Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On April 8, 2015, a New York Assemblyman introduced the Data Security Act in the New York State Assembly that would require New York businesses to implement and maintain information security safeguards. The requirements would apply to “private information,” which is defined as either:

• personal information consisting of any information in combination with one or more of the following data elements, when either the personal information or the data element is not encrypted: Social Security number; driver’s license number or non-driver identification card number; financial account or credit or debit card number in combination with any required security code or password; or biometric information;
• a user name or email address in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account; or
• unsecured protected health information (as that term is defined in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule).

On March 31, 2015, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) filed a petition (the “Petition”) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit accusing the Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) of unlawfully failing to include privacy rules in the FAA’s proposed framework of regulations for unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”), otherwise known as drones. The Petition stems from the FAA’s November 2014 denial of another EPIC petition calling for the FAA to address the threat of privacy and civil liberties associated with the deployment of aerial drones within the U.S.

On April 23, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that Nomi Technologies (“Nomi”) has agreed to settle charges stemming from allegations that the company misled consumers with respect to their ability to opt out of the company’s mobile device tracking service at retail locations. The settlement marks the FTC’s first Section 5 enforcement action against a company that provides tracking services at retailers.

The House of Representatives passed two complimentary bills related to cybersecurity, the “Protecting Cyber Networks Act” (H.R. 1560) and the “National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015” (H.R. 1731). These bills provide, among other things, liability protection for (1) the use of monitoring and defensive measures to protect information systems, and (2) the sharing of cybersecurity threat information amongst non-federal entities and with the federal government. With the Senate having just recently overcome disagreement on sex trafficking legislation and the Attorney General nomination, that body is now expected to consider similar information sharing legislation entitled the “Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act” (S. 754) in the coming weeks. Assuming S. 754 also is passed by the Senate, the two Chambers of Congress will convene a Conference Committee to draft a single piece of legislation which will be then voted on by the House and Senate, before heading to the President’s desk. The White House has not committed to signing any resulting legislation, but has signaled some positive support.

On April 15, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) announced that it has joined the Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities (“APPA”), the principal forum for privacy authorities in the Asia-Pacific Region. APPA members meet twice a year to discuss recent developments, issues of common interest and cooperation. The FCC now joins the Federal Trade Commission as the U.S. representatives to APPA.

On April 16, 2015, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published its Annual Activity Report for 2014 (the “Report”) highlighting its main accomplishments in 2014 and outlining some of the topics it will consider further in 2015.

On April 14, 2015, the American Chamber of Commerce in China (“AmCham”) published a report, entitled Protecting Data Flows in the US-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (the “Report”). The Report is part of AmCham’s Policy Spotlight Series. While in principle addressed to the U.S. and Chinese teams that are currently negotiating the Bilateral Investment Treaty, the Report has been made public. It thereby provides insight into the emerging issue of data localization for the benefit of a much wider audience.

On April 15, 2015, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”) Electronic Commerce Steering Group issued a press release announcing Canada’s participation in the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (“CBPR”) System. The U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration also released an official press statement.

On April 13, 2015, the Senate of Washington State unanimously passed legislation strengthening the state’s data breach law. The bill (HB 1078) passed the Senate by a 47-0 vote, and as we previously reported, passed the House by a 97-0 vote.

On April 13, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it has settled charges with two debt brokers who posted consumers’ unencrypted personal information on a public website. The settlements with Cornerstone and Company, LLC (“Cornerstone”), Bayview Solutions, LLC (“Bayview”), and the companies’ individual owners resulted from initial complaints about the debt brokers in 2014. Cornerstone and Bayview allegedly had posted the personal information of their debtors in unencrypted Excel spreadsheets on a publicly accessible website geared to buyers and sellers of consumer debt. The information included consumers’ names, addresses, credit card numbers, bank account numbers and debt amounts.

On March 26, 2015 the United Nations Human Rights Council (the “Council”) announced that it will appoint a new position as special rapporteur on the right to privacy for a term of three years. The position, which is part of the Council’s resolution, is intended to reaffirm the right to privacy and the right to the protection of the law against any interference on a person’s privacy, family, home or correspondences, as set out in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

On April 7, 2015, the FTC announced proposed settlements with TES Franchising, LLC, an organization specializing in business coaching, and American International Mailing, Inc., an alternative mail transporting company, related to charges that the companies falsely claimed they were compliant with the U.S.-EU and U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Frameworks.

On April 8, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission announced a $25 million settlement with AT&T Services, Inc. (“AT&T”) stemming from allegations that AT&T failed to protect the confidentiality of consumers’ personal information, resulting in data breaches at AT&T call centers in Mexico, Colombia and the Philippines. The breaches, which took place over 168 days from November 2013 to April 2014, involved unauthorized access to customers’ names, full or partial Social Security numbers and certain protected account-related data, affecting almost 280,000 U.S. customers.

From Wall Street to Main Street to Hollywood, steering clear of a data breach is challenging in a world where it is no longer a question of if but rather a matter of when your company will be hit. Hunton & Williams’ Chair of the Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice Lisa Sotto speaks in depth with associate Brittany Bacon about three groups of attackers, how they are infiltrating IT systems, what they are looking for, and how you can prepare. Today, Sotto says, cybersecurity is a legal issue, a risk issue and a governance issue, and one that matters to shareholders, boards of directors ...

On April 1, 2015, the Global Privacy Enforcement Network (“GPEN”) released its 2014 annual report (the “Report”). This Report marks the first time that GPEN has issued an annual report highlighting the network’s accomplishments throughout the year. GPEN is a network of approximately 50 privacy enforcement authorities from around the world, including the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission.

The International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners (the “Conference”) has launched a new permanent website. The new website fulfills the agreement made between Commissioners “to create a permanent website in particular as a common base for information and resources management” in the Montreux Declaration adopted in 2005. The Executive Committee Secretariat called the website a “one-stop-shop for permanent Conference documentation,” and will be a resource for members and the public to explore upcoming Conference events and newsfeeds ...

On March 27, 2015, the England and Wales Court of Appeal issued its judgment in Google Inc. v Vidal-Hall and Others. Google Inc. (“Google”) appealed an earlier decision by Tugendhat J. in the High Court in January 2014. The claimants were users of Apple’s Safari browser who argued that during certain months in 2011 and 2012, Google collected information about their browsing habits via cookies placed on their devices without their consent and in breach of Google’s privacy policy.

Hunton & Williams is pleased to announce the release of its newly designed and mobile-responsive Privacy and Information Security Law Blog, www.huntonprivacyblog.com.

“Our award-winning blog has served the entire privacy community — from companies and practitioners to international regulators,” said Lisa Sotto, who heads the firm’s global privacy and cybersecurity practice. “This new version of Hunton & Williams’ privacy blog offers our audience greater access to information in real time and more interactive features, which are critical in this fast-changing arena.”

As reported in Bloomberg BNA, on April 1, 2015, the White House announced that President Obama has signed a new executive order providing the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, the ability to impose sanctions on individuals and entities that engage in certain cyber-enabled activities. The signed executive order, entitled Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (the “Executive Order”), focuses on blocking the property or interests in property located in the United States of persons engaging in cyber-enabled activities that cause a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, economic health or financial stability of the U.S. (collectively, the “Significant Threat”).