Microsoft reacts on EDPB’s data transfer recommendations

24. November 2020

Microsoft (“MS”) is among the first companies to react to the European Data Protection Board’s data transfer recommendations(our article), as the tech giant announced in a blog post on November 19th. MS calls these additional safeguards “Defending Your Data” and will immediately start implementing them to contracts with public sector and enterprise customers.

In light of the Schrems II ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) on November 17th (our article), the EDPB issued recommendations, on how to transfer data into non-EEA countries in accordance with the GDPR. The recommendations lay out a six-step plan on how to assess whether a data transfer is up to GDPR standards or not. These steps include mapping all data transfer, assessing a third countries legislation, assessing the tool used for transferring data and adding supplementary measures to that tool. Among the latter is a list of technical, organizational, and contractual measures to be implemented to ensure the effectiveness of the tool.

Julie Brill, Corporate Vice President for Global Privacy and Regulatory Affairs and Chief Privacy Officer at Microsoft, issued the statement in which she declares MS to be the first company responding to the EDPB’s guidance. These safeguards include an obligation for MS to challenge all government requests for public sector or enterprise customer data, where it has a lawful basis for doing so; to try and redirect data requests; and to notify the customer promptly if legally allowed, about any data request by an authority, concerning that customer. This was one of the main ETDB recommendations and also included in a draft for new Standard Contractual Clauses published by the European Commission on November 12th. MS announces to monetary compensate customers, whose personal data has to be disclosed in response to government requests.  These changes are additions to the SCC’s MS is using ever since Schrems II. Which include (as MS states) data encrypted to a high standard during transition and storage, transparency regarding government access requests to data (“U.S. National Security Orders Report” dating back to 2011; “Law Enforcement Requests Report“) .

Recently European authorities have been criticizing MS and especially its Microsoft 365 (“MS 365”) (formerly Office 365) tools for not being GDPR compliant. In July 2019 the Ministry of Justice in the Netherlands issued a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), warning authorities not to use Office 365 ProPlus, Windows 10 Enterprise, as well as Office Online and Mobile, since they do not comply with GDPR standards. The European Data Protection Supervisor issued a warning in July 2020 stating, the use of MS 365 by EU authorities and contracts between EU institutions and MS do not comply with the GDPR. Also, the German Data Security Congress (“GDSC”) issued a statement in October, in which it declared MS 365 as not being compliant with the GDPR. The GDSC is a board made up of the regional data security authorities of each 16 states and the national data security authority. This declaration was reached by a narrow vote of 9 to 8. Some of the 8 regional authorities later even issued a press release explaining why they voted against the declaration. They criticized a missing involvement and hearing of MS during the process, the GDSC’s use of MS’ Online Service Terms and Data Processing Addendum dating back to January 2020 and the declaration for being too undifferentiated.

Some of the German data protection authorities opposing the GDSC’s statement were quick in welcoming the new developments in a joint press release. Although they stress the main issues in data transfer from the EU to the U.S. still were not solved. Especially the CJEU main reserves regarding the mass monitoring of data streams by U.S. intelligence agencies (such as the NSA) are hard to prevent and make up for. Still, they announced the GDSC would resume its talks with MS before the end of 2020.

This quick reaction to the EDPB recommendations should bring some ease into the discussion surrounding MS’ GDPR compliance. It will most likely help MS case, especially with the German authorities and might even lead to a prompt resolution in a conflict regarding tools that are omnipresent at workplaces all over the globe.

 

China issued new Draft for Personal Information Protection Law

23. November 2020

At the end of October 2020, China issued a draft for a new „Personal Information Protection Law” (PIPL). This new draft is the introduction of a comprehensive system in terms of data protection, which seems to have taken inspiration from the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

With the new draft, China’s regulations regarding data protection will be consisting of China’s Cybersecurity Law, Data Security Law (draft) and Draft PIPL. The new draft legislation contains provisions relating to issues presented by new technology and applications, all of this in around 70 articles. The fines written in the draft for non-compliance are quite high, and will bring significant impact to companies with operations in China or targeting China as a market.

The data protection principles drawn out in the draft PIPL include transparency, fairness, purpose limitation, data minimization, limited retention, data accuracy and accountability. The topics that are covered include personal information processing, the cross-border transfer of personal information, the rights of data subjects in relation to data processing, obligations of data processors, the authority in charge of personal information as well as legal liabilities.

Unlike China’s Cybersecurity Law, which provides limited extraterritorial application, the draft PIPL proposes clear and specific extraterritorial application to overseas entities and individuals that process the personal data of data subjects in China.

Further, the definition of “personal data” and “processing” under the draft PIPL are very similar to its equivalent term under the GDPR. Organizations or individuals outside China that fall into the scope of the draft PIPL are also required to set up a dedicated organization or appoint a representative in China, in addition to also report relevant information of their domestic organization or representative to Chinese regulators.

In comparison to the GDPR, the draft PIPL extends the term of “sensitive data” to also include nationality, financial accounts, as well as personal whereabouts. However, sensitive personal information is defined as information that once leaked or abused may cause damage to personal reputation or seriously endanger personal and property safety, which opens the potential for further interpretation.

The draft legislation also regulates cross-border transfers of personal information, which shall be possible if it is certified by recognized institutions, or the data processor executes a cross-border transfer agreement with the recipient located outside of China, to ensure that the processing meets the protection standard provided under the draft PIPL. Where the data processor is categorized as a critical information infrastructure operator or the volume of data processed by the data processor exceeds the level stipulated by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), the cross-border transfer of personal information must pass a security assessment conducted by the CAC.

It further to keep in mind that the draft PIPL enlarges the range of penalties beyond those provided in the Cybersecurity Law, which will put a much higher pressure on liabilities for Controllers operating in China.

Currently, the period established to receive open comments on the draft legislation has ended, but the next steps have not yet been reported, and it not yet sure when the draft legislation will come into full effect.

California Voters approve new Privacy Legislation CPRA

20. November 2020

On 3 November 2020, Californian citizens were able to vote on the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”) in a state ballot (we reported). As polls leading up to the vote already suggested, California voters approved the new Privacy legislation, also known as “Prop 24”. The CPRA was passed with 56.2% of Yes Votes to 43.8% of No Votes. Most provisions of the CPRA will enter into force on 1 January 2021 and will become applicable to businesses on 1 January 2023. It will, at large, only apply to information collected from 1 January 2022.

The CPRA will complement and expand privacy rights of California citizens considerably. Among others, the amendments will include:

  • Broadening the term “sale” of personal information to “sale or share” of private information,
  • Adding new requirements to qualify as a “service provider” and defining the term “contractor” anew,
  • Defining the term “consent”,
  • Introducing the category of “Sensitive Information”, including a consumer’s Right to limit the use of “Sensitive Information”,
  • Introducing the concept of “Profiling” and granting consumers the Right to Opt-out of the use of the personal information for Automated Decision-Making,
  • Granting consumers the Right to correct inaccurate information,
  • Granting consumers the Right to Data Portability, and
  • Establishing the California Privacy Protection Agency (CalPPA) with a broad scope of responsibilities and enforcement powers.

Ensuring compliance with the CPRA will require proper preparation. Affected businesses will have to review existing processes or implement new processes in order to guarantee the newly added consumer rights, meet the contractual requirements with service providers/contractors, and show compliance with the new legislation as a whole.

In an interview after the passage of the CPRA, the initiator of the CCPA and the CPRA Alastair Mactaggard commented that

Privacy legislation is here to stay.

He hopes that California Privacy legislation will be a model for other states or even the U.S. Congress to follow, in order to offer consumers in other parts of the country the same Privacy rights as there are in California now.

EDPB adopts first decision under Art. 65 GDPR

During its 41st plenary session, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted by a two-thirds majority of its members its first dispute resolution decision under Art. 65 GDPR regarding Twitter International Company. The binding decision aims to resolve a dispute arisen from a draft decision by the Irish supervisory authority (being the lead supervisory authority in that case) and subsequent relevant and reasoned objections raised by several authorities concerned.

The Irish supervisory authority prepared a draft decision following an own-initiative investigation into Twitter International Company, after the company had notified the Irish supervisory authority of a personal data breach on January 8th, 2019. According to Art. 60 (3) GDPR, the Irish supervisory authority submitted its draft decision to the other authorities concerned in May 2020, which had the opportunity to express their objections within a period of four weeks afterwards. They referred to, inter alia, violations of the GDPR identified by the lead supervisory authority, the role of Twitter International Company as the (sole) data controller, and the quantification of the proposed fine.

Due to the fact that the lead supervisory authority rejected the objections and/or considered them not to be “relevant and reasoned”, it submitted the matter to the EDPB pursuant to Art. 60 (4) GDPR, thus initiating the dispute resolution procedure.

Thereupon, the completeness of the file was evaluated, that led to the institution of legal proceedings stated in Art. 65 GDPR on September 8th, 2020. In accordance with Art. 65 (3) GDPR and in conjunction with Art. 11.4 of the EDPB Rules of Procedure, the default time period of one month was extended by a further month on account of the complexity of the subject-matter.

On November 9th, 2020, the EDPB adopted its binding decision and will shortly notify it to the Irish supervisory authority, which, on the other hand, will issue a final decision. It will be addressed to the data controller without undue delay and at the latest by one month after the EDPB has notified its decision. In compliance with the requirements of Art. 65 (6) GDPR, the lead supervisory authority shall inform the EDPB of the date when its final decision is notified respectively to the controller. After that, the EDPB decision will be published on its website.

Canadian Government proposes new federal privacy law

18. November 2020

On November 17th, Navdeep Bains, the Canadian Minister of Information Science and Economic Development, introduced Bill C-11, which is intended to modernize and reshape the Canadian privacy framework and to comply with EU and U.S. legislation. Its short title is Digital Charter Implementation Act,2020 (DCIA). A fact sheet accompanying the DCIA states:

“… If passed, the DCIA would significantly increase protections to Canadians’ personal information by giving Canadians more control and greater transparency when companies handle their personal information. The DCIA would also provide significant new consequences for non-compliance with the law, including steep fines for violations. …”

Part one of the DCIA is the Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA), which is intended to establish a new privacy law in the Canadian private sector. New consent rules are adopted, data portability is introduced as a requirement, the subject’s access to its personal data is enhanced as well as its rights to erase personal data. Data subjects further have the right to request businesses to explain how a prediction, recommendation, or decision was reached, that was made by an automated decision-making system. Furthermore, they have the right to know, how personal data is being used, as well as the right to review and challenge the amount of personal data that is being collected by a company or government. On demand, a privacy management program must be provided to the Canadian Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC). For non-compliance companies face possible fines up to 5% of the company’s global revenue, or C$25 Million, whichever is higher. According to Bains, these are the highest fines in all the G7-nations. Businesses can ask the OPC to approve their codes of practice and certification systems, and in socially beneficial cases, disclose de-identified data with public entities.

Bill C-11 further contains the “Personal Information and Privacy Protection Tribunal Act”, which is supposed to make enforcement of privacy rights faster and more efficient. For that purpose, more resources are committed to the OPC. The OPC now can issue “orders”, which have the same effect as Federal Court orders. Further, he may force companies to comply or order them to stop collecting data and stop using personal data. The newly formed Data Protection Tribunal can raise penalties and hear appeals regarding orders issued by the OPC.

A private right of action is also included in the bill. This allows individuals to sue companies within two years after the commissioner issues a finding of privacy violation, that is upheld by the Tribunal.

European Commission issues draft on Standard Contractual Clauses

A day after the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) issued its recommendations on supplementary measures, on November 12th the European Commission issued a draft on implementing (new) Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC) for data transfers to non-EU countries (third countries). The draft is open for feedback until December 10th, 2020, and includes a 12-month transition period during which companies are to implement the new SCC. These SCC are supposed to assist controllers and processors in transferring personal data from an EU-country to a third-country implementing measures that guarantee GDPR-standards and regarding the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) “Schrems II” ruling.

The Annex includes modular clauses suitable for four different scenarios of data transfer. These scenarios are: (1) Controller-to-controller-transfer; (2) Controller-to-processor-transfer; (3) Processor-processor-transfer; (4) Processor-to-controller-transfer. Newly implemented in these SCC are the latter two scenarios. Since the clauses in the Annex are modular, they can be mixed and matched into a contract fitting the situation at hand. Furthermore, more than two parties can adhere to the SCC and the modular approach even allows for additional parties to accede later on.

The Potential of government access to personal data is especially addressed since this was a main issue following the “Schrems II” ruling. Potential concerns are met by implementing clauses that address, how the data importer must react when laws of the third country impinge his ability to comply with the contract (especially the SCC) and how he must react in case of government interference.  Said measures include notifying the data exporter and the data subject of any government interference, such as- legally binding requests of access to personal data; and if possible sharing further information on these requests (on a regular basis), documenting them and challenging them legally. Termination clauses are added, in case the data importer cannot comply anymore, e.g. because of changes in the third country’s law.

Further clauses regard matters such as data security, transparency, accuracy and onwards transfer of personal data. Issues that have all been tackled in the older SCC but are update now.

EDPB issues guidance on data transfers following Schrems II

17. November 2020

Following the recent judgment C-311/18 (Schrems II) by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), on November 11th the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published “Recommendations on measures that supplement transfer tools to ensure compliance with the EU level of protection of personal data”. These measures are to be considered when assessing the transfer of personal data to countries outside of the European Economic Area (EEA)(so-called third countries). These recommendations are subject to public consultation until the end of November. Complementing these recommendations, the EDPB published “Recommendations on the European Essential Guarantees for surveillance measures”. Added together both recommendations are guidelines to assess sufficient measures to meet standards of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), even if data is transferred to a country lacking protection comparable to that of the GDPR.

The EDPB highlights a six steps plan to follow when checking whether a data transfer to a third country meets the standards set forth by the GDPR.

The first step is to map all transfers of personal data undertaken. Especially transfers into a third country. The transferred data must be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purpose. A major factor to consider is the storage of data in clouds. Furthermore, onwards transfer made by processors should be included. In a second step, the transfer tool used needs to be verified and matched to those is listed in Chapter V GDPR. The next step is assessing if anything in the law or practice of the third country can impinge on the effectiveness of the safeguards of the transfer tool. The before mentioned Recommendations on European Essential Guarantees are supposed to help to evaluate a third countries laws, regarding the access of data by public authorities for the purpose of surveillance.

If the conclusion is, that the third countries legislation impinges on the effectiveness of the Article 46 GDPR tool the next step is, identifying supplementary measures that are necessary to bring the level of protection of the data transfer up to EU Standards (or at least equivalence) and adopting these. Recommendations for such measures are listed in annex 2 of the EDPB Schrems II Recommendations. They may be of contractual, technical, or organizational nature. In Annex 2 the EDPB mentions seven technical cases they found and evaluates them. Five were deemed to be scenarios for which effective measures could be found. These are

1. Data storage in a third country, that does not require access to the data in the clear.
2. Transfer of pseudonymized data.
3. Encrypted data merely transiting third countries.
4. Transfer of data to by law specially protected recipients.
5. Split or multi-party processing.

Maybe even more relevant are the two scenarios the EDPB found no effective measures for and therefore deemed to not be compliant with GDPR standards.:

6. Transfer of data in the clear (to cloud services or other processors)
7. Remote access (from third countries) to data in the clear, for business purposes. Such as HR.

These two scenarios are frequently used in practice. Still, the EDPB recommends not to execute these transfers anymore.
Examples of contractual measures are the obligation to implement necessary technical measures, measures regarding transparency (requested) access by government authorities and measures to be taken against such requests. Accompanying this the European Commission published a draft regarding standard contractual clauses for transferring personal data to non-EU countries. Organizational measures such as internal policies and responsibilities regarding government interventions.

The last two steps are undertaking the formal procedural steps to adapt supplementary measures required and re-evaluating the former steps in appropriate intervals.

Even though these recommendations are not (yet) binding, companies should take a further look at these recommendations and check if their data transfers comply.

 

 

Poland: Addresses of judges, politicians and pro-life activists published on Twitter

12. November 2020

In recent days, social networks in Poland have teemed with posts containing private addresses and telephone numbers of judges of the Constitutional Tribunal, politicians and activists openly supporting the abortion sentence. In conjunction with the publication of the above on Twitter, the President of the Personal Data Protection Office (UODO) took immediate steps to protect the personal data and privacy of these persons.

Background to this was the judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal repealing the provisions allowing abortion in cases of, for example, serious genetic defects or severe impairment of the human fetus. This provoked resistance from a part of Polish society and led to a street revolution of “liberal” men and women. Unfortunately, the agitation turned into invectives, destruction of property, public disorder and personal arguments. As a result, personal data of people supporting the prohibition of abortion have been shared thousands of times on all social media too. For this reason, numerous protesters appeared at the indicated houses, covered the walls of the surrounding buildings with vulgar inscriptions, and the addressees began to receive packages, e.g. with a set of hangers.

On October 29th, 2020 the President of the UODO responded to the case:

Publishing private addresses and contact details of pro-life activists, politicians and judges by users of the Twitter social network is an action leading to the disclosure of a wide sphere of privacy, and thus posing threats to health and life, such as possible acts of violence and aggression directed against these people and their family members.

The announcement stated that the President of the UODO requested an immediate procedure by the Irish supervisory authority, which is responsible for the processing of personal data via Twitter. Pointing out the enormous scale of threats, he indicated the need to verify the response time to reported irregularities and the possibility of introducing automated solutions to prevent the rapid furtherance of such content by other portal users. He also notified the law enforcement authorities that Twitter users had committed a crime consisting in the processing of personal data without a legal basis. The lawfulness had neither been guaranteed by consent according to Art. 6 (1) lit. a GDPR nor legitimate interests pursuant to Art. 6 (1) lit. f GDPR or any other legal basis. Thus, the processing has to be seen as illegitimate as also stated by the President of the UODO. The law enforcement authorities will be obliged to examine and document both the scope of personal data disclosed in a way that violates the principles of personal data protection and to determine the group of entities responsible for unlawful data processing. The President of the UODO also applied to the Minister of Justice – Public Prosecutor General for placing this case under special supervision due to the escalation of conflict and aggression, which pose a high risk of violating the life interests of both people whose data is published on social media and their family members.

In conclusion, the President of the UODO added:

The intensification of actions of all competent authorities in this matter is necessary due to the unprecedented nature of the violations and the alarming announcements of disclosing the data of more people, as well as the deepening wave of aggression.

Brazil Update: Senate approves President-appointed ANPD Board of Directors

11. November 2020

Since 18 September 2020, the main provisions of the Brazilian Data Protection Law “LGPD” are in effect. At the same time, Brazilian businesses have been facing legal uncertainty because Brazil’s national Data Protection Authority (“ANPD”) is still not fully functional (we reported). The ANPD shall provide businesses with vital guidance, inter alia, by assessing foreign countries’ level of data protection for international data transfers, Art. 34 LGPD.

On 15 October 2020, the President of Brazil appointed the five members for the ANPD Board of Directors. Following the formal approval process of President appointees in Brazil (“Sabatina”), the Infrastructure and Services Commission of Brazil’s Senate approved of the President’s appointees on 19 October 2020.

Finally, on 20 October 2020, the Senate’s plenary approved of the five appointees. This marks another major step in the ANPD becoming fully operational. The serving terms of the Board of Directors will be staggered:

  • Serving a six-year term: Waldemar Ortunho, current president of Telebras, a state-owned telecommunications company
  • Serving a five-year term: Arthur Pereira Sabbat, currently the Director of the Institutional Security Office (GSI) for the Government’s cybersecurity
  • Serving a four-year term: Joacil Basilio Rael, currently advisor at Telebras
  • Serving a three-year term: Nairane Farias Rabelo, currently Partner at a law firm specialized in Tax Law and Data Protection Law
  • Serving a two-year term: Miriam Wimmer, currently a Director of Telecommunications Services at the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications

However, Annex II to the Presidential Decree 10.474 establishing the ANPD sets forth that many more yet vacant positions of the ANPD will have to be filled before it may be fully functional. Until then, Brazilian businesses remain waiting on guidance from the ANPD.

ICO fines Marriott International

9. November 2020

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) fines Marriott International Inc. (Marriott) £18.400.00  (€20.397.504).

The fine refers to a data breach which occurred in 2018. Back then the world’s largest hotel company based in the USA suffered a massive data breach affecting up to 383 million customers. For Marriott it is still not possible to state the exact number of people affected.

The ICO considers it proven that Marriott failed keeping customers’ personal data secure. In context of the breach confidential data like name, address and contact data as well as unencrypted passport and credit card data has been unauthorized accessed.

In a previous statement in 2019 the ICO announced, that it intends to fine Marriott with a fine of £99.200.396 (€109.969.591) this fine has now been reduced.

The reduction is based on the following reasons: the ICO considered the presentations from Marriott as well as the taken steps by Marriott as well as the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In October, the fine previously issued by the ICO against British Airways was also reduced, again partly because of the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Since the data breach occurred before the UK left the EU, the ICO investigated on behalf of all European Data Protection Authorities as lead Supervisory Authority and the fine has been approved by all other Authorities.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 48 49 50 Next
1 2 3 50