Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On August 5, 2011, the Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court announced its decision in what is reported to be the largest criminal case to date involving the misuse of personal information in Beijing, China.  The Court based its ruling on Article 7 of the Seventh Amendment to the Criminal Law, which applies to three types of criminal activities: (1) illegal sale of citizens’ personal information, (2) illegal provision of citizens’ personal information, and (3) illegal access to citizens’ personal information.

On August 24, 2011, France’s new law concerning electronic communications (Ordonnance n° 2011-1012 du 24 août 2011 relative aux communications électroniques, or the “Ordinance”) came into force.  The Ordinance implements the provisions of the revised EU Directive 2002/58/EC (the “e-Privacy Directive”) with respect to the French Data Protection Act of 1978, the French Postal and Electronic Communications Code and the French Consumer Protection Code.  In particular, the Ordinance introduces new provisions under the French Data Protection Act, which impose an obligation on electronic communication service providers to provide notice in the event of a data security breach. 

On August 24, 2011, France’s new law concerning electronic communications (Ordonnance n° 2011-1012 du 24 août 2011 relative aux communications électroniques, or the “Ordinance”) came into force.  The Ordinance implements the provisions of the revised EU Directive 2002/58/EC (the “e-Privacy Directive”) with respect to the French Data Protection Act of 1978, the French Postal and Electronic Communications Code and the French Consumer Protection Code.  Specifically, the Ordinance amends the existing legal framework concerning cookies and introduces an opt-in regime for the use of cookies.

On August 19, 2011, the Data Protection Commissioner’s Office of the German federal state of Schleswig-Holstein (“ULD”) ordered all businesses in that state “to shut down their fan pages on Facebook and remove social plug-ins such as the ‘like’-button from their websites.”  Although this warning is specific to Facebook users, the regulator’s explanation of its motives reveals a fundamental concern about common data analytics practices:

“By using the Facebook service traffic and content data are transferred into the USA and a qualified feedback is sent back to the website owner concerning the web page usage, the so called web analytics (Ger.: Reichweitenanalyse).  Whoever visits facebook.com or uses a plug-in must expect that he or she will be tracked by the company for two years.  Facebook builds a broad individual and for members even a personalised profile.  Such a profiling infringes German and European data protection law.  There is no sufficient information of users and there is no choice; the wording in the conditions of use and privacy statements of Facebook does not nearly meet the legal requirements relevant for compliance of legal notice, privacy consent and general terms of use.”

On July 13, 2011, the Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) signed a Protocol with the Ministry of Justice which significantly simplifies the authorization procedure for binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) under Belgian law.  The Protocol was just made public on the Belgian DPA's website. 

On August 24, 2011, the Government of India’s Ministry of Communications & Information Technology issued a clarification regarding India’s new privacy regulations, known as the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 (the “Rules”), under Section 43A of the Information Technology Act 2000.

Lush Cosmetics Ltd. (“Lush”) has avoided a monetary penalty for its breach of the UK Data Protection Act 1998.  Instead, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) has required Lush to sign an undertaking that obliges the company to “ensure that future customer credit card data will be processed in accordance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard.”

The Department of Commerce released an English translation of Peru’s Law for Personal Data Protection (Ley de Protección de Datos Personales, Ley No. 29733).  The law passed Peru’s Congress on June 7, 2011, and was signed by the president July 2, 2011.  Peru’s adoption of this new law is in keeping with a recent trend in Latin America, where Uruguay, Mexico and Colombia also have passed privacy legislation.

On August 15, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with W3 Innovations, LLC, doing business as Broken Thumbs Apps (“W3”) for violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) and the FTC’s COPPA Rule.  This marks the FTC’s first privacy settlement involving mobile applications.

On July 27, 2011, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People’s Republic of China (the “MIIT”) published a draft rule including provisions regulating the processing of personal information by “Internet Information Service Providers.”  The draft rule, entitled “Provisions on the Administration of Internet Information Services” (the “Draft Provisions”), is not the first rule regulating Internet information services in China.  In 2000, the MIIT enacted the “Measures for the Administration of Internet Information Services” (the “Measures”), which took effect on September 25, 2000.  However, the Measures do not include any explicit provisions addressing the protection of personal information.

On June 9, 2011, Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of Hunton & Williams LLP’s Privacy and Data Security practice, spoke during the regulatory session on state and federal laws at NetDiligence’s Cyber Risk & Privacy Liability Forum in Philadelphia.  Sotto discussed recent changes to the legal landscape, emphasizing regulatory authorities’ growing interest in policy and enforcement issues and increased legislative activity on the state and federal levels.

View an excerpt from Sotto’s remarks as part of the panel discussion.

Several health care industry groups requested that the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) either remove or significantly revise a proposed “access report” requirement in its recent notice of proposed rulemaking (the “Proposed Rule”) for the accounting of disclosures of protected health information (“PHI”).  As we reported in May, HHS issued the Proposed Rule that revises existing HIPAA Privacy Rule provisions regarding accounting of disclosures and gives individuals a new right to obtain an “access report” that would list the specific persons who have accessed a patient’s PHI, and describe any actions taken by those persons with respect to the PHI (e.g., create, modify, access or delete).

On July 28, 2011, the International Association of Privacy Professionals (“IAPP”) hosted a webinar that addressed the upcoming audit program of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”).  Susan McAndrew, the Deputy Director for Health Information Privacy at OCR, provided an overview of the audit program, noting that it stemmed from Section 13411 of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act.  That section of the HITECH Act authorized the Secretary of the Health and Human Services to “provide for periodic audits to ensure that covered entities and business associates” comply with the requirements of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules.

On July 29, 2011, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced a $7,500 settlement with Belmont Savings Bank following a May 2011 data breach involving the names, Social Security numbers and account numbers of more than 13,000 Massachusetts residents.  The bank has stated that it has no evidence of unauthorized access to or use of consumers’ personal information in connection with this breach.