On April 29, 2022, the National Information Security Standardization Technical Committee of China issued a draft version of the Cybersecurity Standard Practice Guidelines – Technical Specification on Certification of Personal Information Cross-border Transfer Activities (the “Guidelines”). The public comment period for the Guidelines closed May 13, 2022. The Guidelines establish the basic requirements for personal information protection certifications, which are one of four cross-border transfer mechanisms permitted under Article 38 of China’s Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”).
Certifications for personal information cross-border processing are voluntary, as there are other means by which cross-border processing can occur. However, the Chinese government nonetheless recommends that parties seek certification by qualified entities, which will be named at a later date. The key provisions of the Guidelines are listed below.
Application of the Guidelines
The Guidelines will only be applicable to two types of cross-border transfers: (1) internal cross-border transfers within one multinational company or one economic/business entity; and (2) cross-border transfers by non-Chinese entities that analyze and assess the behavior of the individuals located in China subject to the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the PIPL.
In cases of internal transfers, the Chinese entity of the multinational company or economic/business entity may apply for the certification and will be liable for the relevant cross-border transfer activities. In cases of extra-territorial jurisdiction of the PIPL, the domestic institution or the representative of the foreign entity may submit the application for certification and will be liable for the relevant cross-border transfer activities.
Basic Requirements for Certification
The Guidelines set forth several areas that must be addressed in the certification, including but not limited to: (1) legally binding agreements between the parties involved; (2) management of personal information protection within the parties’ organizations; (3) personal information protection impact assessments (“PIPIAs”); and (4) rights of the data subjects.
1. Legally Binding Agreements Between the Parties Involved
The parties involved in the cross-border transfer must execute a legally binding and enforceable contract that, among other things:
- describes the parties involved in the cross-border transfer (the “Parties”);
- describes the purposes of cross-border transfer and the types and scope of personal information to be transferred;
- describes the safeguards for protection of rights of data subjects;
- requires the Parties to comply with the uniform personal information processing rules and specifies that the level of personal information protection shall not be lower than that stipulated by Chinese law with respect of personal information protection;
- requires the Parties to accept the supervision of the certification institution;
- requires the Parties to abide Chinese personal information protection laws; and
- requires the Parties to explicitly appoint a Chinese entity, which shall be responsible for the cross-border transfer activities.
2. Management of Personal Information Protection Within the Parties’ Organizations
The Guidelines require that the Parties designate Personal Information Protection Officer.
The Parties must designate a data protection officer who must have sufficient knowledge of personal information protection requirements and appropriate work experience. The Guidelines suggest, but do not require, that this officer be a senior management-level employee within the organization.
The Parties must also set up a personal information protection department, which will be responsible for:
- promulgating and implementing the cross-border transfer plan recognized by the Parties;
- organizing the PIPIA;
- supervising the personal information processing in according with personal information processing rules; and
- receiving and handling the complaints and requests of data subjects.
The Guidelines also require the Parties to implement and comply with cross-border personal information transfer and processing policies. These policies must contain:
- information regarding the processing, including the types of personal information transferred or processed, the degree of sensitivity and the volume of personal information transferred;
- the purpose, means and scope of cross-border transfer;
- the starting time and ending time for personal information storage and how to process personal information after the expiration of the storage period;
- the country/region where personal information will be transferred;
- the resources required for safeguarding the rights of the data subjects and relevant measures to be taken by the party; and
- the compensation and handling procedures with respect to data incidents.
3. PIPIAs
The Parties must conduct a PIPIA, which must at least address:
- whether the cross-border transfer complies with Chinese laws and regulations;
- the impact of cross-border transfer on the interests of the data subjects;
- the impact of legal environment of the foreign country/region and cybersecurity environment on the interests of data subjects; and
- other matters for safeguarding the personal information interests.
4. Rights of Data Subjects
The Guidelines require the Parties to obtain the individual’s informed separate consent to the cross-border transfer of their personal information, in addition to obtaining certification of the cross-border transfer. Individuals must be notified by email, SMS, mail or fax about: (1) the overseas personal information processor’s identity; (2) the categories of personal information transferred; (3) the purpose for transferring the personal information; and (4) the retention period for the personal information. Parties must provide these data subject with access to their personal information and ensure that data subjects can exercise their rights to access, copy, correct, supplement or delete their personal information as provided for under the PIPL.
This draft of the Guidelines provides a relatively flexible certification mechanism for personal information protection in China with respect to the cross-border transfer of personal information. It is expected to see a more detailed and practical implementation rule on a specific certification procedure as well as qualified certification institutions in the final version of the Guidelines or other relevant implementing rules.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott H. Kimpel
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code