data security

Subscribe to data security via RSS

The developing coronavirus pandemic affects businesses and personnel within the state and elsewhere.  With more New Yorkers working from home, there are more opportunities for cyberattacks through unsecure remote connections and the public concern growing each day.

The New York SHIELD (“Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security”) Act was signed to law on July 25, 2019.  It is an amendment to New York’s data breach notification law.  The SHIELD Act provides a number of changes that we reported last year, including expanding the definitions of “private information” and “breach.”  The definition of “private information” now covers emails and passwords or security questions and answers, credit card details, and biometric data among others.  A “breach of the security system” now covers unauthorized access, where such access may have occurred if “the information was viewed, communicated with, used, or altered” without authorization.

In November 2017, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman introduced the Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security (SHIELD) Act (the “Act”) in the state’s Legislature. Companies – big and small – that collect information from New York residents should take note, as the Act could mean increased compliance costs,…

The European Commission has released proposals for new legislation that seeks to create stronger privacy in electronic communications. The draft Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulation (the “Regulation”) is intended to replace the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and will also bring the law in line with the new rules as set out in the General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) as part of the process to modernize the data protection framework in the EU. As a regulation (rather than a directive) it will apply uniformly across the EU as there will be one single set of rules which will crease more legal certainty, save for certain prescribed areas where EU Member States can have their own rules.

On December 2, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) published its Report and Order entitled “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services” (the “Order”) as a final rule in the Federal Register, adopting rules applicable to Internet service providers (“ISPs”) intended to protect the privacy of broadband consumers. Despite the publication of the rules in the Federal Register, uncertainty remains regarding when ISPs must be in compliance with some of these newly established privacy obligations. Although the rules are effective January 3, 2017, the FCC has made exceptions to the January 3, 2017 effective date for provisions which have not yet been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).[1] This includes many of the operative provisions of the new rules regarding ISPs’ data collection and use. Once such provisions are approved by the OMB, notice will be published in the Federal Register announcing their approval and corresponding effective dates.

Despite the uncertainty regarding the effective dates of many sections, the publication of the Order puts ISPs on notice of the new rules, and ISPs should begin revising their practices so that they are able to meet the earliest possible effective dates. Here is what ISPs need to know regarding compliance with the new rules:

TalkTalk, a major UK telecoms company, has been fined £400,000 for a data breach after they were hacked. This is a record fine given by the ICO (the UK’s data protection authority).  Significantly the fine was imposed after a change of leadership this summer when Elizabeth Denham (previously the Information…

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ruling that a plaintiff must sufficiently allege an injury that is both concrete and particularized in order to have Article III standing, and further that a “bare procedural violation” of a plaintiff’s statutory right may not be…

Over the course of the coming weeks, we will examine the various options available to companies in light of the European Court of Justice’s (CJEU) decision invalidating the US-EU Safe Harbor framework, including model contracts, binding corporate rules (BCRs), consent and reliance on derogations.

News out of Germany, however, indicates that a one-size-fits all approach to data transfers from the EU to the U.S. may be difficult to achieve.

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 Harbor for the transfer of user data in what many see as an important test case; this lawsuit will be the topic of a future blog post.