Category: EU
12. May 2020
In the face of the Corona pandemic, Hungary is currently in an indefinite “state of emergency”. Originally, Prime Minister Victor Orbán decreed the state of emergency on 11 March 2020 lasting for a period of 15 days. However, on 30 March 2020, the Hungarian Parliament passed emergency legislation (Bill on Protection against Coronavirus or Bill T/9790) extending the state of emergency until terminated by the Prime Minister and allowing the Prime Minister to rule by decree during the state of emergency. The Bill was passed thanks to the two-thirds majority of Orbán’s Fidesz Party in the Hungarian Parliament.
On 4 May 2020, Prime Minister Orbán issued Decree No. 179/2020 which contains several provisions affecting Data Protection in Hungary extensively for the time of the state of emergency.
Most importantly, the decree suspends the individual data subject’s rights pursuant to Art. 15 to 22 of the European GDPR when processing personal data for the purpose of preventing, recognising, and stopping the spread of the Coronavirus. It also stipulates that the one month time limit for Controllers to provide the necessary information (Art. 12 para. 3 GDPR) will only begin after the termination of the state of emergency for any Coronavirus related data subject requests. Furthermore, the data collection information requirements for Controllers pursuant to Art. 13 and 14 GDPR will be satisfied by publishing an electronic privacy notice providing the purpose and the legal basis of data processing which the data subjects may take notice of.
The emergency decree received much criticism from various European Data Protection authorities and civil rights groups. The head of the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) Andrea Jelinek stated that she is “personally very worried” about the developments, and described the Hungarian government’s decision as “unnecessary [and] detrimental”. In its most recent plenary session, the EDPB also specifically discussed Hungary’s emergency measures in light of European Data Protection Law.
6. May 2020
The Dutch Data Protection Authority, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (Dutch DPA), has issued a EUR 725 000 fine on April 30th to a company for scanning the fingerprints of its employees in order to record attendance.
As fingerprints fall under sensitive data according to Art. 9 GDPR, by being biometric data and therefore can easily identify a data subject, the Dutch DPA has addressed two exceptions in the present case: explicit consent according to Art. 9 II a GDPR, and the necessity of the processing for security reasons, which are related back to Art.9 II g GDPR.
According to the Dutch DPA, none of the two exceptions apply.
In the first case, the Dutch DPA states that the employer has shown no proof of valid explicit consent of the employees. Rather, the Dutch DPA is of the opinion that in an employment relationship, consent cannot be given freely. While it is tricky to ensure freely given consent in situations where one side is dependant on the other, it is possible to ensure such a freely given consent by the means of offering an alternative form of processing, allowing the employee to choose from two options according to their own judgement. In the case brought to the Dutch DPA, this had not been the case. Rather, employees felt obligated to give their consent, especially since the denial resulted in a personal meeting with the director. An alternative option to scanning their fingerprints was not given by the company.
The second exception of the necessity of the processing for security reasons was also dismantled by the Dutch DPA. It reasoned with the fact that such an exception only applies in cases where the security of the systems or the building depend on biometric data, and cannot be done by a less invasive method. While the activities of the company remain confidential, the Dutch DPA has denied them to be of that level of importance that security can only be done through biometrics. Therefore, the fingerprint scanning in the matter was unnecessary and disproportionate to the invasion of the employees’ privacy.
As this case shows, it is recommendable to be careful with the processing of biometric data. In particular, companies should ensure to have valid consent before progressing with the processing of sensitive data to mitigate the risks of a fine.
16. March 2020
The french Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) has announced their focus in regards to the Control Procedures they intend to take in 2020.
Out of 300 Control Procedures done in one year, in 2020 at least 50 of those are going to be focused on three prioritized themes: health data security, geolocation and cookies compliance. The CNIL decided on prioritizing these areas because of the high relevance all of them have on the daily life of the french citizens.
Especially in regards to health data because of the sensitive nature of the data collected, as well as geological data, due to the never ending new solutions to transportation or enhancements to daily life, it is important to keep an eye on the scope of the data processing and the private sphere which is affected.
Regarding cookies and other tracers, CNIL continues to underline the importance in regards to profiled advertisement. On top of the planned Control Procedures, the CNIL intends to publish a recommendation in the spring of 2020 with regards to cookies. It will keep an eye on the implementation of the recommendation, and give companies a 6 months period to adjust and implement them.
The CNIL also stated that in addition they will continue to work together with other national Data Protection Authorities, in order to ensure the regulation of transnational data processing.
On 25 February 2020, the Hellenic Data Protection Authority (DPA) published a guidance on Cookies and other tracking tools. Previously, the Authority had found that Greek websites and service providers have been largely failing to comply with the rules on the use of Cookies and other trackers set out by the ePrivacy Directive and the GDPR, and reaffirmed by the European Court of Justice’s ruling on Planet 49.
The guidance states that it will be relevant to HTTP/S Cookies, Flash Cookies, local storage applying to HTML 5, device fingerprinting, OS identifiers, and material identifiers.
The Greek DPA reiterated that, generally, providers are obliged to obtain the user’s consent if they are using any tracking tools – irrespective of whether the processing of personal data is taking place. It also outlined that technically necessary trackers are exempt from the obligation to consent. Furthermore, the guidance goes into detail on how information and consent can be made available on websites specifically.
Lastly, the Authority has given Greek website providers a grace period of two months to implement the provisions of this guidance and thereby become compliant with the European rules on tracking tools.
The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) released a review dated from February 18th, in a contribution to the evaluation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which has reached its 20th month of being in effect.
Overall, the EDPB stated that it has a positive view of the implementation of the legislation in the different European Countries over the past 20 months. Furthermore, it deems a revision of the legislative text as likely, but not yet necessary in the near future.
The EDPB praised the Data Protection Authorities and their work up til now, saying it hopes that the cooperation between them will create a common data protection culture and consistent monitoring practices. But the report also mentioned that Supervisory Authorities in the countries face restrictions due to different national procedures and practices, which can hinder the cooperation. Furthermore, the EDPB sees a need to increase the funding for Supervisory Authorities to improve and support their duties.
On another note, the EDPB has acknowledged the challenges of implementation for Small to Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs). It says it is aware of these challenges, and works together with Supervisory Authorities to facilitate the supporting tools they have put out in order to support SMEs.
Lastly, it raised concerns about the timeframe of the new ePrivacy Regulation, and urged lawmakers to bundle their focus and efforts to carry on with its development.
9. March 2020
According to a news report by the German newspaper “Der Tagesspiegel”, a small group of scientists at the Robert-Koch-Institute (RKI) and other institutions are currently discussing the evaluation and matching of movement data from mobile phones to detect people infected with the Coronavirus (COVID-19).
The scientists, who are trying to slow down the spreading of the disease, complain about the problem of the time-consuming and vague questionings of infected people on who they came in contact with. The evaluation and matching of mobile phone data may be more accurate and could speed up the process of identifying infected people, which could be essential for saving lives.
In a comment, the German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection Ulrich Kelber expressed that this procedure may cause large data protection issues, especially with regards to having a legal basis for processing and the proportionality of processing according to the GDPR.
4. March 2020
On February 10, 2020, Belgium’s Data Protection Authority (the Belgian DPA) has released their first recommendation of 2020 in relation to data processing activities for direct marketing purposes.
In the recommendation the Belgian DPA addressed issues and action proposals in regards to the handling of direct marketing and the personal data which is used in the process. It emphasized the importance of direct marketing subjects in the upcoming years, and stated that the DPA will have a special priority in regards to issues on the matter.
In particular, the recommendation elaborates on the following points, in order to help controllers navigate through the different processes:
- The processing purposes must be specific and detailed. A simple mention of “marketing purposes” is not deemed sufficient in light of Art. 13 GDPR.
- It is important to guarantee data minimization, as the profiling that accompanies direct marketing purposes calls for a careful handling of personal data.
- The right to object does not only affect the direct marketing activities, but also the profiling which takes places through them. Furthermore, a simple “Unsubscribe” button at the end of a marketing E-Mail is not sufficient to withdraw consent, it is rather recommended to give the data subject the opportunity to a granular selection of which direct marketing activities they object to.
- Consent cannot be given singularly for all channels of direct marketing. A declaration for each channel has to be obtained to ensure specification towards content and means used for direct marketing.
The Belgian DPA also stated that there are direct marketing activities which require special attention in the future, namely purchasing, renting and enriching personal data, e.g. via data brokers. In such cases, it is necessary to directly provide appropriate information to the data subject in regards to the handling of their data.
Further topics have been brought forth in the recommendation, which overall represents a thorough proposal on the handling of direct marketing activities for controller entities.
3. March 2020
On 24 February 2020, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) published an opinion on the opening of negotiations for the future partnership between the EU and the UK with regards to personal data protection.
In his opinion, the EDPS points out the importance of commitments to fully respect fundamental rights in the future envisaged comprehensive partnership. Especially with regards to the protection of personal data, the partnership shall uphold the high protection level of the EU’s personal data rules.
With respect to the transfer of personal data, the EDPS further expresses support for the EU Commission’s recommendation to work towards the adoption of adequacy decisions for the UK if the relevant conditions are met. However, the Commission must ensure that the UK is not lowering its data protection standard below the EU standard after the Brexit transition period. Lastly, the EDPS recommends the EU Institutions to also prepare for a potential scenario in which no adequacy decisions exist by the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020.
14. February 2020
The Indian Government released a Request for Proposal to bidder companies to procure a national Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS). AFRS companies had time to submit their proposals until the end of January 2020. The plans for an AFRS in India are a new political development amidst the intention to pass the first national Data Protection Bill in Parliament.
The new system is supposed to integrate image databases of public authorities centrally as well as incorporate photographs from newspapers, raids, mugshots and sketches. The recordings from surveillance cameras, public or private video feeds shall then be compared to the centralised databases and help identify criminals, missing persons and dead bodies.
Human rights and privacy groups are pointing to various risks that may come with implementing nationwide AFRS in India, including violations of privacy, arbitrariness, mis-identifications, discriminatory profiling, a lack of technical safeguards, and even creating an Orwellian 1984 dystopia through mass surveillance.
However, many people in India are receiving the news about the plans of the Government with acceptance and approval. They hope that the AFRS will lead to better law enforcement and more security in their everyday lives, as India has a comparably high crime rate and only 144 police officers for every 100.000 citizens, compared to 318 per 100.000 citizens in the EU.
6. February 2020
The irish data protection authorty (namely The Data Protection Commission (DPC)) is, in its role as Lead Supervisory Authority, responsible for Google within the European Union.
The DPC startet a formal investigation into Google’s practices to track its user’s location and the transparency surrounding that processing.
Following a number of complaints by serveral national consumer groups all across the EU, the investigation was initiated by the DPC. Consumer organisations argue that the consent to “share” users’ location data was not freely given and consumers were tricked into accepting privacy-intrusive settings. Such practices are not compliant with the EU’s data protection law GDPR.
The irish data protection authority will now have to establish, whether Google has a valid legal basis for processing the location data of its users and whether it meets its obligations as a data controller with regard to transparency.
The investigation will add further pressure to Google. Google is facing a handful of investigations in Europe. The DPC has already opened an investigation into how Google handles data for advertising. That investigation is still ongoing. If Google is found not complying with the GDPR, the company could be forced to change its business model.
However, there are still a number of steps before the Irish DPC makes a decision including the opportunity for Google to reply.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 22 23 24 Next 
