Singapore may soon mandate data breach notifications and data portability via amendments to the Singapore Personal Data Protection Act, or PDPA. The PDPA applies to all organizations that collect, use and disclose data in Singapore, and the PDPA has extraterritorial effect as it applies to all organizations collecting, using or disclosing personal data from individuals in Singapore (whether or not the company has a physical presence in Singapore).
Even a few short years ago, it seemed unlikely that Congress would enact comprehensive privacy legislation. But a series of high profile data breaches; increasing concerns about data practices, particularly when connected to political micro-targeting; fears about the rise of autonomous, and potentially invisible, decision-making; and the passage of far-reaching foreign and now State privacy laws have all changed the zeitgeist. Congress has taken notice, and, for the past year, Data Matters has been closely following the Legislative Branch’s moves as it a federal privacy bill looks more likely than it has in a generation. (more…)
Over the last few years, States have enacted increasingly aggressive legislation concerning data privacy and security, raising concerns that companies will be subject to a patchwork of different standards. Congress has recently taken notice, convening hearings on potential federal privacy legislation, with the possibility of preemption a hot topic during the hearings. Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) got into the act as well, releasing two notices of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) on potential changes to its the Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information (“Safeguards Rule”) and Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule (“Privacy Rule”) under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The proposed amendments – and particularly the proposed changes to the Safeguard Rule – signal the FTC’s desire to align its rules with those of key states and to further protect customer information held by financial institutions.
On February 26, 2019, the Technology Policy Institute’s Two Think Minimum podcast featured Sidley Partner and founder of the Privacy and Cybersecurity practice, Alan Raul, alongside former FTC Acting Chairman and Commissioner of the FTC Maureen Ohlhausen. The topic of the day was the future of privacy legislation in 2019. Topics ranged from politics, U.S. State trends, activity in Europe, FTC enforcement powers and more.
On February 8, 2019, U.S. Securities and Exchange (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce delivered a speech addressing the relationship between technological innovation and regulation, in particular addressing some of the pending regulatory challenges surrounding blockchain and digital assets.1 The key takeaways from Commissioner Peirce’s speech, titled “Regulation: A View From Inside the Machine,” 2 are these:
On January 28, 2019, the Healthcare and Public Health Sector Coordinating Council released the “Medical Device and Health IT Joint Security Plan” (“JSP” or “Plan”)—cybersecurity recommendations for medical device manufacturers, healthcare information technology vendors, and healthcare providers. U.S. Government entities, including the FDA, participated in the development of the Plan. The JSP comes close on the heels of the “Health Industry Cybersecurity Practices: Managing Threats and Protecting Patients,” a similar effort by a public-private partnership to provide cybersecurity guidance to healthcare industry stakeholders. (more…)
When California Governor Jerry Brown signed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) into law on June 28, 2018, there was broad agreement that revisions and clarifications were necessary. The CCPA was written and enacted with extraordinary speed, as legislators felt the need to move quickly in order to preempt a data privacy ballot initiative that had received enough signatures to be placed on California’s November ballot. Consequently, June 28 was, in many ways, the beginning of a debate over the specifics of the CCPA, rather than the end. Indeed, the California legislature has already passed a “clean-up” bill to address concerns expressed about the CCPA, and heated debates over the meaning and merits of specific provisions continue. (more…)
On 23 January 2019, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted an opinion on the interplay between the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR) and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Opinion addresses the appropriate legal basis for the processing of personal data in the context of clinical trials (primary use), and the secondary use of clinical trial data. (more…)
In December 2018, the European Commission published its report on the second annual review of the EU-US Privacy Shield (the “Report”). The Report concluded that the Privacy Shield “continues to ensure an adequate level of protection” for personal data transferred from the EU to the US. However, the Commission did identify a number of recommendations from the first annual review which still required implementation including the appointment by the US of a permanent ombudsperson to oversee complaints. To date, the U.S. has only appointed an interim ombudsperson (Manisha Singh). In the first annual review, the Commission did not set a deadline for the appointment. However, the latest review required an appointee to be identified by 28 February 2019 failing which the Commission will “consider taking appropriate measures.”
On January 25, 2019, the European Commission published a statement to mark Data Protection Day (January 28, 2019) which, this year, comes eight months after the entry into force of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) on May 25, 2018.
The statement indicates that the European Commission considers the GDPR to have had a positive effect, in particular because European citizens are now more conscious of the importance of data protection and of their rights. The European Commission also notes that the Data Protection Authorities (“DPAs”) are enforcing the new rules and better coordinating their actions in the European Data Protection Board. (more…)