Category: GDPR

400,000€ fine for a Portuguese hospital

24. October 2018

The Portuguese data protection supervisory authority CNPD (Comissão Nacional de Protecção de Dados) recently announced that the hospital Barreiro Montijo is to pay a fine of 400,000€ for incompliancy with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This is the first time that a high fine has been imposed in Europe based on the new GDPR framework of fines.

According to Portuguese newspaper Público, the hospital has violated the GDPR by allowing too many users to have access to patient data in the hospital’s patient management system, even though they should only have been visible to medical doctors. In addition, too many profiles of physicians have been created in the hospital system. The CNPD discovered that 985 users with the access rights of a medical doctor were registered, although only 296 physicians were employed in 2018.

The hospital now wants to take legal action against the fine.

EDPB Publishes Opinions on National DPIA Lists

17. October 2018

Regarding the data protection impact assessment (“DPIA”) the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) recently published 22 Opinions on the draft lists of Supervisory Authority (“SAs”) in EU Member States. This is supposed to clarify which processing operations are subject to the requirement of conducting a DPIA under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

The European Data Protection Board is an independent European body, which contributes to the consistent application of data protection rules throughout the European Union, and promotes cooperation between the EU’s data protection authorities. The Supervisory Authorities will now be given two weeks to decide whether they want to amend their draft list or maintain them and explain their decision.

Article 35(4) of the GDPR states that the SAs of the EU Member States must establish, publish and communicate to the EDPB a list of processing operations that trigger the DPIA requirement under the GDPR. Several EU Members States provided their list: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The national lists can vary because the SAs must take into account not only their national legislation but also the national or regional context.

To some extent, the EDPB requests that the SAs include processing activities in their list or specify additional criteria that, when combined, would satisfy the DPIA requirement. Furthermore, the EDPB requests that the SAs remove some processing activities or criteria not considered to present a high risk to individuals. The objective of the EDPB opinions is to ensure consistent application of the GDPR’s DPIA requirement and to limit inconsistencies among the EU States with respect to this requirement.

Facebook may face up to $1.63 Billion Fine in Europe after Data Breach

2. October 2018

Ireland’s Data Protection Commission, the company’s lead privacy regulator in the EU, could fine Facebook Inc. up to $1.63 billion for a data breach disclosed Friday, reports the Wall Street Journal. Hackers compromised the accounts of at least 50 million users, bypassing security measures and possibly giving them full control of both profiles and linked apps.

The Commission is now requesting more information on the scale and nature of the data breach in order to find out which EU residents could be affected. Facebook announced that it would respond to follow-up questions. The incident results in the latest legal threat Facebook is facing from U.S. and European officials over its handling of user data and is a severe setback to their efforts to regain trust after a series of privacy and security breaches.

The way in which this data breach is handled by data protection authorities could mark one of the first important tests under the GDPR, which came into force in May earlier this year. The handling could provide conclusions regarding the application of breach-notifications and data-security provisions by companies in the future.
The law requires companies to notify data protection authorities of breaches within 72 hours, under threat of a maximum fine of 2% of worldwide revenue. Furthermore, under the GDPR companies that fail to safeguard their users’ data risk a maximum fine of €20 million ($23 million), or 4% of a firm’s global annual revenue for the prior year, whichever is higher. Taking the larger calculation as a basis Facebook’s maximum fine would be $1.63 billion.

Belgium publishes new data protection law

12. September 2018

On September 5 2018, the new data protection law (“Law of 30 July”) was published in the Belgian Official Gazette (“Belgisch Staatsblad”) and entered into force with this publication.

After the “Law of 3 December 2017”, which replaced the Belgian Privacy Commission with the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit”), the Law of 30 July is the second law that implements the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The laws regulate various essential areas of data protection. New regulations are for instance, the reducing of the age of consent from 16 (as regulated in GDPR) to 13 years old for information society services or the requirement to list persons who have access to genetic, biometric and health-related data. Therewith, Belgium has also made use of the possibility to deviate from the GDPR in different scopes.

With the law of 30 July, Belgium has thus completed the incorporation of the GDPR into national law. The Law is available in French and Dutch.

Category: Belgium · GDPR
Tags: ,

EU Commission: Using Personal Data In Political Campaigns

29. August 2018

Following the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica case, the EU Commission intends to prohibit the misuse of Collection data of voters in order to influence elections. As the Irish Times reports, the EU Commission is drafting an amendment to existing party funding rules prohibiting parties profiting from data collections of the kind as alleged against Cambridge Analytica.

Cambridge Analytica has been accused of obtaining information of millions Facebook users without the data subjects’ consent by using a personality-analysis app during Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

It is expected that sanctions will have the extent of approximately 5 percent of the annual budget of a political party. An official said “it is meant to ensure that something like Cambridge Analytica can never happen in the EU”.

Considering the upcoming election of the European Parliament in May 2019, various measures are to be recommended or imposed by the EU Commission that shall be followed by the member states in order to prevent misuse of voters’ personal data or the online manipulation of voters. While it is intended to recommend the governments to watch over and clamp down on groups sending personalized political messages to users of social media without their consent, the member states shall also be stricter about the transparency requirements of political advertisement on national level by amending national law.

Last month, Vera Jourova, EU justice commissioner, said: “voters and citizens should always understand – when something is an online campaign – who runs the campaign, who pays for it and what they want to achieve.”

However, she also made clear that the EU will respect free expression and that the EU is not going to regulate online activities of political parties. “The internet is a zone for free expression. Everybody can be a journalist or an influencer, and these are the things that we don’t want to touch”, she stated.

Database operators in Sweden exempt from GDPR

24. August 2018

With the GDPR coming into effect, enterprises in Sweden will also be subject to complying with the European principles and adhering to the GDPR.

However, new amendments and changes to the country’s constitution will be required to harmonise existing laws.

Due to the fact that Sweden emphasizes freedom of press and speech, it will initially make exemptions in cases where elements don’t comply with its Freedom of the Press Act of 1766.

As a consequence, current laws give database operators a broad freedom to gather and release personal data enabling them to collect and distribute personal information from a broad range of sources, including the national tax office.

The database operators and online publishers Eniro, Ratsit and Hitta are some of the companies that will be exempt until an expert group has drafted new and stricter legislation regarding the processing of personal data by these.

It is expected that the relevant laws will be amended in the first half of 2019.

Dutch Data Protection Authority: Randomly selected companies will be subject to GDPR-compliance investigations

31. July 2018

This month, the Data Protection Authority (DPA) of the Netherlands has launched an investigation according to Art. 57 (1) a GDPR which obliges the supervisory authorities to “monitor and enforce compliance” with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Dutch DPA thereby verifies compliance with Art. 30 GDPR (records of processing activities) in 30 randomly selected large companies of the private sector (i.e. which have more than 250 employees) rooted in 10 different branches: industry, water supply, construction, retail, hospitality, travel, communications, finance, business services, and health care across the Netherlands. Its investigative powers in terms of this investigation derive from Art. 58 (1) a GDPR which enables the DPAs “to order the controller and the processor, and, where applicable the controller’s or the processor’s representative, to provide any information the supervisory authority requires for the performance of its tasks”.

For those investigations it is not necessary that a complaint has been lodged or any other indication of non-compliance occurs. In particular, the Dutch DPA regularly carries out such “ex officio” investigations focusing on certain enforcement priorities depending on the sector or the topic. With their investigation strategy they aim to focus on the compliance with certain requirements of the GDPR that may typically create adequate safeguards in organizations to issue and maintain compliance with the general Principles of the GDPR (Art. 5 et seqq GDPR).

Therefore, the authorities decided for the private sector that the records of processing activities (Art. 30 GDPR) are the key drivers for GDPR compliance, since these records eventually enable an organization knowing about what personal data they process and for which purposes. Since the results of the investigation will most probably be published anonymously (e.g. numbers and other details of the violation in specific sectors), they might hope to create a ripple effect on other organizations of the respective sectors.

A prediction of the crucial penalties that may be the result of this “ex officio” investigations of the Dutch DPA is basically not possible, as the organizations involved and the state of their GDPR compliance are unknown. But it might be interesting that the Dutch DPA is also allowed to issue a so-called “enforcement notice under penalty” according to the Dutch GDPR Execution Act if an organization has been established non-compliant. This enforcement notice can contain an order for the respective organization to comply and demonstrate compliance within a fixed time frame. For each day or week that they fail to comply with such an order, a fixed penalty may apply.

Such an enforcement order may be issued in the event of a violation of Art. 30 GDPR that is not likely to result in a risk for the data subjects. Where the investigation shows that non-compliance may result in a risk for the freedoms and rights of the data subjects or is potentially deemed unfair, the penalty could also result in the maximum category of possible fines.

 

Category: GDPR · The Netherlands

New Zealand: Privacy after death does matter

27. July 2018

Data protection rights generally refer to living persons only. Among others, the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) explicitly mentions in its Recital 27 that the Regulation does not apply to the personal data of deceased persons.

However, the Recital also contains an opening clause for the EU Member States, stating that these may provide for specific rules for such cases. The GDPR hereby acknowledges that there might be cases that need to be tackled individually.

For example, requests can be made in order to find out whether the deceased had suffered from a hereditary disease. This information is not to be seen as protected for the offspring that might be affected by it.

Consequently, there will be situations that contain mixed information on both the deceased and the requestor.

The Privacy Commissioner’s Office (OPC) of New Zealand has now released a statement regarding the privacy of deceased persons on July 24th, 2018 taking up this exact issue.

Whereas the Privacy Act of New Zealand also defines an individual as a “natural person, other than a deceased person”, the OPC states that “sometimes it will be inappropriate to release the personal information of the dead”.

The OPC further says that “some information is inherently sensitive, for example mental or sexual health information. It could be unfair to release such information to those who are just curious and have no good reason to see it.”

Ultimately, it will often be necessary to balance the rights and elaborate case by case, also taking into consideration the wishes of the deceased person to some extent.

Japan and the EU are establishing an environment of data protection between its citizens (and companies)

18. July 2018

As part of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), the European Union and Japan have signed the 17th July 2018, the two parties recognise each other’s data protection laws as equivalent. In this manner, personal data will flow in the future safely between the EU and Japan.

In Europe, a committee composed of representatives of the EU Member States has to give its consent and the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) publishes its opinion before the European Commission adopts the adequacy decision. Once the agreement is established, EU citizens and 127 Million Japanese consumers will benefit from international trading that includes the high privacy standards of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Japanese companies now have to comply some safeguards to fulfil the European data protection level, like the protection of sensitive data, the requirements for transfer of data to a third country or the exercise of individual rights to access individual rights (compared to Art. 12 – 23 of the GDPR). The Japanese watchdog (PPC) will implement these rules as well as a complaint-handling mechanism to investigate and resolve complaints of European citizens concerning the data processing of Japanese controllers.

This agreement is a result of the communication Exchanging and Protecting personal data in a globalised world, announced by the Commission in January 2017.

The EEA EFTA States incorporate the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) soon

9. July 2018

On 20th of July 2018 the European Data Law will come into effect also in the three EFTA States (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein). This has been the result of the incorporation Agreement by the EEA Joint Committee in Brussels on July 6th 2018.

Before the GDPR becomes applicable throughout all three states, each of the states shall notify the agreement by a parliamentary process.

As usual for the EEA Joint Agreements, the EFTA States are obligated to implement the EU Regulation and they are affected by the Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The supervisory authority of the EFTA States also participates in the activities of the European Data Protection Board, without having the right to vote and to stand for election as chair or deputy chairs of the board.

Switzerland is not part of this agreement and has its own legal basis for data protection.

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