Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On February 5, 2015, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) published a letter that responds to a request of the European Commission to clarify the scope of the definition of health data in connection with lifestyle and wellbeing apps. In the annex to this letter, the Working Party identifies criteria to determine when personal data qualifies as “health data,” a special category of data receiving enhanced protection under the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (the “Directive”). The Working Party further discusses the current legal regime for the processing of such health data and provides its view on the requirements for further processing of health data for historical, statistical and scientific research under the Directive. The letter also includes the Working Party’s recommendations for the regime that should be provided in the proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”).

On January 12, 2015, the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (“ENISA”) published a report on Privacy and Data Protection by Design - from policy to engineering (the “Report”). The “privacy by design” principle emphasizes the development of privacy protections at the early stages of the product or service development process, rather than at later stages. Although the principle has found its way into some proposed legislation (e.g., the proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation), its concrete implementation remains presently unclear. Hence, the Report aims to promote a discussion on how the principle can be implemented concretely and effectively with the help of engineering methods.

On October 9, 2014, the 88th Conference of the German Data Protection Commissioners concluded in Hamburg. This biannual conference provides a private forum for all German state data protection authorities (“DPAs”) and the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information to share their views on current data protection issues, discuss relevant cases and adopt resolutions aimed at harmonizing how data protection law is applied across Germany. During the conference, several resolutions concerning privacy were adopted.

On July 30, 2014, the European Commission announced two new EU standards to help users of Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”) smart chips and systems comply with both EU data protection requirements and the European Commission’s 2009 Recommendation on RFID. Among other suggestions, the Recommendation discussed the development of a common European symbol or logo to indicate whether a product uses a smart chip. One of the new standards will provide companies with a framework for the design and display of such a logo. The logo will inform consumers of the presence of RFID chips (for example, when using electronic travel passes or purchasing items with RFID tags). The Commission reiterated that such smart chips should be deactivated by default immediately, and free of charge, at the point of sale.

In response to increasing interest in a “risk-based” approach among privacy experts, including policymakers working on the proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) published a statement on the role of a risk-based approach in data protection legal frameworks (the “Statement”).

On April 16, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) sent a letter (the “Letter”) to Lilian Mitrou, Chair of the Working Group on Information Exchange and Data Protection (the “DAPIX”) of the Council of the European Union, to support a compromise position on the one-stop-shop mechanism within the proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”).

On February 25, 2014, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published an updated code of practice on conducting privacy impact assessments (“PIAs”) (the “Code”). The updated Code takes into account the ICO’s consultation and research project on the conduct of PIAs, and reflects the increased use of PIAs in practice.

In December 2013, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) issued non-binding guidance aimed at app developers (the “Guidance”). The Guidance applies to all types of mobile devices, including smart TVs and video game consoles.

On December 2, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it will host a series of seminars to examine the privacy implications of three new areas of technology used to track, market to and analyze consumers: mobile device tracking, predictive scoring and consumer-generated health data. The seminars will address (1) businesses tracking consumers using signals from the consumers’ mobile devices, (2) the use of predictive scoring to determine consumers’ access to products and offers, and (3) consumer-generated information provided to non-HIPAA covered websites and apps. The FTC stated that the intention of the seminars is to bring attention to new trends in big data and their impact on consumer privacy.

On February 12, 2013, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office published a further analysis of the European Commission’s proposed General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”). This latest analysis supplements the initial analysis paper on the Proposed Regulation published on February 27, 2012. Although the general views expressed in its initial paper stand, the ICO has now provided greater detail regarding its views of the substantive provisions of the Proposed Regulation.

On March 8, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission issued a staff report entitled Paper, Plastic… or Mobile? An FTC Workshop on Mobile Payments (the “Report”). The Report is based on a workshop held by the FTC in April 2012 and highlights key consumer and privacy issues resulting from the increasingly widespread use of mobile payments.

Although the FTC recognizes the benefits of mobile payments, such as ease and convenience for consumers and potentially lower transaction costs for merchants, the Report notes three areas of concern with the mobile payments system: (1) dispute resolution, (2) data security and (3) privacy.

On December 10, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission issued a new report, Mobile Apps for Kids: Disclosures Still Not Making the Grade, which follows up on the FTC’s February 2012 report, Mobile Apps for Kids: Current Privacy Disclosures are Disappointing. The FTC conducted a follow-up survey regarding pre-download mobile app privacy disclosures, and whether those disclosures accurately describe what occurs during use of the apps.

On October 22, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission released a report entitled “Facing Facts: Best Practices for Common Uses of Facial Recognition Technologies.” The report focuses on privacy concerns associated with facial recognition technology, which is becoming increasingly ubiquitous across a variety of commercial applications ranging from search engines to video games to password authentication.

On September 5, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission issued guidelines for mobile app developers entitled “Marketing Your Mobile App: Get It Right from the Start.” The guidelines are largely a distillation of the FTC’s previously expressed views on a range of topics that have relevance to the mobile app space. They are summarized below:

• Best practices for privacy disclosures on mobile platforms and how they can be short, effective and accessible to consumers;
• how to put disclosures in proximity to offers on mobile platforms;
• social media disclosures; and
• the placement of material information on webpages.

On May 3, 2012, Viviane Reding, Justice Commissioner and European Commission Vice-President, delivered a speech during the European data protection authorities’ (“DPAs’”) Spring Conference, which was held in closed sessions in Luxembourg. In her speech, Commissioner Reding discussed how the proposed EU Data Protection Regulation aimed to empower the DPAs and addressed some of the DPAs’ primary concerns with the reform.

On March 23, 2012, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted an Opinion on the European Commission’s data protection law reform proposals, including the draft Regulation that is of particular importance for businesses. The Working Party’s Opinion serves as the national data protection authorities’ contribution to the legislative process before the European Parliament and the European Council.

On March 26, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission issued a new privacy report entitled “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers.” The report charts a path forward for companies to act in the interest of protecting consumer privacy.

In his introductory remarks, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz indicated his support for Do Not Track stating, “Simply put, your computer is your property; no one has the right to put anything on it that you don’t want.” In later comments he predicted that if effective Do Not Track mechanisms are not available by the end of this year, the new Congress likely would introduce a legislative solution.

On January 25, 2012, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published an initial statement welcoming the European Commission’s proposed new General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”), and commended the Commission’s efforts to strengthen the rights of individuals, recognize important privacy concepts such as privacy by design and privacy impact assessments, and include accountability requirements.

On January 25, 2012, the European Commission released a data protection law reform package, including its proposed General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”). The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) has reacted positively to the Proposed Regulation, in particular commending efforts to strengthen the rights of individuals, the recognition of important privacy concepts such as privacy by design and privacy impact assessments, and new accountability requirements to ensure organizations properly demonstrate and document their data protection safeguards and procedures.

On November 2, 2011, following welcome comments by Federal Institute for Access to Information and Data Protection (“IFAI”) Commissioner Jacqueline Peschard, the 33rd International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners opened in Mexico City with an examination of the phenomenon of “Big Data” as a definer of a new economic era. In a wide-ranging presentation, Kenneth Neil Cukier of the Economist drew into clear relief the possibilities and problems associated with combining vast stores of data and powerful analytics. He highlighted the growing ability to correlate seemingly unrelated data sets to predict behavior, reveal trends, enhance product performance and safety and derive meaning. In his remarks Cukier noted that, in an era of Big Data, much of the decision-making about data collection and use goes beyond traditional notions of privacy, touching on ethics and free will. Noting that the printing press led to the development of free speech laws, he left open the question of how Big Data may change the legal landscape.

On September 19, 2011, Privacy Piracy host Mari Frank interviewed Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of the Global Privacy and Data Security practice at Hunton & Williams LLP, on KUCI 88.9 FM radio in Irvine, California.  In the interview, Ms. Sotto discussed critical current privacy and data security issues, including lessons learned from the recent data breaches, the regulatory framework in the U.S. and EU, and expected legislative changes in the privacy arena globally.

Listen to the Privacy Piracy interview.

On June 28, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission convened a public education forum entitled “Helping Consumers Harness the Potential of Location-Based Services.”  Representatives of telecommunications carriers, technology companies and consumer advocacy organizations discussed technological developments and how best to realize the benefits of location-based services without compromising privacy.

On June 15, 2011, European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) Peter Hustinx gave a press conference to present his annual report for 2010.  The annual report provides an overview of the EDPS’ main activities in 2010 and sets forth key priorities and challenges for the future.

In his speech, Hustinx focused primarily on the review of the EU data protection framework and the Data Retention Directive.  He referenced his recent Opinion in which he concluded that the Data Retention Directive does not meet general EU data protection requirements and that the European Commission should explore the possibility of replacing it with alternative measures such as data preservation through a “quick freeze” procedure.  Hustinx also stated his intention to keep a close eye on any developments with respect to RFID technology, cloud computing and online enforcement of intellectual property rights.

On April 4, 2011, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) issued an Opinion to clarify the legal framework applicable to smart metering technology in the energy sector (the “Opinion”).

Smart meters are digital meters that record energy consumption and enable two-way remote communication with the wider network for purposes such as monitoring and billing, and to forecast energy demand.  Smart meters are intended to allow the industry to better regulate energy supply, and to help individuals reduce consumption.  According to the Working Party, however, the analysis and exchange of smart metering information has the potential to be privacy-invasive.

On April 12, 2011, U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011 (the “Act”) to “establish a regulatory framework for the comprehensive protection of personal data for individuals under the aegis of the Federal Trade Commission.”  The bill applies broadly to entities that collect, use, transfer or store the “covered information” of more than 5,000 individuals over a consecutive 12-month period.  Certain provisions of the bill would direct the FTC to initiate rulemaking proceedings within specified timeframes, but the bill also imposes requirements directly on covered entities.

On March 30, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Google agreed to settle charges that it used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy promises to consumers when it launched its social network, Google Buzz, in 2010.  According to the FTC’s complaint (main document, exhibits), Google led Gmail users to believe that they could choose whether or not they wanted to join Google Buzz.  The options for declining or leaving Google Buzz, however, were ineffective.  For those who joined Google Buzz, the controls for limiting the sharing of their personal information were difficult to locate and confusing.  Furthermore, the FTC charged that Google violated its privacy policies by using information provided for Gmail for another purpose – social networking – without obtaining consumers’ permission in advance.  Finally, the FTC alleged that Google misrepresented that it was treating personal information from the European Union in accordance with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework because it failed to give consumers notice and choice before using their information for a different purpose from that for which it was collected.

The Council of the European Union (the “Council”) released its conclusions following meetings held on February 24 and 25, 2011, regarding the European Commission’s November 4, 2010 Communication proposing “a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union” which we reported on last November.

On January 17, 2011, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP (the “Centre”) released a response to the European Commission’s consultation paper, “A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union.”  In its response, prepared by Richard Thomas, former UK Information Commissioner and Global Strategy Advisor of the Centre, the Centre calls for a modernized European framework for data protection that addresses the realities of the digital age.

Earlier this month, the Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) published its December 15, 2010 Recommendation on Mobile Mapping (Recommandation d’initiative en matière de Mobile Mapping, or “the Recommendation”).  The Recommendation defines Mobile Mapping as “technology by which a vehicle equipped with a camera and/or a scanner can digitally record all data on a specific road, including by taking 360° photos.”  The scope of the Recommendation covers not only applications such as Google Street View, but also other types of Mobile Mapping such as mapping by public authorities, mapping for tourism, real estate applications and GPS navigation mapping.

On December 1, 2010, the European Parliament hosted a Privacy Platform on the European Commission’s recent Communication proposing “a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union,” which is aimed at modernizing the current EU data protection framework.

The panel, hosted by European Parliament Member Sophie in ‘t Veld, included:

• The Head of Cabinet of the European Commission’s Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, Martin Selmayr (in Commissioner Viviane Reding’s absence);
• The Chairman of the Article 29 Working Party, Jacob Kohnstamm; and
• The European Data Protection Supervisor, Peter Hustinx.

The Platform was very well attended, bringing together a wide range of stakeholders from both the public and private sectors.

On December 1, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission released its long-awaited report on online privacy entitled “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers.”  Observers expected the report to address the concept of privacy by design, the burdens placed on consumers to read and understand privacy notices and make privacy choices, the provision of individual access to personal data and the rights of consumers with respect to Internet tracking.  The FTC report introduces a privacy framework to “establish certain common assumptions and bedrock protections on which both consumers and businesses can rely as they engage in commerce.”  It includes the following elements:

David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Division of Consumer Protection, this morning previewed the long-awaited FTC report that sums up months of discussion regarding the future of privacy regulation in the United States and examines the viability of a Do Not Track mechanism.  Vladeck indicated at the Consumer Watchdog Policy Conference that the existing privacy framework in the U.S. is not keeping pace with new technologies.  In addition, he stated that the pace of industry self-regulation, while constructive, has been too slow.  According to Vladeck, the report will address several major themes, including the following:

On November 4, 2010, the European Commission (the “Commission”) released a draft version of its Communication proposing “a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union” (the “Communication”) with a view to modernizing the EU legal system for the protection of personal data.  The Communication is the result of the Commission’s review of the current legal framework (i.e., Directive 95/46/EC), which started with a high-level conference in Brussels in May 2009, followed by a public consultation and additional targeted stakeholders’ consultations throughout 2010.  Although the Commission considers the core principles of the Directive to still be valid, the Communication equally acknowledges that the existing legal framework for data protection in the European Union is no longer able to meet the challenges of rapid technological developments and globalization.

On October 7, 2010, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) released its first comprehensive handbook on the security of personal data (the “Guidance”).  The Guidance follows the CNIL’s “10 tips for the security of your information system” issued on October 12, 2009, which were based on the CNIL’s July 21, 1981 recommendations regarding security measures applicable to information systems.

The Guidance reiterates that data controllers have an obligation under French law to take “useful precautions” given the nature of the data and the risks associated with processing the data, to ensure data security and, in particular, prevent any alteration or damage, or access by non-authorized third parties (Article 34 of the French Data Protection Act).  Failure to comply with this requirement is punishable by up to five years imprisonment or a fine of €300,000.

David Vladeck, the head of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, shared his vision for consumer privacy protection with an audience at the IAPP’s Privacy Academy on September 30, 2010.  Mr. Vladeck began by reminding the audience that the FTC is aggressively enforcing on privacy and data security matters, having brought 29 cases to date.  Where possible, the FTC joins forces with other federal regulators, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, to seek broad relief that the FTC could not otherwise get on its own.  Mr. Vladeck indicated that the FTC also works closely with the states, citing a recent case in which the FTC filed concurrent settlements with 36 state attorneys general.  Mr. Vladeck stated that the FTC plans to continue to bring cases to ensure that companies “reasonably” safeguard information.

Mr. Vladeck noted three key areas for future enforcement.  The FTC will (1) bring more cases involving “pure” privacy, i.e., cases involving practices that attempt to circumvent consumers’ understanding of a company’s information practices and consumer choices; (2) focus enforcement efforts on new technologies (Mr. Vladeck noted that, to assist staff attorneys in bringing these sorts of cases, the FTC has hired technologists to assist and also have created mobile labs to respond to the proliferation of smart phones and mobile apps); and (3) increase international cooperation on privacy issues (Mr. Vladeck cited the FTC’s recently-announced participation in the Global Privacy Enforcement Network).

On April 19, 2010, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart, and the heads of nine other international data protection authorities took part in an unprecedented collaboration by issuing a strongly worded letter of reproach to Google’s Chief Executive Officer, Eric Schmidt.  The joint letter, which was also signed by data protection officials from France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom, highlighted growing international concern that “the privacy rights of the world’s citizens are being forgotten as Google rolls out new technological applications.”

In 1980, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) first published privacy guidelines that included an accountability principle.  Since that time, little work has been done to define accountability or to describe what it means for organizations to be accountable for the responsible use and protection of data.  In an effort to fill that gap, The Centre for Information Policy Leadership has authored “Data Protection Accountability: The Essential Elements” which articulates the conditions organizations would have to meet to be accountable.  The Accountability paper is the result of the Galway Accountability Project, an initiative facilitated by Ireland’s Office of the Data Protection Commissioner and co-sponsored by the OECD.  As the project’s secretariat, the Centre served as principal drafter of the Accountability paper, which considers the concept of accountability as it applies in the current data environment where data collection and use is ubiquitous, data flows are difficult or impossible to track, and jurisdictional issues abound as data crosses national borders.  The Galway Project enlisted specialists from twelve countries, and the participation of privacy protection agencies from Europe, Asia and North America.  Consumer advocates and business representatives also took part.  The Accountability paper will bring a critical international perspective to the dialogue on changing privacy law in Europe, the United States and Canada.