On February 26, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed the Open Internet Order to reclassify “broadband Internet access service” as a telecommunication service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. In doing so, the FCC found that applying section 222 of the Communications Act to broadband Internet access services is in the public interest and necessary for the protection of customers. Section 222 imposes a duty on telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information obtained from their customers or other carriers, and imposes special rules for use and disclosure of information related to customers’ phone service and usage, known as customer proprietary network information (“CPNI”).
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.
During the opening session of any new Congress, the House of Representatives sets the rules that will govern hearings, floor proceedings and debate. Typically, rule changes are minor. This year, the House quietly made one important change that could significantly affect institutions that are subject to government inquiries.
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
A recent judgment of the highest court in the European Union announced that search engines within the court’s jurisdiction must respond to “right to be forgotten” requests. This authoritative interpretation of the existing data protection laws may create significant issues for Internet intermediaries and exacerbate the differences between the European privacy-based “right to be forgotten” and the United States’ free-speech based “right to remember.” This judgment will have a significant impact not only on search engine companies and publishers, but also on many other industries, including financial services and life sciences, that need to maintain data on individuals for legitimate business reasons, often for lengthy periods.
The European Parliament has voted in a plenary session on March 12, 2014 to fully endorse the draft EU Data Protection Regulation (the Regulation) and the draft EU resolution calling for the immediate suspension of Safe Harbor (the Resolution), both of which were adopted previously by the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee (the LIBE Committee).
According to the European Commission’s press release “today’s plenary vote means the position of the Parliament is now set in stone and will not change even if the composition of the Parliament changes following the European elections in May.”
On February 12, the White House released the widely anticipated Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (“the Framework”). Developed pursuant to Executive Order 13636 (issued in February 2013), the Framework strongly encourages companies across the financial, communications, chemical, transportation, healthcare, energy, water, defense, food, agriculture, and other critical infrastructure sectors to implement and comply with its voluntary standards. The provisions set forth in the Framework may establish a new baseline for industry standard practices, and may impact or guide FTC enforcement actions and plaintiff data breach lawsuits.
A draft report by the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee (the LIBE Committee) indicates that it is attempting to fundamentally alter the existing compliance mechanisms for transferring personal data from Europe. The recently leaked draft is dated December 23, 2013 and expresses the LIBE Committee’s response to the U.S. NSA surveillance programs, surveillance in various EU Member States and the impact on EU citizen’s fundamental rights and on transatlantic cooperation (the Report).
The European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee (the “LIBE Committee”) has after several delays finally voted on the European Commission’s proposed EU Data Protection Regulation and adopted all amendments. The LIBE Committee also approved a mandate to start negotiations with the Council of Ministers (which represents EU Member States) and the Commission – the so called trilogue process. The Regulation was published by the European Commission in January 2012 and has been described as the most lobbied piece of European legislation in history receiving over 4,000 amendments in opinions from other Committees in the European Parliament as well as from numerous industries.
In November 2012, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published a Code of Practice on managing data protection risks related to anonymization. This Code provides a framework for organisations considering using anonymization and explains what it expects from organisations using such processors.
One of the benefits of anonymization is that the onerous data protection obligations under EU data protection laws, including the UK’s Data Protection Act 1998, will not apply to data rendered anonymous such that individuals are no longer identifiable.