Generational interpretations and expectations of privacy

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.

View Article

EmailShare

An Update on the Hong Kong Data Transfer Guidance

Section 33 of the Hong Kong Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) (the PDPO) deals with the transfer of personal data, and prohibits the transfer of personal data outside Hong Kong except in specified circumstances, such as when:

  • the data protection laws of the foreign country are similar to the PDPO; or
  • the data subject has consented in writing to the transfer.

Read More

EmailShare

Legal Issues Surrounding the Use of Commercial Drones in Hong Kong and Singapore

From Military to Civilian Use

Traditionally, it was militaries that developed, then deployed unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) for combat roles or intelligence-gathering missions. The use of drone technology in the recreational space, and a projected spike in the commercial exploitation of drones, have caught the attention of Hong Kong and Singapore’s regulators. The ongoing privacy debate about how best to regulate presently under-regulated commercial drone use is expected to intensify. Actual or prospective commercial drone operators are advised to monitor what is expected to be an evolving aviation and privacy regulatory environment in two of the Asia Pacific’s key commercial centers.

Read More

EmailShare

A House of Representatives Rules Change that Will Affect Congressional Investigations: What it Means for the Private Sector

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.

Read More

EmailShare

New FTC Settlement Reveals Heightened Agency Scrutiny Regarding Patient Authorizations and the Collection of Health Information

On December 3, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it reached a settlement with PaymentsMD, an Atlanta-based medical billing company, and its former CEO, Michael C. Hughes, for alleged violations of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act for using deceptive tactics to collect sensitive health information. Public comments on the FTC’s proposed Consent Orders are due January 2, 2015.

Read More

EmailShare

Connecticut Ruling Finds HIPAA Does Not Preempt State Law Claims

On November 11, 2014, the Connecticut Supreme Court held in Emily Byrne v. Avery Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.C. (“Avery Center”) (SC 18904) that the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) does not preempt state common law negligence and emotional distress claims against medical providers who improperly breach the confidentiality of a patient’s medical records and that “HIPAA may inform the applicable standard of care in certain circumstances.” In reaching its decision, the high court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff Emily Byrne’s state common law causes of action for negligence and negligent infliction of emotion distress against Avery Center for releasing information about her pregnancy without her authorization in complying with a subpoena in a paternity action. Although other states have reached similar holdings, the Connecticut ruling is notable in light of the passage of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act, which expanded HIPAA liability to business associates. As such, covered entities as well as their business associates risk increased exposure under HIPAA and state laws, including negligence, invasion of privacy and state privacy claims.

Read More

EmailShare
EmailShare
XSLT Plugin by BMI Calculator