Search results for: privacy shield

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA-33) reintroduced the Cyber Shield Act on March 24, 2021. The proposed legislation is not new to Congress; Sen. Markey and Rep. Lieu previously introduced the Cyber Shield Act in both 2017 and 2019. However, the bill never made it to a vote in either the House or the Senate.
Continue Reading “Cyber Shield Act” Calling for IoT Device Certification Reintroduced in Congress

In the wake of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“ECJ”) Schrems II decision invalidating the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”) but upholding the validity of standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”), the U.S. government has released a White Paper entitled “Information on U.S. Privacy Safeguards Relevant to SCCs and Other EU Legal Bases for EU-U.S. Data Transfers after Schrems II.”  The Schrems II ruling requires companies relying on SCCs “to verify, on a case-by-case basis,” whether the level of protections afforded by the SCCs are respected and observed in the recipient country.  According to the cover letter accompanying the White Paper, it “outlines the robust limits and safeguards in the United States pertaining to government access to data” as part of “an effort to assist organizations in assessing whether their transfers offer appropriate data protection in accordance with the ECJ’s ruling.”

The cover letter emphasizes that while the White Paper is intended to help companies make the case that they can transfer personal data from the EU to the United States in compliance with EU law, it does not “eliminate the urgent need for clarity from European authorities or the onerous compliance burdens generated by the Schrems II decision.”  It concludes by citing the importance of the “$7.1 trillion transatlantic economic relationship” and stating that “the Trump Administration is exploring all options at its disposal and remains committed to working with the European Commission to negotiate a solution that satisfies the ECJ’s requirements while protecting the interests of the United States.”
Continue Reading U.S. Government Issues White Paper on Privacy Safeguards Following Schrems II

The Court of Justice of the European Union’s recent decision in the “Schrems II’ case was one of the most highly anticipated decisions in the world of data privacy, striking down the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, but upholding the validity of standard contractual clauses.

Tune in to the first episode of…
Continue Reading Inside Privacy Audiocast: Episode 1 – Post-Schrems II: Paving A Way Forward

On June 16, 2020, the First Circuit released its opinion in United States v. Moore-Bush.  The issue presented was whether the Government’s warrantless use of a pole camera to continuously record for eight months the front of Defendants’ home, as well as their and their visitors’ comings and goings, infringed on the Defendants’ reasonable expectation of privacy in and around their home and thereby violated the Fourth Amendment.  The appeal followed the district court’s decision in June 2019 in favor of Defendants’ motions to exclude evidence obtained via the pole camera.  The Government, without obtaining a warrant, had installed a pole camera on a utility pole across the street from Defendants’ residence.  The pole camera (1) took continuous video recording for approximately eight months, (2) focused on the driveway and the front of the house, (3) had the ability to zoom in so close that it can read license plate numbers, and (4) created a digitally searchable log.

In their motions to exclude, the Defendants, relying on Katz v. United States, argued they had both a subjective and objective reasonable expectation of privacy in the movements into and around their home, and that the warrantless use of the pole camera therefore constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.  The Government relied on an earlier First Circuit case, United States v. Bucci, which held that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a person’s movements outside of and around their home—“An individual does not have an expectation of privacy in items or places he exposes to the public.”  Thus, Bucci held that use of a pole camera for eight months did not constitute a search.
Continue Reading United States v. Moore-Bush: No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Around the Home

On April 21, 2020, the Regulation on the Requirements and Reimbursement Process for Digital Health Applications (Digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen-Verordnung or „DiGAV“, available here) entered into force in Germany.  Among other provisions, the DiGAV includes specific IT security and privacy requirements.  Shortly after the law took effect, Germany’s Federal Medicines and Medical Devices Agency (“BfArM”) also released an extensive explanatory Guidance (Leitfaden, available here) to the DiGAV.

Independently, on April 15, 2020, the German Federal Office for IT Security (“BSI”) published a draft version of its guidance on “Security Requirements for Digital Health Applications” (BSI TR-03161) (available here).  The BSI is now seeking feedback from industry on this draft guidance before releasing a final version.

While the scope of application of the DiGAV and the BSI draft guidance may be limited, the documents can serve to provide useful insights and benchmarks for health applications generally.Continue Reading German Federal Agencies Publish Privacy and IT Security Requirements for Digital Health Applications

On March 21, 2020, the data security requirements of the New York SHIELD Act became effective.  The Act, which amends New York’s General Business Law, represents an expansion of New York’s existing cybersecurity and data breach notification laws.  Its two main impacts on businesses are:

  1. expanding data breach notification requirements

…
Continue Reading New York SHIELD Act’s Reasonable Safeguard Requirements Became Effective on March 21st —Is Your Company Ready?

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the New York Attorney General’s office (“NYAG”) settled allegations against Google LLC and its subsidiary YouTube, LLC claiming violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and its implementing rule (together, “COPPA”).  The settlement requires Google and YouTube to pay $136 million to the FTC and $34 million to the NYAG for a total penalty almost 30 times higher than the largest COPPA penalty previously imposed.

Overview of the Complaint and Order

The joint FTC-NYAG complaint alleged that Google and YouTube collected personal information from children under 13 online and used that information to deliver online behavioral advertising, without first providing notice or obtaining verifiable parental consent as required by COPPA.  More specifically, the complaint alleged that Google and YouTube had actual knowledge that certain YouTube channels were child-directed but nevertheless collected persistent identifiers in the form of cookie and advertising identifiers to serve behavioral advertising to viewers of those channels.

In addition to requiring the $170 million total civil penalty and enjoining future COPPA violations, the settlement order requires “fencing-in” relief—which is relief in the form of injunctive provisions that go beyond what is required under existing law.  The order requires that YouTube and Google establish a system on YouTube that requires channel owners to self-designate whether the content they upload is child-directed.  For videos designated as child-directed, YouTube will not collect persistent identifiers for behavioral advertising.  The order further requires that Google and YouTube implement a training program for employees about the system and about COPPA’s requirements overall.  Finally, it imposes compliance reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The settlement is notable both for what it does—and doesn’t—establish:
Continue Reading FTC and New York Attorney General Reach $170 Million Settlement Against Google and YouTube for Alleged Children’s Privacy Violations

Last week, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) released submissions it had received from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) staff and many other parties on NTIA’s proposed framework for advancing consumer privacy while protecting innovation.  Although NTIA did not request comments on a possible federal privacy bill, most submissions took the opportunity to inform NTIA of what such a federal privacy bill should look like.
Continue Reading NTIA Publishes Stakeholder Comments on Consumer Privacy Proposal

On the heels of the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) third annual “PrivacyCon,” the Future of Privacy Forum hosted its eighth annual “Privacy Papers for Policymakers” event on Capitol Hill—a gathering in which academics present their original scholarly works on privacy-related topics to D.C. policy wonks who may have a hand in shaping laws and regulations at the local, federal, and international level. The goal of the event is, in part, to foster academic-industry collaboration in addressing the world’s current and emerging privacy issues.

FTC Commissioner Terrell McSweeny kicked off the program with a reminder of the unique challenge that has always faced the world of tech policy: the rapid acceleration of the Digital Age and the need for consumer rights to catch up. Commissioner McSweeny opined that the challenge may require some solutions that go beyond privacy—such as individual control over personal data, data portability, and governance by design—and pointed out several ways in which the honored papers may help spur the evolution of existing privacy frameworks:
Continue Reading Future of Privacy Forum: Privacy Papers for Policymakers 2018