Category: GDPR

Irish Data Protection Authority investigates Google’s processing of location data

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.

Indonesian President introduces a Proposal for a national Data Protection Law

5. February 2020

On 28 January 2020, Indonesian President Joko Widodo introduced a draft data protection law to the Parliament of Indonesia. When the bill passes through Parliament, Indonesia will be the fifth country in Southeast Asia to have a national data protection law, following Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines.

The proposal has numerous parallels to the European GDPR. It grants an array of data subject rights, like the right to access, the right to erasure and the right to restrict processing of personal data. The bill also contains a broad definition of processing and the general principle of consent, whilst allowing the processing of personal data for the performance of a contract, for compliance with a legal obligation, or for the purposes of legitimate interests.

Interestingly, the bill categorises violations against the data protection rules as criminal offenses and punishes intentional unlawful processing with up to 7 years of criminal imprisonment or punitive fines of up to 70 billion Indonesian Rupiah (4.6 million Euros). If the offender of the law is a corporation, the management or beneficiary owner can be held liable and face a prison sentence.

The Indonesian Minister of Communications and Information stresses the importance of the new date protection bill for the data sovereignty of individuals and hopes for opportunities for innovation and business in Indonesia.

Germany: Large Data leak reveals Personal Data of more than 3 Million Customers

27. January 2020

The German car rental company Buchbinder is responsible for leaking Personal Data of more than 3 Million customers from all over Europe. The data leak exposed more than 10 Terabyte of sensitive customer data over several weeks without the company noticing it.

A German cybersecurity firm was executing routine network scans when it found the data leak. The firm reported it twice to Buchbinder via e-mail, but did not receive a reply. After that, the cybersecurity firm reported the leak to the Bavarian Data Protection Authority (DPA) and informed the German computer magazine c’t and newspaper DIE ZEIT.

According to c’t, a configuration error of a Backup-Server was the cause of the leak. The Personal Data exposed included customers’ names, private addresses, birth dates, telephone numbers, rental data, bank details, accident reports, legal documents, as well as Buchbinder employees’ e-mails and access data to internal networks.

The data leak is particularly serious because of the vast amount of leaked Personal Data that could easily be abused through Spam e-mails, Fraud, Phishing, or Identity theft. It is therefore likely that the German DPA will impose a GDPR fine on the company in the future.

Buchbinder released a press statement apologising for the data leak and promising to enhance the level of their defense and cybersecurity system.

Washington State Lawmakers Propose new Privacy Bill

23. January 2020

Washington lawmakers introduced in January 2020, a law that would give state residents new privacy rights. The law is called “Washington Privacy Act” (WPA).

If passed, the Privacy Act would enact a comprehensive data protection framework for Washington that includes individual rights that are very similar and go beyond the rights in the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), as well as a range of other obligations on businesses that do not yet exist in any U.S. privacy law.

Furthermore, the new draft bill contains strong provisions that largely align with the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and commercial facial recognition provisions that start with a legal default of affirmative consent. Nonetheless, legislators must work within a remarkably short time-frame to pass a law that can be embraced by both House and Senate within the next six weeks of Washington’s legislative session. If passed, the bill would go into effect on July 31, 2021.

The current draft provides  data protection to all Washington State residents, and would apply to entities that conduct business in Washington or produce products or services targeted to Washington residents. Such entities must control or process data of at least 100,000 consumers; or derive 50% of gross revenue from the sale of personal data and process or control personal data of at least 25,000 consumers (with “consumers” defined as natural persons who are Washington residents, acting in an individual or household context). The draft bill will not apply to state and local governments or municipal corporations. The new bill would further provide all state residents, among other rights, the ability to opt out of targeted advertising.

The new draft bill will  regulate companies that process “personal data,” defined broadly as “any information that is linked or reasonably linkable to an identified or identifiable natural person” (not including de-identified data or publicly available information “information that is lawfully made available from federal, state, or local government records”), with specific provisions for pseudonymous data.

Category: Cyber security · GDPR · USA
Tags:

CNIL publishes recommendations on how to get users’ cookie consent

21. January 2020

On 14 January 2020, the French data protection authority (“CNIL”) published recommendations on practical modalities for obtaining the consent of users to store or read non-essential cookies and similar technologies on their devices. In addition, the CNIL also published a series of questions and answers on the recommendations.

The purpose of the recommendations is to help private and public organisations to implement the CNIL guidelines on cookies and similar technologies dated 4 July 2019. To this end, CNIL describes the practical arrangements for obtaining users’ consent, gives concrete examples of the user interface to obtain consent and presents “best practices” that also go beyond the rules.

In order to find pragmatic and privacy-friendly solutions, CNIL consulted with organisations representing industries in the ad tech ecosystem and civil society organisations in advance and discussed the issue with them. The recommendations are neither binding or prescriptive nor exhaustive. Organisations may use other methods to obtain user consent, as long as these methods are in accordance with the guidelines.

Among the most important recommendations are:

Information about the purpose of cookies
First, the purposes of the cookies should be listed. The recommendations contain examples of this brief description for the following purposes or types of cookies:
(1) targeted or personalised advertising;
(2) non-personalized advertising;
(3) personalised advertising based on precise geolocation;
(4) customization of content or products and services provided by the Web Publisher;
(5) social media sharing;
(6) audience measurement/analysis.
In addition, the list of purposes should be complemented by a more detailed description of these purposes, which should be directly accessible, e.g. via a drop-down button or hyperlink.

Information on the data controllers
An exhaustive list of data controllers should be directly accessible, e.g. via a drop-down button or hyperlink. When users click on this hyperlink or button, they should receive specific information on data controllers (name and link to their privacy policy). However, web publishers do not have to list all third parties that use cookies on their website or application, but only those who are also data controllers. Therefore, the role of the parties (data controller, joint data controller, or data processor) has to be assessed individually for each cookie. This list should be regularly updated and should be permanently accessible (e.g. through the cookie consent mechanism, which would be available via a static icon or hyperlink at the bottom of each web page). Should a “substantial” addition be made to the list of data controllers, users’ consent should be sought again.

Real choice between accepting or rejecting cookies
Users must be offered a real choice between accepting or rejecting cookies. This can be done by means of two (not pre-ticked) checkboxes or buttons (“accept” / “reject”, “allow” / “deny”, etc.) or equivalent elements such as “on”/”off” sliders, which should be disabled by default. These checkboxes, buttons or sliders should have the same format and be presented at the same level. Users should have such a choice for each type or category of cookie.

The ability for users to delay this selection
A “cross” button should be included so that users can close the consent interface and do not have to make a choice. If the user closes the interface, no consent cookies should be set. However, consent could be obtained again until the user makes a choice and accepts or rejects cookies.

Overall consent for multiple sites
It is acceptable to obtain user consent for a group of sites rather than individually for each site. However, this requires that users are informed of the exact scope of their consent (i.e., by providing them with a list of sites to which their consent applies) and that they have the ability to refuse all cookies on those sites altogether (e.g., if there is a “refuse all” button along with an “accept all” button). To this end, the examples given in the recommendations include three buttons: “Personalize My Choice” (where users can make a more precise selection based on the purpose or type of cookies), “Reject All” and “Accept All”.

Duration of validity of the consent
It is recommended that users re-submit their consent at regular intervals. CNIL considers a period of 6 months to be appropriate.

Proof of consent
Data controllers should be able to provide individual proof of users’ consent and to demonstrate that their consent mechanism allows a valid consent to be obtained.

The recommendations are open for public consultation until 25 February 2020. A new version of the recommendations will then be submitted to the members of CNIL for adoption during a plenary session. CNIL will carry out enforcement inspections six months after the adoption of the recommendations. The final recommendations may also be updated and completed over time to take account of new technological developments and the responses to the questions raised by professionals and individuals on this subject.

A short review of the Polish DPA’s enforcement of the GDPR

10. January 2020

To date, the Polish Data Protection Authority (DPA) have issued 134 decisions and imposed GDPR fines in 5 cases. In 4 cases, the Polish DPA fined private companies and in one case, it fined a public institution.

The fines for the companies ranged from 13.000€ to 645.000€. Reasons for the fines were failures in protecting personal data on websites resulting in the unauthorised access of personal data, inadequate technical and organisational measures, and an insufficient fulfilment of information obligations according to Art. 14 GDPR.

It is also noteworthy that the Polish DPA has imposed a 9.350€ fine on the Mayor of a Polish small town. Under Art. 83 (7) GDPR, each member state of the EU may lay down rules on whether and to what extent administrative fines may be imposed on public authorities. The Polish legislators decided that non-compliant public authorities may receive a GDPR fine of up to 23.475€.

The Mayor received the GDPR fine since he failed to conclude a data processing agreement with the entities to which he transferred data in violation of Art. 28 (3) GDPR. Moreover, the Mayor violated the principle of storage limitation, the principles of integrity and confidentiality, the principle of accountability and furthermore kept an incomplete record of processing activities.

Recently, the Polish DPA also published the EU Project T4DATA’s Handbook for Data Protection Officers (DPO) in order to help define a DPO’s role, their competencies and main responsibilities.

More US States are pushing on with new Privacy Legislation

3. January 2020

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) came into effect on January 1, 2020 and will be the first step in the United States in regulating data privacy on the Internet. Currently, the US does not have a federal-level general consumer data privacy law that is comparable to that of the privacy laws in EU countries or even the supranational European GDPR.

But now, several other US States have taken inspiration from the CCPA and are in the process of bringing forth their own state legislation on consumer privacy protections on the Internet, including

  • The Massachusetts Data Privacy Law “S-120“,
  • The New York Privacy Act “S5642“,
  • The Hawaii Consumer Privacy Protection Act “SB 418“,
  • The Maryland Online Consumer Protection Act “SB 613“, and
  • The North Dakota Bill “HB 1485“.

Like the CCPA, most of these new privacy laws have a broad definition of the term “Personal Information” and are aimed at protecting consumer data by strenghtening consumer rights.

However, the various law proposals differ in the scope of the consumer rights. All of them grant consumers the ‘right to access’ their data held by businesses. There will also be a ‘right to delete’ in most of these states, but only some give consumers a private ‘right of action’ for violations.

There are other differences with regards to the businesses that will be covered by the privacy laws. In some states, the proposed laws will apply to all businesses, while in other states the laws will only apply to businesses with yearly revenues of over 10 or 25 Million US-Dollars.

As more US states are beginning to introduce privacy laws, there is an increasing possiblity of a federal US privacy law in the near future. Proposals from several members of Congress already exist (Congresswomen Eshoo and Lofgren’s Proposal and Senators Cantwell/Schatz/Klobuchar/Markey’s Proposal and Senator Wicker’s Proposal).

Austrian Regional Court grants an Austrian man 800€ in GDPR compensation

20. December 2019

The Austrian Regional Court, Landesgericht Feldkirch, has ruled that the major Austrian postal service Österreichische Post (ÖPAG) has to pay an Austrian man 800 Euros in compensation because of violating the GDPR (LG Feldkirch, Beschl. v. 07.08.2019 – Az.: 57 Cg 30/19b – 15). It is one of the first rulings in Europe in which a civil court granted a data subject compensation based on a GDPR violation. Parallel to this court ruling, ÖPAG is facing an 18 Mio Euro fine from the Austrian Data Protection Authorities.

Based on people’s statements in anonymised surveys, ÖPAG had created marketing groups and used algorithms to calculate the probability of the political affinities that people with certain socioeconomic and regional backgrounds might have. ÖPAG then ascribed customers to these marketing groups and thus also stored data about their calculated political affinities. Among these customers was the plaintiff of this case.

The court ruled that this combination is “personal data revealing political opinions” according to Art. 9 GDPR. Since ÖPAG neither obtained the plaintiff’s consent to process his sensitive data on political opinions nor informed him about the processing itself, ÖPAG violated the plaintiff’s individual rights.

While the plaintiff demanded 2.500 Euros in compensation from ÖPAG, the court granted the plaintiff only a non-material damage compensation of 800 Euros after weighing up the circumstances of the individual case.

The case was appealed and will be tried at the Higher Regional Court Innsbruck.

Advocate General releases opinion on the validity of SCCs in case of Third Country Transfers

19. December 2019

Today, Thursday 19 of December, the European Court of Justice’s (CJEU) Advocate General Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe released his opinion on the validity of Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) in cases of personal data transfers to processors situated in third countries.

The background of the case, on which the opinion builds on, originates in the proceedings initiated by Mr. Maximillian Schrems, where he stepped up against Facebook’s business practice of transferring the personal data of its European subscribers to servers located in the United States. The case (Schrems I) led the CJEU on October 6, 2015, to invalidate the Safe Harbor arrangement, which up to that point governed data transfers between the EU and the U.S.A.

Following the ruling, Mr. Schrems decided to challenge the transfers performed on the basis of the EU SCCs, the alternative mechanism Facebook has chosen to rely on to legitimize its EU-U.S. data flows, on the basis of similar arguments to those raised in the Schrems I case. The Irish DPA brought proceedings before the Irish High Court, which referred 11 questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, the Schrems II case.

In the newly published opinion, the Advocate General validates the established SCCs in case of a commercial transfer, despite the possibility of public authorities in the third country processing the personal data for national security reasons. Furthermore, the Advocate General states that the continuity of the high level of protection is not only guaranteed by the adequacy decision of the court, but just as well by the contractual safeguards which the exporter has in place that need to match that level of protection. Therefore, the SCCs represent a general mechanism applicable to transfers, no matter the third country and its adequacy of protection. In addition, and in light of the Charter, there is an obligation for the controller as well as the supervisory authority to suspend any third country transfer if, because of a conflict between the SCCs and the laws in the third country, the SCCs cannot be complied with.

In the end, the Advocate General also clarified that the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield decision of 12 July 2016 is not part of the current proceedings, since those only cover the SCCs under Decision 2010/87, taking the questions of the validity of the Privacy Shield off the table.

While the Advocate General’s opinion is not binding, it represents the suggestion of a legal solution for cases for which the CJEU is responsible. However, the CJEU’s decision on the matter is not expected until early 2020, setting the curiosity on the outcome of the case high.

Irish DPC updates Guidance on Data Processing’s Legal Bases

17. December 2019

The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) has updated their guidance on the legal bases for personal data processing. It focuses on data processing under the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as well as data processing requirements under the European Law Enforcement Directive.

The main points of the updates to the guidance are to make companies more sensitive of their reasons for processing personal data and choosing the right legal basis, as well as ensure that data subjects may be able to figure out if their data is being processed lawfully.

The guidance focuses on the different legal bases in Art.6 GDPR, namely consent, contracts, legal obligation, vital interests, public task or legitimate interests. The Irish DPC states that controllers do not only have to choose the right legal basis, but they also have to understand the obligations that come with the chosen one, which is why they wanted to go into further detail.

Overall, the guidance is made to aid both controllers and data subjects. It consists of a way to support a better understanding of the terminology, as well as the legal requirements the GDPR sets out for processing personal data.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
1 2 3 12