On November 14, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”) released for public comment its draft Regulations on Network Data Security Management (the “Draft Regulations”). The Draft Regulations are intended to implement portions of three existing laws – the Cybersecurity Law (“CSL”), the Data Security Law (“DSL”) and the Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”) (together, the “Three Laws”) – by providing guidance on certain provisions and establishing specific requirements for implementing certain principles contemplated in the Three Laws. In addition, the Draft Regulations add new requirements related to data processing activities. Once effective, the Draft Regulations will impose even greater compliance obligations on companies than the PIPL.
The Draft Regulations consist of 75 articles and nine chapters. In this blog post, we discuss several of the key areas addressed by the Draft Regulations.
Scope of Jurisdiction
The exterritorial scope under the Draft Regulations is much broader than that under the Three Laws. The Draft Regulations will apply to the following two scenarios:
- If the network data processing activity occurs in China; and
- If the network data processing activity occurs outside of China but relates to individuals and organizations in China, if the purpose of the processing is to:
-
- offer goods or services in China;
- monitor and evaluate the activities of individuals and organizations in China;
- process “important data” located in China; or
- comply with any conditions under other Chinese law and regulation.
Data Handler and Entrusted Party
The definition of “data handler” under the Draft Regulations is similar to that of “data controller” in other privacy laws, such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). While the GDPR distinguishes between a data controller, who determines the means and purposes of processing personal data, and a data processor, who processes personal data on behalf of the controller, the Draft Regulations do not formally define the concept of a data processor. Under the Draft Regulations, when a data handler entrusts a third party to process personal information on behalf of the data handler, this third party will be referred to as the “entrusted party” or the “contracting party.”
Data Classification and the Multi-Level Protection Scheme
Under the Draft Regulations, data is categorized as (1) general data, (2) important data or (3) core data, depending on the data’s impact and degree of importance to national security and public interests. Consistent with the CSL and DSL, the Draft Regulations will require these categories of data to be protected based on China’s Multi-Level Protection Scheme (“MLPS”), which mandates data security standards for different classifications of data. For example, data handlers will be required to implement security measures (e.g., data back-ups, encryption, access controls) and strengthen protections around their data processing systems, transmission networks and storage environments, based on the MLPS.
Data Breach
Unlike the Three Laws, the Draft Regulations specify precise timelines in which data handlers must notify affected individuals and regulators in the event of a data breach. Specifically, the Draft Regulations will require data handlers to notify affected individuals of a data breach – including the potential risks and damages associated with the breach and the remedial measures taken by the data handler – within three business days of the breach. If the data handler is unable to notify affected individuals directly, it may publish public notice of the breach. The Draft Regulations also will require the data handler to report a data breach to the Public Security Bureau if the breach involves a suspected crime.
If a data breach involves “important data” of more than 100,000 individuals, the data handler will be required to also notify the CAC or the competent authority in charge:
- within eight hours after the data breach. This notification must include the (1) number of affected parties, (2) type of breach, (3) potential impact of the breach and (4) enacted or proposed remedial measures; and
- within five business days after completing an investigation into the breach. With this notification, the data handler must provide an investigation report that includes, g., the (1) cause of the breach, (2) any harm caused by the breach and (3) measures that the data handler may take to protect against future breaches.
Records Retention When Transferring Data to Third Parties
Though the PIPL was silent on this topic, the Draft Regulations will require data handlers to maintain records of individuals’ consent and logs of personal data transfers. In addition, records or logs regarding sharing, trading or selling of “important data” must be maintained at least five years.
Cybersecurity Review
The Draft Regulations clarify the conditions that trigger a cybersecurity review required by the CSL. Under the Draft Regulations, a cybersecurity review will be required:
- before an online platform that collects and holds a large amount of data related to national security, economic development and public interests undergoes a merger, restructuring or dissolution that affects or potentially affects national security;
- before a data handler that processes over one million individuals’ personal data is publicly listed in another country;
- if the public listing of a data handler in Hong Kong affects or potentially affects national security (though how this is to be assessed is unclear under the Draft Regulations); and
- for other matters that affect or potentially affect national security.
Separately, if an online platform establishes a headquarters, operation center or research center outside of China, the platform (i.e., the data handler) will be required to report to the CAC or competent authority in charge.
Complaint Reporting
Expanding on the complaint channels required under the PIPL, the Draft Regulations also will require data handlers to publicly disclose on an annual basis (1) the number of complaints it receives; (2) the circumstances of the complaints; and (3) the data handler’s average response time when handling a complaint.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott H. Kimpel
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code