The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has released its second quarterly report of notifiable data breaches. This report is of particular significance as it, unlike the first “quarterly” report, covers a full quarter and therefore depicts a more accurate account of data breaches over a calendar quarter.
This year all Australians will have a My Health Record created. A My Health Record will operate as a digital medical file that allows healthcare providers to upload health information about a patient. This information may include prescriptions, medical conditions and test results. A patient’s digital medical file will be stored in a national electronic database operated by Australian Digital Health Agency (ADHA).
On July 2, 2018, the French Data Protection Authority (“Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés” or “CNIL”) published its yearly thematic guidance for the priority axes of its control activities, notably further to the entry into force of the recent General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).
As for the previous periods, the CNIL is expecting to launch 300 dawn-raids, either on premises or online, in order to control compliance of companies subject to French and European data protection regulations, notably on newly introduced aspects relating to the implementation of GDPR (right to portability, data protection impact assessments…).
One of the new aspects of GDPR also includes the joint control operations by several EU supervisory authorities.
The themes which will guide the CNIL’s actions over the following months will include:
- Recruitment operations
While the development of big data solutions and AI-assisted recruitment, through the use of algorithm offer the vast possibility to assess the applicants and predicts their adequacy for the position on the basis of pre-defined criteria, such technologies are also likely to impact a broad number of data subjects and subject them to arbitrary or opaque decision making outcomes. The CNIL will therefore target the transparency and the selection requirements, as well as retention periods for the surrounding meta data.
- Real estate documentation
Fair home access is a key concern of our times. French Decree no.2015-1437 dated 5 November 2015 aims at protecting tenants with regard to information which may be requested. However, almost three years after this decree, it seems that asking additional documentation remains common practice, including sensitive data such as medical files. The lack of proportionality between the documents requested and the purposes of the processing may affect the compliance of realtors, who will be a priority control target.
- Connected e-ticketing services
The MAPTAM Act allowed for local territorial administration to outsource the parking ticket process and the automation thereof. However, several complaints emerged since the beginning of the year from data subjects who perceived a decrease in their protection under the data protection framework. As such, the CNIL will also target the conditions under which the outsourcing operations have been performed and the conditions for use, retention and safeguarding of the data subjects’ information.
While the guidance addresses the control aspects of its activities, the CNIL also mentioned that the follow up to such controls, notably in terms of sanctions against the controlled companies, would be assessed at a later stage and will take into consideration good faith efforts initiated by targeted companies. The French Privacy team of K&L Gates remains available to assist you in your implementation and evaluation of your GDPR compliance strategy.
As a consequence, it remains a priority to validate a sound action plan to reach compliance with GDPR undertakings by the end of this year for all impacted companies.
Source in French: CNIL website
While the rest of us were still recovering from the May 25 effective date of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), California, the most populous and largest economy of any of the United States, confidently adopted a broad consumer privacy law. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) was enacted June 28 and becomes operative on January 1, 2020. Unlike existing industry-specific U.S. privacy laws, the CCPA has a broad overall scope, more like the GDPR. It ensures California residents the right to know what information about them is being collected and sold or disclosed, to reject the sale of their personal information, to access the information, and to receive equal service and price, even if they exercise their privacy rights.
Unlike the GDPR, the CCPA does not extend to extra-territorial coverage. The CCPA applies only to for-profit businesses doing business in California and sets certain thresholds for business activity and size, thereby protecting most of the Silicon Valley start-up community from the cost of compliance. The CCPA protects the rights of “consumers,” who are natural persons residing in California, and generally does not apply to California residents while they are outside of California.
By Cameron Abbott and Sarah Goegan
The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued a notice of intent to levy a £500,000 fine against Facebook for breaches of the UK’s Data Protection Act 1998. The ICO found that Facebook failed to protect its users’ data and be transparent about how that data was being harvested. This failure, ICO said, did not enable users to understand how and why they may be targeted by a political party or campaign.
The fine comes as part of a larger investigation by ICO into misuse of data in political campaigns, and responds to the highly publicised allegations that Cambridge Analytica used data obtained from Facebook to target voters in the 2016 US presidential election.
In 2017 Andie Fox, a recipient of Centrelink benefits, wrote a highly critical opinion piece on Centrelink’s debt recovery system, alleging that she was being pursued for a non-existent debt. In response Centrelink provided Ms Fox’s personal information, previous communications and claims history to a journalist who published an article claiming that Centrelink had been ‘unfairly castigated’ by Fox. The OAIC commenced an investigation into the release and has controversially confirmed Centrelink’s disclosure as permitted under the Privacy Act.