In a statement released on August 2, 2010, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced that the European Commission has adopted a new time frame for the revision of the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (the “Directive”).  Following a public consultation on the EU Data Protection Framework late last year, Commissioner Viviane Reding, who is in charge of Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, had announced that a proposal for the revision of the Directive would be presented in November 2010.  However, several European data protection authorities ...

On July 19, 2010, the Article 29 Working Party published a new set of frequently asked questions aimed at addressing some of the issues raised by the European Commission’s new Standard Contractual Clauses for the Transfer of Personal Data to Processors Established in Third Countries (2010/87/EU).  Among other things, the FAQs address the scope of the new model clauses and whether they can be used for intra-EEA data transfers.  The FAQs also clarify certain issues related to sub-processing.

The European Union’s Article 29 Working Party adopted a detailed recommendation on accountability which was submitted to the European Commission on July 13, 2010.  Opinion 3/2010 elaborates on the Working Party’s 2009 recommendation to include a new principle on accountability in the revised EU Data Protection Directive.  The Opinion’s executive summary states:

“EU data protection principles and obligations are often insufficiently reflected in concrete internal measures and practices.  Unless data protection becomes part of the shared values and practices of an organization, and responsibilities for it are expressly assigned, effective compliance will be at considerable risk, and data mishaps are likely to continue.

…this Opinion puts forward a concrete proposal for a principle on accountability which would require data controllers to put in place appropriate and effective measures to ensure that principles and obligations set out in the Directive are complied with, and to demonstrate so to supervisory authorities upon request.”

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 24, 2010, the Article 29 Working Party adopted Opinion 2/2010 (the “Opinion”) providing further clarification on online behavioral advertising.  The Working Party also issued a press release on this topic.  Although the scope of the Opinion is limited to online profiling, its interpretation of Article 5(3) of the amended e-Privacy Directive provides some useful clarifications regarding the legal framework applicable to online behavioral advertising and the use of cookies.  We provide a short analysis of the Opinion below.

Opt-in?  Browser setting as opt-in?  Opt-out?  The Opinion clarifies the Working Party’s interpretation of the new Article 5(3) and Recital 66 of the e-Privacy Directive.  According to the Working Party, Article 5(3) and Recital 66, along with the General Data Protection Directive (“Directive 95/46/EC”), require prior opt-in consent since “prior opt-in consent mechanisms are better suited to deliver informed consent.”

In a letter to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission dated May 26, 2010, the Article 29 Working Party expressed concerns regarding the retention and anonymization policies of Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft.  Specifically, the Working Party requested that the FTC examine the compatibility of the three search engine providers’ actions with provisions of Section 5 of the FTC Act which prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices.

The Madrid Resolution on global standards provided new momentum behind the concept of one world, one standard for privacy in international commerce.  New Zealand Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff is one of the thoughtful officials who has joined in the call for a global framework.  Commissioner Shroff discussed her views on global standards in an interview with Marty Abrams during the Centre for Information Policy Leadership’s First Friday Call on April 9, 2010.

On March 9, 2010, the European Court of Justice ruled that the Federal Republic of Germany’s practice of “state supervision” over data protection authorities violates EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.  The case, brought by the EU Commission, is a milestone which will force Germany to change the structure of its DPA system and could have ramifications in other countries as well.

The Court’s decision is based on Article 28(1) of the Directive, which requires that data protection authorities (“DPAs”) act with “complete independence.” German law makes a distinction with regard to DPA supervision depending on whether the data processing is carried out by public or non-public bodies.  There are therefore different authorities responsible for monitoring public entities’ compliance with data protection provisions versus those that monitor compliance by private parties and undertakings governed by public law which compete on the market (öffentlich-rechtliche Wettbewerbsunternehmen) outside the public sector (such as transportation and utility companies).

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 January 5, 2010, the Article 29 Working Party published an opinion dated December 1, 2009, finding that Israeli data protection law largely provides an "adequate level of data protection" under the European Union Data Protection Directive 95/46.  The European Commission will now take this opinion into account when determining whether to issue an "adequacy decision" for Israel in the coming months.  Such a decision would provide that data transfers to Israel from the EU are adequately protected for purposes of compliance with the Directive ...

On November 24, 2009, the European Parliament formally approved the European Union's telecoms reform package.  This reform proposed by the European Commission in November 2007 consists of various different EU Directives that set-up the legal framework applicable to the electronic communications sector (telecoms) and includes a new e-Privacy Directive.

New provisions of the e-Privacy Directive will strengthen the protection of privacy and personal data in the electronic communication sector and includes the following:

• mandatory notification for personal data breaches ...

In a closed session on November 5, 2009, the 31st International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners adopted the International Standards on the Protection of Personal Data and Privacy (the “Standards”).  Although the document is advisory in nature and is not legally binding, it offers guidance to States that have not yet adopted comprehensive data protection laws.  The Spanish Data Protection Agency, which acted as the secretariat for drafting the Standards, held two meetings that included more than fifty privacy enforcement agencies, privacy advocates and businesses before hosting a final drafting session that was reserved for recognized data protection authorities.

On October 6, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced proposed settlement agreements with six companies over charges that they falsely claimed membership in the U.S. Department of Commerce Safe Harbor program.  In six separate complaints, the FTC alleged that ExpatEdge Partners LLC, Onyx Graphics, Inc., Directors Desk LLC, Collectify LLC, and Progressive Gaitways LLC deceived consumers by representing that they maintained current certifications to the Safe Harbor program when such certifications had previously lapsed.  The terms of the proposed settlement agreements prohibit the companies from misrepresenting their membership in any privacy, security or other compliance program.  The six enforcement actions are significant as they mark a considerable uptick in the FTC’s enforcement related to the Safe Harbor program. The FTC recently brought its first enforcement action relevant to the program, which is detailed in our post titled FTC's First Safe Harbor Enforcement Action.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has secured a temporary restraining order against a company that allegedly falsely claimed to have self-certified to the EU/U.S. Safe Harbor Program.  One count of the FTC's complaint claims that the company (named Balls of Kryptonite, LLC) misled consumers by inaccurately representing that it had self-certified to the U.S. Department of Commerce that it was Safe Harbor compliant.  While the FTC has not alleged a substantive violation of the Safe Harbor, this case is significant for two reasons.  First, it marks the first time the FTC has brought an enforcement action with respect to the Safe Harbor Program.  The court order prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting the extent to which they “are members of, adhere to, comply with, are certified by, are endorsed by, or otherwise participate in any privacy, security, or any other compliance program sponsored by any government or third party.”  Second, the FTC acted in concert with the UK Office of Fair Trading after consumers in the UK registered complaints with the FTC using a website established by 25 international consumer protection agencies to facilitate global consumer protection efforts.  This is the first time the FTC has used the U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006 to enforce consumer protection regulations against a U.S. company operating exclusively outside the United States.

On June 3, 2009, the French Senate’s Commission on Laws issued a report on the right to privacy in the digital age (‘La vie privée à l’heure des mémoires numériques’) (the “Report”). The issuance of the Report is perhaps the most important legislative initiative in France in the field of privacy and data protection since the implementation of the EU Data Protection Directive in 2004.

On May 19 and 20 the European Commission held a conference which was perhaps the most important data protection event in Brussels since the Commission conference on evaluation of the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC held in 2002. The conference was part of the Commission's current evaluation of the Directive, and was designed to explore both the current status of data protection in the EU and where it is headed in the coming years. Speakers included Jacques Barrot, the European Commissioner in charge of justice, freedom and security; Alex Türk, chairman of the CNIL (French Data Protection Authority) and the Article 29 Working Party; European Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx; and representatives of European academia, business and non-governmental organizations.

The UK Information Commissioner's Office has published a review of the strengths and weaknesses of the EU Data Protection Directive, commissioned from RAND Europe.

The concept of such a review was highly radical when first proposed. It provoked the promise of a similar study from the European Commission and generated much debate as to whether, and if so when, the Directive itself might be reviewed. The conclusions of the RAND study are much less radical than anticipated but more likely, as a consequence, to stimulate constructive debate within Europe as to the future shape of data protection law. Whilst not endorsing the RAND study, in April 2009, the European Privacy and Data Protection Commissioners' Conference discussed the themes raised by RAND and issued a declaration committing to contribute to the ongoing debate concerning the future of data protection law, including better implementation and enforcement of the existing legal framework.

Following numerous complaints about the use of behavioral advertising technology by internet service providers, the European Commission (the “Commission”) launched infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom for an alleged failure to keep people’s online details confidential. The EU Telecoms Commissioner, Viviane Reding, has called upon the UK to change its national laws to ensure the confidentiality of communications by prohibiting interception and surveillance without the user's consent. If the UK does not comply, the Commission can issue a final warning before taking the UK to the European Court of Justice.

On February 11, 2009, the EU Article 29 Data Protection Working Party released its long-awaited Working Document (the “Working Document”) on reconciling U.S. civil discovery requirements with European data protection law. The guidelines the Working Document offers for data controllers highlight the challenges that multinational businesses face to comply with competing legal obligations in civil litigation.

The Centre for Information Policy Leadership’s Executive Director, Marty Abrams, brings you these thoughts on a recent data protection summit in Barcelona.

Harmonized international data protection rules have been privacy’s Holy Grail since the EU Directive was enacted in 1995. Harmonized, globally recognized rules would simplify life for privacy protection authorities and companies. Numerous efforts have been undertaken to create a harmonized code. The most recent, an international standards project led by the Spanish Data Protection Commissioner, began on January 12 as international privacy experts met in Barcelona. The Spanish Data Protection Commissioner leads the project, and the finished product — a harmonized privacy code that will be the basis for a data protection treaty— will be a center-piece of the 31st International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners on November 2009 in Madrid. 

The Barcelona meeting focused on a draft standards document developed by the Spanish Data Protection Authority, Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos.  The document integrates many of the elements from the OECD Privacy Guidelines, Council of Europe Convention, EU Directive and APEC Privacy Framework.  In its 30 sections, the document recognizes almost every concept found in this existing guidance.