Tag: USA

US Lawmakers to introduce bill that restricts Government Surveillance

3. February 2020

On Thursday January 23rd a bipartisan group of US lawmakers have revealed a legislation which would reduce the scope of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) warrantless internet and telephone surveillance program.

The bill aims to reform section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which is expiring on March 15, and prevent abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under the PATRIOT Act, the NSA can create a secret mass surveillance that taps into the internet data and telephone records of American residents. Further, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows for U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on and store vast amounts of digital communications from foreign suspects living outside the United States, with American citizens often caught in the cross hairs.

The newly introduced bill is supposed to host a lot of reforms such as prohibiting the warrantless collection of cell site location, GPS information, browsing history and internet search history, ending the authority for the NSA’s massive phone record program which was disclosed by Edward Snowden, establishing a three-year limitation on retention of information that is not foreign intelligence or evidence of a crime, and more.

This new legislation is seen favorably by national civil rights groups and Democrats, who hope the bill will stop the continuous infringement to the fourth Amendment of the American Constitution in the name of national security.

More US States are pushing on with new Privacy Legislation

3. January 2020

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) came into effect on January 1, 2020 and will be the first step in the United States in regulating data privacy on the Internet. Currently, the US does not have a federal-level general consumer data privacy law that is comparable to that of the privacy laws in EU countries or even the supranational European GDPR.

But now, several other US States have taken inspiration from the CCPA and are in the process of bringing forth their own state legislation on consumer privacy protections on the Internet, including

  • The Massachusetts Data Privacy Law “S-120“,
  • The New York Privacy Act “S5642“,
  • The Hawaii Consumer Privacy Protection Act “SB 418“,
  • The Maryland Online Consumer Protection Act “SB 613“, and
  • The North Dakota Bill “HB 1485“.

Like the CCPA, most of these new privacy laws have a broad definition of the term “Personal Information” and are aimed at protecting consumer data by strenghtening consumer rights.

However, the various law proposals differ in the scope of the consumer rights. All of them grant consumers the ‘right to access’ their data held by businesses. There will also be a ‘right to delete’ in most of these states, but only some give consumers a private ‘right of action’ for violations.

There are other differences with regards to the businesses that will be covered by the privacy laws. In some states, the proposed laws will apply to all businesses, while in other states the laws will only apply to businesses with yearly revenues of over 10 or 25 Million US-Dollars.

As more US states are beginning to introduce privacy laws, there is an increasing possiblity of a federal US privacy law in the near future. Proposals from several members of Congress already exist (Congresswomen Eshoo and Lofgren’s Proposal and Senators Cantwell/Schatz/Klobuchar/Markey’s Proposal and Senator Wicker’s Proposal).

NIST examines the effect of demographic differences on face recognition

31. December 2019

As part of its Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) program, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted a study that evaluated face recognition algorithms submitted by industry and academic developers for their ability to perform various tasks. The study evaluated 189 software algorithms submitted by 99 developers. It focuses on how well each algorithm performs one of two different tasks that are among the most common applications of face recognition.

The two tasks are “one-to-one” matching, i.e. confirming that a photo matches another photo of the same person in a database. This is used, for example, when unlocking a smartphone or checking a passport. The second task involved “one-to-many” matching, i.e. determining whether the person in the photo matches any database. This is used to identify a person of interest.

A special focus of this study was that it also looked at the performance of the individual algorithms taking demographic factors into account. For one-to-one matching, only a few previous studies examined demographic effects; for one-to-many matching, there were none.

To evaluate the algorithms, the NIST team used four photo collections containing 18.27 million images of 8.49 million people. All were taken from operational databases of the State Department, Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. The team did not use images taken directly from Internet sources such as social media or from video surveillance. The photos in the databases contained metadata information that indicated the age, gender, and either race or country of birth of the person.

The study found that the result depends ultimately on the algorithm at the heart of the system, the application that uses it, and the data it is fed with. But the majority of face recognition algorithms exhibit demographic differences. In one-to-one matching, the algorithm rated photos of two different people more often as one person if they were Asian or African-American than if they were white. In algorithms developed by Americans, the same error occurred when the person was a Native American. In contrast, algorithms developed in Asia did not show such a significant difference in one-to-one matching results between Asian and Caucasian faces. However, these results show that algorithms can be trained to achieve correct face recognition results by using a wide range of data.

Advocate General releases opinion on the validity of SCCs in case of Third Country Transfers

19. December 2019

Today, Thursday 19 of December, the European Court of Justice’s (CJEU) Advocate General Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe released his opinion on the validity of Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) in cases of personal data transfers to processors situated in third countries.

The background of the case, on which the opinion builds on, originates in the proceedings initiated by Mr. Maximillian Schrems, where he stepped up against Facebook’s business practice of transferring the personal data of its European subscribers to servers located in the United States. The case (Schrems I) led the CJEU on October 6, 2015, to invalidate the Safe Harbor arrangement, which up to that point governed data transfers between the EU and the U.S.A.

Following the ruling, Mr. Schrems decided to challenge the transfers performed on the basis of the EU SCCs, the alternative mechanism Facebook has chosen to rely on to legitimize its EU-U.S. data flows, on the basis of similar arguments to those raised in the Schrems I case. The Irish DPA brought proceedings before the Irish High Court, which referred 11 questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, the Schrems II case.

In the newly published opinion, the Advocate General validates the established SCCs in case of a commercial transfer, despite the possibility of public authorities in the third country processing the personal data for national security reasons. Furthermore, the Advocate General states that the continuity of the high level of protection is not only guaranteed by the adequacy decision of the court, but just as well by the contractual safeguards which the exporter has in place that need to match that level of protection. Therefore, the SCCs represent a general mechanism applicable to transfers, no matter the third country and its adequacy of protection. In addition, and in light of the Charter, there is an obligation for the controller as well as the supervisory authority to suspend any third country transfer if, because of a conflict between the SCCs and the laws in the third country, the SCCs cannot be complied with.

In the end, the Advocate General also clarified that the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield decision of 12 July 2016 is not part of the current proceedings, since those only cover the SCCs under Decision 2010/87, taking the questions of the validity of the Privacy Shield off the table.

While the Advocate General’s opinion is not binding, it represents the suggestion of a legal solution for cases for which the CJEU is responsible. However, the CJEU’s decision on the matter is not expected until early 2020, setting the curiosity on the outcome of the case high.

FTC reaches settlements with companies regarding Privacy Shield misrepresentations

10. December 2019

On December 3, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it had reached settlements in four different cases of Privacy Shield misrepresentation. The FTC alleged that in particular Click Labs, Inc., Incentive Services, Inc., Global Data Vault, LLC, and TDARX, Inc. each falsely claimed to have participated in the framework agreements of the EU-US Privacy Shield. According to the FTC, Global Data and TDARX continued to claim participation in the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield upon expiration of their Privacy Shield certifications. Click Labs and Incentive Services have also erroneously claimed to participate in the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework. In addition, Global Data and TDARX have violated the Privacy Shield Framework by failing to follow the annual review of whether statements about their privacy shield practices were accurate. Also, according to the complaints, they did not affirm that they would continue to apply Privacy Shield protection to personal information collected during participation in the program.

As part of the proposed settlements, each of the companies is prohibited from misrepresenting its participation in the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework or any other privacy or data security program sponsored by any government or self-regulatory or standard-setting organization. In addition, Global Data Vault and TDARX are required to continue to apply Privacy Shield protection to personal information collected during participation in the program. Otherwise, they are required to return or delete such information.

The EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks allow companies to legally transfer personal data from the EU or Switzerland to the USA. Since the framework was established in 2016, the FTC has initiated a total of 21 enforcement measures in connection with the Privacy Shield.

A description of the consent agreements is published in the Federal Register and publicly commented on for 30 days. The FTC will then decide whether the proposed consent orders are final.

USA and UK sign Cross Border Data Access Agreement for Criminal Electronic Data

10. October 2019

The United States and the United Kingdom have entered into the first of its kind CLOUD Act Data Access Agreement, which will allow both countries’ law enforcement authorities to demand authorized access to electronic data relating to serious crime. In both cases, the respective authorities are permitted to ask the tech companies based in the other country, for electronic data directly and without legal barriers.

At the base of this bilateral Agreement stands the U.S.A.’s Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act), which came into effect in March 2018. It aims to improve procedures for U.S. and foreign investigators for obtaining electronic information held by service providers in the other country. In light of the growing number of mutual legal assistance requests for electronic data from U.S. service providers, the current process for access may take up to two years. The Data Access Agreement can reduce that time considerably by allowing for a more efficient and effective access to data needed, while protecting the privacy and civil liberties of the data subjects.

The Cloud Act focuses on updating legal frameworks to respond to the growing technology in electronic communications and service systems. It further enables the U.S. and other countries to enter into a mutual executive Agreement in order to use own legal authorities to access electronic evidence in the other respective country. An Agreement of this form can only be signed by rights-respecting countries, after it has been certified by the U.S. Attorney General to the U.S. Congress that their laws have robust substansive and procedural protections for privacy and civil liberties.

The Agreement between the U.K. and the U.S.A. further assures providers that the requested disclosures are compatible with data protection laws in both respective countries.

In addition to the Agreement with the United Kingdom, there have been talks between the United States and Australia on Monday, reporting negotiations for such an Agreement between the two countries. Other negotiations have also been held between the U.S. and the European Commission, representing the European Union, in regards to a Data Access Agreement.

Category: General · UK · USA
Tags: , , , ,

CJEU rules that Right To Be Forgotten is only applicable in Europe

27. September 2019

In a landmark case on Tuesday the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that Google will not have to apply the General Data Privacy Regulation’s (GDPR) “Right to be Forgotten” to its search engines outside of the European Union. The ruling is a victory for Google in a case against a fine imposed by the french Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) in 2015 in an effort to force the company and other search engines to take down links globally.

Seeing as the internet has grown into a worldwide media net with no borders, this case is viewed as a test of wether people can demand a blanket removal of information about themselves from searches without overbearing on the principles of free speech and public interest. Around the world, it has also been perceived as a trial to see if the European Union can extend its laws beyond its own borders.

“The balance between right to privacy and protection of personal data, on the one hand, and the freedom of information of internet users, on the other, is likely to vary significantly around the world,” the court stated in its decision.The Court also expressed in the judgement that the protection of personal data is not an absolute right.

While this leads to companies not being forced to delete sensitive information on their search engines outside of the EU upon request, they must take precautions to seriously discourage internet users from going onto non-EU versions of their pages. Furthermore, companies with search engines within the EU will have to closely weigh freedom of speech against the protection of privacy, keeping the currently common case to case basis for deletion requests.

In effect, since the Right to be Forgotten had been first determined by the CJEU in 2014, Google has since received over 3,3 million deletion requests. In 45% of the cases it has complied with the delisting of links from its search engine. As it stands, even while complying with deletion requests, the delisted links within the EU search engines can still be accessed by using VPN and gaining access to non-EU search engines, circumventing the geoblocking. This is an issue to which a solution has not yet been found.

Settlement of $13 Million for Google in Street View Privacy Case

30. July 2019

In an attempt to settle a long-running litigation of a class-action case started in 2010, Google agrees to pay $13 million over claims that it violated U.S. wire-tapping laws. The issue came from vehicles used for its Street View mapping Project that captured and collected personal data from private wifi networks along the way.

Street View is a feature that lets users interact with panoramic and detailed images of locations all around the world. The legal action began when several people whose data was collected sued Google after it admitted the cars photographing neighborhoods for Street View had also gathered emails, passwords and other private information from wifi networks in more than 30 countries.

While the company was quick to call this collection of data a mistake,  investigators found out that the capture of personal data was built and embedded by Google engineers in the software of the vehicles to intentionally collect personal data from accessed networks.

The new agreement would make Google to be required to destroy any collected data via Street View, agree not to use Street View to collect personal data from wifi networks without consent, and to create webpages and instructions to explain to people how to secure their wireless content.

Google had been asked to refrain from using and collecting personal data from wifi networks in an earlier settlement in 2013, which raises questions as to why it was necessary to include it in the current settlement as well.

Category: Cyber security · General · USA
Tags: , ,

Texas amends Data Breach Notification Law

2. July 2019

The Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, recently signed the House Bill 4390 (HB 4390), which modifies the state’s current Data Breach Notification law and introduces an advisory council (“Texas Privacy Privacy Protection Advisory Council”) charged with studying data privacy laws in Texas, other states and relevant other jurisdictions.

Prior to the new amendment, businesses had to disclose Data Breaches to the Data Subjects “as quickly as possible”. Now, a concrete time period for notifying individuals whose sensitive personal information was acquired by an unauthorized person is determined by the bill. Individual notice must now be provided within 60 days after discovering the breach.

If more than 250 residents of Texas are subject to a Data Breach the Texas Attorney General must also be notified within 60 days. Such a notification must include:
– A detailed description of the nature and circumstances of the data breach;
– The number of the affected residents at that time;
– The measures taken regarding the breach and any measures the responsible person intends to take after the notification;
– Information on whether the law enforcement is engaged in investigating the breach.

The amendments take effect on January, 1 2020.

Category: General · USA
Tags: , ,

Consumers should know how much their data is worth

27. June 2019

US Senators Mark R. Warner (Democrats) and Josh Hawley (Republicans) want to know from Facebook, Google and Co. exactly how much the data of their users, measured in dollars and cents, is worth to them.

Last Sunday, the two senators announced their intention for the first time in a US talk show: Every three months, each user is to receive an overview of which data has been collected and stored and how the respective provider rates it. In addition, the aggregated value of all user data is to be reported annually to the US Securities and Exchange Commission. In this report, the companies are to disclose how they store, process and protect data and how and with which partner companies they generate sales with the data. All companies with more than 100 million users per month will be affected.

The value of user data has risen enormously in recent years; so far, companies have protected their internal calculations as company secrets. In addition, there is no recognized method for quantifying the value of user data; only when a company is sold or valued by means of an initial public offering (IPO) does it become obvious. In the case of the WhatsApp takeover it was  $ 55 per user, in the case of Skype it was $ 200.

But one can doubt the significance of these figures. A further indication can be the advertising revenues, which are disclosed by companies per quarter. At the end of 2018, Facebook earned around $6 per user worldwide, while Amazon earned $752 per user. These figures are likely to rise in the future.  “For years, social media companies have told consumers that their products are free to the user. But that’s not true – you are paying with your data instead of your wallet,” said Senator Warner. “But the overall lack of transparency and disclosure in this market have made it impossible for users to know what they’re giving up, who else their data is being shared with, or what it’s worth to the platform. […]” Experts believe it is important for consumers to know the value of their data, because only when you know the value of a good you are able to value it.

On Monday, Warner and Rawley plan to introduce the  Designing Accounting Safeguards to Help Broaden Oversight And Regulations on Data (DASHBOARD) Act to the parliament for its first reading. It remains to be seen whether their plans will meet with the approval of the other senators.

Pages: 1 2 Next
1 2