Dave, Scott and I recently spoke with Nymity about the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011 introduced by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) last Tuesday. You can read the interview here. We provide a general summary of the bill and identify some of the key challenges organizations will face if the bill becomes law.
The FTC's December 2010 release of its much anticipated Privacy Framework included the typical public comment period, which ended in February. We've reviewed each of the 442 separate comments received by the FTC during the comment period to uncover the themes, trends and thoughts raised by the Framework. The result is added perspective into what the FTC will be weighing in its future versions and any resulting recommendations for additional legislation and regulation. With this in mind, what can the public comments tell us?
On March 18, 2011, the Oklahoma State House passed the Electric Utility Data Protection Act (House Bill 1079). The state's Senate will consider the bill next.The Act seeks to establish standards to govern the use and disclosure of electric utility usage data (including personal information) by electric utilities, customers of electric utilities and third parties. The Act also requires electric utility companies to maintain the confidentiality of customer data and allow customers to access the data. State Rep. Scott Martin noted that customers will see energy savings from the Smart Grid, but are vulnerable to potential access of their data by third parties. "This legislation should ensure customers can reap the many benefits of this new system without having to fear someone getting access to their data without permission," said Martin. The legislation is said to have the support of the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company, which has already converted 100,000 standard meters to smart meters in the state and plans to install 800,000 smart meters in the next two years.
The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday, in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, that zip codes are "personal identification information" for purposes of California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, California Civil Code section 1747.08. Really.
Last week, Politico ran an interesting piece suggesting that federal privacy legislation may see the light of day in 2011. Democratic supporters of the legislation show no signs of slowing down. In the Senate, John Kerry (D-Mass.) is working on privacy legislation based on a bill he proposed last year. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, is planning to hold public hearings on Internet privacy starting in February. Of course the key to the success of federal privacy legislation lies in the House, and there Republicans have voiced support for a privacy bill as well. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations at the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has said that the privacy bill introduced last year by former representative Rick Boucher (D-Va.) could be revised and reintroduced with Republican support (Rep. Stearns co-sponsored the Boucher bill). This sentiment was echoed by Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade. According to Politico, Rep. Bono Mack informed her colleagues on the subcommittee that she remains committed to addressing privacy issues.
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.
Scott Blackmer provides a "discovery" checklist for global enterprises handling personal data from multiple jurisdictions, as well as advice on a global approach to privacy compliance and risk management.
So, you thought our cloud series was over? Wishful thinking. It is time to talk about ethics. Yes, ethics. Historically, lawyers and technologists lived in different worlds. The lawyers were over here, and IT was over there. Here's the reality: Technology - whether we are talking cloud computing, ediscovery or data security generally - IS very much the business of lawyers. This post focuses on three recent documents, ranging from formal opinions to draft issue papers, issued by three very prominent Bar associations -- the American Bar Association (ABA), the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA), and the State Bar of California (CA Bar). These opinions and papers all drive home the following points: as succinctly stated by the ABA, "[l]awyers must take reasonable precautions to ensure that their clients' confidential information remains secure"; AND lawyers must keep themselves educated on changes in technology and in the law relating to technology. The question, as always, is what is "reasonable"? Also, what role should Bar associations play in providing guidelines/best practices and/or mandating compliance with particular data security rules? Technology, and lawyer use of technology, is evolving at a pace that no Bar association can hope to meet. At the end of the day, do the realities of the modern business world render moot any effort by the Bar(s) to provide guidance or impose restrictions? Read on and tell us - and the ABA - what you think.
Manufacturers that fail to comply with the data security notification requirements may receive a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for a first violation; up to $2,500 for a second violation; and up to $5,000 for the third and any following violations within a 12-month period.
German state data protection authorities have recently criticized both cloud computing and the EU-US Safe Harbor Framework. From some of the reactions, you would think that both are in imminent danger of a European crackdown. That's not likely, but the comments reflect some concerns with recent trends in outsourcing and transborder data flows that multinationals would be well advised to address in their planning and operations.
Many of us have watched over the past few years as dozens of proposed federal data security and breach notification bills have been introduced, often with bipartisan support, but have failed to become law. This year has seen many of the usual proposals. For those of you keeping track, this year's bills include: Rep. Rush's Data Accountability and Trust Act -- HR 2221; Sen. Leahy's Personal Data Privacy and Security Act - S. 1490; Sen. Feinstein's Data Breach Notification Act - S. 139; and Sens. Carper's and Bennett's "Data Security Act of 2010" - S. 3579. However, 2010 has also seen new and expansive proposals for broad and far-reaching data privacy legislation, including Rep. Boucher's "discussion draft" and Rep. Rush's "Building Effective Strategies to Promote Responsibility Accountability Choice Transparency Innovation Consumer Expectations and Safeguards" Act (or "BEST PRACTICES Act"). Most recently, on August 5, Sens. Pryor and Rockefeller introduced the "Data Security and Breach Notification Act of 2010" - S. 3742 (hereinafter "S. 3742" or the "Act"). S. 3742 is much more akin to the more traditional proposed breach notification and data security legislation mentioned above, and not nearly as ambitious as the draft Boucher Bill or the BEST PRACTICES Act. This post summarizes the key provisions in S. 3742.
Mexico has joined the ranks of more than 50 countries that have enacted omnibus data privacy laws covering the private sector. The new Federal Law on the Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties (Ley federal de protección de datos personales en posesión de los particulares) (the "Law") was published on July 5, 2010 and took effect on July 6. IAPP has released an unofficial English translation. The Law will have an impact on the many US-based companies that operate or advertise in Mexico, as well as those that use Spanish-language call centers and other support services located in Mexico.
This post is Part Two in my review and discussion of some of the comments submitted in the response to the Boucher Bill privacy and data security legislation discussion draft. As in Part One, Part Two will describe and summarize at a high level some (but not all) of the issues identified by the commenters. Part Two covers comments submitted by American Business Media (ABM), which focuses on the Business-to-Business online information market; the Association of National Advertisers (ANA); the Marketing Research Association (MRA), an association of the survey and opinion research profession; the National Retail Federation and Shop.org (collectively, NRF); and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
A new set of EU standard contract clauses ("SCCs" or "model contracts") for processing European personal data abroad came into effect on May 15, 2010. Taken together with a recent opinion by the official EU "Article 29" working group on the concepts of "controller" and "processor" under the EU Data Protection Directive, this development suggests that it is time to review arrangements for business process outsourcing, software as a service (SaaS), cloud computing, and even interaffiliate support services, when they involve storing or processing personal data from Europe in the United States, India, and other common outsourcing locations.
As previously reported, in early May Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) introduced a discussion draft of proposed federal privacy and data security legislation. Reps. Boucher and Stearns sought comments on the discussion draft, setting a deadline of last Friday, June 4, 2010. Numerous organizations have submitted comments. This multi-part post will describe and summarize, at a high level, some (but not all) of the issues identified by the commenters.
Social networking entails some risks and responsibilities. It may implicate privacy and labor law, confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements, advertising regulations, defamation, and other legal regimes, across borders in a global medium. Users, and their employers, need to be aware of these risks and responsibilities in deciding how to make best use of social media.
It often makes sense to refer to an information security management framework or standard in an outsourcing contract, but this is usually not very meaningful unless the customer also understands what particular security measures the vendor will apply to protect the customer's data.