In the last month both Vermont and Connecticut updated their existing breach notification statutes, highlighting the need to closely monitor state legislatures, particularly end of session happenings. Each modification highlights the growing trend of states requiring notification to the state's attorney general, under often new compressed timeframes.
Nowadays, a news story on privacy is out of place if it doesn't mention Do-Not-Track (known as "DNT") or Big Data. While these hot topics represent key concerns for privacy professionals, advocates and regulators, there is no clear agreement on what they mean or how to address the privacy issues they raise. In this post, we consider recent developments on these topics, including how the Federal Trade Commission has sought to focus on and connect these new issues.DNT or DNC DNT is in the midst of a multi-faceted identity crisis, starting with a disagreement over the definition of DNT. Self-regulatory organizations and the advertising industry assert that DNT stands for "Do Not Target," referring to the use of consumer data for the purposes of targeted advertising. The FTC, buoyed by privacy advocates, appears to take the view that DNT means not only "Do Not Target" but also "Do Not Collect" (DNC). FTC Commissioner Brill elaborated at the 2012 IAPP Summit that she doesn't view the current DNT efforts as entirely sufficient because the choice DNT offers does not give consumers appropriate protection against what Brill characterized as "limitless, unmitigated" data collection. But Brill does not argue for wholesale implementation of DNC, and has indicated that the details of the implementation of DNT/DNC will continue to remain a key focus for the FTC.
Google's new privacy policy (and its plans to create user profiles across multiple online services) has drawn fire from European data protection authorities. Online and mobile retailers and service providers should take account of a renewed emphasis on transparency and proportionality in collecting data about users.
The conditions for transborder data flows may become more uniform in the EU under the proposed Data Protection Regulation, but restrictions on foreign data transfers are now appearing in new data privacy laws and regulations in several regions of the world, posing global compliance challenges.
As 2011 is coming to a close, many of us are thinking about what 2012 will bring. With regard to privacy, there are numerous key issues to choose from (and I am sure many privacy professionals would add to this list) - but from a corporate compliance standpoint, here are my top five picks for hot topics to address in 2012:
On July 20, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee's Trade Subcommittee approved the Secure and Fortify Electronic Data Act (the "SAFE Data Act"). The Act would require any business that maintains personal information to implement an information security program and notify affected individuals in the event of an information security breach. The SAFE Data Act would preempt the over 45 existing state information security and breach notification laws and task the Federal Trade Commission with developing information security rules implementing the Act.
InfoLawGroup LLP is delighted to welcome to the firm partners Justine Young Gottshall and Jamie Rubin. Gottshall and Rubin are former partners at Wildman, Harrold Allen & Dixon in Chicago. As nationally-recognized leaders in Digital, Media, Advertising, Privacy and Promotions law, they bring new depth to InfoLawGroup's practice.
On May 16, 2011, EU's Article 29 Working Party (WP29) adopted an opinion setting out privacy compliance guidance for mobile geolocation services.WP29 is comprised of representatives from the EU member states' data protection authorities (DPAs), the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Commission. WP29's mandate includes (i) giving expert advice to the EU member states regarding the implementation of European data protection directives, and (ii) promoting uniform implementation of the directives in all EU state members as well as in Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. WP29's opinions, therefore, carry significant weight in the interpretation and enforcement of data protection laws by European DPAs. Not surprisingly, WP29 has concluded that geolocation data is "personal data" subject to the protections of the European data protection framework, including the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. The Working Party also determined that the collection, use and other processing of geolocation data through mobile devices generally requires explicit, informed consent of the individual. Below are the highlights of the opinion.
Mr. Kwang Hyun Ryoo, a partner at the Korean law firm of Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, is reporting in the firm's newsletter that on March 29, 2011, Korea enacted a comprehensive personal data protection law, entitled Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). Most of the act's provisions will come into force on September 30, 2011.
The UK Information Commissioner's Office announces new rules for website cookies, which will normally require explicit user consent.
On May 10, 2011, the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law held a hearing on mobile privacy. We covered the hearing in detail on our blog. Yesterday, InfoLawGroup partner Boris Segalis spoke with Fox Live's Tracy Byrnes about the balance between business and consumer interests that mobile privacy implicates.The clip from the interview is available on Fox at http://video.foxnews.com/v/4689248/the-congressional-mobile-privacy-hearing/?playlist_id=86861