A recent press release from November 16, 2018 revealed that Malta’s Justice Minister introduced the right to be forgotten through a ministerial decree.  Since 2013, 86 out of 131 judgments have either been anonymized or removed from the courts’ public database.  The information came as a surprise to Malta’s legal community, as there had been no public announcement regarding the new right.  The exact date the new right was introduced has not been confirmed.

Continue Reading Right to be forgotten controversially introduced into Maltese law

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 November 9, 2018, the French Supervisory Authority for Data Protection (known as the “CNIL”) announced that it issued a formal warning (available here) ordering the company Vectaury to change its consent experience for customers and purge all data collected on the basis of invalid consent previously obtained.

Vectaury is an advertising network

The Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) announced in early September intention to create a Privacy Framework.  This Privacy Framework would provide voluntary guidelines that assist organizations in managing privacy risks.  The NIST announcement recognized that the Privacy Framework is timely because disruptive technologies, such as artificial intelligence and the internet of things, not only enhance convenience, growth, and productivity, but also require more complex networking environments and massive amounts of data.

Continue Reading NIST Begins Developing a Voluntary Online Privacy Framework

On July 17, 2018, the Portuguese Supervisory Authority (“CNPD”) imposed a fine of 400.000 € on a hospital for infringement of the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).  The decision has not been made public.  Earlier this week, the hospital publicly announced that it will contest the fine.

According to press reports, the CNPD

On September 5, 2018, a first instance Administrative Court in Italy decided that a public company cannot reject an application for the position of data protection officer (“DPO”) on the basis that the applicant is not a certified ISO 27001 Auditor / Lead Auditor (decision available here).

ISO 27001 is an international information security

Blockchain technology has the potential to revolutionise many industries; it has been said that “blockchain will do to the financial system what the internet did to media”.  Its most famous use is its role as the architecture of the cryptocurrency Bitcoin, however it has many other potential uses in the financial sector, for instance in trading, clearing and settlement, as well as various middle- and back-office functions.  Its transformative capability also extends far beyond the financial sector, including in smart contracts and the storage of health records to name just a few.

A blockchain is a shared immutable digital ledger that records transactions / documents / information in a block which is then added to a chain of other blocks on a de-centralised network.  Blockchain technology operates through a peer network, where transactions must be verified by participants before they can be added to the chain.

Notwithstanding its tremendous capabilities, in order for the technology to unfold its full potential there needs to be careful consideration as to how the technology can comply with new European privacy legislation, namely the General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) which came into force on 25 May 2018.  This article explores some of the possible or “perceived” challenges blockchain technology faces when it comes to compliance with the GDPR.
Continue Reading The GDPR and Blockchain

On January 2, 2018, the Standardization Administration of China (“SAC”) released the final version of the national standard on personal information protection, officially entitled GB/T 35273-2017 Information Technology – Personal Information Security Specification (GB/T 35273-2017 信息安全技术 个人信息安全规范) (hereinafter “the Standard”).  The Standard will come into effect on May 1, 2018.

As highlighted in our previous coverage of drafts of the Standard (see here and here), although it is nominally a voluntary framework, the Standard effectively sets out the best practices that will be expected by regulators auditing companies and enforcing China’s existing (but typically more generally-worded) data protection rules, most notably the 2016 Cybersecurity Law.  Drafts of the Standard — even prior its finalization — have also in some cases been the basis for non-compliance remediation plans and undertakings agreed between companies and the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”) following CAC audits, as we reported here.

The Standard applies to “personal information controllers,” namely any private or public organization that has “the power to decide the purpose and method” of processing personal information.  This is seemingly modelled on European law’s “data controller” concept.

The Standard regulates the use of “personal information” by these controllers, a term largely aligned with strict conceptualizations of “personal data” under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).  Examples of “personal information” listed in an annex to the Standard include device hardware serial codes, IP addresses, website tracking records, and unique device identifiers, among other things.  The definition of “sensitive personal information,” however, takes a different approach to the GDPR: rather than applying only to specific types of data, the Standard takes a risk-based approach, defining “sensitive” personal information as any personal information which, if lost or misused, is capable of endangering persons or property, easily harming personal reputation and mental and physical health, or leading to discriminatory treatment.  According to the Standard, this could for example include national identification card numbers, login credentials, banking and credit details, a person’s accurate location, information on a person’s real estate holdings, and information about a minor (under 14 years old).

Similar to general principles of most data protection laws, the Standard requires transparency, specificity and fairness of processing purpose, proportionality (use and retention of only the minimum information necessary to achieve the stated purpose), security, risk assessment, and the respect of individuals’ rights to control the processing of information about them.  It also requires either consent from individuals, or reliance on a limited range of exceptions set out in the Standard, for the purpose of collection and processing of personal information.

This article looks at some of these aspects in more detail, including some of their key divergences from European data protection law, including the GDPR.  (Please note that this is not an exhaustive description of the Standard, nor is it a detailed comparison with the GDPR.)
Continue Reading China Issues New Personal Information Protection Standard

The Article 29 Working Party (WP29) has published long-awaited draft guidance on transparency and consent under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).  We are continuing to analyze the lengthy guidance documents, but wanted to highlight some immediate reactions and aspects of the guidance that we think will be of interest to clients and other readers of InsidePrivacy.  The draft guidance is open for consultation until 23 January 2018.

Continue Reading EU Regulators Provide Guidance on Notice and Consent under GDPR