The EU Data Protection Directive requires that data be processed fairly, which includes providing individuals with certain information about how a business uses their data, for example, by way of a privacy notice. These information requirements will be enhanced under the new EU Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR“), which will require many companies to review and amend their employee and customer notices, consents and policies (including privacy notices).
As the financial services sector becomes ever more reliant on new technologies to decrease costs and create more efficient systems, it becomes more vulnerable to cyber attacks. On October 11, 2016, the Group of Seven (“G7”) industrial nations agreed on a set of guidelines to combat the cyber risks that are “growing more dangerous and diverse, [and] threatening to disrupt our interconnected global financial systems and the institutions that operate and support those systems.” These issues have been particularly visible following a number of high profile cybersecurity attacks at financial institutions.
On Sept. 6, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (the HKMA) announced two initiatives targeted at raising Hong Kong’s profile as a fintech hub: the setting up of the Fintech Innovation Hub (the Hub) and the Fintech Supervisory Sandbox (the Sandbox).
*Updated on September 8, 2016
Earlier this year, German data protection authorities issued guidance (in German) for companies regarding monitoring employees’ work email account and Internet usage. The guidance establishes a framework based on the German Federal Data Protection Act (“FDPA”) and whether the employer allows employees to use their work email and Internet services for personal use. Where personal use is prohibited, the data protection recognize a greater scope for monitoring. The guidance also recognizes that employers may randomly check employees’ Internet use to ensure it is being used only for business purposes. Further, employers may access an employees’ sent and received emails during a long absence if required for business purposes.
*This article originally appeared in Law360 on August 1, 2016.
On July 14, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a long-awaited decision that — to the surprise of many observers — rejected the government’s construction of the Stored Communications Act and instead embraced a more restrictive view that Microsoft Corp. had advanced, backed by much of the tech industry and many privacy groups. The decision holds that electronic communications that are stored exclusively on foreign servers cannot be reached by U.S. prosecutors under the SCA’s warrant provisions — not even where the warrant is served on a U.S. provider that can access the foreign-stored information, and deliver it to U.S. officials, entirely by using computers and personnel based here in the United States. Microsoft Corp. v. USA, In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E‐Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation (2d Cir. July 14, 2016)( Docket No. 14‐2985).
HHS-OCR has updated its website with guidance on two important and current issues: ongoing HIPAA audits and deidentification. After officially launching phase two of its audit program earlier this month, sending notification letters to 167 covered entities, HHS-OCR has posted updated guidance on its website regarding the audits. Unrelated to the audits, OCR also posted guidance on the treatment of unique device identifiers (UDIs) under HIPAA’s standards for de-identification and limited data sets.
On July 7, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law amending existing anti-terrorism legislation that could affect U.S. telecom and internet service companies operating in Russia. It will require that telecommunications operators and internet service providers (“ISPs”) retain up to 6 months of data, including personal data and communications content, as well as metadata, for periods up to 3 years. Further, if any encryption is used to protect the data, the telecommunication or internet service provider must provide the Russian authorities the decryption technology.
On July 14, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a long-awaited decision that—to the surprise of many observers—rejected the government’s construction of the Stored Communications Act (SCA) and instead embraced a more restrictive view that Microsoft had advanced, backed by much of the tech industry and many privacy groups. Microsoft Corp. v USA, In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E‐Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation (2d Cir. July 14, 2016)( Docket No. 14‐2985). (Sidley Austin LLP represented a number of amici in support of Microsoft before the Court of Appeals and District Court.) The decision holds that electronic communications that are stored exclusively on foreign servers cannot be reached by U.S. prosecutors under the SCA’s warrant provisions—not even where the warrant is served on a U.S. provider that can access the foreign-stored information, and deliver it to U.S. officials, by using computers and personnel based here in the United States.