Category: General

EU Member States agree on EU Council’s Draft for the ePrivacy Regulation

22. February 2021

On February 10, 2021, representatives of the EU Member States have reached an agreement on a negotiating mandate for the draft ePrivacy Regulation.

The Council of the European Union’s (the Council) text approved by the EU Member States was prepared under Portugal’s Presidency. It will form the basis of the Council’s negotiations with the European Parliament as part of the trilogue process on the final terms of the ePrivacy Regulation, which will replace the current ePrivacy Directive.

The main key elements of the new draft are highlighted by the Council, and encompass the following points:

  • Coverage of both electronic communications content and communications metadata – the text sticks with the general principle that electronic communications data is confidential, which means that any interference by anyone other than the parties involved in the communication is prohibited, except when given permission by the ePrivacy Regulation
  • Machine-to-machine data transmitted via a public network, as this is deemed necessary to protect privacy rights in the context of Internet of Things applications
  • The scope of application includes users located in the EU, regardless of whether the processing of their data takes place outside the EU or the service provider is located in a non-EU jurisdiction
  • Regarding the use of cookies and other technologies involving the storage of information on or collection of information from a user’s device, the Council’s text provides that the use of these technologies will only be legitimate if the user has consented or for specific purposes laid down in the ePrivacy Regulation; however, users should be able to have genuine choice

In addition to broadening the scope of the current directive, the proposed regulation would most likely affect an advertising technology market that is already in the process of undergoing significant changes. As such, the European Commission is also working on the proposed Digital Service Act, Digital Governance Act and Digital Market Act.

However, the draft is presumed to initiate some arguments going forth into the next stage. Based on previous drafts, there are some differences which will need to be reconciled. Especially with regard to the permissions for accessing content and metadata of electronic communications, the two sides are somewhat divided. Where the European Parliament is pushing primarily for consent, the Council seems to have added some more permissions and exceptions to the consent rule. The content regarding data retention will be another point where intense arguments are predicted.

Criticism also comes from some countries, for example from the German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection, Ulrich Kelber. In a press release he attacked the new draft as “a severe blow to data protection”, mentioning that he is concerned by the “interference with the fundamental rights of European citizens”.

Although the new draft brings the erPrivacy Regulation back to life, it is still a long road before unison on its text is fully reached. It is certain that intense discussion in the upcoming trilogue process will continue, and the outcome will be closely watched by many.

GDPR fines and data breach reports increased in 2020

12. February 2021

In 2020 a total of €158.5 million in fines were imposed, research by DLA Piper shows. This represents a 39% increase compared to the 20 months the GDPR was previously in force since May 25th, 2018.

Since that date, a total of € 272.5 million in fines have been imposed across Europe under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). Italian authorities imposed a total of € 69.3 million, German authorities € 69.1 million, and French authorities 54.4 million. This calculation does not include two fines against Google LLC and Google Ireland Limited totalling € 100 million  (€ 60million + € 40million) and a fine of € 35 million against Amazon Europe Core issued by the French data protection authority “Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés” (“CNIL”) on December 10th, 2020, (please see our respective blog post), as proceedings on these fines are pending before the Conseil d’Etat.

A total of 281,000 data breaches were reported during this period, although the countries that imposed the highest fines were not necessarily those where the most data breaches were reported. While Germany and the UK can be found in the top of both lists, with 77,747 data breaches reported in Germany, 30,536 in the UK and 66,527 in the Netherlands, only 5,389 data breaches were reported in France and only 3,460 in Italy.

Although the biggest imposed fine to date still is a fine of € 50 million issued by CNIL against Google LLC in January 2019 (please see our respective blog post) a number of high-profile fines were imposed in 2020, with 6 of the top 10 all time fines being issued in 2020 and one in 2021.

1. H&M Hennes & Mauritz Online Shop A.B. & Co. KG was fined € 35 million for monitoring several hundred employees (please see our respective blog post).

2. TIM (Italian telecommunications operator) was fined € 27 million for making unwanted promotion calls.

3. British Airways was fined € 22 million for failing to protect personal and financial data of more than 400,000 customers (please see our blog post)

4. Marriott International was fined € 20 million for a data breach affecting up to 383 million customers (please see our respective blog post)

5. Wind Tre S.p.A. was fined € 17 million for unsolicited marketing communications.

A comparison of the highest fines shows that most of them were imposed due to an insufficient legal basis for the processing of personal data (Art. 5 & 6 GDPR) or due to insufficient technical and organizational measures to ensure an appropriate level of security (Art. 32 GDPR).

While the European authorities have shown their willingness to enforce the GDPR rules, they have also shown leniency due to the impact that the COVID 19 pandemic has had on businesses. At least in part due to the impact of the pandemic, the penalties planned by the UK ICO have been softened. A planned fine of €205 million for British Airways was reduced to €22 million and a planned fine of €110 million for Marriott International was reduced to €20 million. GDPR investigations are also often lengthy and contentious, so the increased fines may in part be due to more investigations having had sufficient time to be completed. For example, the dispute over the above fines for British Airways and Marriott International has already started in 2019.

Not only the fines but also the number of data breach notifications increased in 2020. In 2020 121,165 data breaches were reported, an average of 331 notifications per day, compared to 278 per day in 2019. In terms of reported data breaches per 100,000 inhabitants, there is a stark contrast between Northern and Southern European countries. In 2020, Denmark recorded 155.6 data breaches per 100,000 inhabitants, the Netherlands 150, Ireland 127.8, while Greece, Italy and Croatia reported the lowest number of data breaches per inhabitant.

The trend shows that the GDPR is being taken more and more seriously by companies and authorities, and this trend is likely to continue as authorities become more confident in enforcing the GDPR. Fines are only likely to increase, especially as none of the fines imposed so far even come close to the maximum possible amount of 4% of a company’s global annual turnover. The figures also show that while the laws are in principle the same and are supposed to be applied the same in all EEA countries, nations have different approaches to interpreting and implementing them. In the near future, we can expect to see the first penalties resulting from the GDPR restrictions on data transfers to third countries, especially in the aftermath of the Schrems II ruling on data transfers to the USA.

Data Protection and Clinical Trials – Part 1

10. February 2021

In the two and a half years since the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has come into effect, a lot of organizations have gotten used to the new laws and standards it has established. However, there are still a lot of unanswered questions in certain industries, one of those industries being life sciences, and more specifically clinical trials.

The GDPR and the guidance of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) allow for a lot of speculation, due to the fact that they are unable to fully specify the reach and definitive approach to data protection in a lot of industries.

This short series aims to give an overview on the handling of clinical trials from a data protection point of view, as well as answers to important questions that come up in day to day business in the industry.

In general, clinical trials are a processing activity according to Art. 4 (2) GDPR, therefore the basic data protection obligations are to be applied to clinical trials, such as:

  • Following the basic GDPR principles laid out in Art. 5 GDPR, namely lawfulness, fairness and transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, data accuracy, storage limitation, integrity, confidentiality and accountability
  • Information obligations of the controller according to Art. 13, 14 GDPR
  • Data Subjects Rights according to Art. 15 to Art. 21 GDPR
  • Obligation to have a record of processing activities according to Art. 30 para. 1, 2 GDPR
  • Security Measures need to be in place, in compliance with Art. 32 GDPR
  • Data Breach Notifications to the supervisory authority as well as the data subjects according to Art. 33, 34 GDPR
  • A Data Protection Impact Assessment has to be done prior to the start of the clinical trials, according to Art. 35 GDPR

However, the first and foremost important question regarding the processing of personal data for clinical trials is:

Which legal basis is applicable to the processing?

The EDPB addressed this issue in their Opinion on the Interplay between Clinical Trials and the GDPR, and has, in a first instance, differentiated between the processing of personal data for clinical trial protocols as primary purpose of the processing, and, on the other hand, clinical trials as a secondary purpose next to, for example, patient care.

According to the EDPB’s opinion, the applicable legal basis is to be determined by the controller on a case by case basis. However, the EDPB does give their own general assessment on the legal basis applicable for the different scenarios that have crystalized in the eyes of the EDPB:

  • Primary use of the processed personal data for clinical trials
    a. Processing activities related to reliability and safety
    -> Legal obligations of the controller, Art. 6 para. 1 (c) GDPR in conjunction with Art. 9 para. 1 (i) GDPR
    b. Processing activities purely related to research activities
    -> Task carried out in the public interest, Art. 6 para. 1 (e) GDPR in conjunction with Art. 9 para. 2 (i) or (j) GDPR
    -> Legitimate interest of the controller, Art. 6 para. 1 (f) GDPR in conjunction with Art. 9 para. 2 (j) GDPR
    -> In specific circumstances, explicit consent of the data subject, Art. 6 para. 1 (a) GDPR and Art. 9 para. 2 (a) GDPR
  • Secondary use of the clinical trial data outside the clinical trial protocol for scientific purposes
    -> Explicit consent of the data subject, Art. 6 para. 1 (a) GDPR and Art. 9 para. 2 (a) GDPR

While the guidance in assessing the legal basis for the processing is helpful, the EDPB does not address any further open issues regarding clinical trials in their opinion. Nonetheless, there are further subjects that cause confusion.

However, some of these subjects will be treated in our next part of this series, where we will have a closer look at clinical trial sponsorship from outside the EEA as well as the questions revolving around controllership roles in clinical trials.

Giant database leak exposes data on 220 million Brazilians

28. January 2021

On January 19th, 2021, the dfndr lab, PSafe’s cybersecurity laboratory, reported a leak in a Brazilian database that may have exposed the CPF number and other confidential information of millions of people.

According to the cybersecurity experts, who use artificial intelligence techniques to identify malicious links and fake news, the leaked data they have found contains detailed information on 104 million vehicles and about 40 million companies. Overall, the leak poses a risk to close to 220 million Brazilians.

The personal data contained in the affected database includes names, birthdates and individual taxpayer registry identification, with distinct vehicle information, including license plate numbers, municipality, colour, make, model, year of manufacture, engine capacity and even the type of fuel used. The breach both affects almost all Brazilian citizens, as well as authorities.

In a press release, the director of the dfndr lab, Emilio Simoni, explained that the biggest risk following this data leak is that this data will be used in phishing scams, in which a person is induced to provide more personal information on a fake page.

In their statement, PSafe does not disclose either the name of the company involved or how the information was leaked, whether it was due to a security breach, hacker invasion or easy access. However, regardless of the cause of the leak, the new Brazilian Data Protection Security Law provides for fines that can reach R $ 50 million for an infraction of this type.

EDPB published Guideline on Data Breach Examples for Controllers

On January 18th, 2021, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published their draft Guidelines 01/2021 on Examples regarding Data Breach Notification.

These Guidelines are supposed to give further support to Controllers alongside the initial Guidelines on Personal Data Breach Notification under the GDPR, adopted by the Article 29 Working Party in February 2018. These new Guidelines are meant to consider different types of situations that the Supervisory Authorities have come across in the last two and a half years since the implementation of the GDPR.

The EDPB’s intention is to assist Controllers in deciding how to handle data breaches, namely by identifying the factors that they must consider when conducting risk assessments to determine whether a breach must be reported to relevant Supervisory Authorities as well as if a notification to the affected Data Subjects is necessary.

The draft Guidelines present examples of common data breach scenarios, including:

• ransomware attacks, where a malicious code encrypts the personal data and the attacker subsequently asks the controller for a ransom in exchange for the decryption code
• data exfiltration attacks, which exploit vulnerabilities in online services offered by the controller and typically aim at copying, exfiltrating and abusing personal data for malicious purposes
• human errors resulting in data breaches that are fairly common and can be both intentional and unintentional
• lost or stolen devices and paper documents
• “mispostal” scenarios, that arise from human error without malicious intent
• social engineering, such as identity theft and email exfiltration

The draft Guidelines further emphasize key elements of data breach management and response that organizations should consider, namely:

• proactively identifying system vulnerabilities in order to prevent data breaches from happening in the first place
• assessing whether a breach is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of the Data Subject, the timing of this assessment and the importance of Controllers not delaying a notification because of unclear circumstances
• implementing plans, procedures and guidelines indicating how to handle data breaches that have clear reporting lines and persons responsible for the recovery process
• organizing regular trainings for employees to raise awareness on data breach management, and the latest developments in the area
• documenting breaches in each and every case, irrespective of the risk they pose

The Guidelines will be open for public consultation until March 2nd, 2021, during which the EDPB will gather feedback on the draft.

Clubhouse Data Protection issues

Clubhouse is a new social networking app by the US company Alpha Exploration Co. available for iOS devices. Registered users can open rooms for others to talk about various topics. Participation is possible both as a speaker and as a mere listener. These rooms can be available for the public or as closed groups. The moderators speak live in the rooms and the listeners can then join the virtual room. Participants are initially muted and can be unmuted by the moderators to talk. In addition, the moderators can also mute the participants or exclude them from the respective room. As of now, new users need to be invited by other users, the popularity of these invitations started to rise in autumn 2020 when US celebrities started to use the app. With increasing popularity also in the EU, Clubhouse has come under criticism from a data protection perspective.

As mentioned Clubhouse can only be used upon an invitation. To use the option to invite friends, users must share their address book with Clubhouse. In this way, Alpha Exploration can collect personal data from contacts who have not previously consented to the processing of their data and who do not use the app. Not only Alpha Exploration, but also users may be acting unlawfully when they give the app access to their contacts. The user may also be responsible for the data processing associated with the sharing of address books. Therefore, it is not only the responsibility of Alpha Exploration, but also of the user to ensure that consent has been obtained from the contacts whose personal data is being processed. From a data protection perspective, it is advisable not to grant the Clubhouse app access to this data unless the consent of the respective data subjects has been obtained and ideally documented. Currently, this data is transferred to US servers without the consent of the data subjects in the said address books. Furthermore, it is not apparent in what form and for what purposes the collected contact and account information of third parties is processed in the USA.

Under Clubouse’s Terms of Service, and in many cases according to several national laws, users are prohibited from recording or otherwise storing conversations without the consent of all parties involved. Nevertheless, the same Terms of Service include the sentence “By using the service, you consent to having your audio temporarily recorded when you speak in a room.” According to Clubhouse’s Privacy Policy, these recordings are used to punish violations of the Terms of Service, the Community Guidelines and legal regulations. The data is said to be deleted when the room in question is closed without any violations having been reported. Again, consent to data processing should be treated as the general rule. This consent must be so-called informed consent. In view of the fact that the scope and purpose of the storage are not apparent and are vaguely formulated, there are doubts about this. Checking one’s own platform for legal violations is in principle, if not a legal obligation in individual cases, at least a so-called legitimate interest (Art. 6 (1) (f) GDPR) of the platform operator. As long as recordings are limited to this, they are compliant with the GDPR. The platform operator who records the conversations is primarily responsible for this data processing. However, users who use Clubhouse for conversations with third parties may be jointly responsible, even though they do not record themselves. This is unlikely to play a major role in the private sphere, but all the more so if the use is in a business context.

It is suspected that Clubhouse creates shadow profiles in its own network. These are profiles for people who appear in the address books of Clubhouse users but are not themselves registered with Clubhouse. For this reason, Clubhouse considers numbers like “Mobile-Box” to be well-connected potential users. So far, there is no easy way to object to Clubhouse’s creation of shadow profiles that include name, number, and potential contacts.

Clubhouse’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy do not mention the GDPR. There is also no address for data protection information requests in the EU. However, this is mandatory, as personal data of EU citizens is also processed. In addition, according to Art. 14 GDPR, EU data subjects must be informed about how their data is processed. This information must be provided to data subjects before their personal data is processed. That is, before the data subject is invited via Clubhouse and personal data is thereby stored on Alpha Exploration’s servers. This information does not take place. There must be a simple opt-out option, it is questionable whether one exists. According to the GDPR, companies that process data of European citizens must also designate responsible persons for this in Europe. So far, it is not apparent that Clubhouse even has such data controllers in Europe.

The german “Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband” (“VZBV”), the german federate Consumer Organisation, has issued a written warning (in German) to Alpha Exploration, complaining that Clubhouse is operated without the required imprint and that the terms of use and privacy policy are only available in English, not in German as required. The warning includes a penalty-based cease-and-desist declaration relating to Alpha Exploration’s claim of the right to extensive use of the uploaded contact information. Official responses from European data protection authorities regarding Clubhouse are currently not available. The main data protection authority in this case is the Irish Data Protection Commissioner.

So far, it appears that Clubhouse’s data protection is based solely on the CCPA and not the GDPR. Business use of Clubhouse within the scope of the GDPR should be done with extreme caution, if at all.

CJEU Advocate General’s opinion on GDPR’s One-Stop-Shop mechanism

26. January 2021

On January 13, 2021, the Advocate General (“AG”) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) published an opinion in the case of Facebook Ireland Limited, Facebook INC, Facebook Belgium BVBA v the Belgian Data Protection Authority “Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit” (“Belgian DPA”), addressing the General Data Protection Regulation’s (“GDPR”) One-Stop-Shop mechanism.

In 2015, the Belgian DPA initiated several legal proceedings against Facebook Group members in local courts. The allegation was that Facebook placed cookies on devices of Belgian users without their consent, thereby collecting data in an excessive manner. Facebook argued that with the GDPR becoming applicable in 2018, the Belgian DPA lost its competence to continue the legal proceedings, as Facebook’s lead supervisory authority under the GDPR is the Irish Data Protection Commission. The Belgian Court of Appeal referred several questions to the CJEU, including whether the GDPR’s One-Stop-Shop regime prevented national DPA’s from initiating proceedings in the national courts when it is not the lead DPA.

The AG responded that, in his opinion, the lead DPA has the general jurisdiction over cross-border data processing, while a national DPA may exceptionally bring proceedings before its own national courts. The national DPA’s right is subject to the One-Stop-Shop regime and cooperation and consistency mechanism of the GDPR. Thus, each national DPA has the competence to initiate proceedings against possible infringements affecting its territory, the significant regulatory role of the lead DPA limits this competence with respect to cross-border data processing.

One of the concerns expressed by the Belgian DPA was the risk of insufficient enforcement if only lead DPA’s may act against organizations that do not comply with the GDPR. In this regard, the GA emphasizes that Art. 61 GDPR specifically provides for appropriate mechanisms to address such concerns. National DPA’s have the possibility to ask the lead DPA for assistance in investigations, and if such assistance is not provided, the national DPA concerned may take action itself.

In certain circumstances, the AG sees the possibility for national DPAs not acting as lead DPA to initiate proceedings before their national court, if

  • the DPA is acting outside of the material scope of the GDPR; e.g., because the processing does not involve personal data;
  • cross-border data processing is carried out by public authorities, in the public interest, or to comply with legal obligations;
  • the processor is not established in the EU;
  • there is an urgent need to act to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects (Art. 66 GDPR);
  • the lead DPA has decided not to process a case.

With regards to data subjects, the AG notes that data subjects can bring action against any controller or processor before the court of their Member State and may file a complaint with their Member State’s DPA, regardless of which Member State’s DPA is the lead DPA.

The AG’s opinion is not legally binding on the CJEU, although the CJEU will take it into account. A final judgment of the CJEU is expected in the coming months. Thereafter, the Belgian Court of Appeal will have to decide its case in accordance with the CJEU’s judgment. The CJEU’s decision will most likely have a lasting impact on the division of roles between lead DPAs and other national DPAs, as well as on the ability of national DPAs to take enforcement actions into their own hands.

Hackers access Microsoft source codes

7. January 2021

In December 2020 cybersecurity firm FireEye reported that it had been attacked by what they called a “highly sophisticated cyber threat actor”, during which copies of its red team tool kit were stolen. Also in December, FireEye disclosed that it discovered attacks on SolarWinds’ tool “Orion” while investigating its own security breach. In a SEC filing, SolarWinds said up to 18,000 of 33,000 Orion customers may have been affected. The attacks may have begun in early 2020.

A group believed to be state-sponsored used contaminated updates for the “Orion” network management software. They accessed a SolarWinds system used to update Orion and from there inserted malicious code into legitimate software updates that were then distributed to customers. The affected versions are 2019.4 through 2020.2.1, which were released between March and June 2020. It is still unclear how the attackers initially gained access to SolarWinds’ network. Security researcher Vinoth Kumar stated on Twitter he contacted SolarWinds in 2019 regarding an FTP access uploaded to GitHub in 2018. Using the password “solarwinds123,” he was able to upload a file to the SolarWinds server as proof of the vulnerability.

Agencies and companies that have been penetrated by the Orion software include the U.S. Treasury Department, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the National Nuclear Security Administration, parts of the Pentagon, Belkin, Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, and Nvidia.
The FBI and other U.S. security agencies issued a joint statement calling the attack “significant and ongoing”. Also, agencies and companies in other countries such as Belgium, Canada, Germany, Israel, Mexico, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United Arab Emirates were affected.

So far, it is unclear what damage, if any, was caused by the attacks and what data was accessed. According to reports, in some cases, internal communications were accessed and various documents were copied, with documents relating to ongoing product development, in particular, attracting the attackers’ interest. In an interview published by the U.S. State Department, U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo claimed Russia was responsible for the attack.

“This was a very significant effort, and I think it’s the case that now we can say pretty clearly that it was the Russians that engaged in this activity.”

Among those affected, Microsoft is being most viral regarding the hack. In a blog post published on December 31, the company even admitted that the hackers had access to its source codes. According to that post, they were able to view the code but not modify it. Still, this could pose a significant security risk, as the attackers can now study the software’s architecture and look for possible entry points. Microsoft won’t reveal which tool’s source codes the attackers had access to. It also identified more than 40 of its own customers who were targeted.
Microsoft President Brad Smith wrote:

“This is not just an attack on specific targets but on the trust and reliability of the world’s critical infrastructure in order to advance one nation’s intelligence agency.”

This cyber-attack shows the importance of strong cybersecurity for every company and private user, as even tech-giants and fundamental U.S. authorities were victims of this attack. In particular, access to Microsoft’s source codes could be the ground for further attacks on high- and low-profile targets, as Microsoft’s tools are used in businesses of all sizes and by individuals as well.

EU-UK Trade Deal in light of Data Protection

4. January 2021

Almost fit to be called a Christmas miracle, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) came to an agreement on December 24th, 2020. The Trade Agreement, called in full length “EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement“, is set out to define new rules from the date of the UK Exit from the EU, January 1st, 2021.

President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, claimed it was a deal worth fighting for, “because we now have a fair and balanced agreement with the UK, which will protect our European interests, ensure fair competition, and provide much needed predictability for our fishing communities. Finally, we can leave Brexit behind us and look to the future. Europe is now moving on.

In light of Data Protection however, the new Trade Deal has not given much certainty of what is to come next.

Both sides are aware that an adequacy decision by the EU Commission is very important with regard to data protection and cross-border data flows. Accordingly, the EU has agreed to allow a period of four months, extendable by a further two months, during which data can be transferred between EU Member States and the UK without additional safeguards. This period was granted to give the Commission enough time to make an adequacy decision. Accordingly, data transfers can continue as before until possibly mid-2021. However, this arrangement is only valid if the UK does not change its data protection laws in the meantime.

With regard to direct marketing, the situation has not changed either: for individuals, active consent must be given unless there was a prior contractual relationship and the advertising relates to similar products as the prior contract. Furthermore, the advertising must also be precisely recognisable as such, and the possibility of revoking consent must be given in every advertising mail.

However, much else has yet to be clarified. Questions such as the competence of the UK Data Protection Authority, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), as well as the fate of its ongoing investigations, have not yet been answered. As of now, companies with their original EU Headquarters in the UK will have to designate a new Lead Supervisory Authority (Art. 56 GDPR) for their business in the EU.

The upcoming months will determine if questions with high relevance to businesses’ day to day practice will be able to be answered reassuringly.

Happy New Year 2021!

1. January 2021

Dear readers,

We, the team of the privacy-ticker.com, wish you a happy new year.

As in the extraordinary and challenging year of 2020, we are delighted to keep you updated in the new year on judicial and supervisory decisions on international data protection law, as well as other news in the areas of data protection and data security.

We look forward to 2021 with excitement and hope and wish you only the best for the new year. Stay safe and healthy!

Your team of privacy-ticker.com

Category: General
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 26 27 28 Next
1 4 5 6 7 8 28