Photo of David Bender

David Bender

Subscribe to David Bender's Posts

David Bender is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and a member of the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity practice group.

Follow: Read more about David BenderEmail

The FCC has released the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on “Restoring Internet Freedom” that was adopted by a 2-1 vote at the Commission’s open meeting on May 18.  The NPRM is substantively very similar to the draft released by Chairman Pai on April 27, and the comment deadlines remain the same: July 17 for initial comments and August 16 for reply comments.

Of possible relevance from a privacy perspective, the NPRM now asks about the jurisdictional effects of finding broadband to be an interstate information service.  As he explained in his statement approving adoption of the NPRM, Commissioner O’Rielly had asked that this question be added to the NPRM, and he expressed the view that this finding should foreclose states and localities from regulating the privacy practices of ISPs (among other matters).  Whether the FCC would attempt to make such a broad preemption finding remains to be seen.   …
Continue Reading FCC Releases NPRM on Broadband ISPs and Net Neutrality Rules

Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has introduced a bill, the “Balancing the Rights of Web Surfers Equally and Responsibly Act of 2017” (“BROWSER Act,” H.R. 2520) that would  create new online privacy requirements.  The BROWSER Act would require both ISPs and edge providers (essentially any service provided over the Internet) to provide users with notice of their privacy policies, obtain opt-in consent for sensitive data, and opt-out consent for non-sensitive data.  In its current form, the BROWSER Act would define sensitive data more broadly than in existing FTC guidelines—mirroring the since-repealed privacy rules that the FCC adopted last year for ISPs, but applying those standards to ISPs and edge providers alike.

The BROWSER Act defines “sensitive user information” to include financial information, health information, children’s data, social security numbers, precise geo-location information, contents of communications, and, most notably, web browsing or app usage histories.  ISPs and edge providers must obtain “opt-in approval” from users prior to using, disclosing, or permitting access to such sensitive information.  For “non-sensitive user information,” the BROWSER Act requires opt-out consent.  And companies may not condition the provision of services, or otherwise refuse services, based on the waiver of privacy rights under the BROWSER Act.…
Continue Reading New Republican Privacy Bill Would Expand Scope of “Sensitive” Data

The first annual review of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”) is scheduled to occur in September 2017 in Washington, D.C.  The first review is particularly important for the nascent framework, as regulators in both the U.S. and the EU are expected to closely scrutinize the operation of the first year of the Privacy Shield, address concerns that have been raised, and seek to ensure that the Privacy Shield is well positioned to continue operating as a valid legal basis for transfers of personal data from the EU to the U.S.

Under the Privacy Shield, an “Annual Joint Review” is conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the European Commission (“Commission”), with participation by the FTC, EU data protection authorities and representatives of the Article 29 Working Party, and “other departments and agencies involved in the implementation of the Privacy Shield,” including the U.S. Intelligence Community and the Privacy Shield Ombudsperson for matters pertaining to national security.  Regulators have also indicated that they plan to solicit and incorporate feedback and comments from other Privacy Shield stakeholders as part of the review process, including from self-certified companies and other interested organizations.

Although this is the first annual review, it is important to note that the Privacy Shield has already been the subject of intense public scrutiny.  The draft text of the framework was released in February, several months prior to the final release in July, and a number of stakeholders took the opportunity to comment on the text, leading to several revisions designed to improve and strengthen the Privacy Shield. …
Continue Reading First Annual Privacy Shield Review Will Comprehensively Assess the Framework

The Ninth Circuit announced today that the full court will rehear the case in which the three-judge panel opinion had dismissed the FTC’s lawsuit against AT&T for allegedly violating Section 5 of the FTC Act due to past “throttling” practices around unlimited data plans.  According to the panel opinion, the FTC lacked jurisdiction over AT&T’s…

In a widely anticipated step, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has released a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on the legal framework that governs broadband providers and related net neutrality questions.

Most notably from a privacy perspective, the draft NPRM proposes to find that broadband Internet access service is an “information service” under the Communications Act, reversing the 2015 “telecommunications service” classification that had brought broadband providers under the statutory privacy requirements of Title II of that Act.

The draft NPRM states that the 2015 reclassification “stripped FTC authority over Internet service providers,” in light of the common carrier exemption in Section 5 of the FTC Act.  By reversing the FCC’s prior finding that broadband is a common carrier service, the draft NPRM proposes to “return jurisdiction over Internet service providers’ privacy practices to the FTC, with its decades of experience and expertise in this area.”…
Continue Reading FCC Chairman Pai Proposes New Regulatory Framework for Broadband ISPs, Seeks Comment on Net Neutrality Rules

As we approach the May 2018 effective date of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), there have been a number of global developments over the last few months with respect to the so-called “right to be forgotten,” which will be codified under Article 17 of the GDPR.

European Developments

In the EU, we previously reported on a Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) decision that limits the right to be forgotten with respect to public records.  And in February, A French high administrative court raised several questions to the CJEU relating to the right to be forgotten in light of the Google v. Costeja Gonzalez decision.  The questions address whether and in what circumstances search engines must delist links to websites in response to requests from data subjects, and arose in the context of a pending dispute between Google and CNIL, the French data protection authority.

A decision by a Circuit Court in Ireland recognized the right of a former election candidate to request the removal of information posted about him on Reddit under the right to be forgotten.  And the UK recently solicited views on its own implementation of the GDPR, including input regarding the interplay between the right to be forgotten and freedom of expression in the media.…
Continue Reading Developments in the Right to Be Forgotten

Nearly 2,000 organizations are now listed as self-certified to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield on the Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) Privacy Shield website.  Given current developments on both sides of the Atlantic, there are likely to be significant Privacy Shield developments in the coming months.

EU Justice Commissioner Věra Jourová recently concluded her visit to the U.S. to meet with Trump Administration officials and others regarding the status of the Privacy Shield.  During her visit, Commissioner Jourová spoke about the importance of the Privacy Shield as a framework with “enormous potential to strengthen the transatlantic economy and reaffirm our shared values.”  She also met with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to discuss the Privacy Shield, and announced that the first annual joint review will occur in September, which she indicated would be “an important milestone where we need to check that everything is in place and working well.”…
Continue Reading Privacy Shield Approaches 2,000 Participants; Review Scheduled for September

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced this week that there were a record number of data breach notices in New York in 2016, with nearly 1,300 reported data breaches exposing the personal records of 1.6 million New Yorkers.  These numbers represented a 60 percent year-over-year increase in the number of data breaches reported, and a threefold increase in the number of records exposed.

According to an analysis conducted by the Attorney General’s office, which builds on a 2014 report, most of the exposed records consisted of social security numbers and financial account information, and the leading causes of data security breaches in New York were hacking and inadvertent disclosures.  Schneiderman’s statement cautioned that these record numbers make it “all the more important for companies and citizens alike to take precaution when sharing and storing personal data” as “these breaches too often jeopardize the financial health of New Yorkers and cost the public and private sectors billions of dollars.”…
Continue Reading NY Data Breaches Reached Record Levels in 2016

Senators Ed Markey (D-MA) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) reintroduced a pair of bills today relating to the cybersecurity of cars and aircraft, which would impose affirmative security, disclosure, and consent requirements on manufacturers and air carriers.  The Security and Privacy in Your Car (“SPY Car”) Act and Cybersecurity Standards for Aircraft to Improve Resilience (“Cyber AIR”) Act were each introduced but not enacted in a previous session of Congress.  In a joint press release, the Senators noted that the legislation was designed to “implement and improve cybersecurity standards for cars and aircraft.”

The SPY Car Act

The SPY Car Act would require cars manufactured for sale in the U.S. to comply with “reasonable measures to protect against hacking attacks,” including measures to isolate critical software systems from non-critical systems, evaluate security vulnerabilities, and “immediately detect, report, and stop attempts to intercept driving data or control the vehicle.”  It would also require “driving data” collected by cars to be “reasonably secured to prevent unauthorized access,” including while such data is in transit to other locations or subsequently stored elsewhere.  Violations of these cybersecurity requirements are subject to civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.…
Continue Reading Senators Reintroduce Cybersecurity Legislation for Cars and Planes