25. May 2020
Today we are continuing our miniseries on contact tracing apps and data protection with Part 2 of the series: The EDPB Guideline on the Use of Contact Tracing Tools. As mentioned in Part 1 of our miniseries, many Member States of the European Union have started to discuss using modern technologies to combat the spread of the Coronavirus. Now, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) has issued a new guideline on the use of contact tracing tools in order to give European policy makers guidance on Data Protection concerns before implementing these tools.
The Legal Basis for Processing
In its guideline, the EDPB proposes that the most relevant legal basis for the processing of personal data using contact tracing apps will probably be the necessity for the performance of a task in the public interest, i.e. Art. 6 para. 1 lit. e) GDPR. In this context, Art. 6 para. 3 GDPR clarifies that the basis for the processing referred to in Art. 6 para. 1 lit. e) GDPR shall be laid down by Union or Members State law.
Another possible legal basis for processing could be consent pursuant to Art. 6 para. 1 lit. a) GDPR. However, the controller will have to ensure that the strict requirements for consent to be valid are met.
If the contact tracing application is specifically processing sensitive data, like health data, processing could be based on Art. 9 para. 2 lit. i) GDPR for reasons of public interest in the area of public health or on Art. 9 para. 2 lit. h) GDPR for health care purposes. Otherwise, processing may also be based on explicit consent pursuant to Art. 9 para. 2 lit. a) GDPR.
Compliance with General Data Protection Principles
The guideline is a prime example of the EDPB upholding that any data processing technology must comply with the general data protection principles which are stipulated in Art. 5 GDPR. Contact tracing technology will not be an exeption to this general rule. Thus, the guideline contains recommendations on what national governments and health agencies will need to be aware of in order to observe the data protection principles.
Principle of Lawfulness, fairness and transparency, Art. 5 para. 1 lit. a) GDPR: First and foremost, the EDPB points out that the contact tracing technology must ensure compliance with GDPR and Directive 2002/58/EC (the “ePrivacy Directive”). Also, the application’s algorithms must be auditable and should be regularly reviewed by independent experts. The application’s source code should be made publicly available.
Principle of Purpose limitation, Art. 5 para. 1 lit. b) GDPR: The national authorities’ purposes of processing personal data must be specific enough to exclude further processing for purposes unrelated to the management of the COVID-19 health crisis.
Principles of Data minimisation and Data Protection by Design and by Default, Art. 5 para. 1 lit. c) and Art. 25 GDPR:
- Data processed should be reduced to the strict minimum. The application should not collect unrelated or unnecessary information, which may include civil status, communication identifiers, equipment directory items, messages, call logs, location data, device identifiers, etc.;
- Contact tracing apps do not require tracking the location of individual users. Instead, proximity data should be used;
- Appropriate measures should be put in place to prevent re-identification;
- The collected information should reside on the terminal equipment of the user and only the relevant information should be collected when absolutely necessary.
Principle of Accuracy, Art. 5 para. 1 lit. d) GDPR: The EDPB advises that procedures and processes including respective algorithms implemented by the contact tracing apps should work under the strict supervision of qualified personnel in order to limit the occurrence of any false positives and negatives. Moreover, the applications should include the ability to correct data and subsequent analysis results.
Principle of Storage limitation, Art. 5 para. 1 lit. e) GDPR: With regards to data retention mandates, personal data should be kept only for the duration of the COVID-19 crisis. The EDPB also recommends including, as soon as practicable, the criteria to determine when the application shall be dismantled and which entity shall be responsible and accountable for making that determination.
Principle of Integrity and confidentiality, Art. 5 para. 1 lit. f) GDPR: Contact tracing apps should incorporate appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure the security of processing. The EDPB places special emphasis on state-of-the-art cryptographic techniques which should be implemented to secure the data stored in servers and applications.
Principle of Accountability, Art. 5 para. 2 GDPR: To ensure accountability, the controller of any contact tracing application should be clearly defined. The EDPB suggests that national health authorities could be the controllers. Because contact tracing technology involves different actors in order to work effectively, their roles and responsibilities must be clearly established from the outset and be explained to the users.
Functional Requirements and Implementation
The EDPB also makes mention of the fact that the implementations for contact tracing apps may follow a centralised or a decentralised approach. Generally, both systems use Bluetooth signals to log when smartphone owners are close to each other. If one owner was confirmed to have contracted COVID-19, an alert can be sent to other owners they may have infected. Under the centralised version, the anonymised data gathered by the app will be uploaded to a remote server where matches are made with other contacts. Under the decentralised version, the data is kept on the mobile device of the user, giving users more control over their data. The EDPB does not give a recommendation for using either approach. Instead, national authorities may consider both concepts and carefully weigh up the respective effects on privacy and the possible impacts on individuals rights.
Before implementing contact tracing apps, the EDPB also suggests that a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) must be carried out as the processing is considered likely high risk (health data, anticipated large-scale adoption, systematic monitoring, use of new technological solution). Furthermore, they strongly recommend the publication of DPIAs to ensure transparency.
Lastly, the EDPB proposes that the use of contact tracing applications should be voluntary and reiterates that it should not rely on tracing individual movements but rather on proximity information regarding users.
Outlook
The EDPB acknowledges that the systematic and large scale monitoring of contacts between natural persons is a grave intrusion into their privacy. Therefore, Data Protection is indispensable to build trust, create the conditions for social acceptability of any solution, and thereby guarantee the effectiveness of these measures. It further underlines that public authorities should not have to choose between an efficient response to the current pandemic and the protection of fundamental rights, but that both can be achieved at the same time.
In the third part of the series regarding COVID-19 contact tracing apps, we will take a closer look into the privacy issues that countries are facing when implementing contact tracing technologies.
22. May 2020
The British airline ‘easyJet’ has been hacked. The hackers have been able to access personal data of approximately 9 million customers.
easyJet published a statement on the hacker attack and announced that e-mail addresses and travel details were among the concerned personal data of customers. Which personal data in detail belong to ‘travel data’ was not disclosed. In some cases, the hackers could also access credit card data. easyJet stated that there is no proof, that the accessed personal data was abused. easyjet now warns about fake mails in his name as well as in the name of ‘easyJet Holidays’.
The hack was noticed by easyJet in January, but was only made public this week. With becoming aware of the attack, easyJet took several measures and has blocked the unauthorized access in the meantime. easyJet is also in contact with the British Data Protection Authority ‘ICO’ and the National Security Center.
At this time, easyJet has not yet been able to evaluate how the attack could have occurred, but easyJet explained, that the hacker attack was no ‘general’ hacker attack, since the attack was very sophisticated compared to other hacker attacks. It is suspected that the attack originated from a group that has already hacked other airlines, such as British Airways in 2018.
easyJet announced that they will get in contact with concerned data subjects until May 26th to inform those about the breach and to explain further measures which should be taken in order to decrease the risk. easyJet customers who will not receive a statement until then are not concerned by the breach.
In connection with hacker attacks like these the risk for phishing attacks is the highest. In phishing attacks, criminals use fake e-mails, for example on behalf of well-known companies or authorities, to try to persuade users to pass on personal data or to click on prepared e-mail attachments containing malware.
20. May 2020
In order to combat the spread of COVID-19, as more and more countries are phasing out of lockdowns, the eye is on the use of contact tracing apps to help facilitate breaking the chain of transmissions. Contact tracing apps hope to bring a safer way to combat the spread of the pandemic and enable people to go back to a life that is closer to their previous normal. In this miniseries, we would like to present to you different contact tracing apps, as well as European Guidelines and the data protection problems arising from the technology.
Contact tracing apps mostly rely on localising the users of the phones and trace their whereabouts to analyse if they have gotten in contact with someone that has later tested positive for the coronavirus. Individuals who have been in close proximity of someone who is confirmed to be a carrier of the virus, will then be notified and asked to self-isolate for a certain period of time.
Due to this function, however, privacy is a big fear for a lot of users. It comes not only with the processing of personal data, but also tracing of movement and the collection of health data in order to be effective.
It is also important to note that there are different approaches to the purpose and use of anti-coronavirus apps all over the world. While this post focuses on portraying different contact tracing apps, there are also technologies that have a different purpose. For example, there’s apps that require the localisation of mobile data with the purpose to track movement streams and localize a potential future outbreak area. Another option currently in use in Taiwan would be using the localisation data of mobile devices to control and ensure that the lockdown and quarantine measures are being followed. In Hong Kong, the mobile app is paired with a wristband to track movement of the user and alert officials if they leave their dwelling.
However, as there are a lot of contact tracing apps used in different countries, with varying technology and also varying issues in the light of data protection. While a lot of countries immediately developed and released COVID-19 tracing apps, some are still trying to develop or test the technology with a commitment to data protection. In order to see the variety of different approaches to the matter, we are going to present some of the countries and the apps they are using or developing.
The following countries are some of the countries that have already implemented a contact tracing app to be able to counteract the spread of the virus quickly:
- Austria – As one of the first European countries to jump to action, Austria has implemented the use of the tracing app project DP3T, which is backed by European scientists to be the best choice in terms of data protection. The handling of the data is transparent, as well as minimal and voluntary. The technology is based on Bluetooth identifiers in idea similar to the Google and Apple technology, and the data is stored in a decentralized manner.
- India – The Aarogya Setu app has been downloaded over 13 Million times within the first week of its release. It uses Bluetooth as well as GPS signals to trace devices, and collects a lot of sensitive data like names, birthdates, and biometric information. Due to a backlash in regards to data protection, it has been stated that the technology uses unique IDs to keep the data anonymized, that there is no access by third parties and that the data is only stored securely in case of a positive COVID-19 test.
- Singapore – In Singapore, the TraceTogether app is a voluntary tracing app that uses Bluetooth and the mobile number of users in order to track their proximity to other devices. It does not use location data, however, and exchanges temporary encrypted user IDs in order to know who a device came into contact with. The encrypted IDs can only be decoded by the Ministry of Health, which holds the only decryption key.
- South Korea – In South Korea, two apps are being used in conjunction, though the focus is rather to keep away from areas with infected people. One app, Corona 100m, was made by a private developer and notifies you if you come within 100 metres of a person that has tested positive for the virus. The app collects data such as diagnosis date, nationality, age, gender and location. The other app, Corona Maps, shows the location of diagnosed patients so you can avoid them.
On the other hand, some of the countries still working on the development include the following:
- France – The StopCovid app under development in France is supposed to be ready by June, and is being criticized by many French politicians for the lack of regulation in the case of what happens with the data after the pandemic. France has also denied Google and Apple’s help with the development of the app, stating that the risks of misuse of the data are too high.
Update: In the meantime, the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) has released its second review of the contact tracing app on May 26, 2020, giving it a green light to continue after not seeing any major issues with the data protection concept. Despite using a centralized system which relies on pseudonymized and not anonymized data, the CNIL has stated that the government promises that there will not be any disadvantages and that the data can be deleted from the app. - Germany – Germany, much like France and other EU countries, has abandoned the joint PEPP-PT project in favour of coming up with their own national tracing app. As opposed to other countries, Germany sets much more hope in the joint venture with Google and Apple in an attempt to develop a privacy regulated app which is up to EU standards.
- United Kingdom – The UK is currently planning on testing their contact tracing app system on the Isle of Wight, before they plan on rolling out the use of the app later in May. The app developed is using a more centralized approach for the storage of the data, which has been criticized by data protection lawyers. However, some have conceaded that in such a situation, the “greater justification” for the use of the data is given in the public interest and health of the citizens.
- USA – As announced by tech giants Apple and Google, the joint development of a tracing app is on the way. The app will be operating over Bluetooth, and will exchange identifiers when two devices are near each other for 10 minutes. These identifiers change every 15 minutes to minimize extended tracing, and in case of a positive test the Public Health Authority may broadcast an alert with the consent of the infected person. For more detailed information, please see our previous blog post on the joint announcement.
While the use of contact tracing apps increases, the data protection issues do as well. Most of them deal with the question of governmental access and misuse of the data, as well as transparency and voluntary use of the apps. The European Parliament and the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) have published guidelines for location tracing apps to conform with data protection laws and regulations, which we will be presenting in an upcoming blogpost as part of this miniseries.
Overall, tracing apps seem to be becoming the focus of the pandemic containment. It is important to remember as a user that, while the pandemic is starting to become a new state of normal, a lot of countries will still try to counteract the spread of the virus, and location tracking technology is one of the most effective ways to do so. In such a light, users need to remain conscious of their country’s approach to tracing apps and the privacy issues they may cause.
In the second part of the series regarding COVID-19 contact tracing apps, we will be going further into detail on the EDPB’s Guideline on location tracing apps, and focus on the European expectations and regulation in regards to data protection on the issue.
13. May 2020
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Zoom has seen an exponential surge in new users over the past two months. As we have mentioned in a previous blog post, this increase in activity highlighted a range of different issues and concerns both on the security and on the privacy side of the teleconference platform.
In light of these issues, which induced a wave of caution around the use of Zoom by a lot of companies, schools, religious institutions and governmental departments, urging to stop the use of the platform, Zoom has agreed to enhance security measures and privacy standards.
In the Agreement struck on May 7th with the New York Attorney General Laetitia James, Zoom has come to terms over several new measures it will enforce over the course of the next weeks. However, most of these enhancements have already been planned in the CEO Yang’s “90-day plan” published on April 1st, and have been slowly put into effect.
These measures include:
- a new data security program,
- conduction of risk assessment reviews,
- enhancement of encryption protocols,
- a default password for every meeting,
- halt to sharing user data with Facebook.
In response to the Agreement being struck, Attorney General James stated: “Our lives have inexorably changed over the past two months, and while Zoom has provided an invaluable service, it unacceptably did so without critical security protections. This agreement puts protections in place so that Zoom users have control over their privacy and security, and so that workplaces, schools, religious institutions, and consumers don’t have to worry while participating in a video call.“
A day prior, Zoom was also reinstated for the use of online classes by the New York City Department of Education. In order to ensure the privacy of the students and counteract “Zoombombing”, Zoom has agreed to enhanced privacy controls for free accounts, as well as kindergarten through 12th grade education accounts. Hosts, even those with free accounts, will, by default, be able to control access to their video conferences by requiring a password or the placement of users in a digital waiting room before a meeting can be accessed.
This is not the only new addition to the controls that hosts will be able to access: they will also be able to control access to private messages in a Zoom chat, control access to email domains in a Zoom directory, decide who can share screens, and more.
Overall, Zoom stated that it was happy to have been able to reach a resolution with the Attorney General quickly. It remains to see how the measures in is implementing will hold up to the still growing audience, and how fast they can be implemented for worldwide use.
12. May 2020
In the face of the Corona pandemic, Hungary is currently in an indefinite “state of emergency”. Originally, Prime Minister Victor Orbán decreed the state of emergency on 11 March 2020 lasting for a period of 15 days. However, on 30 March 2020, the Hungarian Parliament passed emergency legislation (Bill on Protection against Coronavirus or Bill T/9790) extending the state of emergency until terminated by the Prime Minister and allowing the Prime Minister to rule by decree during the state of emergency. The Bill was passed thanks to the two-thirds majority of Orbán’s Fidesz Party in the Hungarian Parliament.
On 4 May 2020, Prime Minister Orbán issued Decree No. 179/2020 which contains several provisions affecting Data Protection in Hungary extensively for the time of the state of emergency.
Most importantly, the decree suspends the individual data subject’s rights pursuant to Art. 15 to 22 of the European GDPR when processing personal data for the purpose of preventing, recognising, and stopping the spread of the Coronavirus. It also stipulates that the one month time limit for Controllers to provide the necessary information (Art. 12 para. 3 GDPR) will only begin after the termination of the state of emergency for any Coronavirus related data subject requests. Furthermore, the data collection information requirements for Controllers pursuant to Art. 13 and 14 GDPR will be satisfied by publishing an electronic privacy notice providing the purpose and the legal basis of data processing which the data subjects may take notice of.
The emergency decree received much criticism from various European Data Protection authorities and civil rights groups. The head of the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) Andrea Jelinek stated that she is “personally very worried” about the developments, and described the Hungarian government’s decision as “unnecessary [and] detrimental”. In its most recent plenary session, the EDPB also specifically discussed Hungary’s emergency measures in light of European Data Protection Law.
8. May 2020
The Coronavirus is affecting South America, like the rest of the world, and it is spreading rapidly in its largest country: Brazil. Brazil’s Government and Legislators try to handle both the public health crisis and the economic crisis that the country is facing. Now both branches have adopted emergency measures to alleviate the effects of the virus, even impacting the enforcement of the country’s new national Data Protection Law (“Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais” or “LGPD”).
The National Congress of Brazil only passed the LGPD in August 2018. It was originally scheduled to come into effect on 15 August 2020 (we reported). As the effects of the Coronavirus began to impact Brazilian businesses, many companies called for the postponement of the LGPD’s effective date due to the difficult economic environment and due to the fact that Brazil’s national Data Protection Authority (“ANPD”) is still not fully functional.
On 3 April 2020, the Senate of Brazil unanimously approved of the Law Bill “PL 1179/2020” which includes a provision to delay the effective date of the LGPD until 1 January 2021. Furthermore, the Bill sets forth that non-compliance with the LGPD shall not be sanctioned by the Data Protection Authorities until 1 August 2021.
The second chamber of Brazil’s National Congress, the House of Representatives, debated “PL 1179/2020” all throughout April 2020 and considered the implications of the LGPD’s postponement for the privacy rights of individuals, especially with many emergency measures on the way that were increasingly restrictive on privacy rights. A vote on “PL 1179/2020” by the House of Representatives was still pending by the end of the month.
On 29 April 2020, the President of Brazil took matters into his own hands when he issued Provisional Measure #959/2020. The measure postponed the effective date of the LGPD to 3 May 2021, without segmenting the postponement into two stages like the Senate’s Law Bill “PL 1179/2020” stipulated.
Provisional Measures issued by the President of Brazil serve as temporary law and are valid for a period of 60 days which the President may extend for another 60 days. During this time period, both chambers of the National Congress must approve of the Provisional Measure in order to become permanent law. If Congress disapproves, the measure will be invalidated.
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.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 67 68 69 Next 
