Data Security

Subscribe to Data Security

On Episode 16 of Covington’s Inside Privacy Audiocast, Dan Cooper, Yan Luo and Zhijing Yu discuss the implications of China’s Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) for companies with data or doing business in China. The law, which entered into force on November 1, is the first comprehensive personal information protection law in China and…

On September 21, 2021, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) issued an “Updated Advisory on Potential Sanctions Risks for Facilitating Ransomware Payments” (the “Updated Advisory”).  The Updated Advisory updates and supersedes an earlier OFAC Advisory released on October 1, 2020, and is directed toward not only organizations victimized by ransomware attacks, but also financial institutions, cyber insurance firms, and forensic and incident-response firms that assist organizations victimized by ransomware attacks.

The Updated Advisory is largely consistent with the previous version released in October 2020, restating the U.S. government’s opposition to ransomware victims making payments to cyber threat actors and making clear OFAC’s commitment to bringing enforcement actions in connection with such payments when they constitute U.S. sanctions violations.  However, the Updated Advisory adds important new guidance on “the proactive steps companies can take to mitigate [sanctions enforcement] risks,” including implementing strong cybersecurity practices before an attack; and promptly reporting a ransomware attack to, and engaging in timely and ongoing cooperation with, law enforcement or other relevant agencies.  Taking these steps would constitute “mitigating factors” in any OFAC enforcement action resulting from sanctions violations in connection with ransomware payments.

In conjunction with the new Advisory, OFAC for the first time designated for sanctions a Russian cryptocurrency exchange, SUEX OTC, that OFAC alleges has been involved in facilitating numerous ransomware payments for malicious cyber actors.  As a result of this designation, U.S. persons (that is, all individual U.S. citizens and permanent residents, U.S.-incorporated entities and their branch offices, and anyone physically within the United States) are now prohibited from engaging in or facilitating virtually all transactions with or involving SUEX OTC.

…
Continue Reading OFAC Issues Updated Guidance on Ransomware Payments

On June 10, 2021, the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress (“NPC”) enacted the Data Security Law (“DSL”), which will take effect on September 1, 2021 (the official Chinese version is available here and Covington’s unofficial English translation is available here). This law creates a framework for the protection of broadly defined “data security” from a national security perspective.…
Continue Reading China Enacts Data Security Law

On Episode 14 of Covington’s Inside Privacy Audiocast, Dan Cooper and Yan Luo discuss recent privacy developments in China, in particular as they relate to China’s draft Data Security Law.

Covington’s Inside Privacy Audiocast offers insights into topical global privacy issues and trends. Subscribe to our Inside Privacy Blog to receive notifications on new episodes.

On this special tenth episode of our Inside Privacy Audiocast, we celebrate Data Privacy Day 2021. Join Dan Cooper and Kurt Wimmer as they discuss the key global data privacy developments in 2020 and trends to look out for in 2021.

Covington’s Inside Privacy Audiocast offers insights into topical global privacy issues and trends. Subscribe…

On the ninth episode of our Inside Privacy Audiocast, we peer through the looking glass at China’s approach to data protection and the latest developments in its emerging data protection and cybersecurity regime. Dan Cooper, Yan Luo and Zhijing Yu discuss the variety of legal instruments in China’s quickly-evolving data protection and cybersecurity regulatory…

Last year, Californians passed proposition 24, also known as the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”). That law makes several changes to the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), including some that relate to an organization’s cybersecurity practices.…
Continue Reading Four Key Cyber Takeaways from The CPRA

On December 15, 2020, the Irish Data Protection Commission (“DPC”) fined Twitter International Company (“TIC”) EUR 450,000 (USD 500,000) following a narrow investigation into TIC’s compliance with obligations to (a) notify a personal data breach within 72 hours under Article 33(1) GDPR; and (b) document the facts of the breach under Article 33(5) GDPR. The process to investigate these points took a little under two years, and resulted in a decision of nearly 200 pages.

This is the first time that the DPC has issued a GDPR fine as a lead supervisory authority (“LSA”) after going through the “cooperation” and “consistency” mechanisms that enable other authorities to raise objections and the EDPB to resolve disagreements. The delay in the process and details in the EDPB binding resolution suggest that this was a somewhat arduous process. Several authorities raised objections in response to the DPC’s draft report – regarding the identity of the controller (Irish entity and/or U.S. parent), the competence of the DPC to be LSA, the scope of the investigation, the size of the fine, and other matters. Following some back and forth — most authorities maintained their objections despite the DPC’s explanations — the DPC referred the matter to the EDPB under the GDPR’s dispute resolution procedure. The EDPB considered the objections and dismissed nearly all of them as not being “relevant and reasoned”, but did require the DPC to reassess the level of the proposed fine.

Process aside, the DPC’s decision contains some interesting points on when a controller is deemed to be “aware” of a personal data breach for the purpose of notifying a breach to a supervisory authority. This may be particularly relevant for companies based in Europe that rely on parent companies in the US and elsewhere to process data on their behalf. The decision also underlines the importance of documenting breaches and what details organizations should include in these internal reports.…
Continue Reading Twitter Fine: a View into the Consistency Mechanism, and “Constructive Awareness” of Breaches

On our fourth episode of our Inside Privacy Audiocast, we are aiming our looking glass at the California Privacy Rights Act, and are joined by guest speaker Jacob Snow, Technology and Civil Liberties Attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

In September 2019, Alastair Mactaggart, Board Chair and Founder of Californians for…

On July 2, 2020, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China (“NPC”) released the draft Data Security Law (“Draft Law”) for public comment.  The release of the Draft Law marks a step forward in establishing a regulatory framework for the protection of broadly defined “data security” in China, with a particular focus on the governance of “important data,” defined as “data that, if leaked, may directly affect China’s national security, economic security, social stability, or public health and security.”  Many provisions of the Draft Law remain vague and lack guidance on how they might be implemented in practice.
…
Continue Reading China Issued the Draft Data Security Law