California's infamous SB 1386 (California Civil Code sections 1798.29 and 1798.82) was the very first security breach notification law in the nation in 2002, and nearly every state followed suit. Many states added their own new twists and variations on the theme - new triggers for notification requirements, regulator notice requirements, and content requirements for the notices themselves. Over the years, the California Assembly and Senate have passed numerous bills aimed at amending California's breach notification law to add a regulator notice provision and to require the inclusion of certain content. However, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills on multiple occasions, at least three times. Earlier this year, State Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) introduced Senate Bill 24, again attempting to enact such changes. Yesterday, August 31, 2011, Governor Brown signed SB 24 into law.
On December 1, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission issued a preliminary report entitled "Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change, A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers". The report proposes a framework to balance the privacy interests of consumers with innovation that relies on consumer information to develop beneficial new products and services.
Many of you probably read earlier this month that California's Office of Administrative Law approved the California Department of Insurance's proposal to repeal certain privacy regulations. The California changes actually have greater significance than may be apparent on a quick glance. Although rarely noted in the media coverage, State insurance privacy regulations across the country (not just in California) find their roots in the federal Gramm Leach Bliley Act, so California's decision to make such changes provides a helpful illustration of the extraordinarily complex and confusing web of privacy regulation that governs even small organizations in this country. Also, California's move with respect to these changes contravenes the conventional wisdom that California is a renegade pro-consumer state when it comes to privacy regulation. Many of our followers have asked me to break down this newest California development, so here goes.
We recently published the first part of our FAQ series on Congressman Bobby Rush's new data privacy bill known as "Building Effective Strategies to Promote Responsibility Accountability Choice Transparency Innovation Consumer Expectations and Safeguards Act (a.k.a. "BEST PRACTICES Act" or "Act"). In Part One we looked at some of the key definitions and requirements concerning transparency, notice and individual choice, mandates around accuracy, access and dispute resolution, and finally data security and data minimization requirements under the Act. Part Two will focus on the "Safe Harbor" outlined in the Act, various exemptions for de-identified information and application and enforcement.
Congressman Bobby Rush has introduced a new data privacy bill to Congress known as the "Building Effective Strategies to Promote Responsibility Accountability Choice Transparency Innovation Consumer Expectations and Safeguards" Act (a.k.a. "BEST PRACTICES Act" or "Act").We have put together a summary of the Act in "FAQ" format. In Part One we look at some of the key definitions, requirements concerning transparency, notice and individual choice, mandates around accuracy, access and dispute resolution, and finally data security and data minimization requirements under the Act. Part Two will focus on the "Safe Harbor" outlined in the Act, various exemptions for deidentified information, and provisions concerning the application and enforcement of the Act.
This blogpost is the third (and final) in our series analyzing the terms of Google's and Computer Science Corporation's ("CSC") cloud contracts with the City of Los Angeles. In Part One, we looked at the information security, privacy and confidentiality obligations Google and CSC agreed to. In Part Two, the focus was on terms related to compliance with privacy and security laws, audit and enforcement of security obligations, incident response, and geographic processing limitations, and termination rights under the contracts. In Part Three, we analyze what might be the most important data security/privacy-related terms of a Cloud contract (or any contract for that matter), the risk of loss terms. This is a very long post looking at very complex and interrelated contract terms. If you have any questions feel free to email me at dnavetta@infolawgroup.com
In early May, Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) introduced a long anticipated "discussion draft" of a bill "[t]o require notice to and consent of an individual prior to the collection and disclosure of certain personal information relating to that individual." You have probably heard that industry and consumer groups alike are not happy with the discussion draft. What exactly is the Boucher Bill and what would it mean for almost every company engaged in the collection, use or disclosure of personal information (not just companies engaged in online behavioral advertising)? Following is a FAQ. Comments on the draft legislation are due June 4 (mark your calendars).
In honor of Data Privacy Day and its spirit of education, I thought it might be appropriate (and fun) to celebrate some (but certainly not all) of the A, B, Cs of Data Privacy. Would love to see your contributions, too!
In the last post, I talked about the role of encryption in fashioning a "reasonable" security plan for sensitive personal information and other protected data routinely collected, stored, and used by an enterprise. But lawmakers and regulators are getting more specific about using encryption and managing data that is risky from an ID-theft perspective. Here are some leading examples of this trend.