Today, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) invalidated the US-EU Safe Harbor framework, effective immediately. This momentous decision jeopardizes the continued flow of data from Europe to the US. As the Safe Harbor framework has been in place for 15 years and counts more than 4500 companies among its participants, today’s ruling is poised to… Continue Reading
In a non-binding opinion issued on September 23, 2015, an Advocate General for the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) recommended that the ECJ suspend the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor program (“Safe Harbor”) and reexamine whether the Safe Harbor provides adequate protection for personal data of EU citizens. In light of its non-binding nature, the opinion did… Continue Reading
In what may prove to be a major step forward in US-EU privacy relations, the House Judicial Committee approved H.R. 1428, the Judicial Redress Act of 2015, on September 16. If enacted, the bill would allow citizens of “covered countries” to bring civil actions in the US under the Privacy Act of 1974. In effect,… Continue Reading
Privacy and data security professionals worldwide should circle September 1 on their calendars, as it’s the day Russia’s new data localization law goes into effect – and possibly generates major waves far beyond Russian shores. That’s because the law has significant implications for companies that collect personal information from Russian citizens, even if those companies… Continue Reading
A brief rundown of developments in recent weeks in the area of EU data protection law: EU Data Protection Regulation On Monday, June 15, the EU Council (comprised, for purposes of data protection reform, of the justice ministers from each of the EU member states) reached an agreement on a draft data protection regulation, marking… Continue Reading
Last week, Australia became the latest country to pass a mandatory data retention law. The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015, which amends Australia’s Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, requires telecommunications and Internet service providers (ISPs) to store customer metadata for two years. This means that Australian ISPs and telecom providers… Continue Reading
The US-EU Safe Harbor has been back in the news recently as Germany’s data protection commissioners met at the end of January and expressed impatience at the delay in implementing what many view as necessary reforms to the program. The European Court of Justice also recently heard a challenge to Facebook’s reliance on the Safe… Continue Reading
A few months after the European Court of Justice ruled on May 13, 2014 that search engines are considered personal data controllers under the EU Data Protection Directive of 1995 and, as such, should provide data subjects with a right to be forgotten, a French Tribunal enforced this principle in X & Y v. Google… Continue Reading
In April, Microsoft tried to quash a search warrant from law enforcement agents in the United States (U.S.) that asked the technology company to produce the contents of one of its customer’s emails stored on a server located in Dublin, Ireland. The magistrate court denied Microsoft’s challenge, and Microsoft appealed. On July 31st, the software… Continue Reading
Over the past decade, the EU has made significant technological and legal strides toward the widespread adoption of electronic identification cards. An electronic ID card, or e-ID, serves as a form of secure identification for online transactions – in other words, it provides sufficient verification of an individual’s identity to allow that person to electronically… Continue Reading
On July 2, 2014 Singapore’s new Personal Data Protection Act (the “PDPA” or the “Act”)) will go into force, requiring companies that have a physical presence in Singapore to comply with many new data protection obligations under the PDPA. Fortunately, in advance of the Act’s effective date, the Singapore Personal Data Commission has recently promulgated… Continue Reading
Are social media companies based in the United States subject to European data privacy laws? Two recent judicial decisions – one in France and the other in Germany – arrived at different answers. The Civil Court of Paris held that Twitter, based in California, was obligated under the French Code of Civil Procedure to reveal… Continue Reading
For the second year in a row, Proskauer has conducted a global survey, “Social Media in the Workplace Around the World 2.0”, which addresses the use of social media in the work place. In 2012, Proskauer surveyed multinational businesses in 19 different countries (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, The Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hong-Kong, India, Ireland,… Continue Reading
It may seem obvious to a lay person that employees should refrain from insulting their companies on social media due to the threat of termination for cause; however, there are contradictory legal principles that apply to the use of social media by employees which can be used both for and against employees (i.e. freedom of speech, right to privacy, data protection laws, an employer’s right to take disciplinary action, public insult offense, etc.) As a consequence, there is uncertainty as to whether an employer can use its employees’ postings made on social media websites to sanction them.
Litigants navigating the conflict between U.S. discovery obligations and foreign data protection laws have a new ally, the American Bar Association (“the ABA”). The ABA recently passed Resolution 103, which “urges” that: [W]here possible in the context of the proceedings before them, U.S. federal, state, territorial, tribal and local courts consider and respect, as appropriate, the… Continue Reading
As mentioned in a prior post on this blog, earlier this year the Indian Ministry of Communications and Information Technology issued new privacy and data security rules under the Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 (the “Privacy Rules”). The strict consent requirements relating to the collection… Continue Reading
While the European Commission is seeking to update its 15-year-old Directive regarding the protection of personal data, several regulations have been passed to strengthen privacy rights in Europe. With all this activity, it’s clear that the United States is not the only country trying to adapt its privacy and information security standards to rapidly evolving technologies and marketplaces. Companies with an international presence need to stay alert to stay compliant. We can help!
India recently adopted a privacy and data security regulatory regime that fills the previous void of any such regulation with requirements that may force companies with operations in India and companies that outsource certain functions to Indian service providers to change the way they operate in order to comply. Visit our blog to see Proskauer attorney Paresh Trivedi’s article on the new Indian privacy rules.
Hot on the trail of the FTC’s recent report on privacy, the GSMA, the London-based industry association representing over 800 cellular network operators worldwide, released its “high-level” Mobile Privacy Principles (the “Principles”) on January 27, 2011.
In a September 8, 2010 opinion, Switzerland’s highest court announced that Internet Protocol (IP) addresses are personal information protected by the country’s data protection laws. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s ruling in In re Logistep AG, BGer, No. 1C-285/2009, 1C_295/2009, 9/8/10, adds to the longstanding debate over whether such information is personal information despite the fact that a single IP address can be attributed to more than one computer user. While the debate is far from over, the Logistep decision makes clear that businesses collecting information about individuals’ Internet activities, particularly those with operations in Europe, must treat IP addresses with care, as they may be protected by privacy laws in some jurisdictions.