Dutch Data Protection Authority: Randomly selected companies will be subject to GDPR-compliance investigations

31. July 2018

This month, the Data Protection Authority (DPA) of the Netherlands has launched an investigation according to Art. 57 (1) a GDPR which obliges the supervisory authorities to “monitor and enforce compliance” with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Dutch DPA thereby verifies compliance with Art. 30 GDPR (records of processing activities) in 30 randomly selected large companies of the private sector (i.e. which have more than 250 employees) rooted in 10 different branches: industry, water supply, construction, retail, hospitality, travel, communications, finance, business services, and health care across the Netherlands. Its investigative powers in terms of this investigation derive from Art. 58 (1) a GDPR which enables the DPAs “to order the controller and the processor, and, where applicable the controller’s or the processor’s representative, to provide any information the supervisory authority requires for the performance of its tasks”.

For those investigations it is not necessary that a complaint has been lodged or any other indication of non-compliance occurs. In particular, the Dutch DPA regularly carries out such “ex officio” investigations focusing on certain enforcement priorities depending on the sector or the topic. With their investigation strategy they aim to focus on the compliance with certain requirements of the GDPR that may typically create adequate safeguards in organizations to issue and maintain compliance with the general Principles of the GDPR (Art. 5 et seqq GDPR).

Therefore, the authorities decided for the private sector that the records of processing activities (Art. 30 GDPR) are the key drivers for GDPR compliance, since these records eventually enable an organization knowing about what personal data they process and for which purposes. Since the results of the investigation will most probably be published anonymously (e.g. numbers and other details of the violation in specific sectors), they might hope to create a ripple effect on other organizations of the respective sectors.

A prediction of the crucial penalties that may be the result of this “ex officio” investigations of the Dutch DPA is basically not possible, as the organizations involved and the state of their GDPR compliance are unknown. But it might be interesting that the Dutch DPA is also allowed to issue a so-called “enforcement notice under penalty” according to the Dutch GDPR Execution Act if an organization has been established non-compliant. This enforcement notice can contain an order for the respective organization to comply and demonstrate compliance within a fixed time frame. For each day or week that they fail to comply with such an order, a fixed penalty may apply.

Such an enforcement order may be issued in the event of a violation of Art. 30 GDPR that is not likely to result in a risk for the data subjects. Where the investigation shows that non-compliance may result in a risk for the freedoms and rights of the data subjects or is potentially deemed unfair, the penalty could also result in the maximum category of possible fines.

 

Category: GDPR · The Netherlands

Data of patients disclosed in Singapore’s largest data breach in history

30. July 2018

A cyberattack has impacted data of 1.5 Mio patients of SingHealth clinics by stealing name, ID Card number, address, gender, race and date of birth as reported by ARN Net.

Due to “operational security reasons”, the authorities haven’t disclosed the identity of the responsibles behind the attack.

Even Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, “had his personal particulars stolen as well as his outpatient dispensed medicines record.”

The report further states that all patients, whether or not they were affected will receive an SMS notification over the next five days, with patients also able to access the Health Buddy mobile app or SingHealth website to check if they are affected by this incident.

According to Channel Asia the SingHealth IT system was compromised through an initial breach on a particular front-end workstation, gaining privileged account credentials to gain access to the database.

It is believed that the attack began on June 27th, 2018 and was detected on July 4th, 2018. Apparently, no further illegal exfiltration has been detected since and all Patient records in SingHealth’s IT system remain intact.

Several measures have been taken in terms of IT-security such as controls on workstations and servers, resetting user and systems accounts and installment of additional system monitoring controls.

New Zealand: Privacy after death does matter

27. July 2018

Data protection rights generally refer to living persons only. Among others, the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) explicitly mentions in its Recital 27 that the Regulation does not apply to the personal data of deceased persons.

However, the Recital also contains an opening clause for the EU Member States, stating that these may provide for specific rules for such cases. The GDPR hereby acknowledges that there might be cases that need to be tackled individually.

For example, requests can be made in order to find out whether the deceased had suffered from a hereditary disease. This information is not to be seen as protected for the offspring that might be affected by it.

Consequently, there will be situations that contain mixed information on both the deceased and the requestor.

The Privacy Commissioner’s Office (OPC) of New Zealand has now released a statement regarding the privacy of deceased persons on July 24th, 2018 taking up this exact issue.

Whereas the Privacy Act of New Zealand also defines an individual as a “natural person, other than a deceased person”, the OPC states that “sometimes it will be inappropriate to release the personal information of the dead”.

The OPC further says that “some information is inherently sensitive, for example mental or sexual health information. It could be unfair to release such information to those who are just curious and have no good reason to see it.”

Ultimately, it will often be necessary to balance the rights and elaborate case by case, also taking into consideration the wishes of the deceased person to some extent.

One year after the massive data breach at Equifax

Last year at this time the Credit Bureau Equifax has been hacked and the sensitive data of approximately 143 million consumers has been affected.

The data breach is considered to be the worst data breach in US history, according to the scale and the nature of the information exposed. Hackers have entered the system and stole data like consumer’s name, social security numbers, birth dates, addresses and in some cases also driver’s license numbers, as well as credit card numbers.

After the data breach, the company had to be determined that they were not prepared for such an event, measures had to be taken. So what happened during the past year?

Equifax has remained fairly quiet amidst class action suits, congressional scrutiny, a Federal Trade Commission probe, and a wave of new state regulations designed to ensure that Equifax substantially improves its security defenses. Beyond others, in February a new Chief Information Security Officer, Jamil Farshchi, was hired. Farshchi had managed information security at high-stakes companies and cleaned up data breaches before. Furthermore, Equifax invested $200 million on data security infrastructure.

So the transformation is in process to create a world-class security program at Equifax.

Data breach exposes data including trade secrets from several large carmakers

24. July 2018

A security researcher from the UpGuard Cyber Risk Team detected that various data from carmakers like Volkswagen, Ford and Toyota were exposed. UpGuard is an Australian cybersecurity group that among other things detects data breaches.

The source of the data leak is a small Canadian company called Level One Robotics and Controls. On a publicly accessible backup server of the engineering company were files from more than a hundred companies in business with said company. Belonging to the group of companies affected by the leak are some of the biggest carmakers like Tesla, VW, Toyota, General Motors, Chrysler and ThyssenKrupp.

The 47.000 unsecured files contained inter alia product designs, invoices, bank accounts and contracts. Some of these data are among the industry’s most closely guarded and confidential trade secrets. In addition, a number of non-disclosure agreements explaining the sensitivity of the leaked information formed part of the exposed data.

The researcher issued a leakage warning and since then the accessible information was taken offline within 24 hours.

The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018

19. July 2018

On June 28th 2018, California passed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which is considered to be the strongest privacy protection measure in the U.S. The new California law, which takes effect as of January 1st 2020, grants residents of California a broad protection when it comes to processing their personal data by a profit orientated business.

The new Act has an impact on every company that does business in California or to affiliated, co-branded entities of the business that meets the below criteria even if the affiliate does not have a business in California. For the CCPA to be applicable, the business either

1. has an annual gross Revenue of $25 million or more,
2. collects, busy or sells 50,000 or more consumers’ personal information each year for commercial purposes or
3. dervies 50% or more of their annual Revenue from selling consumers’ personal Information.

After the European General Data Protection Act (GDPR) became effective as of 25th May 2018, businesses who are also dealing with data of Californian residents will have to comply with an additional regulation.

California being the 5th largest global economy behind the United States, China, Japan and Germany (even beating the United Kingdom) companies should take a number of affirmative steps to comply with the new requirements prior to  1st of January 2020.

While both the GDPR and the CCPA address the collection of personal information by businesses, they differ in their obligations and requirements for businesses to be compliant. Unfortunately, the implementations, which came into action for the GDPR, will not be enough for the CCPA regulation.

Even though the CCPA is stricter in some aspects, unlike the GDPR demands, businesses will not be required to get people’s permission to collect their personal data in the first place.

The CCPA however defines personal data more broadly and requires specific disclosures and communication channels that are not required by the GDPR. The CCPA also contains different exceptions to the right to have personal data deleted, establishes broader rights to access personal data and imposes tighter restrictions on data sharing for commercial purposes.

It is advisable that global companies who are impacted by the regulations should try to address the requirements of the GDPR and CCPA simultaneously and holistically.

Category: General

Japan and the EU are establishing an environment of data protection between its citizens (and companies)

18. July 2018

As part of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), the European Union and Japan have signed the 17th July 2018, the two parties recognise each other’s data protection laws as equivalent. In this manner, personal data will flow in the future safely between the EU and Japan.

In Europe, a committee composed of representatives of the EU Member States has to give its consent and the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) publishes its opinion before the European Commission adopts the adequacy decision. Once the agreement is established, EU citizens and 127 Million Japanese consumers will benefit from international trading that includes the high privacy standards of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Japanese companies now have to comply some safeguards to fulfil the European data protection level, like the protection of sensitive data, the requirements for transfer of data to a third country or the exercise of individual rights to access individual rights (compared to Art. 12 – 23 of the GDPR). The Japanese watchdog (PPC) will implement these rules as well as a complaint-handling mechanism to investigate and resolve complaints of European citizens concerning the data processing of Japanese controllers.

This agreement is a result of the communication Exchanging and Protecting personal data in a globalised world, announced by the Commission in January 2017.

The ICO intends to fine Facebook a maximum of £500.000

12. July 2018

The British Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) intends to fine Facebook a maximum of £500,000 after investigating the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica case. Back then, the Investigation started because of allegations that information of about 50 million Facebook users were obtained by Cambridge Analytica without the data subject’s consents by the use of a personality-analysis app. Present estimate suggest that about 87 million users were affected, as the ICO reports.

As stated by the ICO, it intends to fine Facebook for two breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998. It is further said, that Facebook should have contravened the law by failing to safeguard people’s information and failing to be transparent regarding the harvesting of people’s data by others. Facebook, however, will have the possibility to respond to the Notice of Intent. Afterwards a final decision will be made.

Unlike the much higher fees (up to €20 million or 4% of their global annual turnover, whichever is higher) that might be imposed under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), depending on the individual case, £ 500.000 is the maximum possible under the British Data Protection Act 1998. The reason that the Data Protection Act 1998 and not the General Data Protection Regulation was applicable is the time of the events, since they happened before the 25th May 2018, which was the time the General Data Protection Regulation became directly applicable in all member states.

Category: EU · USA
Tags: ,

The EEA EFTA States incorporate the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) soon

9. July 2018

On 20th of July 2018 the European Data Law will come into effect also in the three EFTA States (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein). This has been the result of the incorporation Agreement by the EEA Joint Committee in Brussels on July 6th 2018.

Before the GDPR becomes applicable throughout all three states, each of the states shall notify the agreement by a parliamentary process.

As usual for the EEA Joint Agreements, the EFTA States are obligated to implement the EU Regulation and they are affected by the Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The supervisory authority of the EFTA States also participates in the activities of the European Data Protection Board, without having the right to vote and to stand for election as chair or deputy chairs of the board.

Switzerland is not part of this agreement and has its own legal basis for data protection.

Data breach at Panini’s online service ‘MyPanini’

2. July 2018

According to a report in the magazine ‘Der Spiegel’, personal data and images of users who wanted to create Panini images with their own photos could be accessed by third parties.

The Italian scrapbook manufacturer for football images Panini has serious problems with the security of their online customer database. Through changing the browser’s URL, unauthorized persons could have accessed personal data of other customers, including pictures of minors. Therefore, the case can be considered as particularly serious.

Through its ‘MyPanini’ service, Panini offers fans the opportunity to upload photos with their own images and have these personalised images sent to them. Until a few days ago, logged in users could have also seen the uploaded images and personal data of other customers. Apparently the full name, the date of birth and partly even the place of residence of the customers are listed.

To a certain degree, the uploaded images showed children and young children from different countries in the private domestic environment, some even with their naked upper body.

The data breach was confirmed and has been known internally for days. Supposedly, the problem has been solved by a security update, but it is not possible to access the website at the moment.

It remains to be seen what financial consequences the data breach has for either Panini or the technical service provider. In accordance with new European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) infringements of the provisions can lead to administrative fines up to 10 000 000 EUR or up to 2% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year.

Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 29 30 31 Next
1 4 5 6 7 8 31