Malaysian Data Protection Law Takes Effect
5 Minute Read
On November 14, 2013, the Minister of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (the “Minister”) announced that Malaysia’s Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (the “Act”) would be going into effect as of November 15, marking the end of years of postponements. The following features of the law are of particular significance:
- The law applies only to the processing of personal data in commercial transactions (in effect, private sector transactions, though not including credit reporting agency businesses). The law does not apply to Malaysia’s federal government or to its state governments.
- The law applies to the processing of personal data by persons established in Malaysia (or by any other person employed or engaged by a person established in Malaysia), and to processing of personal data by persons who are not established in Malaysia, but who use equipment located in Malaysia to process the personal data (other than for purposes of transit through Malaysia).
- Aside from corporations and partnerships formed under Malaysian law and Malaysian branches of foreign companies, the term “persons established in Malaysia” includes individuals who are physically present in Malaysia for 180 days or more per year, and persons who maintain “a regular practice” in Malaysia. It is unclear exactly what is meant by “a regular practice” in Malaysia.
- The law does not apply to the processing of personal data outside Malaysia, unless the personal data is intended to be processed further in Malaysia.
- The law imposes a number of generally applicable principles. Of these, the most significant on a practical level appear to be a principle requiring the data user to provide the data subject with notice of the purposes for which it will process personal data (and certain other information), and a principle requiring that a data subject must give consent to the processing of personal data. In addition, the Act also establishes principles of non-disclosure (confidentiality), security safeguards, retention limitations, data integrity and access and correction rights.
- The law establishes a category of sensitive personal data that requires the explicit consent of the data subject to be processed.
- The law imposes cross-border transfer restrictions. The basic rule is that data may not be transferred to locations outside of Malaysia unless the jurisdiction is included in a whitelist published by the Minister. However, the Minister did not publish a whitelist when he announced that the law was going into effect. Accordingly, until a whitelist is published, cross-border transfers may proceed via one of a few alternative means, such as (1) with the consent of the data subject, or (2) if the data user has taken all reasonable precautions and exercises due diligence to ensure that the personal data will not be processed in a manner that would contravene the Act. The latter appears to suggest the possibility of transferring data using standard contractual clauses, but this remains to be developed more fully.
- The law imposes some restrictions on the handling of personal data that is used in direct marketing. A data subject may require a data user to cease processing (or not start processing) his or her personal data for direct marketing purposes.
- The law allows the Minister to designate classes of data users who must register their data processing activities. At present, these include data users in the communications, banking and finance, insurance, health care, tourism and hospitality, transportation, education, direct sales, services, real estate and utilities sectors. Data users in these categories will have three months from November 15 to register.
- The Act imposes criminal penalties for violations. The penalties may include fines as well as imprisonment. For example, failure to cease using personal data for direct marketing purposes after a data subject has objected could result in a fine of up to 200,000 Malaysian Ringgit (approximately U.S. $62,800) and/or imprisonment of up to two years. A violation of the cross-border transfer restriction could result in a fine of up to 300,000 Malaysian Ringgit (approximately U.S. $94,200) and/or imprisonment of up to two years. A data user that is required to register, but processes personal data without having registered, could be subject to a fine of up to 500,000 Malaysian Ringgit (approximately U.S. $156,850) and/or imprisonment of up to three years.
- If a corporation violates the Act, individual officers who were to any extent responsible for the management of the corporation may be charged severally or jointly in the same proceedings with the corporation. This may include a director, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, manager, secretary or other similar officer.
- A new regulation whose promulgation accompanied the effectiveness of the Act includes a clarification on how to obtain a data subject’s “consent.” Under this regulation, consent must be obtained in a form that “can be recorded and maintained properly by the data user.” The burden of proof is on the data user to establish that consent was obtained.
Finally, the Minister announced the appointment of a Personal Data Protection Commissioner.
Going forward, it will be interesting to observe how enforcement is carried out in a country where there is less public awareness of privacy issues than may be found in other parts of the Asia-Pacific region.
Tags: Criminal Law, Cross-Border Data Flow, Data Protection Authority, Data Transfer, Legislation, Malaysia, Penalty
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
- Iowa
- 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