On February 28, 2024, President Biden released an Executive Order (“EO”) “addressing the extraordinary and unusual national security threat posed by the continued effort of certain countries of concern to access Americans’ bulk sensitive personal data and certain U.S. Government-related data.” In tandem with the EO, the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ’s”) National Security Division is set to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPRM”) pursuant to the EO, which directs the DOJ to “establish, implement and administer new and targeted national security programming” to address the threat. The DOJ regulations will identify specific categories of “data transactions” that are prohibited or restricted due to their “unacceptable risk to national security.”
The announced EO appears to be concerned with the ability of foreign powers and state-sponsored threat actors to access Americans’ sensitive personal data for intelligence collection and economic espionage, especially through the use of AI to target such data. The ANPRM further notes that sensitive data is easily obtained by countries of concern, through the purchase and access of such data through vendor, employment, investment and other commercial relationships of companies subject to these countries’ jurisdiction. The EO defines “sensitive data” to include biometric, financial, genomic, geolocation, health data and other personal identifiers that are used to understand Americans’ patterns of life, spending and purchase habits, financial troubles, desires, likes and dislikes, and visits to potentially sensitive locations (e.g., places of worship, health clinics). The EO factsheet highlights threat actors’ potential nefarious use of such data to profile and target individuals and engage in a wide range of malicious activity, much of which is based on identifying and targeting people in particular occupations or communities. Such malicious activity ranges from espionage to blackmail.
The EO’s reported objectives include:
- Creating a new program for the DOJ to enforce against the foreign exploitation of U.S. data (though the establishment of generalized data localization requirements are expressly prohibited);
- Identifying countries of concern;
- Regulating transactions with “covered persons,” which will be categorically defined classes of entities or individuals designated as such due to their relationship with a country of concern;
- Defining four categories of “covered persons” (which will not include U.S. individuals);
- Defining six categories of “sensitive personal data” and their exceptions;
- Enhancing existing transaction-specific DOJ authority to address data security risks, including within the areas of telecommunications infrastructure, the health care market, and consumer protection (authorities include the “Team Telecom” review committee, CFIUS review, and supply-chain counterintelligence); and
- Enhancing the role of other agencies to assist, including the Departments of State, Commerce, Treasure, Homeland Security and others.
The ANPRM’s reported objectives include:
- Identifying countries of concern (currently focused on China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela);
- Describing the initial categories of restricted or prohibited transactions involving bulk sensitive personal data or certain U.S. Government-related data (the EO exempts certain categories related to “low-risk economic activity” and other government and law enforcement activities);
- Further defining and refining “sensitive personal data” by regulation;
- Identifying categories of prohibited or restricted covered data transactions (and setting security requirements for the latter) and identifying relevant exemptions;
- Regulating the “re-exportation” of data to countries of concern;
- Considering processes for DOJ licensing and advisory opinions pursuant to the regulations; and
- Establishing penalties for violations under the new program.
The EO is issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and likely to significantly increase the power of the DOJ to enforce data-related issues involving foreign interference. Combined with the FTC’s increased authority to enforce domestic private sector issues, this development reflects the prioritization of data protection by the current administration. The DOJ noted that the EO is targeted to specific countries and concerns, and that its intention is not to disrupt cross-border data flows or international research collaboration.
The DOJ currently is considering prohibiting data-brokerage transactions and certain genomic-data transactions, and restricting vendor (including cloud-service), employment and investment agreements, which could potentially have a significant impact on companies’ compliance obligations with respect to persons related to identified “countries of concern.” The ANPRM will have a 45-day comment period.
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