The complexity of the EU General Data Protection Regulation is often alleviated by the guidance of regulatory authorities who contribute their practical interpretation of the black letter of the law and provide welcome certainty. However, the latest draft guidelines issued by the Article 29 Working Party on automated decision-making has thrown up a particular curve ball which bears further investigation. It relates to whether Article 22(1) of the GDPR should be read as a right available to data subjects or as a straightforward prohibition for controllers.
The steady trickle of GDPR guidance from the Article 29 Working Party continues. Fresh from finalising its guidance on data portability, lead supervisory authorities and data protection officers, the Working Party has published draft guidance on data protection impact assessments, the full text of which is available on the Working Party website. Comments can be submitted to the Working Party by 23 May 2017, after which the guidance will be finalised.
If you care enough about privacy issues to be a regular reader of this blog, you probably know that one of the Big Changes under GDPR will be the introduction of “accountability” as a legal obligation, i.e. it will now be a requirement that a data controller is able to demonstrate its compliance with the principles relating to processing of personal data set out in Article 5 of the GDPR. You may even have started thinking about what this means for your organisation: how are you going to get your development teams to adopt privacy by design and default? What are you doing about data minimisation? Do you apply appropriate levels of encryption to your personal data? In our ever-more digitally driven world, it’s easy to get caught up in the sophisticated stuff, but a recent UK ICO decision reminds us that accountability is about the simple stuff as well. Which brings us to filing cabinets.
It has finally happened. Like that train you are waiting for that keeps getting delayed but eventually arrives. The all-powerful trio comprising the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission arrived at their destination after a journey of four years, and on December 15th, 2015, agreed the final text of the EU General Data Protection Regulation. Once formally adopted in the coming weeks, the GDPR will create a completely new legal framework for the collection, use and sharing of personal information that will apply well beyond Europe.
On 26 May, the Netherlands First Chamber passed a bill requiring companies to notify the Dutch Data Protection Authority and affected individuals of certain breaches of personal data. As we reported earlier this year, when the bill becomes law, it will be mandatory for all types of data controllers to provide these breach notifications. Failure to notify will be punishable by a maximum fine of 810,000 euros or 10% of the company’s annual turnover (i.e., revenue), whichever is greater. Importantly, the fines may not be limited only to a company’s revenue in the Netherlands, but could be calculated based on its global revenue. Companies should be aware of these increased sanctions and new mandatory notification requirements when addressing a data breach that may involve the personal data of Dutch citizens.
Recently, new rules on cookies came into force in the Netherlands. In addition, the Dutch Second Chamber approved a draft bill to introduce a mandatory data breach notification requirement and to strengthen the Dutch Data Protection Authority’s investigative and fining powers. The new rules apply to all companies acting as a “data controller” within the meaning of the Dutch Data Protection Act. The Dutch First Chamber has announced that it plans to review this draft bill as soon as possible.
Following on the heels of the IAPP Congress in Brussels, the CNIL’s (the French data protection authority) international chief, Florence Raynal, engaged in a dialogue with the members of the American Chamber of Commerce’s Digital Economy Committee in France. Raynal engaged with AmCham members on questions relating to the EU-US Safe Harbor framework, focusing on the practicalities of onward transfers. The discussion involved two kinds of transfers.
In a recent decision, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf held that data controllers may claim immediate surrender of customer data in the insolvency of marketing agencies and IT service providers in Germany under section 47 of the German Insolvency Statute (decision of 27 September 2012, file number: I-6 241/11; for a German text version of […]
The French CNIL’s new guidelines on cloud computing revisit the tricky question of whether a cloud provider is a data processor or a data controller under French data protection law. The CNIL’s guidelines contain seven recommendations for cloud customers, and a list of recommended contractual clauses. The CNIL points out that when the cloud provider is located in a non-European country “local government authorities can send requests to the provider to have access to the data.”
The Spanish Data Protection Authority (SDPA) has established new procedures that allow data processors (not data controllers) based in Spain to obtain authorizations for transferring data processed on behalf of their customers (the data controllers) to sub-processors based in Third Countries that are not deemed to have an adequate level of protection for personal data. In addition, data processors can enter into Standard Contractual Clauses with their sub-processors. Previously in Spain, data controllers had to enter into Standard Contractual Clauses with each of their data processors’ sub-processors in Third Countries and data controllers had to obtain authorizations from the SDPA for such transfers.