Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On August 30, 2012, Taiwan’s Executive Yuan announced that the Personal Data Protection Act will become effective on October 1, 2012. In connection with the announcement, the Executive Yuan also proposed several amendments to certain controversial provisions to be discussed by the Legislative Yuan in September.

Reportedly, the amendments would include the following changes:

1. adding “medical records” as a type of sensitive personal data, and inserting exceptions to restrictions on the use of sensitive personal data (e.g., for public interest reasons or with the data ...

On August 15, 2012, Philippines President Benigno S. Aquino III signed the Data Privacy Act of 2012 passed earlier this year by the Philippine Senate and House of Representatives. Concerns about the creation of the National Privacy Commission and the criminal penalties associated with the Act delayed final enactment.

On August 10, 2012, a federal district court in California denied Hulu’s motion to dismiss the remaining claim in a putative class action suit alleging that the online streaming video provider transmitted users’ personal information to third parties in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”). The VPPA prohibits a “video tape service provider” from transmitting personally identifiable information of “consumers,” except in certain, limited circumstances. According to the complaint, Hulu allegedly allowed KISSmetrics, a data analytics company, to place tracking codes on the plaintiffs’ computers that re-spawned previously-deleted cookies, and shared Hulu users’ video viewing choices and “personally identifiable information” with third parties, including online ad networks, metrics companies and social media networks.

In recent weeks, both state and federal regulators have considered security breach notification legislation. On June 15, 2012, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed a budget bill that, among other things, amends the state’s security breach notification law. The changes, which will take effect on October 1, 2012, most notably require businesses to notify the state Attorney General no later than the time when notice of a security breach is provided to state residents. Although the law does not specify when notice must be provided to affected individuals, the law states that such notice must be made “without unreasonable delay,” subject to law enforcement delays and the completion of an investigation by the business to determine the nature and scope of the incident, to identify affected individuals, or to restore the reasonable integrity of the data system. As we previously reported, Vermont also recently amended its breach notification statute to require businesses to notify the state Attorney General within 14 days of discovering a security breach or concurrently when notifying consumers, whichever is sooner.

On May 30, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission hosted a public workshop addressing the need for new guidance on advertising and privacy disclosures online and in mobile environments. During the workshop, the FTC announced that it hopes to release an updated version of its online advertising disclosure guidance this fall that would incorporate input from businesses and consumer advocates. Topics explored at the workshop included:

• Best practices for privacy disclosures on mobile platforms and how they can be short, effective and accessible to consumers;
• how to put disclosures in proximity to offers on mobile platforms;
• social media disclosures; and
• the placement of material information on webpages.

On May 31, 2012, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published a draft anonymization code of practice (the “Code”) which will be open to public consultation until August 23, 2012. The purpose of the Code is to provide organizations with guidance on how personal data can be anonymized successfully, and how to assess the risk of individuals being identified using data that has been anonymized. The ICO also has launched a £15,000 invitation to tender to establish a network of experts to share best practices regarding anonymization.

On June 1, 2012, the Attorney General of Vermont announced a series of recent legislative moves to enhance the state’s consumer protection laws, including amendments to Vermont’s security breach notification law. The changes, which were signed into law by Governor Peter Shumlin in early May, include a revised definition of “security breach,” the addition of a 45-day timing requirement for notifying affected consumers, and a requirement to notify the state Attorney General within 14 days of discovering the breach (or when notifying consumers, if sooner).

In recent months, two high-profile cases involving Hulu and Netflix have raised questions regarding the scope and application of the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), a federal privacy law that has been the focus of increasing attention over the past few years. In the Hulu case, Hulu users claimed that the subscription-based video streaming service disclosed their viewing history to third parties. 

On May 2, 2012, Australia’s Attorney General Nicola Roxon announced that the Australian government will introduce a bill to the Australian Parliament that will enact a number of the recommendations from the 2008 Law Reform Commission Report (ALRC Report 108) and reform privacy law in Australia. Discussion drafts of segments of the bill were considered by a Senate Committee in 2011. On May 4, Australian Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim presented an overview of the draft legislation at an event held during the iappANZ Privacy Awareness Week. Commissioner Pilgrim noted that the legislative package includes:

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.

On April 27, 2012, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP (the “Centre”) submitted comments to the latest Singapore consultation on proposed personal data protection legislation, the Personal Data Protection Act 2012. The consultation is being conducted by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts and expired on April 30, 2012.

On April 26, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (“CISPA” or H.R. 3523), which is aimed at facilitating the exchange of cyber threat intelligence information between the government and certain private entities. In addition, the House approved the Federal Information Security Amendments Act of 2012 (H.R. 4257), which modifies the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 to provide for automated and continuous monitoring of the security of government information systems.

On April 9, 2012, Maryland became the first state to pass legislation that would prevent employers from asking or forcing employees and applicants to hand over their social media login credentials. The bill, which passed the state Senate unanimously (Senate Bill 433) and the House of Delegates by a wide margin (House Bill 964), now awaits Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley’s signature.

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 February 24, 2012, Eric Chabrow of BankInfoSecurity interviewed Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of the Global Privacy and Data Security practice at Hunton & Williams LLP. Discussing the need for a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, Sotto briefly outlined the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed bill, and its potential impact on businesses.

The White House today released its long-awaited report outlining a framework for U.S. data protection and privacy policy. As expected, “Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Global Innovation in the Global Digital Economy” articulates a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights based on the individual’s right to exercise control over what personal data companies collect from the individual and how companies use the data. The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, which reflects principles of fair information practices and applies to personal data, sets forth individual rights for consumers and corresponding obligations of companies in connection with personal data. It also provides for the consumer’s right to:

• transparent privacy and data security practices;
• expect that companies will collect, use and disclose data in a manner consistent with the context in which it was collected;
• have their data handled in a secure manner;
• access and correct personal data;
• set reasonable limits on the personal data that companies collect and retain; and
• have personal data handled by companies with appropriate measures in place to assure they adhere to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

On February 14, 2012, a joint U.S. congressional committee, including Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), introduced the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (the “Act”). Although the legislation appears to have strong bipartisan support, during a February 15 hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) indicated that he and six Republican colleagues would propose their own cybersecurity legislation in March.

On July 13, 2011, Hong Kong’s Personal Data (Privacy) (Amendment) Bill 2011 (the “Bill”), was introduced in the Legislative Council. Although the Bill has not yet been subject to an official vote, there have been several noteworthy developments.

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.

On December 1, 2011, a consolidated litigation against Netflix was ordered to private mediation pursuant to an agreement between the parties. As we previously reported, the plaintiffs allege that Netflix’s practice of maintaining customer movie rental history and recommendations after their subscriptions are cancelled violates the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”). In August 2011, several similar cases against Netflix were consolidated by a federal court in California.

News of the mediation order comes as a significant amendment to the VPPA awaits Senate ...

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog:

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law Senate Bill No. 559 (SB 559), which prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s genetic information. While SB 559 significantly expands the protections from genetic discrimination provided under the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), at this time, its impact on most California employers is thought to be limited to the potential for greater damages to be awarded under it than under its federal counterpart.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog, on October 10, 2011, California became the seventh state to enact legislation restricting public and private employers alike from using consumer credit reports in making hiring and other personnel decisions. Assembly Bill No. 22 both adds a new provision to the California Labor Code -- Section 1024.5 -- and amends California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”). Effective January 1, 2012, California employers will be prohibited from requesting a consumer credit report for employment purposes unless they meet one of the limited statutory exceptions, and those employers meeting an exception, will be subjected to increased disclosure requirements. Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii, Oregon, Maryland and Washington already have similar laws on the books, and many other states, as well as the federal government, are contemplating similar legislation. This trend creates a potential “credit-centric” minefield for employers that do business in any one or more of these states. In light of the multiple laws affecting their use, employers who utilize consumer credit reports in making personnel decisions should proceed cautiously. Employers must evaluate the need for these reports in making personnel decisions, review and modify their policies to ensure compliance with the myriad of regulations in this area, and monitor any new developments to ensure continued compliance.

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 September 27, 2011, OnStar announced it was reversing proposed changes to its Terms and Conditions that would have allowed the company to continue to receive data from former subscribers’ vehicles unless they specifically opted out.  OnStar’s current Privacy Statement indicates that the GM subsidiary collects information regarding its customers’ vehicle operation, location, approximate speed, collision data and safety belt usage in connection with OnStar’s in-vehicle GPS navigation and emergency response services, and that the company “may share or sell” any of this data in anonymized form with third parties.  OnStar recently notified customers by email that it would continue to collect data from former subscribers, and that it reserved the right to distribute such data to third parties.  The announcement prompted a swift and strong reaction from members of Congress skeptical of the proposed policy changes.

On September 22, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved three separate bills that would establish a national data breach notification standard.  Because the bills were approved on a party-line vote, and several other data breach bills currently are under consideration by other Senate committees, the prospects for these three bills in the full Senate are uncertain.

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 August 31, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law amendments to that state’s security breach notification statute.  The revisions establish new content requirements for breach notification letters to California residents, and mandate notification to the state Attorney General when a breach affects more than 500 Californians.  Senate Bill 24 was the third effort by State Senator Joe Simitian to build on the landmark California breach notification law he authored in 2002.  The two previous bills he proposed were passed by the California legislature, but vetoed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

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

The Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner has issued a document soliciting comments regarding a proposal to require a wide range of data users to submit information about their activities to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data.  The proposal would be carried out pursuant to the Hong Kong Privacy Ordinance, which authorizes the Privacy Commissioner to require certain data users to submit data user returns.  Under the Ordinance, a “data user return” is a form certain data users must submit to the Privacy Commissioner for purposes of maintaining a data user registration database.  A “data user” is defined as “a person who, either alone or jointly or in common with other persons, controls the collection, holding, processing or use of [personal] data” (emphasis added).

On July 14, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee convened a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade (chaired by Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA)), and the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology (chaired by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)), to launch a comprehensive review of Internet privacy.  The series of hearings began with testimony from officials representing three agencies with jurisdiction over consumer privacy issues: FTC Commissioner Edith Ramirez, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, and Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Lawrence Strickling.

Adam Kardash from Heenan Blaikie LLP in Canada reports that Industry Canada and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) have released draft regulations for Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (“CASL”).  CASL imposes a consent-based anti-spam regime that restricts organizations’ ability to send commercial electronic messages.  Industry Canada and the CRTC are charged with the task of implementing regulations under CASL.

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

On June 29, 2011, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation convened a hearing entitled “Privacy and Data Security: Protecting Consumers in the Online World.”  In opening remarks, Committee Chair Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) highlighted that the hearing would consider both privacy and data security and discussed three bills focused on these issues.  

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 June 13, 2011, Representative Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) released a discussion draft of the Secure and Fortify Data Act (the “SAFE Data Act”), which is designed to “protect consumers by requiring reasonable security policies and procedures to protect data containing personal information, and to provide for nationwide notice in the event of a security breach.”  Representative Bono Mack is Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade.  In a press release, Representative Bono Mack remarked that “E-commerce is a vital and growing part of our economy.  We should take steps to embrace and protect it – and that starts with robust cyber security.”  She added that “consumers have a right to know when their personal information has been compromised, and companies and other organizations have an overriding responsibility to promptly alert them.”

On June 15, 2011, Senator Al Franken (D-MN) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced the Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011 (the “Act”).  As we reported previously, Senator Franken is chairman of the newly-created Senate subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law.   In his press release, Senator Franken explained that the Act is designed to “close current loopholes in federal law” while giving customers the ability to learn about and prevent the collection of their location information.  The Act would apply only to non-government entities and would not impact law-enforcement activities.  At a May 10, 2011 hearing, both Google and Apple were questioned about their privacy practices, and Franken subsequently challenged them to require their application developers to adopt clear and understandable privacy policies.

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

On June 7, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the “Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2011” (the “Act”), co-sponsored by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Ben Cardin (D-MD).  This marks the fourth time Senator Leahy has introduced ambitious privacy legislation; in 2005, 2007 and 2009, similar bills failed to advance in the Senate.  In his press release, Senator Leahy stated that “many recent and troubling data breaches in the private sector and in our government are clear evidence that developing a comprehensive national strategy to protect data privacy and security is one of the most challenging and important issues facing our country.”

On May 26, 2011, the United Kingdom’s Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Kenneth Clarke spoke before the EU Committee of the British Chamber of Commerce in Belgium.  His remarks focused on data protection, a subject he characterized as one “heavily on the agenda” in Brussels and in many EU Member States.  Clarke emphasized his own role as a proponent of data protection and a defender of civil liberties and individual freedom, and discussed the introduction into Parliament of a major bill to enhance individual freedom in the UK.  Key measures in the bill, many of which respond to issues raised over the past few years by the UK Information Commissioner, include:

• Greater independence for the Information Commissioner
• Safeguards against misuse of counter-terrorism stop and search powers
• Further regulation of the use of closed-circuit television monitoring
• Reform of the regulations governing vetting and barring of ex-offenders and persons working with children and vulnerable adults

Costa Rica’s quest for an omnibus privacy law took a major step forward on April 27, 2011, when the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica gave its stamp of approval to a far-ranging piece of privacy legislation, finding that it had no constitutional defects.  In March 2011, the bill, known as the law of “Protection of the Person in the Processing of His Personal Data” (Protección de la Persona Frente al Tratamiento de sus Datos Personales), survived an initial vote in the unicameral Legislative Assembly.  The bill has now been returned to the Legislative Assembly.

As reported by Kwang Hyun Ryoo and Ji Yeon Park of Bae, Kim & Lee LLC in Korea, on May 24, 2011, the government of South Korea published draft regulations to the Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”), the Republic’s new omnibus data protection law.

As we previously reported, PIPA was enacted on March 29, 2011, after past privacy legislation had languished in the Korean Parliament.  The recently published regulations (an Enforcement Decree and Enforcement Regulations) apply to any “handler of personal information” or “data handler,” which is any entity that uses personal information for business purposes.

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.

As we reported last week, on May 12, 2011, the Obama administration announced a comprehensive cybersecurity legislative proposal in a letter to Congress.  The proposal, which is the culmination of two years of work by an interagency team made up of representatives from multiple departments and agencies, aims to improve the nation’s cybersecurity and protect critical infrastructure.  If enacted, this legislation will affect many government and private-sector owners and operators of cyber systems, including all critical infrastructure, such as energy, financial systems, manufacturing, communications and transportation.  In addition, the proposal includes a wide-reaching data breach notification law that is intended generally to preempt the existing state breach laws in 46 states plus Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

On May 12, 2011, the White House released the long-expected cybersecurity legislative proposal in response to the need to protect Americans from cyber threats.  The proposal is the culmination of several years of work following the White House’s release of the Cyberspace Policy Review in 2009 and includes the following sections:

On May 9, 2011, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, introduced the “Do-Not-Track Online Act of 2011” (the “Act”).  The Act instructs the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate regulations that would (1) create standards for the implementation of a “Do Not Track” mechanism that would enable individuals to express a desire to not be tracked online and (2) prohibit online service providers from tracking individuals who express such a desire.  The regulations would allow online service providers to track individuals who do not want to be tracked only if (1) the tracking is necessary to provide a service requested by the individual (and the individuals’ information is anonymized or deleted when the service is provided), or (2) the individual is given clear notice about the tracking and affirmatively consents to the tracking.

Austrian DPA Gives Green Light Subject to Conditions

On April 21, 2011, the Austrian Data Protection Commission (“Austrian DPA”) published its decision allowing Google to register its Google Street View application on the Austrian DPA’s data processing register.  As part of the registration procedure, Google agreed to blur images of faces and license plates prior to publishing them on the Internet, and to provide information to the public about the right to object to publication of certain images.  Further, the Austrian DPA required Google to:

On April 14, 2011, the European Advertising Standards Alliance (“EASA”) and IAB Europe released complementary new self-regulatory standards for online behavioral advertising.  This cross-industry initiative is aimed at enhancing European consumers’ control over their data and ensuring transparency, particularly with respect to advertisements that are delivered using third party online behavioral advertising.

On April 18, 2011, the European Commission (the “Commission”) adopted an Evaluation Report on the EU Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC (the “Data Retention Directive”).

The Data Retention Directive requires that, for law enforcement purposes, telecommunications service and network providers (“Operators”) must retain certain categories of telecommunications data (excluding the content of the communication) for not less than six months and not more than two years.  To date, most of the EU Member States have implemented the Data Retention Directive, but Czech Republic, Germany and Romania no longer have implementing laws in place because their constitutional courts have annulled the implementing laws as unconstitutional.

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 (“the Commission”) signed a voluntary agreement with private and public stakeholders to establish data protection guidelines for companies that use radio frequency identification device (“RFID”) technology within Europe.

The agreement, entitled “Privacy and Data Protection Impact Assessment Framework for RFID Applications” (the “Framework”) requires companies to conduct privacy impact assessments for all RFID applications they implement and to take measures to address identified data protection risks before those applications are deployed in the market.  Reports of the completed privacy impact assessments must be made available to the national data protection authorities.  The Framework, which was designed in close cooperation with the European Network and Information Security Agency after consultation with the Article 29 Working Party, provides the first clear, comprehensive methodology that can be applied across all industry sectors to assess and mitigate RFID-related privacy risks.  It is intended both to assure companies that their use of RFID technology is compatible with European data protection legislation, and to enhance privacy protections for European citizens and consumers.

On April 12, 2011, U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011 (the “Act”) to “establish a regulatory framework for the comprehensive protection of personal data for individuals under the aegis of the Federal Trade Commission.”  The bill applies broadly to entities that collect, use, transfer or store the “covered information” of more than 5,000 individuals over a consecutive 12-month period.  Certain provisions of the bill would direct the FTC to initiate rulemaking proceedings within specified timeframes, but the bill also imposes requirements directly on covered entities.

As reported in BNA’s Privacy Law Watch, on April 1, 2011, a New York law went in effect requiring manufacturers of certain electronic equipment, including devices that have hard drives capable of storing personal information or other confidential data, to register with the Department of Environmental Conservation and maintain an electronic waste acceptance program.  The program must include convenient methods for consumers to return electronic waste to the manufacturer and instructions on how consumers can destroy data on the devices before recycling or disposing of them.  Retailers of covered electronic equipment will be required to provide consumers with information at the point of sale about opportunities offered by manufacturers for the return of electronic waste, to the extent they have been provided such information by the manufacturer.

On March 16, 2011, at a U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced his intention to introduce privacy legislation that would create “a common code of conduct that respects the rights of both the people sharing their information and legitimate organizations collecting and using it on fair terms and conditions.”  Kerry indicated that he had “reached out to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to privacy experts at firms, in academia, and in the advocacy community,” and asked for input into the process from witnesses at the hearing.

On March 16, 2011, U.S. Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Lawrence Strickling called on Congress to enact robust, baseline legislation to “reform consumer data privacy in the Internet economy.” Speaking before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Assistant Secretary Strickling emphasized the Department of Commerce’s support for a legislative proposal that would adopt many of the recommendations of the “Green Paper,” a Department report authored last December.

On March 8, 2011, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) issued a warning to UK businesses on the forthcoming amendments to the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive (2002/58/EC as amended by 2009/136/EC) that will require businesses operating websites in the UK to obtain consent from website visitors to store information on their computers and retrieve that information in the form of cookies.

On March 4, 2011, Congressman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) announced plans to introduce new online privacy legislation. The proposed bill is based on legislation Stearns drafted in 2005, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, which was not reported out of committee. While speaking at a Technology Policy Institute event, “Online Privacy After the DOC and FTC Reports,” Stearns stressed that this new legislation would seek to balance “privacy with innovation,” protecting the interests of both businesses and their online customers.

According to Stearns, “[t]he goal of the ...

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.

On February 14, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced the creation of a subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law.  The subcommittee will be chaired by Senator Al Franken (D-MN), and its jurisdiction will include oversight of laws and policies that govern the commercial collection, use and dissemination of personal information.  Senator Franken said, “The boom of new technologies…has also put an unprecedented amount of personal information into the hands of large companies that are unknown and unaccountable to the ...

On February 11, 2011, Representative Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) introduced two pieces of legislation that, in her words, “send a clear message—privacy over profit.” The Do Not Track Me Online Act of 2011 (HR 654), would direct the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate regulations that establish standards for a “Do Not Track” mechanism. The regulations also would require covered entities to disclose their information practices to consumers, and to respect consumers’ choices regarding the collection and use of their information. 

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

The Israeli Law, Information and Technology Authority (“ILITA”) has issued a new instruction (the “Instruction”) restricting financial institutions from using information concerning writs of execution issued against clients’ property.  Pursuant to the Instruction, if a bank or insurance company finds out that a client’s account has become subject to a writ of execution, such information may not be used to deny the client credit or to adjust the rate of his or her insurance premiums.  Information regarding writs of execution may be used only to carry out the writ.  ILITA’s Instruction is based on the purpose limitation provisions in the Israeli Privacy Protection Act, 1981, as well as a specific section in the Execution of Judgments Act, 1967.

In the past two months, lawmakers in three states have introduced legislation that would expand the scope of certain security breach notification requirements.

Virginia SB 1041

On January 11, 2011, Virginia lawmakers introduced SB 1041, which would amend the state’s health breach notification statute to impose notification requirements on businesses, individuals and other private entities, in the event unencrypted or unredacted computerized medical information they own or license is reasonably believed to have been accessed and acquired by an unauthorized person.  The law currently applies only to organizations, corporations and agencies supported by public funds.  In addition to broadening the scope of the law’s applicability, the amendment would permit the Virginia Attorney General to impose a civil penalty of up to $150,000 per breach (or series of similar breaches that are discovered pursuant to a single investigation), without limiting the ability of individuals to recover direct economic damages for violations.

Update: On February 11, 2011, BNA's Privacy Law Watch reported that SB 1041 had failed and would not be carried over to the next legislative session.

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 18, 2010, President Obama signed into law the “Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010” (S.3987), which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to the applicability of identity theft guidelines to creditors.  The law limits the scope of the Federal Trade Commission’s Identity Theft Red Flags Rule (“Red Flags Rule”), which requires “creditors” and “financial institutions” that have “covered accounts” to develop and implement written identity theft prevention programs to help identify, detect and respond to patterns, practices or specific activities that indicate possible identity theft.

On December 10, 2010, Senior Advisor to U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Daniel Sepulveda, briefed the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP (the “Centre”) members on Senator Kerry’s forthcoming privacy legislation.  The bill, which will be introduced next Congress, aims to establish a regulatory framework for the comprehensive protection of individuals’ personal data that authorizes rulemakings by the Federal Trade Commission.

On December 8, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Social Security Number Protection Act of 2010 (S. 3789), which is aimed at reducing identity theft by limiting access to Social Security numbers.  The bill prohibits printing Social Security numbers, or any derivative of a Social Security number, on government-issued checks, and bars federal, state and local government entities from employing prisoners in jobs that would allow them to access Social Security numbers.  Although there are numerous state laws on the books to safeguard Social Security numbers, the ...

David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Division of Consumer Protection, this morning previewed the long-awaited FTC report that sums up months of discussion regarding the future of privacy regulation in the United States and examines the viability of a Do Not Track mechanism.  Vladeck indicated at the Consumer Watchdog Policy Conference that the existing privacy framework in the U.S. is not keeping pace with new technologies.  In addition, he stated that the pace of industry self-regulation, while constructive, has been too slow.  According to Vladeck, the report will address several major themes, including the following:

Earlier today, a Department of Commerce official briefed Hunton & Williams and Centre for Information Policy Leadership representatives on the Department’s forthcoming “Green Paper” on privacy.  On November 12, 2010, Telecommunications Reports Daily published an article based on information obtained from an unofficial, pre-release draft version of the Green Paper.  It remains to be seen which portions of the leaked draft ultimately will survive the interagency approval process currently underway.  The Department of Commerce representative emphasized that the content of the draft Green Paper currently undergoing review is consistent with Assistant Secretary of Commerce Larry Strickling’s October 27, 2010, speech in Jerusalem.  In his speech, Secretary Strickling explained that the Department is calling it a “Green” Paper, “not because of its environmental impact, but because it contains both recommendations and a further set of questions on topics about which [the Department] seek[s] further input.”

On November 4, 2010, the New York Privacy Officers' Forum hosted a live program to discuss emerging issues in behavioral advertising.  Peter Weingard from online advertising technology and services company Collective began the program with a presentation highlighting the evolution of the advertising industry and the benefits of online behavioral advertising to advertisers, publishers and consumers.  Hunton & Williams partner Aaron Simpson followed Mr. Weingard with a presentation focusing on the emerging legal issues associated with the technology, including a discussion ...

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.

Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA), current head of the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, lost his reelection bid yesterday to Republican Morgan Griffith, the Majority Leader of the Virginia House of Delegates.  Representative Boucher, widely recognized and respected for his legislative efforts in the areas of technology, telecommunications and privacy law, co-authored the CAN-SPAM Act and also introduced draft privacy legislation earlier this year.  Congressman Boucher’s defeat leaves the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet panel without its top Democrat, and it is unclear who will fill that leadership vacancy.

The United States Congress is currently considering several bills addressing cybersecurity issues.  Below are brief summaries of four such bills.

The Grid Reliability and Infrastructure Defense (“GRID”) Act

The GRID Act was passed by the House of Representatives on June 9, 2010. This bill would amend the Federal Power Act to grant the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) authority to issue emergency orders requiring critical infrastructure facility operators to take actions necessary to protect the bulk power system. Prior to FERC issuing such an order, the President would have to issue a written directive to FERC identifying an imminent threat to the nation’s electric grid.  FERC would be required to consult with federal agencies or facility operators before issuing an emergency order only “to the extent practicable” in light of the nature of the threat. The GRID Act is being considered by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources at this time.

On July 27, 2010, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced his intention to introduce an online privacy bill to regulate the collection and use of consumer data.  “Our counterparts in the House have introduced legislation and I intend to work with Senator Pryor and others to do the same on this side with the goal of passing legislation early in the next Congress,” Kerry said in a prepared statement.  Senator Kerry is the Chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet.  He indicated that his bill would go beyond the regulation of targeted ...

On July 19, 2010, Representative Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) introduced a bill "to foster transparency about the commercial use of personal information" and "provide consumers with meaningful choice about the collection, use and disclosure of such information."  The bill, cleverly nicknamed the "BEST PRACTICES Act", presumably intends to set the standards for the use of consumer personal information by marketers.  A similar bill was introduced by Representatives Boucher and Stearns in early May.  Although both proposals would require opt-out consent for online behavioral advertising ...

Following the first “hung parliament” since 1974, the UK is facing considerable legislative reform under the newly formed Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition government.  Although the parties appear to have differing opinions on a number of legislative issues, one issue that unites them is their commitment (at least in theory) to strengthening the current data protection regime implemented under the Labour government.

Each party’s manifesto states that, should it be elected, it will enhance the audit powers of the Information Commissioner (the UK data protection regulator).  Currently, the Information Commissioner may audit government departments and public authorities suspected of violating data protection principles without their prior consent.  The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats propose to extend the Information Commissioner’s audit powers to private sector organizations.  This could be achieved in theory by secondary legislation.

On May 4, 2010, Congressmen Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced draft legislation designed to protect the privacy of personal information both on the Internet and in offline contexts.

The legislation would apply to any “covered entity,” which is defined as “a person engaged in interstate commerce that collects data containing covered information.”  The term “covered information” is very broad and includes, but is not limited to, an individual’s first name or initial and last name, a postal address, a telephone number or an email address.  Government agencies and entities that collect covered information from fewer than 5,000 individuals in any 12-month period (and do not collect sensitive information) would not be considered “covered entities” for purposes of the law.

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 ...

Although China has yet to enact a national data protection law, certain provincial-level rules implementing national consumer protection laws impact the collection and use of personal data.  These provincial regulations may warrant specific attention by entities doing business in the relevant Chinese provinces.  The impact of each of these will often be limited, both because they affect only enterprises doing business in the respective provinces and because the actual requirements of each of these regulations are typically modest.  Also, the potential penalties for violation ...

On October 14, 2009, the Australian government released a report entitled “Enhancing National Privacy Protection” that contains proposed reforms to Australia’s privacy laws, including the Privacy Act 1988 (“Privacy Act”).  In announcing the report, Cabinet Secretary and Special Minister of State Joe Ludwig stated that the reforms aim to “provide for one set of streamlined Privacy Principles for Australian Government agencies and private sector organizations which will provide greater clarity and cut red tape.”  The report comprises the first stage of a two-stage response to a report issued by the Australian Law Reform Commission (“ALRC”) in 2008 that contained 295 recommendations to revise Australian privacy laws and practices.

New Hampshire recently enacted legislation restricting the use and disclosure of protected health information (“PHI”). As of January 1, 2010, health care providers and their business associates will be obligated to notify affected individuals of disclosures of PHI that are allowed under federal law, but are prohibited under the New Hampshire statute.

The New Hampshire law requires health care providers and their business associates to (i) obtain authorization for the use or disclosure of PHI for “marketing” and (ii) offer individuals an opt-out opportunity for the use or disclosure of PHI for fundraising purposes. In addition, it prohibits the disclosure of PHI for marketing (even with an authorization) or fundraising by voice mail, unattended facsimile, or through other methods of communication that are not secure.

On July 28, 2009,  the Data Privacy Subgroup meeting at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum in Singapore reported a number of privacy-related legislative developments on the horizon.  Among the highlights:

• On July 15, the Malaysian Cabinet approved privacy legislation to be enacted by the Parliament in early 2010 
• Vietnam is set to enact consumer protection legislation including privacy provisions in 2010 
• Hong Kong's Privacy Commissioner will soon begin a review process to evaluate how privacy law has kept up with changing technology
• The Philippines is set to enact ...

On May 19, Maine Governor John Baldacci signed legislation limiting the time that breach notification may be delayed following a determination by law enforcement that providing notice will not compromise a criminal investigation. The provision, which will take effect 90 days after the close of the Legislature's 2009 session (scheduled to occur on June 17), will limit the permissible delay to seven business days.

Pursuant to Maine's current breach notification law, entities that become aware of a breach "shall conduct in good faith a reasonable and prompt investigation to ...

On May 6, 2009, the proposed amendments to the e-Privacy Directive received a second reading in the European Parliament.  In addition to other measures, it will include a definition of “personal data breach” and will introduce a data breach notification requirement. 

The review of the e-Privacy Directive forms part of a wider review of telecoms legislation.  The objective of that review is to improve network security and integrity, to increase protection for user personal data and to improve measures to prevent spam and “cyber attacks.”  The scope of the amended Directive will include the processing of personal data in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services in public communications networks within the European Community, including public communications networks supporting data collection and identification devices.