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

On May 8, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a notice soliciting public comment regarding whether changes should be made to its Health Breach Notification Rule (the “Rule”).  The request for comment is part of a periodic review process “to ensure that [FTC rules] are keeping pace with changes in the economy, technology, and business models.”

The Rule, which first went into effect in 2009, applies only to vendors of personal health records (“PHRs”) and other related entities that are not subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).  A PHR is an electronic record of individually identifiable health information “that can be drawn from multiple sources and is managed, shared, and controlled by or primarily for the individual.”  See 16 C.F.R. § 318.2(d).  Under the Rule, PHR vendors and related entities must notify individuals, the FTC, and possibly the media within 60 days after discovering a breach of unsecured personally identifiable health information, or within 10 days if more than 500 individuals are affected by the breach.
Continue Reading FTC to Consider Changes to the Health Breach Notification Rule

On May 11, 2020, the State Cryptography Administration (“SCA”) and the State Administration for Market Regulation jointly issued the Commercial Encryption Product Certification Catalogue (First Batch) (“Product Catalogue”) and the Commercial Encryption Product Certification Measures (“Certification Measures”) (the announcement is available here), taking effect immediately.

Prior to the adoption of the Encryption Law (see our post on the Encryption Law here), manufacturers of commercial encryption products were required to apply to the SCA for the “Commercial Encryption Products Type and Model Certificate.”  The Encryption Law removed this approval requirement by establishing a voluntary certification scheme, which encourages manufacturers to voluntarily apply to qualified agencies for the testing and certification of their commercial encryption products.  The release of the Product Catalogue and the Certification Measures marks a critical step forward in implementing such a voluntary certification scheme under the Encryption Law.
Continue Reading China Issued the Commercial Encryption Product Certification Catalogue and Certification