The EU’s Article 29 Working Party (“WP29”) adopted, on 5 April 2017, final guidelines on the new right of data portability under the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) (“GDPR”) which applies from 25 May 2018. (more…)
The Personal Data Protection Act, 2012 (PDPA), Singapore’s general data protection law, governs the collection, use and disclosure of personal data. The Singapore Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC), which enforces the PDPA, recently updated the chapter on data anonymization found in its Advisory Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines are not legally binding but provide guidance on how the PDPC will interpret the PDPA. The revisions encourage organizations to incorporate into the process of anonymizing data an inquiry into the risks that the data may be re-identified and any potential negative effect on the individuals involved rather than focusing purely on the various techniques to anonymize the data.
In keeping with Singapore’s recent emphasis on strengthening national cybersecurity protections, on March 9, 2017, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) announced proposed amendments to the existing Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act (CMCA). The proposed amendment, Bill No. 15/2017, would broaden the scope of the CMCA by criminalizing certain conduct not covered by the existing law and enhancing penalties in certain situations.
On April 3, 2017, President Trump signed the bill repealing the Federal Communications Commission’s much-debated broadband privacy rules. The House of Representatives voted 215–205 to disapprove the rules, after a party-line Senate vote of 50–48. The result is that the FCC’s key rules governing internet service providers’ collection and use of consumer data, as well as data security, will not go into effect as scheduled. Moreover, the FCC will be precluded from promulgating any regulation in “substantially the same” form until a future Congress allows such action.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued, on December 21, 2016, its ruling in the joined cases, Tele2 Sverige AB v. Post-och telestyrelsen (C-203/15), and Secretary of State for Home Department v. Tom Watson and Others (C-698/15), concerning the interpretation of EU’s Article 15(1) of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC). Article 15(1) enables EU Member States to adopt measures that restrict privacy rights granted to users of Electronic Communication Services (“ECSs”) when they are “necessary, appropriate and proportionate… to safeguard national security”. Examples of ECSs include private and public companies in Internet, telecommunication, satellite and cable businesses. (more…)
On 11 April 2016, the European Commission consulted on Directive 2002/58/EC on privacy and electronic communications (the “ePrivacy Directive”), seeking input from a wide range of businesses, organizations and individuals on the effectiveness of the ePrivacy Directive and their views for its revision. The European Commission’s review is a key element of its Digital Single Market Strategy, which aims to reinforce trust and security in digital services in the EU.
The European Commission released the results of this consultation on 19 December 2016. The consultation received 421 replies from stakeholders in all Member States and outside the EU, which included 162 replies from citizens; 186 contributions from industry actors; 40 public authorities, including competent authorities which enforce the ePrivacy Directive at national level; 33 contributions from civil society associations. The largest number of respondents came from Germany (25.9%), UK (14.3%), Belgium (10%) and France (7.1%).
On December 19, 2016 the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (“ESAs”) launched a public consultation (the “Consultation”) on the potential benefits and risks of Big Data for consumers and financial firms to determine whether any regulatory or supervisory actions will be required. The ESAs are three EU-wide supervisory authorities, the European Banking Authority (“EBA”), European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”) and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (“EIOPA”).
A recent speech by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) Director of Specialist Supervision, Nausicaa Delfas, delivered at the Financial Times’ Cyber Security Summit, shows that the FCA, which is the leading financial services regulator in the United Kingdom, is taking the issue of cyber security seriously and that it believes new approaches are needed to combat the threat to financial services firms.
The FCA’s concerns are consistent with those being expressed by US banking regulators and the Group of Seven (G-7) industrial nations who agreed on a set of guidelines to combat cyber risks affecting global financial institutions.
On November 7, 2016, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China promulgated the Cyber Security Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “Cyber Security Law”) after three rounds of readings in June 2015, June and October 2016, respectively. The Cyber Security Law will enter into force on June 1, 2017. As early as July 1, 2015, the National Security Law of the People’s Republic of China was promulgated, expressly providing that the state shall “safeguard sovereignty and security of cyberspace in the state,” a theme that is reiterated and emphasized in Article 1 of the Cyber Security Law. The introduction of the concept of “cyber space sovereignty” in the Cyber Security Law echoes the views of President Xi Jinping, who is also the head of the Office of the Central Leading Group for Cyberspace Affairs, and who has stated in February 2014 that “[n]o cyber safety means no national security.” Critically, the Cyber Security Law may have global implications, as the Law applies to both Chinese and international businesses engaging in the construction, operation, maintenance or use of information networks in China.
The future of privacy and cybersecurity under President-elect Trump – with a Republican-controlled House and Senate – is far from certain, but his campaign comments indicate an emphasis on robust cybersecurity, perhaps with more openness to both offensive as well as defensive initiatives.