By

Alan Charles Raul

08 October 2020

Office of Foreign Assets Control: Making or Facilitating Ransomware Payments May Violate U.S. Sanctions

On October 1, 2020, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published an advisory that highlights the risk of potential U.S. sanctions law violations if U.S. individuals and businesses comply with ransomware payment demands.1

Ransomware attacks use malware, often injected through phishing schemes, to encrypt a victim’s data files or programs, followed by a ransom demand by the threat actor that offers the decryption key in exchange for payment. Payment is often demanded in bitcoin, and thus third-party services are often used to make such payments. Increasingly, ransomware attacks not only lock data up but steal data from the victim and threaten to publish sensitive files belonging to victims. According to OFAC, ransomware attacks have been increasing over the last two years and are a special risk during the COVID-19 pandemic, with cybercriminals targeting not only large corporations but also small to medium enterprises, hospitals, schools, and local government agencies.2

(more…)

EmailShare
30 September 2020

U.S. Government White Paper to Help Companies Address the EU’s National Security Concerns in Schrems II

On September 28, the U.S. government released a “White Paper” addressing how U.S. companies might justify their continued transfer to the U.S. of personal data of EU residents, following the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU,” or “ECJ”) in Schrems II – more formally known as Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems, Case C-311/18 (July 16, 2020).  The Schrems II decision struck down the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield as a basis for transferring EU personal data to the United States because of the Court’s view that U.S. national security law did not provide equivalent privacy protections to those available in the EU. While the CJEU upheld Commission-approved Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) as a basis for transfers of EU personal data to the U.S., the Court imposed significant new hurdles for the use of SCCs.

(more…)

EmailShare
29 September 2020

An Early Recap of Privacy in 2020: A US Perspective

*This article was adapted from “Global Overview,” appearing in The Privacy, Data Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review (7th Ed. 2020)(Editor Alan Charles Raul), published by Law Business Research Ltd., and first published by the International Association of Privacy Professionals Privacy Perspectives series on September 28, 2020.

Privacy, like everything else in 2020, was dominated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Employers and governments have been required to consider privacy in adjusting workplace practices to account for who has a fever and other symptoms, who has traveled where, who has come into contact with whom, and what community members have tested positive or been exposed.

As a result of all this need for tracking and tracing, governments and citizens alike have recognized the inevitable trade-offs between exclusive focus on privacy versus exclusive focus on public health and safety.

(more…)

EmailShare
20 August 2020

Third Time’s the Charm: CCPA Regulations Finally Approved With Limited Substantive Changes from June 2020 Version

On August 14, 2020, California’s Office of Administrative Law approved and filed with the California Secretary of State final regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act.  The regulations, drafted by California’s Office of the Attorney General (OAG), went through three rounds of changes during the rulemaking process and were finally enacted more than two years after the CCPA was signed into law.  The CCPA is a landmark state privacy law that grants consumers new privacy rights, and requires businesses to enhance disclosures about their data practices and facilitate consumer privacy rights.  (more…)

EmailShare
19 August 2020

Historic Charges: First Enforcement Action Filed by New York Department of Financial Services Under Cybersecurity Regulation

On July 21, 2020, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS or the Department) issued a statement of charges and notice of hearing (the Statement) against First American Title Insurance Company (First American) for violations of the Department’s Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies, 23 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 500 (Cybersecurity Regulation or Regulation). The First American Statement of charges alleges six violations of the Cybersecurity Regulation and marks the Department’s first action pursuant to the Regulation, which is enforced by the recently created NYDFS Cybersecurity Division.1

NYDFS’s Statement seeks relief against First American, including civil monetary penalties and an order requiring First American to remediate any defined violations. Although the Statement does not include a calculation of the total penalty, the NYDFS explains that the civil monetary fines against First American are to be assessed pursuant to the Financial Services Law, which provides for a maximum civil monetary penalty of $1,000 per violation of the Regulation.2 Because First American’s violations included the exposure of millions of documents containing nonpublic information (NPI), the total penalty potentially could be substantial. The First American hearing is scheduled to occur on October 26, 2020, at the NYDFS.

(more…)

EmailShare
06 August 2020

Key Takeaways from Sidley’s Privacy and Cybersecurity Monitor-Side Chat Featuring Adam Klein, Chairman of the PCLOB

Posting revised August 13, 2020

On July 2, 2020, Sidley partner Alan Raul, founder and co-head of Sidley’s Privacy and Cybersecurity practice, hosted Adam Klein, Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (“PCLOB” or “the Board”), for a Monitor-Side Chat.

The discussion focused largely on the Commission’s work since Mr. Klein became Chairman in October, 2018. Key topics of the chat included:

  • Mission, Operation and Access of PCLOB
  • Balancing Counter-Terrorism and Privacy
  • Comparison of U.S. and Foreign Checks and Balances
  • FISA Reform
  • Emerging Technologies

(more…)

EmailShare
18 July 2020

The EU’s Highest Court Announces Significant Decision Regarding Cross-Border Data Flows: Invalidates EU-US Privacy Shield Program and Upholds Standard Contractual Clauses

In a decision with significant implications for international trade and cross-border data flows, the EU’s highest court – the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled on 16 July 2020 that a key legal mechanism (called the EU-US Privacy Shield program) used to enable transfers of personal data from the European Union (“EU”) was invalid, while also potentially requiring additional protections to be implemented when another key transfer mechanism (called Standard Contractual Clauses) is used.  The case – Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland, Max Schrems (“Schrems II”) – considered the validity of the EU-US Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”) program (a privacy certification made available for US organizations through an agreement between the European Commission and the US government) and Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCC”) (a form of international data transfer agreement made available for use by the European Commission).

(more…)

EmailShare
26 June 2020

The Return of the Mac: CCPA 2.0 Qualifies for California’s November 2020 Ballot and Could Usher In Sweeping Changes to CCPA

The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), a proposed initiative to codify far-reaching amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and sometimes referred to as “CCPA 2.0”, is back in play and heading to the November 2020 ballot.  A series of dramatic procedural twists and turns culminated with initiative backers successfully obtaining a writ of mandate directing the Secretary of State to direct counties to verify signatures for the ballot proposal by the June 25th Constitutional deadline.  This verification involved each county conducting a random sample of the more than 800,000 signatures that proponents had submitted to place the initiative on the ballot.

Before the California court’s ruling, observers were skeptical that signatures could be verified before the deadline.  Initiative proponents were almost two weeks behind the recommended schedule when they delivered signatures to be verified by California’s 58 counties.  This meant counties had until June 26th to verify signatures — a day after the June 25th Constitutional deadline.  Experience with other initiatives this year had shown that several large counties were waiting until the deadline to complete verifications, so proponents petitioned the court to push the deadline up by a day in order to meet the Constitutional deadline.  The court agreed to do so, finding good cause existed to force counties to complete verifications a day early.  And, as it happened, the extra time was not needed, as counties finished the count two days ahead of their initial deadline.

(more…)

EmailShare
15 June 2020

Who’s Balancing Privacy Against Public Health and Everything Else?

*Article first appeared in The Hill on June 13, 2020.

Concerns over the use of location tracking and contact tracing of infected individuals to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19 have once again placed “privacy” at the forefront of public attention. And even though Congress declared privacy to be a fundamental right in 1974, it established no cabinet office or institutional framework to focus on the role of data protection and digital technology in our society. Consequently, during these days of COVID-19, there is no senior government official responsible for taking account of and balancing the trade-offs between privacy and public health.

Click here to read in full.

EmailShare
04 June 2020

CCPA Enforcement Date Rapidly Approaching: California Attorney General Proposes Regulations for Final Review With July 1, 2020 Less Than One Month Away

On June 1, 2020, California’s Office of the Attorney General (“AG”) moved one step closer to finalizing the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) regulations when the AG submitted proposed final regulations for review and approval by California’s Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”).  This submission signals the end of the AG’s CCPA regulation drafting process that began in early 2019.  If the OAL approves the proposed final regulations, they will be finalized and enforceable by the AG, subject to any legal challenges.

(more…)

EmailShare
1 2 3 11
XSLT Plugin by BMI Calculator