As we’ve discussed in prior posts, newly effective regulations promulgated under Massachusetts’ recent data security law, Mass. Gen. Law ch. 93H, have raised the bar for data security compliance, and they have a long reach.  The regulations are national and international in scope, as they apply to all companies –

A draft Congressional bill released Tuesday, May 3 aims enhance consumer privacy protections both online and offline and establish a national framework for the collection, use and security of consumer information, superseding state law requirements regarding the collection, use and disclosure of the information it covers. The draft legislation, sponsored by Congressmen Rick Boucher (D, Va.) and Cliff Stearns (R, Fla.), recognizes the importance of online advertising in supporting free online content and services and attempts to extend privacy protections without disruption of this business model.

Massachusetts’s new data security regulations, effective as of March 1, 2010, currently set forth the country’s most stringent requirements for protecting data. Extending beyond what is required by other states, Massachusetts specifies that, for example, covered entities must implement a written information security program and must encrypt personal information that will be transmitted over the Internet, or that is kept on laptops and other portable devices. Massachusetts regulators and enforcement agencies would likely make the following three arguments that out of state entities must also comply with the new regulations.

In anticipation of the Swine Flu and the consequences that it may have upon the continuity of the business of companies, the French Data Protection Agency (known under the acronym "CNIL") recently issued recommendations regarding employers’ collection of employee data in connection with their swine flu business continuity programs.

The French government has strongly recommended that companies set up a plan for the continuity of their businesses in case of pandemic flu. Indeed, in case of pandemic, the French authorities anticipate significant degrees of absenteeism among employees and a possible paralysis of certain companies if they are not sufficiently prepared. 

Undersecretary Barbara Anthony, of the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, announced today revisions to Massachusetts’ data security regulations, as well as an extension of the applicable compliance deadline from January 1, 2010 to March 1, 2010.  (Previous to an earlier extension, the compliance deadline was May 1, 2009.)

The revised regulations emphasize their “risk-based” approach, enabling persons covered by the regulations to tailor their information security programs to their size, scope, type of business, resources, amount of personal information, and need.  These changes were primarily intended to ease the burden of the regulations on small businesses that may not handle a significant amount of personal information, or may not have the resources to develop a sophisticated security program.  That said, the changes apply to all business, not just small businesses.

With social networking sites proliferating across international boundaries, privacy and data protection concerns are becoming increasingly relevant. With these concerns in mind, the Article 29 Working Party, an independent European advisory body on data protection and privacy, adopted an opinion on online social networking on June 12, 2009.

As noted

Over the course of the last decade, many companies have become accustomed to notifying consumers of their data collection practices in their online privacy policy.  However, in a recent proposed settlement, the FTC indicated that, at least under the facts before them, disclosures that were “buried” in a privacy policy were not sufficient.

On June 4, the FTC reported a proposed settlement with Sears Holding Management Corporation of a complaint that Sears had failed to meaningfully disclose to customers the extent of the information it was collecting through its online market research software.  The FTC claimed that this failure to disclose constituted an “unfair or deceptive act” under the Federal Trade Commission Act.