Category: Personal Data

Royal family uses GDPR to protect their privacy

22. May 2019

Last week Prince Harry and Meghan Markle could claim another victory in the royal family’s never ending struggle with paparazzi photographers, securing “a substantial sum” in damages from an agency that released intimate photos of the Oxfordshire home the Duke and Duchess of Sussex rented to the media. In a statement, Splash News apologized for and acknowledged that this situation would represent “an error of judgement”.

The paparazzi agency “Splash News” took photos and footage of the couple’s former Cotswolds home — including their living room, dining area, and bedroom — using a helicopter and promptly sold to different news outlets. The lawyers of Prince Harry argued that this situation caused a breach of his right to privacy according to Art. 7 and 8 ECHR as well as a breach of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA).

Considering the strategy of the Duke’s lawyers, it looks like the royal family have found a potentially attractive alternative to claims of defamation of invasion of privacy. Since in contrast to such a claim, a claimant relying on data protection law neither needs to prove that a statement is at least defamatory and met the threshold for serious harm to reputation nor that the information is private.

However, the (new) European data protection legislation grants all data subjects, regardless of their position and/or fame, a right of respect for their privacy and family lives and protection of their personal data. In particular, the GDPR requires organisations, according to its Article 5, to handle personal data (such as names, pictures and stories relating to them) fairly and in a transparent manner while also using it for a legitimate purpose.

Moreover, when obtaining pictures and footage of an individual’s private or even the intimite sphere, the organization using such materials need a specific reason like some kind of contract, the individual’s consent or be able to argue that using this photos and footage was “in the public interest” or for a “legitimate interest”. As a contract and a consent can be excluded here, the only basis that might be considerd could be a public interest or a legitimate interest of the organization itself. Taking into account the means and the way how these photos and footage of the Duke and Dutchess were created, both of these interest cannot withstand the interest  in protecting the rights and freedom of individuals’ private and intimite sphere.

Referring to this case, it seems pretty likely that the European data protection regime changed the way in how celebrities and the courts enforce the heavy-contested threshold of whether the public is allowed to see and be informed about certain parts and aspects of famous people’s lives or not.

 

 

New Jersey changes data breach law to extend it to online account information

20. May 2019

On May 10, 2019, Phil Murphy, Governor of New Jersey, signed a bill amending the law regarding notification of data breaches in New Jersey. The purpose of the amendment is to extend the definition of personal data to include online account information.

The amendment requires companies subject to the law to notify New Jersey residents of security breaches concerning the user name, e-mail address or other account holder identifying information.

The amendment states that companies should notify their customers affected by violations of such information electronically or otherwise and instruct them to promptly change any password and security questions or answers or take other appropriate measures to protect their online account with the company. The same shall be done for all other online accounts for which the customer uses the same username or e-mail address and password or the same security question and answer.

In addition, the amended law prohibits the company from sending notifications to the e-mail account of a person affected by a security breach. Instead, notifications must be sent in another legally required manner or by a clear and unambiguous notification sent online when the customer’s account is connected to an IP address and the company knows that the customer regularly accesses their account from that online location.

The amendment will take effect on 1 September 2019.

Mass monitoring in Xinjiang

3. May 2019

According to research by Human Rights Watch, China’s state and party leaders have had an app developed with which the security authorities in Xinjiang can monitor their inhabitants on a massive scale.

When police officers log into the app, they can see which “conspicuous” behaviours of individual residents have been recorded. According to the published report, the authorities are using the app for illegal mass surveillance and arbitrary arrest of the Uighur Muslim minority living in Xinjiang Province. Up to one million Uighurs are currently said to be imprisoned in “re-education camps”.

Users of the app are asked to enter a variety of information about citizens and explain the circumstances under which it was collected. This includes information such as name or identity card number, but also information such as religious beliefs, blood group or the absence of smartphones. According to Human Rights Watch, the app should also be connected to other databases and alert users if a citizen consumes too much electricity or a mobile phone does not log on to the network for a long time. Citizens should also make themselves “suspicious” if they have little contact with neighbours or do not often enter buildings through the front door.

Human Rights Watch is convinced that this procedure is also illegal in China and that the collected data must be deleted. It remains to be seen whether the Chinese – or other governments will react to the disclosures.

Category: General · Personal Data
Tags: ,

Morrisons is Allowed to Appeal Data Protection Class Action

29. April 2019

The British food store chain VM Morrison Supermarkets PLC (“Morrisons”) has been granted permission by the Supreme Court to appeal the data protection class action brought against it and to challenge the judgment for all its grounds. The case is important as it’s the first to be filed in the UK for a data breach and its outcome may affect the number of class actions for data breaches.

An employee who worked as a senior IT auditor for Morrsisons copied the payroll data of almost 100,000 employees onto a USB stick and published it on a file-sharing website. He then reported the violation anonymously to three newspapers. The employee himself was sentenced to eight years in prison for various crimes.

5,518 employees filed a class action lawsuit against Morrisons for the violation. It claimed both primary and representative liability for the company. The Supreme Court dismissed all primary liability claims under the Data Protection Act (“DPA”), as it concluded that the employee had acted independently of Morrisons in violation of the DPA.

However, the court found that Morrisons is vicariously liable for its employee’s actions, although the DPA does not explicitly foresee vicarious liability. The company appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and upheld the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Company is vicariously liable for its employee’s data breach, even though it was itself acquitted of any misconduct.

In the future appeal of the Supreme Court, it will have to examine, among other things, whether there is deputy liability under the DPA and whether the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the employee disclosed the data during his employment was incorrect.

German Court’s Decision on the Right of Access

9. April 2019

Just recently, a German Labour Court (LAG Baden-Württemberg) has decided on the extent of Article 15 of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) with regard to the information that is supposed to be handed out to the data subject in case such a claim is made.

The decision literally reflects the wording of Art. 15 (1) GDPR which, amongst other things, requires information on

  • the purposes of data processing,
  • the categories of personal data concerned,
  • the recipients or categories of recipient to whom the personal data have been or will be disclosed
  • where possible, the envisaged period for which the personal data will be stored, or, if not possible, the criteria used to determine that period,
  • where the personal data are not collected from the data subject, any available information as to their source.

In contrast to the previous views of the local data protection authorities, which – in the context of information about recipients of personal data – deem sufficient that the data controller discloses recipient categories, the LAG Baden-Württemberg also obliged the data controller to provide the data subject with information about each individual recipient.

In addition, the LAG Baden-Württemberg ordered the data controller to make available to the data subject a copy of all his personal performance data. However, the court did not comment on the extent of copies that are to be made. It is therefore questionable whether, in addition to information from the systems used in the company, copies of all e-mails containing personal data of the person concerned must also be made available to the data subject.

Since the court has admitted the appeal to the Federal Labour Court (BAG) regarding this issue, it remains to be seen whether such an approach will still be valid after a Federal Labour Court decision.

GPEN publishes annual Sweep

14. March 2019

On May 9th, 2019, the „GPEN“(„Global Privacy Enforcement Network“) shared its “2018 Sweep”, an annual intelligence gathering that looked at how well organisations have implemented data privacy accountability into their internal privacy policies and programmes.

GPEN is a global network of more than 60 data protection agencies. The 2018 Sweep was a collaboration between  New Zealand’s (New Zealand Office of the Privacy Commissioner, “OPC”) and  UK’s (UK Information Commissioner’s Office, “ICO”) data protection authorities and was carried out by several data protection authorities across the globe.

The participating authorities reached out to 667 companies with a set of pre-determined questions that focus on key elements of responsible data protection. Those elements were:

  • The importance of internal policies and procedures for data governance;
  • Training and awareness;
  • Transparency about data practices;
  • The assessment and mitigation of risk;
  • Incident Management.

Of the 667 organisations contacted, only 53% (356) provided substantive responses and a large point of those had appointed an individual or a team to ensure compliance with relevant data protection regulations.

The 2018 Sweep shows that many organisations are quite good at providing data protection training to their employees but companies have to ensure that those training are offered to all employees and happen on a regular basis. It was also found that several organisations have processes in place on how to deal with data subject complaints and how to handle data breaches.

Overall, most organisations are aware of data protection and have a good understanding of it. Nevertheless, they have to make sure that they have clear policies and procedures in place and monitor their performance regarding the relevant laws and regulations.

Dutch DPA: Cookie walls do not comply with GDPR

11. March 2019

The Dutch data protection authority, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, clarified on 7th of March 2019 that the use of websites must remain accessible when tracking cookies are not accepted. Websites that allow users to access only if they agree to the use of tracking cookies or other similar means to track and record their behavior do not comply with the General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR.

The Dutch DPA’s decision was prompted by numerous complaints from website users who no longer had access to the websites after refusing the usage of tracking cookies.

The Dutch DPA noted that the use of tracking software is generally allowed. Tracking the behaviour of website users, however, must be based on sufficient consent. In order to be compliant with the GDPR, permission must be given freely. In the case of so-called cookie walls the user has no access to the website if he does not agree to the setting of cookies. In this way, pressure is exerted on the user to disclose his personal data. Nevertheless, according to the GDPR a consent has not been given voluntarily if no free or no real choice exists.

With publication of the explanation the Dutch DPA demands organizations to make their practice compliant with the GDPR. The DPA has already written to those organisations about which the users have complained the most. In addition, it announced that it would intensify its monitoring in the near future in order to examine whether the standard is applied correctly in the interest of data protection.

Massive data breach in Sweden: Millions of Health Hotline Calls exposed online

22. February 2019

Recently around 2.7 million sensitive phone calls were uncovered by Swedish technology news site Computer Sweden. In total, 170,000 hours of conversation were available online on an unencrypted web server. The server had no login mechanism so the recorded calls could be accessed freely.

Sweden operates a national health advice line (1177), which is run by Swedish company Medhelp. For out-of-hour calls they subcontract with a Thailand-based firm called Medicall. According to repords, most of the uncovered calls were made outside the regular times and therefore answered by Medicall. A request from the BBC left Medicall unanswered.

The uncovered data is extremely private as People usually call 1177 seeking medical advice, talking about their symptoms, their kids’ illnesses and giving out their social security number.
The Swedish Data Protection Authority is currently investigating the case.

Apple advises app developer to reveal or remove code for screen recording

12. February 2019

After TechCrunch initiated investigations that revealed that numerous apps were recording screen usage, Apple called on app developers to remove or at least disclose the screen recording code.

TechCrunch’s investigation revealed that many large companies commission Glassbox, a customer experience analytics firm, to be able to view their users’ screens and thus follow and track keyboard entries and understand in which way the user uses the app. It turned out that during the replay of the session some fields that should have been masked were not masked, so that certain sensitive data, like passport numbers and credit card numbers, could be seen. Furthermore, none of the apps examined informed their users that the screen was being recorded while using the app. Therefore, no specific consent was obtained nor was any reference made to screen recording in the apps’ privacy policy.

Based on these findings, Apple immediately asked the app developers to remove or properly disclose the analytics code that enables them to record screen usage. Apples App Store Review Guidelines require that apps request explicit user consent and provide a clear visual indication when recording, logging, or otherwise making a record of user activity. In addition, Apple expressly prohibits the covert recording without the consent of the app users.

According to TechCrunch, Apple has already pointed out to some app developers that they have broken Apple’s rules. One was even explicitly asked to remove the code from the app, pointing to the Apple Store Guidelines. The developer was given less than a day to do so. Otherwise, Apple would remove the app from the App Store.

 

620 million accounts available for sale on dark web

According to the British news website The Register, 620 million accounts from hacked websites are for sale on dark web. For less than $20.000 in Bitcoin, people can buy the stolen accounts on Dream Market, located in the Tor network. Criminals should also be able to buy the copied user data individually. The data comes from hacks from the years 2016 to 2018. Some were already known others now became acquianted.

Among the sixteen hacked websites are the video messaging application Dubsmash (162 million accounts), the diet and exercise app MyFitnessPal (151 million accounts) and the family-tree-tracking service MyHeritage (92million accounts).

As reported by The Register, the account records appear to be legit. The data leak contains e-mail addresses, names and passwords but it does not contain any bank or credit card information and the passwords are encrypted and must therefore be decoded before they can be used.

Depending on the affected side, there are also a few other categories of personal information such as social media authentication tokens. It can be expected that the vendees will use the data for credential stuffing attacks. In such attacks, attackers try out lists with email password pairs at various online services to hack accounts. These attacks are made possible because many users reuse the same password across many websites.

The seller told The Register that they possess one billion accounts in total and that their aim is to make “life easier” for hackers. The seller said “I don’t think I am deeply evil, I need the money. I need the leaks to be disclosed […] I’m just a tool used by the system. We all know measures are taken to prevent cyber attacks, but with these upcoming dumps, I’ll make hacking easier than ever.”

 

Update: 127 million more stolen accounts appeared a few days ago. Affected sites include architecture, interior and designe website Houzz (57 million records), live-video streaming site YouNow (40 million records) and travel booking site Ixigo (18 million records). This data is sold by the hacker for a total of $14,500 in Bitcoin.

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