Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

A draft document, entitled Information Security Technology - Guidelines for Personal Information Protection, has been issued in China for comment.  While comments are being solicited at this time, if issued in its proposed form, this document has the potential to add significantly to the rules governing the handling of personal information in China.  Read More...

On February 24, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) announced a $1,000,000 Resolution Agreement with the General Hospital Corporation and Massachusetts General Physicians Organization Inc. (“Mass General”) that stemmed from the loss of protected health information (“PHI”) of 192 patients.  A Mass General employee had left hard-copy records containing PHI on the subway in March 2009.  The records originated from Mass General’s Infectious Disease Associates outpatient practice and included sensitive records discussing patients’ treatments for HIV/AIDS.  After receiving a complaint from an affected patient, OCR conducted an investigation that demonstrated that Mass General had “failed to implement reasonable, appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of PHI when removed from Mass General’s premises and impermissibly disclosed PHI potentially violating provisions of the HIPAA Privacy Rule.”

The Government of India’s Ministry of Communications & Information Technology has published three draft rules that would implement the Information Technology Act, 2000. These include: Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Information; Due Diligence Observed by Intermediaries Guidelines and Guidelines for Cyber Cafe. The first two of these rules could affect international companies that provide digital services or process data in India. The comment period on the rules ends February 28, 2011.

On February 18, 2011, the European Network and Information Security Agency (“ENISA”), an advisory body created to enhance information security in the EU, announced the issuance of its report on cookies, entitled “Bittersweet cookies.  Some security and privacy considerations.”

On February 22, 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) imposed its first civil money penalty for an entity’s violation of HIPAA’s Privacy Rule.  In its Notice of Final Determination, OCR concluded that Cignet Health withheld patient records despite requests for their disclosure.  Of the $4.3 million penalty, $1.3 million was levied for denying patients access to their own medical records, while an additional $3 million was imposed due to Cignet’s failure to cooperate with OCR’s investigation as required by the Privacy Rule.  Increased penalty amounts were authorized by Section 13410(d) of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the “HITECH” Act).

In our August 2009 blog post on data protection issues in China, we noted that there was no uniform Chinese law that specifically addresses the protection of personal data, and that it seemed likely that Chinese personal information protection law would continue to develop as a patchwork of piecemeal regulations. This remains true today, and developments since our previous article was published have in fact reinforced this assumption. In the past year and a half, new laws affecting personal information protection in China have arisen in various forms, including a consumer ...

On February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. that ZIP codes are “personal identification information” under the state’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (the “Credit Card Act”).  This finding effectively prohibits California businesses from requesting and recording cardholders’ ZIP codes during credit card transactions.

Reporting from Israel, legal consultant Dr. Omer Tene writes:

In a sweeping, 91-page decision issued last week, the Israeli National Labor Court severely restricted employers’ ability to monitor employee emails.  In its opinion, the Court made strong statements concerning the suspect nature of employee consent and mandated the implementation of principles of legitimacy, transparency, proportionality, purpose limitation, access, accuracy, confidentiality and security.  The Court stated that, given the constitutional status of the right to privacy, exemptions to the Privacy Protection Act, 1981, must be interpreted narrowly.

On February 8, 2011, the German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information issued a concept paper setting forth concrete suggestions for the creation of a Data Protection Foundation (the “Foundation”). The German government has reserved a budget of €10 million to establish the Foundation, which it plans to do in 2011.

On February 10, 2011, Representative Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) re-introduced the BEST PRACTICES Act (H.R. 611), which aims to provide consumers with meaningful choices about the collection, use and disclosure of their personal information. As we reported last year, Rush initially introduced the BEST PRACTICES Act in July 2010.  H.R. 611 contains no substantive changes to the original legislation (H.R. 5777), and does not include a Do Not Track mechanism.

In a press release issued today, Rush stated that he does not oppose Do Not Track, contending that “[i]n fact, in order for ...

On February 11, 2011, Representative Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) introduced two pieces of legislation that, in her words, “send a clear message—privacy over profit.” The Do Not Track Me Online Act of 2011 (HR 654), would direct the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate regulations that establish standards for a “Do Not Track” mechanism. The regulations also would require covered entities to disclose their information practices to consumers, and to respect consumers’ choices regarding the collection and use of their information. The bill includes a provision that would allow the FTC to exempt from its regulations certain “commonly accepted commercial practices” such as using consumer information to provide and improve products and services, to comply with law, or to carry out basic business functions like accounting, quality assurance or internal auditing.

For the fourth consecutive time, Hunton & Williams LLP was named the top firm for privacy by Computerworld in its 2010 report on “Best Privacy Advisers.”  The survey of more than 4,000 global corporate privacy leaders ranked Hunton & Williams #1 overall, citing the firm’s extensive experience and global presence.  Computerworld reported that, “Hunton [& Williams] attracted more than twice as many votes as its nearest challenger.”  In a breakdown by focus categories, Hunton & Williams also received top honors from respondents working in the financial services and ...

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) has issued draft Guidelines on Security and Privacy in Public Cloud Computing (SP 800-144) (the “Guidelines”) for public comment. The Guidelines provide an overview of the security and privacy challenges pertinent to public cloud computing, and identify considerations for organizations outsourcing data, applications and infrastructure to a public cloud environment. The Guidelines are intended for use by federal agencies. Use in nongovernmental settings is voluntary.

On February 3, 2011, the German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information issued a press release announcing that it has approved the privacy policy formulated by Deutsche Post DHL.  This allows Deutsche Post DHL to transfer personal data abroad in accordance with its privacy policy without having to obtain approval in individual cases.  Deutsche Post DHL is the first German company to have its binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) approved at the European level, following an extensive consultation process among EU data protection authorities.

Reporting from Israel, legal consultant Dr. Omer Tene writes:

The Israeli Law, Information and Technology Authority (“ILITA”) has issued a new instruction (the “Instruction”) restricting financial institutions from using information concerning writs of execution issued against clients’ property.  Pursuant to the Instruction, if a bank or insurance company finds out that a client’s account has become subject to a writ of execution, such information may not be used to deny the client credit or to adjust the rate of his or her insurance premiums.  Information regarding writs of execution may be used only to carry out the writ.  ILITA’s Instruction is based on the purpose limitation provisions in the Israeli Privacy Protection Act, 1981, as well as a specific section in the Execution of Judgments Act, 1967.

Reporting from Israel, legal consultant Dr. Omer Tene writes:

On January 31, 2011, the European Commission formally approved Israel’s status as a country providing “adequate protection” for personal data under the European Data Protection Directive.  The decision is restricted to automated international data transfers from the EU, as well as to non-automated data transfers that are subject to further automated processing in Israel.  It will allow unrestricted transfers of personal data from the EU to Israel, for example between corporate affiliates or from European companies to data centers in Israel.