According to the Constitution of Mexico, the protection of personal data is a fundamental right of all Mexican citizens. Under federal law, individuals also have a right to access, change, oppose, or suppress their personal data. Although all private companies process data, some are not sufficiently familiar with Mexico’s data privacy principles and regulations, and many may not have an up-to-date assessment of their own risk of a data breach. In addition, they may not be aware that the Mexican Supreme Court’s recent shift in perspective regarding personal injury cases may herald a change in the way data privacy breaches are handled in the future. This interview explores the impact of Mexico’s data privacy regulations on private companies, discusses the unique approach of Mexican regulators to data privacy enforcement, and offers advice as to how companies can stay compliant.
Making predictions for the year ahead is possibly as desirable as unreliable. In a world of unlimited data and advanced science, it would be tempting to think that the future is already written. Algorithms and artificial intelligence will show us what lies ahead with immaculate accuracy. Or perhaps not. At least not yet. To say that the world is in turmoil is an understatement and the same is true of the world of privacy and data protection, which makes predicting the future particularly tricky. But since the urge to plan, budget and prepare for what is likely to happen next is so real, now is a good time to pause, reflect about what’s going on, and make some predictions for 2018.
Two weeks ago, certain territorial divisions of the Russian Data Protection Authority, Roskomnadzor, published their 2018 plans for conducting inspections of local companies’ compliance with Russian data privacy requirements, including with Russia’s data localization requirement. The inspection plans contain a number of prominent multi-national and Russian companies.
Join us tomorrow, October 25 for the next installment of our 2017 Internet of Things webinar series and get practical guidance on privacy compliance challenges presented by the Internet of Things.
Last Monday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Microsoft search warrant case, a case in which Microsoft challenged the U.S. government’s right to use the warrant process to obtain certain emails stored overseas. Some view the upcoming decision as signaling the level of access the U.S. government will have to the growing troves of data U.S.-based technology companies hold about citizens of the world. And regulators in the EU and other jurisdictions may view a reversal of the Second Circuit decision as a negative factor when considering the protections the U.S. government afford their citizens’ data. The case was previously decided twice in Microsoft’s favor in the Second Circuit, which declined to grant en banc review by a 4-4 decision.
On 6 October, the German Federal Cartel Office launched its new series of papers on “Competition and Consumer Protection in the Digital Economy.” The first paper deals with “Big Data and Competition.” The same day, a “real-life example” of competition enforcement in Big Data became public. The EU Commission confirmed unannounced inspections in “a few Member States” concerning online access to bank customer’s account data by competing service providers.
The Information Commissioner’s Officer ruled, on 3 July 2017, that the Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust had failed to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 when it provided 1.6 million patient details to Google DeepMind as part of a trial diagnosis and detection system for acute kidney injury, and required the Trust to sign an undertaking. The investigation brings together some of the most potent and controversial issues in data privacy today; sensitive health information and its use by the public sector to develop solutions combined with innovative technology driven by a sophisticated global digital company. This analysis provides insight on the investigation into Google DeepMind with focus on how the General Data Protection Regulation may impact the use of patient data going forward.
According to the German Federal Labor Court, Germany’s highest court for employment disputes, German employers are not allowed to monitor employees in the workplace without a concrete suspicion of a criminal violation or, in some cases, a serious breach of duty. This means that employer monitoring of an employee’s computer usage without a concrete suspicion, including the use of keylogging software that records all keyboard entries made at a desktop computer does not comply with German data privacy laws. Courts may exclude evidence obtained under violation of German data privacy laws from their proceedings.
Please join us for our June 2017 Privacy and Cybersecurity Events.
Join us for a discussion of hot topics in Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state consumer protection enforcement. Partners Bret Cohen, Meghan Rissmiller, and Steven Steinborn will cover recent developments and enforcement trends in data privacy/security, advertising/endorsements, and claim substantiation in practice before the FTC and state authorities.
Please join us for our March 2017 Privacy and Cybersecurity Events.
The Polish Data Protection Authority has just released its inspection plans for 2017. This year, the GIODO has decided to target its review of compliance with data protection laws on the health services sector, as well as on the consumer sector, with particular attention to certain profiling activities taking place in stores and shopping malls.
Please join us for our January 2017 Privacy and Cybersecurity Events.
The fourth annual Global Privacy Enforcement Network sweep, which focused on Internet of Things devices, found that privacy communications in relation to such devices were generally poor and companies demonstrating good practice were in the minority. Here, we summarize and explore the key findings of the fourth annual GPEN sweep .
Please join us for our October 2016 Privacy and Cybersecurity Events.
Not many people will remember this but in 2008, Richard Thomas, the former UK Information Commissioner caused a fairly dramatic stir in the privacy world – at least among policy makers and fellow regulators – by unashamedly proclaiming that European data protection law was outdated and ineffective to address the technological and privacy challenges of the 21st century. At first, this was regarded by some as an embarrassing admission that could not possibly be right. But only two years later, the European Commission started a process of wholesale legislative reform that culminated with the adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation in April 2016. We all know by now that the GDPR is the result of many political and regulatory compromises caused by the precarious balance created by the various forces at play – the unstoppable development of technology, the increasing value of data, the urgent need to protect people’s digital lives, and the prosperity of Europe and the rest of the work.
The Philippines’ first comprehensive data protection law, the Data Privacy Act of 2012, took effect on 8 September 2012. The Act mandated the creation of a National Privacy Commission to implement, enforce and monitor compliance with the Act, with one of its duties to promulgate rules and regulations to effectively implement the provisions of the Act. It was not until March 2016 that the NPC was officially formed, and soon after issued draft implementing rules and regulations of the Act. Following a period of public consultation, the implementing rules and regulations were finalised and formally promulgated on 24 August 2016 and will come into effect today, 9 September 2016.
The free flow of data is essential to an ever-growing segment of the global economy. Yet some policymakers and advocates, citing privacy concerns, have called for shutting off the faucet and restricting data flow, to the detriment of European consumers and European businesses, both small and large. After much debate, a major European court opinion, and at least one act of Congress to address the issue, a solution is at hand that will enhance real, enforceable privacy protections on both sides of the Atlantic.
In a previous post back in 2010, we discussed a then-new data-privacy case decided by the French Cour de Casson (high court), called Bruno B v. Giraud et Migot, Cour de Cassation [Cass.], soc., Paris, 15 Dec. 2009, No. 07-44264. As we said at the time, Bruno B was “a significant development” because, previously, French privacy laws offered an extremely high level of protection for employees’ data, as exemplified by the 2001 decision, Nikon France v. Onof, Cour de Cassation [Cass.], soc., 2 Oct. 2001, No. 4164.
Following up on a public workshop held earlier this year, today the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a set of truth-in-advertising and privacy guidelines for mobile device application (app) developers. Titled “Marketing Your Mobile App: Get it Right From the Start,” the guidelines provide an overview of key issues for all app developers to consider.