Category: Personal Data

EU commission working on allowing automated searches of the content of private and encrypted communications

25. November 2021

The EU Commission is working on a legislative package to combat child abuse, which will also regulate the exchange of child pornography on the Internet. The scope of these regulations is expected to include automated searches for private encrypted communications via messaging apps.

When questioned, Olivier Onidi, Deputy Director General of the Directorate-General Migration and Home Affairs at the European Commission, said the proposal aims to “cover all forms of communication, including private communication”.

The EU Commissioner of Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, declared the fight against child sexual abuse to be her top priority. The current Slovenian EU Council Presidency has also declared the fight against child abuse to be one of its main priorities and intends to focus on the “digital dimension”.

In May 2021, the EU Commission, the Council and the European Parliament reached a provisional agreement on an exemption to the ePrivacy Directive that would allow web-based email and messaging services to detect, remove, and report child sexual abuse material. Previously, the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC) had extended the legal protection of the ePrivacy Directive to private communications related to electronic messaging services. Unlike the General Data Protection Regulation, the ePrivacy Directive does not contain a legal basis for the voluntary processing of content or traffic data for the purpose of detecting child sexual abuse. For this reason, such an exception was necessary.

Critics see this form of preventive mass surveillance as a threat to privacy, IT security, freedom of expression and democracy. A critic to the agreement states:

This unprecedented deal means all of our private e-mails and messages will be subjected to privatized real-time mass surveillance using error-prone incrimination machines inflicting devastating collateral damage on users, children and victims alike.

However, the new legislative initiative goes even further. Instead of allowing providers of such services to search for such content on a voluntary basis, all providers would be required to search the services they offer for such content.

How exactly such a law would be implemented from a technical perspective will probably not be clear from the text of the law and is likely to be left up to the providers.
One possibility would be that software checks the hash of an attachment before it is sent and compares it with a database of hashes that have already been identified as illegal once. Such software is offered by Microsoft, for example, and such a database is operated by the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children in the United States. A hash is a kind of digital fingerprint of a file.
Another possibility would be the monitoring technology “client-side scanning”. This involves scanning messages before they are encrypted on the user’s device. However, this technology has been heavily criticized by numerous IT security researchers and encryption software manufacturers in a joint study. They describe CSS as a threat to privacy, IT security, freedom of expression and democracy, among other things because the technology creates security loopholes and thus opens up gateways for state actors and hackers.

The consequence of this law would be a significant intrusion into the privacy of all EU citizens, as every message would be checked automatically and without suspicion. The introduction of such a law would also have massive consequences for the providers of encrypted messaging services, as they would have to change their software very fundamentally and introduce corresponding control mechanisms, but without jeopardizing the security of users, e.g., from criminal hackers.

There is another danger that must be considered: The introduction of such legally mandated automated control of systems for one area of application can always lead to a lowering of the inhibition threshold to use such systems for other purposes as well. This is because the same powers that are introduced in the name of combating child abuse could, of course, also be introduced for investigations in other areas.

It remains to be seen when the relevant legislation will be introduced and when and how it will be implemented. Originally, the bill was scheduled to be presented on 01 December 2021, but this item has since been removed from the Commission’s calendar.

 

China publishes Draft Measures on Security Assessment of Cross-border Data Transfer for public consultation

8. November 2021

On October 29th, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) announced a public consultation on its “Draft Measures on Security Assessment of Cross-border Data Transfer”. This is the CAC’s third legislative attempt to build a cross-border data transfer mechanism in China, and it came only days before the effective date of the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) on November 1st, 2021.

The CAC said its proposed data transfer assessment aims to comply with China’s PIPL and Data Security Law, while specifically focusing on efforts to “regulate data export activities, protect the rights and interests of personal information, safeguard national security and social public interests, and promote the safe and free flow of data across borders”. If they were to be made final, the Draft Measures would apply to cross-border transfers of personal information and “important data” collected and generated in China under certain circumstances.

Data controllers, or data handlers according to the PIPL, would be subject to mandatory security assessments by the CAC in the following circumstances:

  • transfer of personal information and important data collected and generated by critical information infrastructure operators as defined under China’s Cybersecurity Law;
  • transfer of important data;
  • transfer of personal information by data handlers who process over 1 million individuals’ personal information;
  • cumulatively transferring personal information of more than 100,000 individuals or “sensitive” personal information of more than 10,000 individuals; or
  • other conditions to be specified by the CAC.

According to the Draft Measures, data handlers that require a mandatory security assessment would need to submit certain materials in connection with it, which include an application form, the data handler’s self-security assessment, and the relevant data transfer agreement.

Upon receiving the data handler’s application, the CAC would confirm whether it will accept the application within seven business days. The CAC would have 45 business days to complete the assessment after issuing the notice of acceptance. This period could be extended in complex cases or where the CAC requires supplementary documents, however according to the Draft Measures the timeline should not exceed 60 business days.

In evaluating a data handler’s mandatory security assessment, the CAC would aim to focus on:

  • the legality, propriety and necessity of the cross-border transfer;
  • the data protection laws and regulations of the data recipient’s jurisdiction, the security of the data being transferred, and whether the protections provided by the data recipient satisfy Chinese laws and regulations and mandatory national standards;
  • the volume, scope, type and sensitivity of the data being transferred and the risk of a leak, damage, corruption, loss and misuse;
  • whether the data transfer agreement adequately allocates responsibilities for data protection;
  • compliance with Chinese laws, administrative regulations and departmental regulations; and
  • other matters that are deemed necessary by the CAC.

The CAC’s mandatory security assessment result would be effective for two years, after which a new assessment is necessary. Under circumstances, a re-evaluation would have to take place, e.g. in cases of changes to the purpose, means, scope and type of the cross-border transfer or processing of personal information and/or important data by the data recipient, an extension of the retention period for the personal information and/or important data and other circumstances that might affect the security of transferred data.

The public consultation period extends until November 28th, 2021, after which the CAC will review the public comments and recommendations.

Processing of COVID-19 immunization data of employees in EEA countries

27. October 2021

As COVID-19 vaccination campaigns are well under way, employers are faced with the question of whether they are legally permitted to ask employees about their COVID-19 related information (vaccinated, recovered, test result) and, if so, how that information may be used.

COVID-19 related information, such as vaccination status, whether an employee has recovered from an infection or whether an employee is infected with COVID-19, is considered health data. This type of data is considered particularly sensitive data in most data protection regimes, which may only be processed under strict conditions. Art. 9 (1) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)(EU), Art. 9 (1) UK-GDPR (UK), Art. 5 (II) General Personal Data Protection Law (LGPD) (Brazil), para. 1798.140. (b) California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) (California) all consider health-related information as sensitive personal data. However, the question of whether COVID-19-related data may be processed by an employer is evaluated differently, even in the context of the same data protection regime such as the GDPR.

The following discusses whether employers in various European Economic Area (EEA) countries are permitted to process COVID-19-related information about their employees.

Austria: The processing of health data in context of the COVID-19 pandemic can be based on Article 9 (2) (b) of the GDPR in conjunction with the relevant provisions on the duty of care (processing for the purpose of fulfilling obligations under labor and social law). Under Austrian labor law, every employer has a duty of care towards its employees, which also includes the exclusion of health hazards in the workplace. However, this only entitles the employer to ask the employee in general terms whether he or she has been examined, is healthy or has been vaccinated. Therefore, if the legislator provides for two other equivalent methods to prove a low epidemiological risk in addition to vaccination, the current view of the data protection authority is that specific questioning about vaccination status is not possible from a data protection perspective. An exception to this is only to be seen in the case of an explicit (voluntary) consent of the employee (Art. 9 (2) a) GDPR), but a voluntary consent is not to be assumed as a rule due to the dependency relationship of the employee.
As of November, employees will be obliged to prove whether they have been vaccinated, recovered from a COVID-19 infection or recently tested negative if they have physical contact with others in enclosed spaces, such as the office.

Belgium: In Belgium, there is no legal basis for the processing of vaccination information of employees by their employer. Article 9 (1) GDPR prohibits the processing of health data unless an explicit exception under Article 9 (2) GDPR applies. Such an exception may be a legal provision or the free and explicit consent of the data subject. Such a legal provision is missing and in the relationship between employee and employer, the employee’s consent is rarely free, as an employee may be under great pressure to give consent. The Belgian data protection authority also explicitly denies the employer’s right to ask.

Finland: The processing of an employee’s health data is only permitted if it is directly necessary for the employment relationship. The employer must carefully verify whether this necessity exists. It is not possible to deviate from this necessity by obtaining the employee’s consent. The employer may process an employee’s health data if this is necessary for the payment of sick pay or comparable health-related benefits or to establish a justified reason for the employee’s absence. The processing of health data is also permitted if an employee expressly requests that his or her ability to work be determined on the basis of health data. In addition, the employer is entitled to process an employee’s health data in situations expressly provided for elsewhere in the Act. The employer may request from occupational health care statistical data on the vaccination protection of its employees.

France: Since July 21st, 2021, a “health passport” is mandatory for recreational and cultural facilities frequented by more than 50 people, such as theaters, cinemas, concerts, festivals, sports venues. The health passport is a digital or paper-based record of whether a person has been vaccinated, recovered within 11 days to 6 months, or tested negative within 48 hours. There are several workplaces where vaccination has been mandatory for workers since August 30th, 2021. These include bars, restaurants, seminars, public transport for long journeys (train, bus, plane). The health passport is also mandatory for the staff and visitors of hospitals, homes for the elderly, retirement homes, but not for patients who have a medical emergency. Also, visitors and staff of department stores and shopping malls need to present a health pass in case the prefect of the department decided this necessary. In these cases, the employer is obliged to check if his employees meet their legal obligations. However, the employer should not copy and store the vaccination certificates, but only store the information whether an employee has been vaccinated. Employers who do not fall into these categories are not allowed to process their employees’ vaccination data. In these cases, only occupational health services may process this type of information, but the employer may not obtain this information under any circumstances. At most, he may obtain a medical opinion on whether an employee is fit for work.

Germany: Processing of COVID-19 related information is generally only permitted for employers in certain sectors. Certain employers named in the law, such as in §§ 23a, 23 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), employers in certain health care facilities (e.g. hospitals, doctors’ offices, rescue services, ) and § 36 (3) IfSG, such as day care centers, outpatient care services, schools, homeless shelters or correctional facilities, are allowed to process the vaccination status of their employees. Other employers are generally not permitted to inquire about the vaccination status of employees. If allowed to process their employee’s vaccination status, employers should not copy the certificates but only check whether an employee is vaccinated. Although there has been an ongoing discussion in the federal government for several weeks about introducing a legal basis that would allow all employers to administer vaccination information. From November 2021, employers must check whether an employee who has been sanctioned with a quarantine due to a COVID-19 infection was or could have been vaccinated prior to the infection. According to Section 56 (1) sentence 4 IfSG, there is no entitlement to continued payment of remuneration for the period of quarantine if the employee could have avoided the quarantine, e.g. by taking advantage of a vaccination program. The employer must pay the compensation on behalf of the competent authority. As part of this obligation to pay in advance, the employer is also obliged to check whether the factual requirements for the granting of benefits are met. The employer is therefore obliged to obtain information on the vaccination status of its employee before paying compensation and, on this basis, to decide whether compensation can be considered in the individual case. The data protection basis for this processing activity is Section 26 (3) of the German Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG), which permits the processing of special categories of personal data – if this is necessary for the exercise of rights or the fulfillment of legal obligations arising from labor law, social security law and social protection law, and if there is no reason to assume that the data subjects’ interest in the exclusion of the processing, which is worthy of protection, outweighs this. The Data Protection Conference, an association of German data protection authorities, states that processing the vaccination status of employees on the basis of consent is only possible if the consent was given voluntarily and therefore legally effective, Section 26 (3) sentence 2 and (2) BDSG. Due to the relationship of superiority and subordination existing between employer and employee, there are regularly doubts about the voluntariness and thus the legal validity of the employees’ consent.

Italy: Since October 15, Italy has become the first country in the EEA to require all workers to present a “green passport” at the workplace. This document records whether a person has been vaccinated, recovered, or tested. A general vaccination requirement has been in effect for health care workers since May, and employees in educational institutions have been required to present the green passport since September.

Netherlands: Currently, there is no specific legislation that allows employers to process employee immunization data. Only the occupational health service and company doctors are allowed to process immunization data, for example when employees are absent or reintegrated. The Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport has announced that he will allow the health sector to determine the vaccination status of its employees. He also wants to examine whether and how this can be done in other work situations. Currently, employers can only offer voluntary testing in the workplace, but are not allowed to document the results of such tests or force

Spain: Employers are allowed to ask employees if they have been vaccinated, but only if it is proportionate and necessary for the employer to fulfill its legal obligation to ensure health and safety in the workplace. However, employees have the right to refuse to answer this question. Before entering the workplace, employees may be asked to provide a negative test or proof of vaccination if the occupational health and safety provider deems it necessary for the particular workplace.

Data protection soon to become constitutional right in Brazil

24. September 2021

Last month Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies approved the Federal Senate’s proposal to amend the Constitution making the protection of personal data, including in digital media, a fundamental right for all citizens. According to the proposal, the Federal Government would have exclusive competence to legislate and supervise matters in this area.

The country already has a General Law for the Protection of Personal Data (LGPD) and the National Data Protection Authority (ANPD) as a supervisory body. The deputy Orlando Silva pointed out that the proposal consolidates the regulations for the protection of personal data and justified the need to include data protection as a constitutional right as follows:

All of us here systematically use internet applications, and the management of these applications is based on the provision of personal data, which is often manipulated without each of us knowing the risks to our privacy.

The deputy Isnaldo Bulhões added:

Without a doubt the proposal is a step forward, because we have seen major scandals, major violations, and fraud that have advanced a lot in recent times with technological development in Brazil and in the world.

A peculiarity of the amendment adopted by the Plenum is the deletion of the provision to make the ANPD an independent body, which would be part of the indirect federal public administration and subject to a special autonomous regulation. It was argued that the autonomy of the ANPD is not in question, but a constitutional regulation in this regard has never been adopted for any other agency.

For final approval the deputies’ adjustments require the proposal to return to the Federal Senate.

Names of unvaccinated employees revealed in Canada

23. September 2021

The Ottawa Hospital’s human resources office admitted a data breach caused by a mass email revealing the identities of unvaccinated staff members, CTV News Ottawa reported. The system-generated email was sent on September 8th to employees who had declined the COVID-19 vaccination, making their email addresses inadvertently visible in the recipient section.

The reason for sending the email was the hospital’s expectation that every member would get vaccinated to ensure the safety of the community. To achieve this, education was also to be provided to unvaccinated employees. They were to be invited via email to attend a respective education session.

The hospital already apologized to the affected employees and made efforts to resolve the issue. The contacted IT services immediately recalled the emails, removed it from all inboxes and deleted the copies. Moreover, all those who forwarded the email to personal accounts were asked to delete it. Following an investigation by the hospital’s privacy office, a report to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has been made as well.

Allegedly, this data breach involved 391 employees whose names were disclosed. However, the number was not officially confirmed by the hospital.

Conclusively, the hospital said in a statement explaining the case:

Health-care workers have worked tirelessly to protect our communities throughout the pandemic, and they deserve protection and support to enable them to do their jobs safely, and to the best of their abilities.

UK Ministry of Defence Data Breaches put more than 300 Afghans in Danger

On Monday, 20 September 2021 the UK Ministry of Defence launched an investigation into a recent data breach. The breach has affected more than 250 Afghan interpreters who have cooperated with Western forces in Afghanistan and who have applied for relocation to the UK. The Ministry sent an e-mail to these Afghan individuals who are still in Afghanistan and are reportedly eligible for relocation. The e-mail included all e-mail addresses, names, and some associated profile pictures in copy (“cc”) instead of blind copy (“bcc”), thus exposing the personal information to all recipients. It was reported that some Afghans have sent reply e-mails to all recipients in the mailing list, even sharing details about their current personal situation.

The following Tuesday, Britain’s Defence Minister Ben Wallace apologised for the data breach publicly in Parliament. He explained that he is aware of the compromise of safety of the Afghan interpreters and has suspended an official as a result of the breach. Upon discovery, the Ministry sent out another e-mail advising the affected individuals to delete the previous e-mail and to change their e-mail addresses. Additionally, the Ministry of Defence will offer extra support to those affected by the incident. The Minister also stated that correspondence processes have already been changed.

In the meantime, a second data breach by the Ministry of Defence was uncovered on Wednesday. This time, an e-mail was sent to 55 people requesting them to update their details after the UK officials were unable to contact them. At least one of the recipients is a member of the Afghan National Army. Again, the e-mail was sent with all recipients in “cc” and not in “bcc”.

Military experts and politicians have criticised the Ministry for the data breaches which unnecessarily endanger the safety of Afghans, many of whom are hiding from the Taliban. The investigation into data handling by the “Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy” team within the Ministry of Defence is still ongoing, a spokesperson of the Ministry has said.

New Mexico Attorney General files suit against “angry birds” developer

30. August 2021

The developer of the popular app “Angry Birds” is currently under investigation by the New Mexican Attorney General.

On August 25, 2021, New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas filed charges against Rovio Entertainment. The company is alleged to have violated the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and to have intentionally collected the data of players under the age of 13. One of the accusations is that the data was processed for commercial purposes.

COPPA requires app developers to inform parents of children of the appropriate age about their data collection practices. Further, it is required to obtain parental consent for the collection of personal data from children under 13 and to properly record that consent.

The Attorney General’s complaint alleges that children’s data was disclosed to third parties for the purpose of targeted advertising. The data is analyzed, vermacred to third parties, and from then on is also available to an even wider circle of interests. The Angry Bird developer is also said to have failed to obtain parental consent and to have proclaimed it. The privacy policy was also said to be misleading. The company however stated that the Angry Birds app was not for children. Nevertheless, according to the authorities the developers are aware that the application is downloaded and played by a young audience in particular. Even in the event that the privacy policy is not specifically marketed to minors, however, the company must take measures under COPPA to minimize the risk to children.

The procedure may entail civil penalties, restitution, and other relief.

Children’s data also receive special protection within the EU. According to Art. 8 of the GDPR, this protection even applies up to the age of 16. However, the state legislators are free to set this limit at the age of 13.

Discussions on Mongolian data protection bill

27. August 2021

The Mongolian legislation on the protection of personal data is currently limited to two laws: the Law on Personal Secrets and the Law on Organisational Secrets, both enacted in 1995. The provisions are considered vague, ambiguous and insufficient, which makes them rarely used in practice. This leads to the lack of interpretation and application. Therefore, the not well developed data protection legislation requires systematic and consistent reforms in order to meet the various societal challenges and to comply with international standards.

Within the framework of the “Action Plan of the Government of Mongolia for 2020-2021” a draft law on the protection of personal data is in the process of being approved. In this regard, the parliament of Mongolia, the State Great Khural, has recently announced discussions on several draft laws. They include the Law on Public Information, the Law on Protection of Personal Data, the Law on Cyber ​​Security, and the Law on Electronic Signatures.

The discussions were jointly held by the Standing Committee on Innovation and e-Policy and the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs on August 10th, 2021. Now, the Mongolian government is responsible for preparing the revised drafts.

The draft Law on Protection of Personal Data aims to regulate relations with regard to the collection, processing, and use of personal data as well as to ensure their security. It outlines rights and obligations of data processors and controllers, contains data subject rights and includes provisions for international data transfers.

The bill is an important step towards alignment with international data protection standards. If passed, the law will come into force on November 1st, 2021.

Google Play Store apps soon obliged to provide privacy notices

20. August 2021

On the Android Developers Blog, Google has announced further details for the upcoming new safety section in its Play Store. It aims at presenting the security of the offered apps in a simple way to give users a deeper insight into privacy and security practices of the developers. This should allow users to see what data the app may be collecting and why, even before the installation. In order to achieve this, apps in the Google Play Store will be required to publish the corresponding information in the safety section.

The new summary will be displayed to users on an app’s store listing page. It is intended to highlight details such as:

  • What type of data is collected and shared, e.g. location, contacts, name, email address, financial information,
  • How the data will be used, e.g. for app functionality or personalization,
  • Whether the data collection is optional or mandatory for the use of an app,
  • Security practices, e.g. data encryption,
  • Compliance with the family policy,
  • Validation from an independent source against a global security standard.

To support the safety section, policy changes are being made which should lead to more transparency to users. Thus, all developers will be required to provide a privacy notice. Previously, only apps that collected personal and sensitive user data had to do so. The innovation applies to all apps published on Google Play, including Google’s own apps.

Developers will be able to submit information to the Google Play Console for review in October. However, by April 2022 at the latest, the safety section must be approved for their apps. The reason for this is that the new section is scheduled to be rolled out and visible to users in Q1 2022.

Aside from sharing additional information for developers on how to get prepared, Google has also assured that more guidance will be released over the next few months.

CNIL fines Monsanto 400,000 € for GDPR violations

29. July 2021

France’s data protection authority, the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), imposed a fine of 400,000 € on the U.S.-based biotechnology corporation Monsanto Company for contravention of Article 14 GDPR regarding the information of data subjects about the collection of their personal data and Article 28 GDPR concerning contractual guarantees which lay down relations with a data processor.

In May 2019, several media outlets revealed that Monsanto was in possession of a file containing personal data of more than 200 political figures or members of civil society (e.g. journalists, environmental activists, scientists or farmers). The investigations carried out by the CNIL disclosed that the information had been collected for lobbying purposes. The individuals named on this “watch list” were Monsanto’s opponents and critics from several European countries, meant to be “educated” or “monitored”. This strategy should have influenced the debate and public opinion on the renewal of the authorization of glyphosate in Europe, a controversial active substance contained in Monsanto’s best-known product for weed control. The reason for the still current scientific controversy is the causation of diseases by glyphosate, most notably cancer.

The file included, for each of the individuals, personal data such as organization, position, business address, business phone number, cell phone number, business email address, and in some cases Twitter accounts. In addition, each person was given a score from 1 to 5 to evaluate their influence, credibility, and support for Monsanto on various issues such as pesticides or genetically modified organisms.

It should be noted that the creation of contact files by stakeholders for lobbying purposes is not illegal per se. While it is not necessary to obtain the consent of the data subjects, the data have to be lawfully collected and the individuals have to be informed of the processing.

In imposing the penalty, the CNIL considered that Monsanto had failed to comply with the provisions of the GDPR by not informing the data subjects about the storage of their data, as required by Article 14 GDPR. In addition, none of the exceptions provided in Article 14 para. 5 GDPR were applicable in this case. The data protection authority stressed that the aforementioned obligation is a key measure under the GDPR insofar as it allows the data subjects to exercise their other rights, in particular the right to object.

Furthermore, Monsanto violated its obligations under Article 28 GDPR. As a controller, the company was required to establish a legal framework for the processing carried out on its behalf by its processor, in particular to provide data security guarantees. However, in the CNIL’s opinion, none of the contracts concluded between the two companies complied with the requirements of Article 28 para. 4 GDPR.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 18 19 20 Next
1 2 3 20