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On 2 March 2017, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published detailed draft guidance on consent under the GDPR and has submitted it for public consultation.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.
One year after the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (“DRIPA”) received royal assent on 17 July 2014, the English High Court issued a landmark judgment in David & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 2092 (Admin) declaring DRIPA to be unlawful.
At the press conference for the launch of its Annual Report on 2 July, the UK Information Commissioner Christopher Graham highlighted the changing legislative landscape for the ICO’s regulatory powers against privacy breaches and put forward its proposals for the upcoming year.
Following the adoption of the EU Data Protection Regulation by the Council of Ministers last week, today saw the first meeting of the European Commission, European Parliament and Council of Ministers under what is known as the trilogue process, with the aim of negotiating the final wording of the Regulation.
Data Protection Law & Policy
In the last few years, privacy has evolved to become a topic of concern for more and more people. Recent studies have also shown that people have stopped using a particular product or service because they were worried about how it used their personal data. However, what is less clear is whether this is a concern for all generations or does the common perception that young people do not care about their privacy hold some element of truth? William Long, Geraldine Scali and Francesca Blythe, Partner, Senior Associate and Associate respectively at Sidley Austin LLP, explore this question.
The first edition of The Privacy, Data Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review appears at a time of extraordinary policy change and practical challenge for this field of law and regulation. Several Sidley lawyers in the Privacy, Data Security and Information Law practice have contributed to this publication.
Editor’s Preface, Alan Charles Raul
- Chapter 1, “European Union Overview,” William Long, Geraldine Scali and Alan Charles Raul
- Chapter 2, “APEC Overview,” Catherine Valerio Barrad and Alan Charles Raul
- Chapter 9, “Hong Kong,” Yuet Ming Tham and Joanne Mok
- Chapter 12, “Japan,” Takahiro Nonaka
- Chapter 16, “Singapore,” Yuet Ming Tham, Ijin Tan and Teena Zhang
- Chapter 20, “United Kingdom,” William Long and Geraldine Scali
- Chapter 21, “United States,” Alan Charles Raul, Tasha D Manoranjan and Vivek Mohan