As documented in Dirceu Santa Rosa’s article for the IAPP’s Privacy Tracker, efforts to delay the effective date of Brazil’s General Data Protection Law – Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados or LGPD – recently failed, and the law is expected to go into force in the coming days. Brazil’s federal government also published a decree approving the regulatory structure of the Autoridade Nacional de Proteção de Dados, i.e., Brazil’s national data protection authority.
The fallout from the Schrems II judgment continued with an announcement from Switzerland’s Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC) that the Swiss-US Privacy Shield regime “does not provide an adequate level of protection for data transfer from Switzerland to the US pursuant to [Switzerland’s] Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP).”
Last week, Didier Reynders, European Commissioner for Justice, and Dr. Andrea Jelinek, Chair of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), appeared at a hearing conducted by the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and updated committee members on their work since the Schrems II decision.
In his remarks, Mr. Reynders identified three main areas on which the Commission is focusing.
On Friday, August 14, 2020, the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the California Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) final CCPA regulations and filed them with the California Secretary of State (SOS). The regulations were immediately effective. Notably, the final text of the regulations submitted to the SOS was modified from the one filed with the OAL. The OAG published an Addendum to the Final Statement of Reasons setting forth the changes. Many of the changes are stylistic and grammatical. However, some of the changes are substantive and will impact compliance efforts. The most notable changes are discussed below.
The EDPB’s FAQs resolve some open questions, such as whether there will be a grace period for companies relying on Privacy Shield, but raise other questions, such as what “supplementary measures” companies need to put in place to use Standard Contractual Clauses and Binding Corporate Rules.
In the wake of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s Schrems II judgment, on July 23, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted a Frequently Asked Questions document to “provide initial clarification and give preliminary guidance to stakeholders on the use of legal instruments for the transfer of personal data to third countries, including the U.S.” The EDPB stated that the document will be updated, and further guidance provided, as it continues to examine and consider the judgment. The six-page FAQs provides the following guidance.
In a ground-breaking opinion issued today, the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield Decision as a method for transferring personal data from the EU to the US. In short, the Decision was invalidated over Privacy Shield’s failure to adequately address US government surveillance activities.
According to multiple sources, a bipartisan group of Senators plan to introduce a bill to regulate the use of contact-tracing and exposure notification apps. The bill, entitled the “Exposure Notification Privacy Act” is the latest in a series of bills that seek to regulate these new apps. The new bipartisan bill raises hopes that federal privacy legislation (albeit on a limited issue) may finally pass.
Although it is unclear whether the forthcoming bill has any chance of becoming law, it is further evidence that companies need to consider the significant privacy issues and risks associated with implementing COVID-19-related technology.
On April 30, 2020, a group of four Republican Senators announced their plan to introduce federal privacy legislation that would regulate the collection and use of personal information relating to the fight against the Coronavirus pandemic. How would the proposed bill, COVID-19 Consumer Data Protection Act, attempt to solve privacy concerns?
On Friday, February 28, 2020 the Washington House Innovation, Technology & Economic Development Committee (ITED) voted to pass a strengthened version of the Washington Privacy Act (WPA) out of committee. On February 14, the Washington Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass the WPA. Yet, after moving to the House, the WPA encountered substantial resistance from privacy advocates. At a public hearing on February 21, 2020 privacy advocates argued against the WPA’s lack of a private right of action, facial recognition provisions and preemption of local laws, among other things.
This month in Security magazine, we explore how Corning's global security group ensured business continuity and employee safety during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Also, we highlight the global security team at Uber and their recent security programs and initiatives. Industry experts discuss travel safety programs, career hackers, working for terrible bosses, group attribution error and more.