The draft text of the EU-UK withdrawal agreement was published by the UK Government and the European Union yesterday, providing some of the first concrete indicators of the possible direction of travel in the area of data protection. In this post, we discuss ten initial conclusions from the draft text.
Unless there is a political earthquake (some would say a miracle) Brexit will happen on 29 March 2019. Upon Brexit the UK will cease to be an EU Member State and become a so-called ‘third country’. As a result, UK-based organisations, which in the context of transfers of personal data to countries outside the EU have always been exporters, will become importers of data originating from the EU. This is a serious concern because transfers of personal data from the EU to third countries are severely restricted. So a key UK Government objective from day one has been to ensure that the UK is regarded as an adequate jurisdiction, which would allow unconstrained transfers of personal data from the EU. But will it be?
On 1 February 2017, the German federal cabinet adopted a draft data protection bill. The planned implementation statute aims to supplement and further define the EU General Data Protection Regulation, which will come into force in 2018. The Chronicle of Data Protection’s summary of the most relevant aspects of the draft bill can be found here. We turn now to a preliminary assessment and explanation of proposed bill, provided by German Data Protection and Freedom of Information Officer Dr. Stefan Brink, European Parliament member Jan Albrecht, and Hogan Lovells partner Tim Wybitul.
The Article 29 Working Party has issued a revealing statement about the so-called EU-U.S. Umbrella Agreement, which is aimed at creating a high-level data protection framework in the context of transatlantic cooperation on criminal law enforcement. As a sign of support for the deal, the Working Party welcomes the initiative to set up a general data protection framework in relation to law enforcement cooperation. In a fairly positive tone, the Working Party states that the Umbrella Agreement “considerably strengthens the safeguards in existing law enforcement bilateral treaties with the US, some of which were concluded before the development of the EU data protection framework.” This statement by the Working Party follows its recent announcement that it had created a working group for enforcement actions on organisations targeting several member states, which is yet another sign of the growing international ambitions of the EU data protection authorities.
Thank you to everyone who participated in last week’s webinar “Privacy Shield: What You Need to Know,” in which we explored how companies demonstrate compliance with the Privacy Shield principles, what it takes to move from Safe Harbor to Privacy Shield, and more. A copy of the slide deck and recorded webinar are now available on our blog.
The European Commission has actively promoted the importance of mHealth following their 2014 consultation. One of the initiatives to emerge from the Commission has been the Privacy Code of Conduct for mHealth apps. The Code was drafted by a working group set up in January this year and the final draft was published on 7th June and submitted to the Article 29 Working Party for their consideration and approval. If and when it receives the Working Party’s approval it could then be relied upon by app developers wishing to demonstrate a good standard of data protection compliance. The Code is an example of the type of initiative that is increasingly likely to develop under the forthcoming EU General Data Protection Regulation.
Part 3 of Future-Proofing Privacy: The Concept of Personal Data Revisited. Along with the concept of personal data, as opposed to anonymous data, the Regulation introduces a third category, that of pseudonymous data. Pseudonymous data is information that no longer allows the identification of an individual without additional information and is kept separate from it. At the moment the standards according to which data is considered as anonymous or pseudonymous are established by the DPAs at a national level. Once the Regulation comes into force, the requirements and the applicable regime will become more uniform and this will provide greater legal certainty. Genetic data and biometric data are also both defined for the first time.
The thing about referendums is that the consequences of one outcome or another are likely to be rather disparate. If Brexit turns out to be rejected by the majority of the UK electorate, we will simply carry on as normal – quietly enjoying the benefits of the European Union whilst moaning about the threat that […]
Significant changes are afoot for processors. With the text of the European Union General Data Protection Regulation now published, processors will need to begin to acclimatise to the new regime under the GDPR. Although the GDPR still places the lion’s share of compliance responsibilities on controllers, it also extends direct application of the law to processors and renders them subject to fines, in an effort to allocate responsibility between the parties.
On February 29, 2016 and after more than two years of negotiations with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the European Commission released its draft Decision on the adequacy of the new EU–U.S. Privacy Shield program, accompanied by new information on how the Program will work. The Privacy Shield documentation is significantly more detailed than that associated with its predecessor, the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor, as it describes more specifically the measures that organizations wishing to use the Privacy Shield must implement. Importantly, the Privacy Shield provides for additional transparency and processes associated with U.S. government access to the personal data of EU individuals.
A bill, passed by the French National Assembly on 26th January 2016, and now before the French Senate, would amend Article 47 of the French Data Protection Act to give the French Data Protection Authority (the CNIL) the power to impose penalties for breaches of data protection law of up to 20 million euros or up to 4% of an organization’s total worldwide annual turnover (the Digital Republic Bill). Up until now, the CNIL could only issue penalties of up to 150 000 euros.
To say that the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will change the existing data protection framework in Europe is an understatement. After an intense legislative process of more than 4 years, an ambitious, complex and strict new law that is set to transform the way in which personal information is collected, shared and used globally. Eduardo Ustaran highlights the GDPR’s significant changes in this article published in the Privacy and Data Protection Journal.
The EU General Data Protection Regulation has been called the most lobbied piece of legislation in the history of the EU. Before Christmas last year, what is likely to be the final text of the GDPR emerged from the EU trilogue negotiations. Victoria Hordern, Senior Associate at Hogan Lovells, explores what the new GDPR will mean for those collecting and handling health data, and examines a number of the provisions and themes that impact the use of health data.
A legal tsunami of overwhelming proportions. A ground breaking piece of legislation. A sweeping digital-privacy regime. A strict new legal framework that will have ripple effects globally. These are all hyperbolic expressions used to describe the impact of the newly agreed EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Anyone who has read and digested the GDPR […]
The European Union’s Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (“WP29”), which consists of the 27 data protection authorities of the EU Member States, has published the “Opinion 03/2013 on purpose limitation” (Working Paper WP203), adopted on 2 April 2013 (the “Opinion”). The WP29 analyzes and interprets the elements of this principle, and gives numerous examples with […]
The legislative process for the European Commission’s (EC’s) proposed Data Protection Regulation is heating up. The European Parliament’s lead committee on the EU’s draft Data Protection Regulation has received more than 3,000 proposed amendments to the reform measure. As a result, the committee has moved its vote on the Regulation from April to the end of May. Some of the 3,000 amendments were submitted last week by Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee (JURI), which has adopted an opinion generally supporting the proposed Regulation. Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the EC and EU Justice Commissioner, said that JURI’s adoption of the proposed Regulation brings the EU “another step towards the swift adoption of modern data protection reform in Europe.” In an unrelated announcement, the French Minister of Justice stated that France “actively supports” the proposed Regulation, including its provision on the right to be forgotten. The Minister said that France will be vigilant that the Regulation will “not introduce a step backwards” from current French law.
The European Union’s Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (“WP29“), which consists of the 27 data protection authorities of the European Union Member States, has published its “Opinion on Apps in Smart Devices“, adopted on 27 February 2013 (the “Opinion“). Applicability of EU laws According to WP29, the 1995 Data Protection Directive applies to all […]
On August 3, at the ABA Annual Meeting, the ABA Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice held a panel moderated by Hogan Lovells privacy leader Chris Wolf entitled “Privacy Law in 2012: Where We Are and Where We Are Going.” The article below, reprinted with permission from ABA Now, describes thoughts of the panelists on the future of privacy in the US and in Europe.
Are BCRs the key to global interoperability? Some think so at the IAPP London conference. This post discusses opinions from conference presenters — will BCRs will become more and more popular as corporations implement new accountability measures, or will they fade under the weight of continued bureaucracy?
Although the European Commission was expected to release its overhaul of the 1995 Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) next month, some of the details of those changes emerged earlier than expected this week. In this post, we summarize the many key changes between the Data Protection Directive and the Commission’s draft Data Protection Regulation.
The German data protection authorities on September 26, 2011 adopted an “Orientation guide – cloud computing.” The guide sets out mandatory and recommended content for any agreement between German users of cloud computing services and cloud computing serving providers. It highlights the customer’s responsibility for full compliance with German data protection requirements for the cloud. Based on this orientation guide, customers and providers will have to review existing agreements in the German market.
A French Court of Appeals in Caen recently confirmed a lower court’s order for the suspension of a whistleblowing system implemented by French company Benoist Girard, a subsidiary of American group Stryker. The decision comes as a surprise as it rejects the approval of the whistleblower system by French data protection authority (the “CNIL”).
Winston Maxwell, a partner in Hogan Lovells’ Paris Office prepared this entry. On July 13, 2010 the EU’s Article 29 Data Protection Working Party adopted a report (http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2010/wp172_en.pdf ) describing how ISPs and telecom carriers retain traffic data for law enforcement purposes in Europe. The European Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0024:EN:HTML) was supposed to harmonize national […]
On June 22, the Article 29 Working Party published an opinion clarifying the EU legal framework for those involved in online behavioral advertising. While it put forth strict guidelines for behavioral advertising in the EU, the working partypraised certain privacy-enhancing practices incorporated into behavioral advertising today and specifically encouraged industry to develop technical means to comply with the framework and “to exchange views” with the working party regarding such means.