Tag: Ireland

Irish DPC updates Guidance on Data Processing’s Legal Bases

17. December 2019

The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) has updated their guidance on the legal bases for personal data processing. It focuses on data processing under the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as well as data processing requirements under the European Law Enforcement Directive.

The main points of the updates to the guidance are to make companies more sensitive of their reasons for processing personal data and choosing the right legal basis, as well as ensure that data subjects may be able to figure out if their data is being processed lawfully.

The guidance focuses on the different legal bases in Art.6 GDPR, namely consent, contracts, legal obligation, vital interests, public task or legitimate interests. The Irish DPC states that controllers do not only have to choose the right legal basis, but they also have to understand the obligations that come with the chosen one, which is why they wanted to go into further detail.

Overall, the guidance is made to aid both controllers and data subjects. It consists of a way to support a better understanding of the terminology, as well as the legal requirements the GDPR sets out for processing personal data.

Advocate General’s opinion on “Schrems II” is delayed

11. December 2019

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Advocate General’s opinion in the case C-311/18 (‘Facebook Ireland and Schrems’) will be released on December 19, 2019. Originally, the CJEU announced that the opinion of the Advocate General in this case, Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, would be released on December 12, 2019. The CJEU did not provide a reason for this delay.

The prominent case deals with the complaint to the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) by privacy activist and lawyer Maximilian Schrems and the transfer of his personal data from Facebook Ireland Ltd. to Facebook Inc. in the U.S. under the European Commission’s controller-to-processor Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs).

Perhaps, the most consequential question that the High Court of Ireland set before the CJEU is whether the transfers of personal data from the EU to the U.S. under the SCCs violate the rights of the individuals under Articles 7 and/or 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Question No. 4). The decision of the CJEU in “Schrems II” will also have ramifications on the parallel case T-738/16 (‘La Quadrature du net and others’). The latter case poses the question whether the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield for data transfers from the EU to the U.S. protects the rights of EU individuals sufficiently. If it does not, the European Commission would face a “Safe Harbor”-déjà vu after approving of the new Privacy Shield in its adequacy decision from 2016.

The CJEU is not bound to the opinion of the Advocate General (AG), but in some cases, the AG’s opinion may be a weighty indicator of the CJEU’s final ruling. The final decision by the Court is expected in early 2020.

Irish DPC releases guide on Data Breach Notifications

15. August 2019

On Monday the Irish Data Protection Commission (IDPC) has released a quick guide on Data Breach Notifications. It is supposed to help controllers understand their obligations regarding notification and communication requirements, both to the responsible DPC and to the data subject.

The guide, which is supposed to be a quick overview of the requirements and obligations which fall on data controllers, refers to the Article 29 Working Party’s (now European Data Protection Board or EDPB), much more in depth and detailed, guidance in their guideline concerning Data Breach Notifications.

In summary, the IDPC categorizes a Data Breach as a “security incident that negatively impacts the confidentiality, integrity or availability of personal data; meaning that the controller is unable to ensure compliance with the principles relating to the processing of personal data as outlined in Art. 5 GDPR”. In this case, it falls to the controller to follow two primary obligations: (1) to notify the responsible DPC of the data breach, unless it is unlikely to result in a risk for the data subject, and (2) to communicate the data breach to the affected data subjects, when it is likely to result in a high risk.

The IDPC seeks to help controllers by providing a list of requirements in cases of notification to the DPC and data subjects, especially given the tight timeframe for notifications to be filed within 72 hours of awareness of the breach. It is hoping to eliminate confusion arising in the process, as well as problems that companies have had while filing a Data Breach Notification in the past.

Pokemon Go: Guidelines to be released by the Irish Data Protection Commisioner

12. August 2016

Due to the fact that the smartphone App called Pokemon Go inserts the animated creatures into real-life surroundings by using real-time GPS data and phone cameras the concern about the safety and privacy implications of location-based games and apps was raised.

  • In the US armed criminals using Pokemon Go lured teenage victims to an isolated place where they were robbed last month.
  • Iran became the first country to ban the game because of unspecified “security concerns” last week.
  • Also, the contract customers must agree to before using the game has been questioned by consumer watchdogs across Europe due to the fact that Pokemon Go’s terms of service abandon a player’s rights to courtroom representation as a plaintiff or class action member unless the player opts out within a month of the download.

A spokesman for Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner commented that in regard to Pokemon Go “It was not aware of any specific data protection issues arising at this stage”. He continued by saing “However, like any smartphone app that seeks permissions in respect of users’ personal data, such as location data or for advertising or personalising services, there are privacy implications and users should make themselves aware of the terms to which they are agreeing in downloading and installing the app”.

The spokesman concluded that “In respect of location data, this office will be publishing detailed guidance early next week to assist individuals in understanding how organisations collect and process information relating to their location and their rights to the protection of their personal data.”

Microsoft cannot be compelled to turn over customer emails stored outside the U.S.

27. July 2016

Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Microsoft Corporation cannot be compelled to turn over customer emails stored outside the U.S. to U.S. law enforcement authorities.

The original case addressed a search warrant concerning the contents of all emails, records and other information regarding one of Microsoft’s email users. Although Microsoft generally complied, it refused to turn over the contents of the emails stored on a server in Ireland. Microsoft opinion was that U.S. courts are not authorized to issue such warrants. However, in April 2014 a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Microsoft has to turn over the contents of the emails to U.S. law enforcement in case of search warrant is issued under the Stored Communications Act and although the data is stored outside of the U.S.

The Second Circuit ruled that “Congress did not intend the (Stored Communications Act’s) warrant provisions to apply extraterritorially…(and) the Stored Communications Act does not authorize a U.S. court to issue and enforce an Stored Communications Act warrant against a United States‐based service provider for the contents of a customer’s electronic communications stored on servers located outside the United States.”