On February 24, 2012, the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) ruled that certain provisions in the Federal Telecommunications Act concerning the disclosure of telecom user data to law enforcement agencies violate the German constitution. The Court held that strict conditions apply when law enforcement authorities and intelligence agencies ask telecommunications service providers (which may include hospitals and hotels) to turn over certain user data, i.e. passwords and PIN codes.
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 12, 2012, Hunton & Williams hosted an hour-long webinar on the current enforcement environment in the U.S. and EU. The webinar, Current Trends in Global Privacy Enforcement, covered issues ranging from the Federal Trade Commission’s tougher approach to investigations to increased monitoring of corporate privacy practices by European data protection authorities. Hunton & Williams speakers included Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of the Global Privacy and Data Security practice, London partner Bridget Treacy, London senior attorney Rosemary Jay and Brussels ...
On November 17, 2011, the German Association for Data Protection and Data Security (“GDD”) held its 35th Privacy Conference (“DAFTA”) in Cologne, Germany. At the opening plenary session, Paul Nemitz, Director for Fundamental Rights and Citizenship of the European Commission, announced that the European Commission plans to implement a Regulation that is directly applicable to all EU Member States, to harmonize data protection laws in Europe.
On November 2, 2011, Germany’s Federal Minister of the Interior met with stakeholders from the social networking industry and announced the development of a self-regulatory code for social networks. According to the Ministry’s press release, the code is aimed at enhancing data protection, consumer protection and the protection of minors on the Internet.
In endorsing the initiative, the Interior Minister stated, “self-regulation can also prove efficient in the social networking context, allowing for quick and flexible arrangements that enhance transparency and user ...
On November 2, 2011, following welcome comments by Federal Institute for Access to Information and Data Protection (“IFAI”) Commissioner Jacqueline Peschard, the 33rd International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners opened in Mexico City with an examination of the phenomenon of “Big Data” as a definer of a new economic era. In a wide-ranging presentation, Kenneth Neil Cukier of the Economist drew into clear relief the possibilities and problems associated with combining vast stores of data and powerful analytics. He highlighted the growing ability to correlate seemingly unrelated data sets to predict behavior, reveal trends, enhance product performance and safety and derive meaning. In his remarks Cukier noted that, in an era of Big Data, much of the decision-making about data collection and use goes beyond traditional notions of privacy, touching on ethics and free will. Noting that the printing press led to the development of free speech laws, he left open the question of how Big Data may change the legal landscape.
On November 2-3, 2011, Mexico’s Federal Institute for Access to Information and Data Protection (“IFAI”) will host the 33rd International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in Mexico City. Marty Abrams, President of the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP, is the chairman of the Conference’s advisory panel and principal advisor to Conference organizers on program content. Hunton & Williams is a proud sponsor of the event which will feature Hunton representatives as speakers or moderators on multiple panels and plenary sessions, including the following:
On September 29, 2011, the German federal and state data protection authorities (“DPAs”) issued a resolution on cloud computing and compliance with data protection law. The publication was released in conjunction with the DPAs’ 82nd annual conference.
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 September 8, 2011, Richard Allan, Facebook’s Director of European Public Policy, met with the German Federal Ministry of the Interior (the “Ministry”) and endorsed the Ministry’s initiative for a future self-regulatory code for social networks with a focus on data security, consumer protection and the protection of minors.
On September 12, 2011, the Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information of the German federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia (“DPA”) imposed a fine of €60,000 on Easycash GmbH (“Easycash”), a leading German service provider for electronic payments.
On August 19, 2011, the Data Protection Commissioner’s Office of the German federal state of Schleswig-Holstein (“ULD”) ordered all businesses in that state “to shut down their fan pages on Facebook and remove social plug-ins such as the ‘like’-button from their websites.” Although this warning is specific to Facebook users, the regulator’s explanation of its motives reveals a fundamental concern about common data analytics practices:
“By using the Facebook service traffic and content data are transferred into the USA and a qualified feedback is sent back to the website owner concerning the web page usage, the so called web analytics (Ger.: Reichweitenanalyse). Whoever visits facebook.com or uses a plug-in must expect that he or she will be tracked by the company for two years. Facebook builds a broad individual and for members even a personalised profile. Such a profiling infringes German and European data protection law. There is no sufficient information of users and there is no choice; the wording in the conditions of use and privacy statements of Facebook does not nearly meet the legal requirements relevant for compliance of legal notice, privacy consent and general terms of use.”
On June 16, 2011, the German Federal Ministry of the Interior officially opened a National Cyber Defense Center as part of the comprehensive cybersecurity strategy that was adopted by the German federal government on February 23, 2011. The Cyber Defense Center is intended to serve as a common platform for rapid information exchange and better coordination of protective and defensive measures against information technology security incidents.
On June 6, 2011, Hunton & Williams hosted a panel discussion on what organizations in the UK, France, Germany and the Netherlands are doing to comply with the EU’s new cookie law. The webinar, Consent for Cookies: Preparing for the EU Cookie Law, featured David Evans, Group Manager of Business and Industry of the UK Information Commissioner’s Office, and Hunton & Williams Brussels-based associates Olivier Proust, Dr. Jörg Hladjk and Martijn ten Bloemendal. The panel was moderated by Bridget C. Treacy, partner in the London office of Hunton & Williams. Listen to the webinar now
The German Data Protection Authorities of Berlin and North Rhine-Westphalia have issued a paper containing Frequently Asked Questions about the German statutory data breach notification requirement that went into effect on September 1, 2009. The paper provides detailed information on key questions concerning the procedure for notification as required by Section 42a of the German Federal Data Protection Act.
On June 6, 2011, join Hunton & Williams for a panel discussion on the implementation of the new EU Cookie Law in the UK, France, Germany and the Netherlands. EU law on the use of cookies is changing. Opt-in consent will be required, but specific requirements may differ across the EU. What are organizations doing to ensure compliance with the new cookie law? Listen to David Evans, Group Manager of Business and Industry of the Information Commissioner's Office, explain the steps that UK organizations are expected to take. Learn about cookie compliance in France, Germany and the ...
On May 10, 2011, the German Federal Office for Information Security, (the Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik or “BSI”) released the final framework paper on information security issues related to cloud computing. The paper describes the minimum requirements for information security for cloud computing services. As we previously reported, in September 2010, the BSI had presented the draft framework paper which received positive reviews and constructive comments from cloud computing providers, users, associations and other stakeholders. The ...
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 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 2, 2011, the German Federal government adopted a draft law revising certain sector-specific data protection provisions in the German Telecommunications Act. The draft law addresses the implementation of data breach notification requirements in the European e-Privacy Directive by introducing a breach notification obligation for telecommunications companies.
On February 8, 2011, the German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information issued a concept paper setting forth concrete suggestions for the creation of a Data Protection Foundation (the “Foundation”). The German government has reserved a budget of €10 million to establish the Foundation, which it plans to do in 2011.
On February 3, 2011, the German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information issued a press release announcing that it has approved the privacy policy formulated by Deutsche Post DHL. This allows Deutsche Post DHL to transfer personal data abroad in accordance with its privacy policy without having to obtain approval in individual cases. Deutsche Post DHL is the first German company to have its binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) approved at the European level, following an extensive consultation process among EU data protection authorities.
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 January 14, 2011, the European Network and Information Security Agency (“ENISA”), which was created to enhance information security within the European Union, published a report entitled “Data breach notifications in the EU” (the “Report”).
Currently, there is wide debate throughout the EU regarding data breach notification requirements. The debate stems from recent high-profile data breach incidents and the introduction of mandatory data breach notification requirements for telecommunication service providers imposed by EU Directive 2009/136/EC (amending EU Directive 2002/58/EC, the “e-Privacy Directive”), which must be integrated into EU Member States’ national laws by May 25, 2011. The goal of the Report is to assist Member States, regulatory authorities and private organizations with their implementation of data breach notification policies.
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 December 1, 2010, the German Federal Ministry of the Interior (the “BMI”) issued a paper entitled “Data Protection on the Internet,” which contains a draft law to protect against particularly serious violations of privacy rights online.
Regulation of Geo Data Services
The BMI’s paper was developed in context of recent discussions regarding the regulation of geo data services. A draft data protection code for geo data services (the “Code”), prepared by businesses under the leadership of the German Federal Association for Information Technology, Telecommunications and New Media (“BITKOM e.V.”), was also published on December 1, and now will be assessed by the BMI.
In its paper, the BMI rejects the adoption of a specific law to regulate services such as Google Street View. The BMI believes that, to the extent service providers implement sufficient technical and organizational measures to protect data, statutory regulation is not necessary.
On November 23, 2010, the data protection authority of the German federal state of Hamburg issued a €200,000 fine against financial institution Hamburger Sparkasse AG (“Haspa”) for illegally allowing its customer service representatives access to customers’ bank data, and for profiling its customers. The bank cooperated with the DPA and has discontinued the illegal practices.
On September 20, 2010, the German government under the leadership of the Federal Minister of the Interior held a summit on “Digitization of Cities and States - Opportunities and Limits of Private and Public Geo Data Services.” Approximately 50 experts attended, including the Federal Minister of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, the Federal Minister of Justice and representatives from various companies, such as Deutsche Telekom, Google, Microsoft, Apple Inc., OpenStreetMap and panogate. Numerous data protection authorities attended as well, including the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, the Chair of the Düsseldorfer Kreis and the DPA of Hamburg. The discussions at the summit were based on a discussion paper issued by the Federal Minister of the Interior.
On September 28, 2010, the German Federal Office for Information Security, (the Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik or “BSI”) released a draft framework paper on information security issues related to cloud computing. The draft paper defines minimum security requirements for cloud solution service providers, and provides a basis for discussions between service providers and users. The paper addresses the following issues:
- The definition of cloud computing
- Service provider security management requirements
- ID and rights management
- Monitoring and security incident response
- Emergency management
- Security checks and verification
- Requirements for personnel
- Transparency
- Organizational requirements
- User control
- Portability of data and applications
- Interoperability
- Data protection and compliance
- Cloud certification
- Additional requirements for public cloud service providers that support cloud solutions for the Federal Administration
According to a press report dated October 2, 2010, the German state data protection authorities responsible for the private sector (also known as the “Düsseldorfer Kreis”) continue to consider the use of Google Analytics on company websites to be illegal. The Düsseldorfer Kreis reached this decision at a recent meeting of its Telemedia working group. The group has indicated that it hopes to continue negotiations with Google. Dr. Alexander Dix, the Berlin Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information who was interviewed on this issue, stated that although ...
On August 25, 2010, the German government approved a draft law concerning special rules for employee data protection, originally proposed by the Federal Ministry of the Interior. A background paper on the draft law was published on August 25, 2010. The draft law would amend the German Federal Data Protection Act (the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz or “BDSG”) by adding provisions that specifically address data protection in the employment context. Currently, employee data protection is regulated by (1) general provisions in the BDSG, (2) the new Section 32 of the BDSG introduced by the most recent reform in September 2009, (3) the Works Constitution Act, (4) guidance from state data protection authorities, and (5) comprehensive case law from federal and local labor courts.
On July 27, 2010, the German Federal Network Agency, the Bundesnetzagentur (or “BNetzA”), issued a press release stating that it had recently levied €194,000 in administrative fines in two cases against companies accused of violating a ban on cold calling. The cases involved consumer complaints implicating the companies in several illegal acts. The companies claimed they had obtained prior consent from the consumers they contacted. The BNetzA, which is the regulatory office for electricity, gas, telecommunications, post and railway markets in Germany, rejected the companies’ argument on the grounds that the “consent” was based on the consumers’ implicit acceptance of the terms of use associated with certain Internet games. The terms of use included a provision regarding a participant’s consent to telemarketing by partners, sponsors and other companies. The BNetzA stated that, because these terms of use did not satisfy the legal requirements for consent, the company had not obtained valid consent to call the consumers.
In a statement released on July 29, 2010, the UK Information Commissioner's Office ("ICO") has found that the information collected by Google from unsecured WiFi networks during the Street View photography capture exercise "does not include meaningful personal details that could be linked to an identifiable person." This follows an assessment carried out by the ICO on a sample of the data in question at Google's London offices.
On July 7, 2010, the German Federal Office for Information Security, the Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (“BSI”), published a basic paper on data security and data protection for radio-frequency identification (“RFID”) applications. The paper, Technical Guidelines RFID as Templates for the PIA-Framework, describes how to use RFID in compliance with data protection requirements, and explains the relationship between the BSI’s technical guidelines for the secure use of RFIDs and the European Commission’s Privacy Impact Assessment (“PIA”) Framework.
In a recently published decision rendered on June 16, 2010, the Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court ruled that an Internet access provider may store IP addresses for seven days, and therefore, customers have no right to demand immediate deletion of their IP addresses. The Court’s ruling upheld a decision originally rendered by the regional court of Darmstadt.
The claimant had requested that Deutsche Telekom AG delete the dynamic IP address assigned and stored for each Internet session immediately upon disconnection by a user. Up to that point, the Internet provider had been retaining IP addresses for 80 days after each billing cycle. In June 2007, the lower court granted the claimant request, imposing a maximum retention period of seven days for IP addresses. The Internet provider reduced its IP address retention period accordingly, based on an agreement with the German federal data protection authority.
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
On April 29, 2010, German data protection authorities issued a resolution regarding the obligations of German data exporters with respect to U.S. data importers that have self-certified under the Safe Harbor program. By requiring additional diligence when transferring data to Safe Harbor-certified entities, the resolution may appear to raise questions with respect to the European Commission’s decision that Safe Harbor certification is sufficient to demonstrate an adequate level of privacy protection.
According to a report issued by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (“FRA”), European data protection authorities lack sufficient independence and funding. In addition, DPAs impose few sanctions for violations of data protection laws. DPAs “are often not equipped with full powers of investigation and intervention or the capacity to give legal advice or engage in legal proceedings.” In a number of countries, including Austria, France, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK, “prosecutions and sanctions for violations are limited or non-existing.” ...
On May 7, 2010, the data protection authority of the German federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia imposed a fine of €120,000 on Deutsche Postbank AG for illegal disclosure of customers’ bank account transaction data. The bank unlawfully allowed approximately 4,000 self-employed agents to access information on more than a million customer accounts for sales purposes.
On April 19, 2010, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart, and the heads of nine other international data protection authorities took part in an unprecedented collaboration by issuing a strongly worded letter of reproach to Google’s Chief Executive Officer, Eric Schmidt. The joint letter, which was also signed by data protection officials from France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom, highlighted growing international concern that “the privacy rights of the world’s citizens are being forgotten as Google rolls out new technological applications.”
In the wake of recent amendments to the German Federal Data Protection Act, the German Federal Ministry of the Interior (the Bundesinnenministerium des Innern) is working on a draft law on special rules for employee data protection. The draft law is intended to provide clarification on some issues that were not addressed fully in the amendments that entered into force on September 1, 2009. The Ministry’s overarching considerations are set forth in a key issues paper that was published April 1, 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 March 2, 2010, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the mass storage of telephone and Internet data for law enforcement purposes is unlawful in its current form.
Since 2008, the challenged law has required telecom companies to retain data from telephone, email and Internet traffic, as well as mobile phone location data, for six months. This information may be retrieved for law enforcement and safety purposes. Constitutional claims were brought before the Court by nearly 35,000 citizens, representing the largest mass claim proceeding in German history.
On February 1, 2010, it became compulsory for randomly selected passengers at Heathrow and Manchester airports in the UK to pass through full body scanners before boarding their flights. This enhanced security screening has been implemented following the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack at the Detroit airport in the United States, after which the British government announced that it would begin mandatory body scanning at all UK airports. The move has raised concerns about the excessive collection of personal data.
On January 29, 2009, the German Federal Network Agency (the “Agency”) stated in a press release that it has imposed fines for unauthorized telephone advertising in six cases. This brings the total to nine procedures (resulting in €500,000 in fines) during the months of December 2009 and January 2010, and marks the first time the Agency has imposed sanctions for violations of the prohibition on unauthorized telephone advertising and for breach of the caller ID requirement for marketing calls.
On January 11, 2010, the data protection authority of the German federal state of Baden-Wurtemberg issued a press release stating that it had fined the Müller Group €137,500 for illegal retention of health-related data and failure to appoint a Data Protection Officer.
In April 2009, the German press reported that the Müller Group, a drugstore chain comprised of twelve entities and employing some 20,000 workers, was illegally collecting health data from its employees. Specifically, employees returning from sick leave were required to complete a form and provide the reason for their sicknesses. After conducting an investigation, the DPA confirmed these allegations. Since 2006, the Müller Group entities had systematically requested employees returning from sick leave to identify the reasons for their sicknesses on a form that was then sent to the Group’s central Human Resources department to be scanned. As of April 2009, approximately 24,000 records containing data on employee illnesses were being stored in Müller’s centralized HR files.
In December 2009, the German data protection authorities (“DPAs”) for the private sector published a resolution on data protection compliance for website audience measurement. The resolution was adopted at the Düsseldorfer Kreis meeting on November 26-27, 2009.
Many website operators analyze users’ surfing behavior for advertising and market research purposes, or to adapt their websites to suit consumer preferences. To create user profiles, website operators often use software or other services that are offered by third party service providers (sometimes free of charge).
On November 3, 2009, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (OLG Düsseldorf, Az. I-20 U 137/09) ruled on the duty to verify consent for email marketing with respect to purchased email addresses. According to the Court, a company that purchases email addresses for marketing purposes must verify customer consent itself – the company cannot rely on a data broker’s statement that it obtained the necessary consents.
This decision came in an interim injunction proceeding to cease unsolicited email marketing. The Court ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that the company ...
On November 12, 2009, the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V., “vzbv”), a non-governmental organization acting as an umbrella for 41 German consumer associations announced that the social networks Xing, MySpace, Facebook, Lokalisten, Wer-kennt-Wen and StudiVZ signed undertakings that they would discontinue use of certain terms and conditions and data protection provisions. The vzbv sent warning notices to the six leading social network providers regarding a number of clauses.
The main criticism from vzbv referred to ...
On Friday, October 23, 2009, the German Railways Operator Deutsche Bahn AG announced that they would pay a fine of over €1.1 million that was imposed on October 16, 2009 by the Berlin data protection authority. This fine is the highest ever imposed by a German data protection authority. The imposition of this fine follows a major data protection scandal that reportedly broke out within the company. From 2002 to 2005, Deutsche Bahn had screened a large quantity of employee data and compared it to supplier data in an effort to combat corruption, but without specific suspicions related to ...
On August 19, 2009, the state DPA in North Rhine-Westphalia fined a subsidiary of the discount supermarket chain Lidl €36,000 (approximately $51,000) for illegally keeping records of employee health data.
The case was triggered by a report in the German news magazine Der Spiegel. A Bochum resident found papers and forms containing Lidl employees' health data in a trash bin at a car wash and forwarded them to the magazine. Subsequent investigations revealed that at least four Lidl branches in North Rhine-Westphalia were using a form to record data about employees' medical ...
On July 3, 2009, the German Federal Parliament passed comprehensive amendments to the Federal Data Protection Act (the "Federal Act"). These amendments also passed the Federal Council on July 10, 2009, and the revised law will enter into force on September 1, 2009. The new amendments cover a range of data protection-related issues, including marketing, security breach notification, service provider contracts and protections for employee data. They also include new powers for data protection authorities and provide for increased fines for violations of data protection law ...
On April 27, 2009, the Article 29 Working Party issued a new working document (WP 155 rev.04) on frequently asked questions relating to binding corporate rules ("BCRs"). Two new FAQs were adopted: (1) FAQ 10 deals with the relationship between EEA data protection laws and BCRs; and (2) FAQ 11 relates to the reversal of the burden of proof in the context of BCRs. The Working Party reiterated that, although BCRs may offer an adequate level of protection to personal data being transferred within the same company, they do not exempt multinationals from complying with national data ...
On May 15, 2009, the German Federal Council adopted the "Act against unsolicited commercial phone calls and improvement of consumer protection." According to the Act, violations of the existing prohibition on unsolicited commercial phone calls can now be sanctioned with a fine up to € 50,000.
In addition, the Act clarifies that a commercial phone call is only lawful if the recipient has given his or her prior explicit consent to receive the call. The provision is intended to prevent the caller's reliance on consent that may have been given by the recipient in a totally different ...
As a consequence of the data protection scandals at Deutsche Telekom AG over the last few years, the company is committed to reviewing these incidents by publishing an annual data protection report. On April 28, 2009, the first data protection report for year-end 2008 was issued and is intended to show the public that Deutsche Telekom is focused on the transparency of its data protection practice. The first chapter of the report contains an overview of the crucial incidents relating to data protection issues in 2008. The following chapters present the operative focal points of the ...
In February 2009, the Ponemon Institute published the results of its inaugural study "Germany - 2008 Annual Study: Cost of a Data Breach." The study is the first such research study undertaken in Germany, using data from actual incidents to estimate the costs of dealing with data breaches by German companies. The study examined the experience of 18 German organizations that suffered a breach. These case studies reviewed ranged in size an incident involving less than 3,750 records to an incident involving more than 90,000 records. The breaches reviewed occurred across ten industry ...
On March 11, 2009, the operators of Germany's leading social networks, which include "schuelerVZ," "studiVZ," "lokalisten" and "wer-kennt-wen," signed a 17-page Code of Conduct by the Association for Voluntary Self-Regulation of Multimedia Service Providers (the “Code”) in order to protect children and young people. The Code of Conduct aims to improve data protection and consumer protection in social networks and, in particular, to protect young people against harassment. The Code requires that a privacy notice be displayed directly after the registration process and ...
Search
Recent Posts
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
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- 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
- 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 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
- Department of Treasury
- Disclosure
- 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
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- 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
- 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
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- 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
- Legislature
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Marketing
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- 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
- Online Behavioral Advertising
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Paul Tiao
- 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
- 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 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
- WeProtect Global Alliance
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code