Privacy Law Blog : Privacy Lawyers & Attorneys : Proskauer Rose Law Firm : CAN-SPAM, FCRA, FACTA

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) (“FERPA”) imposes various requirements on educational institutions regarding the privacy of personally identifiable information contained in education records of students.  On December 9, 2008, the U.S. Department of Education (“DOE”) published final rules amending the regulations that implement FERPA.   

Originally proposed on March 28, 2008, the DOE published a notice which proposed various changes to FERPA and its implementing regulations “to implement various statutory changes made to FERPA to implement two recent US Supreme Court decisions, to respond to changes in information technology, and to address other issues identified through the Department’s experience in administering FERPA.”  (73 FR 74806).  According to the DOE, approximately 121 parties submitted comments in response to the March, 2008 NPRM.  The Final Rules become effective January 8, 2009.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 19, 2008, in Party City Corp. v. The Superior Court of San Diego County, the California Court of Appeal in the Fourth Appellate District held that zip codes are not "personal identification information" under California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, California Civil Code Sec. 1747.08 (the "Act."). The Act prohibits a retailer that accepts credit cards from, among other things, "request[ing], or require[ing] as a condition to accepting the credit card as payment in full or in part for goods or services, the cardholder to provide personal identification information, which the [retailer] writes, causes to be written, or otherwise records upon the credit card transaction form or otherwise." Id. at § 1748.08(a)(2). Under the Act, "personal identification information" is "information concerning the cardholder, other than information set forth on the credit card, and including, but not limited to, the cardholder's address and telephone number." Id. at § 1747.08(b). Subdivision (e) of the statute provides that "[a]ny person who violates this section shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for the first violation and one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each subsequent violation, to be assessed and collected in a civil action brought by the person paying with a credit card, by the Attorney General, or by the district attorney or city attorney of the county or city in which the violation occurred."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Early this month I discussed recent developments in data breach litigation at a webinar hosted by Debix.  You can listen to the webinar at any time by following the instructions here.

All of us in Proskauer's Privacy and Data Security Practice Group wish you a peaceful and happy holiday.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a landmark ruling, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)—Europe’s highest court to take up cases affecting the privacy rights of EU citizens—ruled that some aspects of the UK’s DNA database violated EU law.  Specifically, on December 4, the ECHR issued its decision, S. and Marper v. The United Kingdom (Applications 30562/04, 30566/04), holding that the UK DNA database violated the EU’s Convention for the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the "Convention") in retaining the DNA samples of individuals who had been acquitted of (or arrested and not charged with) any crime.    

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently issued a preliminary injunction ordering CyberSpy Software, LLC to stop promoting and selling “RemoteSpy,” a keylogger software program that, once installed on a computer, collects information regarding use of the computer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link