On March 26, 2021, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its comments on the Irish Data Protection Commissioner’s (“DPC”) draft guidance on safeguarding the personal data of children when providing online services, “Children Front and Centre—Fundamentals for a Child-Oriented Approach to Data Processing” (the “Draft Guidance”).
The Draft Guidance, issued on December 20, 2020, adds to a growing body of work carried out by regulators, including the UK Information Commissioner's Office (“ICO”) in their Code of Practice for Age Appropriate Design for Online Services (the “ICO Age Appropriate Code”).
In its comments, CIPL encourages the development of shared, consistent approaches to children’s data, including the development of a common interpretation of General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) requirements as they relate to the processing of children’s data and a common, broader approach to protection of children in data processing situations.
CIPL notes that the fundamental approaches of both the Draft Guidance and the ICO Age Appropriate Code have much in common, including a focus on the centrality of the interests of the child as a guiding principle and the adoption of a risk-based approach in some areas. However, there are also some fundamental differences between them, including an outright prohibition on the profiling of children in the Draft Guidance. The Draft Guidance also applies to all organizations that process children’s data, not just providers of Information Society Services (“ISS”), and has a broader scope than the ICO Age Appropriate Code, covering issues such as how to address security standards, handle data breaches and use biometrics. CIPL recommends that the approach of the Draft Guidance be reconciled with the ICO where possible, in the interests of consistency.
CIPL has further identified some key practical and strategic issues with the Draft Guidance. In particular, CIPL recommends that the Draft Guidance:
- Provide clarification as to the scope of organizations to which it applies, and avoid capturing all online businesses, just because there is a possibility that users may be children;
- Have a clearer focus on and leverage the GDPR concept of a risk-based approach, such as by recognizing that not all processing of personal data relating to children raises the same level of risk;
- Take a practical and proportional approach to age verification, such as by limiting the scope of the age verification requirement to services that are specifically targeted at children, or have a high likelihood of being visited by children because of the nature of the service or goods;
- Not be prescriptive, e.g., by avoiding mandating prescriptive or granular requirements with respect to design and how to provide transparent information;
- Clearly link the list of design and default measures provided to the substantive guidance in the body of the Draft Guidance rather than adding them as a separate list;
- Acknowledge children’s other fundamental rights and freedoms, such as their right to autonomy, association, play, access to information, education and freedom of expression;
- Take a risk-based approach to profiling and acknowledge that when profiling is used, the best interest of the child should be assessed, with particular attention to the purpose of the processing, the role that profiling plays in the provided service and the safeguards put in place to address likely and serious harms, as well as the fact that there are beneficial uses of data for children, including profiling;
- Enable organizations to adapt their online services to different child audiences and provide examples of how to do so; and
- Provide that the obligation not to “downgrade” services should only apply to services intended for children.
CIPL provides further recommendations with respect to the approach of the Draft Guidance, including in relation to proposed “strictest” privacy settings, arrangements around account migration and retention for users turning 16, a higher standard of security for children compared to adults, the consistency of service across different devices and platforms, the use of biometrics, the tailoring of privacy setting to different users on a shared device and the processing of children’s data at a device level instead of in the cloud.
CIPL’s full comments can be reviewed here.
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 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 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
- 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 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 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