Category: General
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.
27. April 2020
The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted a new Guideline on the processing of health data for scienon the most urgent matters and issues in relation to the processing of health data. Those matters include the tific purposes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic on April 21, 2020. It aims at providing clarity on the most urgent matters and issues in relation to the processing of health data. Those matters include the legal basis for processing, the implementation of adequate safeguards as well as data subjects’ rights.
The Guideline states that the GDPR contains several provisions for the processing of health data in relation to scientific research. The first one would be the consent in Art. 6 (II) a GDPR in combination with Art. 9 (II) a GDPR. The EDPB emphasizes the necessity of the consent having to meet all the necessary conditions in order to be valid, notably consent must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous, and it must be made by way of a statement.
Further, the EDPB clarifies that Art. 6 (I) e or f GDPR in combination with the enacted derogations under Art. 9 (II) (i) or (j) GDPR can provide a legal basis for the processing of personal (health) data for scientific research. National legislators can implement their own derogations, setting ground for national legal bases in regulation with the GDPR.
The EDPB also addresses the case of further processing of health data for scientific purposes, which means the case when health data has not been collected for the primary purpose of scientific research. In these cases, the Guideline states that the scientific research is not incompatible with the original purpose of the processing, as long as the principles of Art. 5 GDPR are being upheld.
In regards to international transfers, the Guidelines make specific emphasis on the transfer to countries with no adequacy decision by the European Commission. In such cases, it is possible for the exporter of the data to rely on the derogations of Art. 49 (I) a, explicit consent, and d, transfer necessary for important public interest, GDPR. However, these derogations do not entitle continuous or repeated transfers, and are only supposed to be used as temporary measures. The EDPB states that this is a sanitary crisis like none before, and therefore the transfer to other countries in cases of scientific research form an international emergency in which the public interest may take first priority. But the Guideline makes clear that in case of repeated transfer, safeguards according to Art. 46 GDPR have to be taken.
The Guideline further emphasizes that situations like the current pandemic outbreak do not restrict data subjects to exercise their rights. However, Art. 82 (II) GDPR gives national lawmakers the possibility to restrict data subject rights, though these restrictions should apply only as is strictly necessary.
Over all, the EDPB states that it has to be noted that any processing or transfer will need to take into consideration on a case-by-case basis the respective roles (controller, processor, joint controller) and related obligations of the actors involved in order to identify the appropriate measures in each case.
23. April 2020
On Thursday, April 9th 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (Belgian DPA) has issued a guidance along with frequently asked question on the subject of cookies and other tracking technologies.
The key points presented by the guidance revolve around the definitions of cookies, what needs to be presented in a cookie policy, how the consent of data subjects needs to be obtained and which requirements it needs to fulfill, as well as the storage period of a cookie on a user’s device.
The Belgian DPA made it clear that of the utmost importance is the transparency of the cookie usage. That entails that the users need to be informed about the scope of each individual cookie used. This should be done through a cookie policy on the website. The cookie policy needs to be written in a language the targeted users of the website can understand, as well as be easily accessible, e.g. through a hyperlink.
Specifically, these cookie policies need to include and inform about:
- identification of the cookies used;
- their purposes and duration;
- whether third-parties have access to such cookies;
- information about how to delete cookies;
- the legal basis relied upon for the use of cookies;
- information about individuals’ data protection rights and the ability to lodge a complaint to the competent data protection authority;
- information about any automated decision making, including profiling.
In order to be able to use cookies, the consent of the user needs to be obtained. The Belgian DPA stated in their guidance that the consent has to be obtained for the use of all non-essential cookies, which means all cookies that are not necessary for a user requested function of the website. A necessary cookie would be, for example, the cookie to remember the item in a user’s cart, or cookies that enable booking communication with a user.
The consent especially needs to be:
- obtained for the use of all non-essential cookies, as well as all social media plugins;
- informed, specifically, prior to giving their consent to the use of cookies, users must be provided with information regarding the use of cookies: The information that needs to be given to the data subjects are the entity responsible for the use of cookies, the cookies’ purposes, the data collected through the use of cookies, and their expiration. Users must also be informed about their rights with respect to cookies, including the right to withdraw their consent;
- granulated, whereas in a first instance, users need to decide between what types of cookies they want to give consent to, and in a second instance, users can decide exactly which cookies they want to give consent to;
- unambiguous and provided through a clear affirmative action.
Further, it is also important to keep in mind that the Belgian DPA has confirmed that cookie walls are unlawful, and that companies must show proof of obtained consent through keeping logs.
The Belgian DPA has also given guidance on the lifespan of cookies. Cookies should not have unlimited lifespans, but rather follow basic data protection rules: once a cookie is no longer necessary for the purpose or it has fulfilled its determined purpose, it needs to be removed. If the cookie cannot be deleted from the controller’s side, it is important to give the users the information on how to do it themselves.
Overall, the Belgian DPA’s guidance has given controllers a clear way to maneuvering their cookie usage, and has provided a new list of FAQs in case of further questions. In this regard, the Belgian DPA has made sure that cookies and their use are easy to comprehend and handle, hopefully helping data protection compliance within the subject.
20. April 2020
Amidst the Corona crisis, the video communications service Zoom gained enormous popularity. The rate of daily Zoom users skyrocketed from 10 Mio in December 2019 to 200 Mio in March 2020. As it outshined many of its competitors, Zoom labels itself as “the leader in modern enterprise video communications”. However, the company has been facing a lot of public criticism because of its weaknesses in data security and lack of awareness in data protection matters.
Basic data security weaknesses unfolded little by little starting in March 2020:
- Zoom had to admit that it was wrongly advertising to provide full end-to-end encryption for all shared contents like video, audio or screen sharing.
- Security experts revealed several bugs that could have allowed webcam and mic hijacking and the theft of login credentials.
- An online Tech Magazine reported that Zoom leaked thousands of their users’ email addresses and photos to strangers.
- Video-conferences which users did not protect with a password, enabled “Zoombombing”, a phenomenon in which strangers hijacked videocalls and disrupted them by posting pornographic and racist images as well as spamming the conversations with threatening language. In response, Zoom introduced the Waiting Room feature and additional password settings.
At the same time, Zoom’s data privacy practices came under scrutiny:
- Zoom shared web analytics data with third-party companies for advertising purposes without having a legal basis or notifying users about this practice. In response to criticism, Zoom revised its privacy policy and now declares that it does not share data from meetings for advertising.
- The company also shared more analytics data of its users with Facebook than stated on Zoom’s privacy policy, even if the user did not sign in with their Facebook account. Zoom introduced an update in which this sharing is terminated.
- The New York Times revealed that Zoom used a data mining feature that matched Zoom users’ names and email addresses to their LinkedIn profiles without the users knowing about it. Zoom then enabled automatic sharing of the matched LinkedIn profiles with other meeting members that were subscribers of a LinkedIn service for sales prospecting (“LinkedIn Sales Navigator”). In response to criticism, Zoom removed this feature permanently.
- Zoom hosted a feature called Attention Tracking, which let the meeting’s host know when an attendee had clicked away the meeting window for more than 30 seconds. In the meantime, Zoom disabled the feature.
The security and privacy issues of Zoom have led various public authorities and companies internationally to ban their workers from using the service.
On 1 April 2020, Zoom’s founder and CEO Eric S. Yuan announced a 90-day plan to significantly improve their data security in an effort to build greater trust with their users. This plan includes freezing the introduction of new features, enlarge their cybersecurity team and engage outside help from security advisors.
16. April 2020
It has been almost two years since the consumer credit reporting agency Equifax suffered a massive Data Breach.
Back in May 2017 Equifax has been hacked, but the operators first noticed the breach much later, at the end of July 2017 and informed the public on the beginning of September 2017.
The disclosure of sensitive data from approximately 143 million, not only US based consumers, was to be feared (we reported).
After the breach Equifax invested $ 200 million on the data security infrastructure and found itself in the middle of class action suits.
Now, two years after the hack, Reuters reports the settlement of a lawsuit in connection with which Equifax pays $ 19.5 million to Indiana and also the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reports a $ 1.5 million settlement between the city of Chicago and Equifax.
Besides Indiana also Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against Equifax, which is reported to be settled as well – the amount of the settlement is not yet known.
14. April 2020
The French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) has released a guidance on teleworking on April 1st, which is intended to help employers master the new working situation. In particular, it is supposed to bring clarity on the IT requirements in order to ensure a safe and well-functioning remote working environment.
In particular, the guidance touches on these following points to form a basis for coping with teleworking from an employer’s perspective:
- It is recommended that employers formulate an IT Charter or internal regulation on how to use the teleworking systems which are to be followed by the employees,
- Necessary measures have to be taken in case the systems have to be changed or adapted to the new situation,
- It should be ensured that employee work stations have the minimum requirements of a firewall, anti-virus software and a tool blocking access to malicious websites,
- To keep from being exposed on the internet and ensure security, a VPN is recommended to be put in use.
Furthermore, the CNIL has also given guidance on the cases where an organization’s services are mainly performed over the internet. In such cases, it recommended to follow a few necessary requirements in order to make sure the services can be delivered safely and smoothly:
- Web protocols that guarantee confidentiality and authentication of the processes (such as https and sftp), and keeping them up to date,
- Double factor authentication,
- No access to interfaces of non-secure servers,
- Reviewing logs of access to remotely accessible services to detect suspicious behaviors,
- Ensuring that the used equipment follows latest security patches.
The CNIL also offered some best practices for employees to follow in cases of working remotely, to give both sides pointers on how to deal with the changing situation.
Specifically, employees are being recommended to ensure their WIFI is secure by using encryption such as WPA 2 or WPA 3, along with a secure password. In addition, the CNIL recommends work equipment given by the employer, as well as using a VPN provided by the company. In the case of using own devices, a firewall and an anti-virus software are the necessary requirements to ensure security of the equipment, as well as updating the operating system and software to the newest patches.
Lastly, the CNIL warns of increased phishing attempts in relation to the COVID-19 outbreak.
Overall, the guidance and best practices the CNIL has published indicate a need for continuous and active vigilance in regards to teleworking, as well as the sharing of personal data in the process.
This guidance is in line with our past assessment of the remote working situation, which you are welcome to check out in the respective blogpost in our Series on Data Protection and Corona.
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.
12. March 2020
The Dutch Data Protection Authority has fined the Royal Dutch Tennis Association (“KNLTB”) with EUR 525,000 for selling personal data of more than 350,000 of its members to sponsors who had contacted some of the members by mail and telephone for direct marketing purposes.
In 2018, the KNLTB illegally provided personal data of its members to two sponsors for a fee. One sponsor received personal data from 50,000 members and the other sponsor from more than 300,000 members. It turned out that the KNLTB sold personal data such as name, gender and address to third parties without obtaining consent of the data subjects.
The KNLTB found that it had a legitimate interest in selling the data. However, the data protection authority rejected the existence of a legitimate interest for the sale of the data and therefore decided that there was no legal basis for the transfer of the personal data to the sponsors. The KNLTB has objected to the fine decision. The Dutch Data Protection Authority will assess this.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 30 31 32 Next 
