Under Article 35(3) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), organisations are required to conduct a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) where they: (i) engage in a systematic and extensive evaluation of personal aspects of individuals, based on automated processing, and on which decisions are based that produce legal or other effects that concern the individual, or (ii) process special categories of personal data (e.g. health data) on a large scale or personal data relating to criminal convictions, or (iii) engage in a systematic monitoring of a publicly accessible area on a large scale. (more…)
On November 23, 2018, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published draft guidelines seeking to clarify the territorial scope of the GDPR (“Guidelines”). The Guidelines have been eagerly awaited, particularly by controllers and processors outside of the EU looking for confirmation as to whether or not the EU data protection rules apply to them. The Guidelines largely reaffirm prior interpretations of the GDPR’s territorial application under Article (3)(1), and offer essential guidance with respect to the GDPR’s – heavily debated – extraterritorial application under Article (3)(2). The GDPR applies to companies established in the EU as well as companies outside of the EU that are “targeting” individuals in the EU (by offering them products or services) or monitoring their behavior (as far as that behavior takes place in the EU).
The proposed Guidelines are open for public consultation until January 18, 2019. It remains to be seen whether and how any outstanding issues will have been addressed upon conclusion of the consultation. (more…)
This post summarizes the EDPB’s stated positions on these points and explores the implications for firms providing payment services in the European Economic Area (EEA).
On July 17, 2018, the European Commission released a press release announcing Japan and the European Union have concluded talks on reciprocal adequacy of their respective data protection systems, alongside a corresponding Q&A on reciprocal adequacy. After successful negotiations, both jurisdictions have reached a mutual adequacy arrangement, recognising the adequacy in each jurisdiction’s data protection framework and representing the first time that the EU and a third country have agreed on a reciprocal recognition of the level of “adequate” data protection. (more…)
On 5 September 2017, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the “ECHR”) overturned the previous decision of the ECHR (sitting as a Chamber) and ruled that the Romanian courts had failed to strike a fair balance between the interest of an employer to monitor its employees’ electronic communications to ensure the smooth operation of the company and the employee’s right to respect for his private life and correspondence under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, in a question and answer section on its website the EHCR made it clear that the ruling does not mean that employers cannot monitor employee’s communications at work. Employers may still monitor their employee’s communications as long as such a measure is accompanied by “adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse.” (more…)
The Belgian Commission for the Protection of Privacy (“Privacy Commission”) has recently published guidance on Article 30 of the GDPR which contains the obligation for data controllers and processors to record their processing activities.
This record will have to be up-to-date by 25 May 2018 and readily made available to the regulator should it ask to view it. (more…)
On 2 March 2017, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published detailed draft guidance on consent under the GDPR and has submitted it for public consultation. This is the ICO’s first piece of specific GDPR guidance published further to its overview of the GDPR published last January.
The guidance sets out the ICO’s interpretation of the new requirements to obtain valid consent under the GDPR including its view of the role of consent in the GDPR, the benefits of getting consent right and the penalties for getting it wrong. The guidance also explains: (i) when consent is required or appropriate (or not) and the alternative to consent; (ii) what constitutes valid consent under the GDPR with specific guidance on children’s consent and consent for research purposes; (iii) advice on how to obtain, record and manage consent; and (iv) a consent checklist.
As the legislative journey for the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) nears its conclusion, last week (Nov. 27,2015) saw the publication of a further compromise text which left the door open for additional “trilogue” discussions on the much-debated subjects of administrative fines, data protection officers (“DPOs”), and data breaches, as well as details of other provisions.