European Union flag.

EU-US Data Transfers After Schrems II: European Commission Publishes New Draft Standard Contractual Clauses

Image Credit: GregMontani from Pixabay.

On November 12, 2020, roughly four months after the European Court of Justice’s “Schrems II” decision which invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield, the EU Commission released a draft set of new Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs” or “model clauses”).

These updated SCCs allow transfers of personal data from the EU to third countries, as well as a transfers by controllers when engaging processors located inside the EU. (For a further analysis of the Schrems II judgment, and the motivation for these new clauses, see our prior blog post).

Who can use the new SCCs?

The Commission’s draft, which includes the new SCCSs in its Annex, covers two new types of international transfers and contains important updates in order to bring the text of the model clauses in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

The current SCCs, approved by the Commission in 2001 and 2010, only addressed two data flow scenarios:

  • An EU-based controller exporting data outside of the EU to other controllers (controller-controller SCCs)
  • An EU-based controller exporting data outside of the EU to processors (processor- processor SCCs).

In this new draft, the Commission addressed a gap which frequently occurred in practice: EU processors exporting data to controllers and processors outside of the EU. This addition further reflects the expanded territorial scope of the GDPR.

Continue Reading EU-US Data Transfers After Schrems II: European Commission Publishes New Draft Standard Contractual Clauses
person entering emoticons in smartphone.

Facebook, Patents, and Privacy: Social Media Innovations to Mine Personal Data

[©2016. Published in GPSOLO, Vol. 37, No. 5, September/October 2020, by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association or the copyright holder]

* Updated November 25 to include references to CPRA/ Prop24.

The episode “Nosedive” of the television series Black Mirror envisions a society built on social credit scores. In this dystopia, all social media networks have converged into one platform—think Facebook, TikTok, Yelp, and Equifax combined.

This umbrella social platform allows users to rate each other on a five-point scale after each social interaction. Those with a high score gain access to job opportunities, favorable zip codes, and even high-status relationships. Those with a low score have the social ladder kicked out from under them, leading to a downward cycle of estrangement—and in the case of Black Mirror’s protagonist, jail time.

While the society in “Nosedive” seems far-fetched, is the technology behind it plausible?

Facebook Patents That Impact Privacy

According to Facebook’s patents, the answer is a resounding “yes.”

In a series of filings spanning almost a decade, Facebook has obtained several patents that allow social media platforms to track, identify, and classify individuals in new and innovative ways. Below are just few.

Tracking individuals via dust. U.S. Patent No. 9485423B2, “associating cameras with users and objects in a social networking system” (filed September 16, 2010, patented June 25, 2013), allows social media networks to identify an individual’s friends and relationships by correlating users across the same camera. To do so, an algorithm analyzes the metadata of a photo to find a camera’s “signature.”

Continue Reading Facebook, Patents, and Privacy: Social Media Innovations to Mine Personal Data
PCI Expert Summer Virtual Event on November 5, 2020. Hosted by RSI.

Metaverse Law to Speak at PCI Expert Summit

Metaverse Law will be speaking at the PCI Expert Summit hosted by RSI Security.

This year, the annual PCI Expert Summit event is an online/virtual all-day conference on Thursday, November 5, 2020, from 9:00am to 5:00pm PST. The agenda includes panels with PCI experts in addition to breakout sessions on specialized topics, such as incident and data breach response. Continuing Professional Education (CPE) credits are available.

Register at https://www.rsisecurity.com/pciexpertsummit/.

Offset angled photo of Proposition 24 from the 2020 California Voter's Guide

What Businesses Need to Know if Voters Pass Proposition 24 (California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, “CPRA”)

Hot on the heels of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), California residents this November will vote on Proposition 24. A majority yes vote on Prop 24 would pass the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). The CPRA proposes several amendments to the CCPA, such as granting new rights to consumers, imposing greater penalties on businesses for certain violations, and creating a new state enforcement agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA).

1. Right to Restrict Use of Sensitive Data

Under the newly added Section 1798.121, consumers now have the right to direct businesses to limit the use of “sensitive personal information.”

As defined in CPRA, sensitive personal information appears to combine the conventional definition of “personally identifiable information” from state breach notification laws with the definition of “special category data” under the GDPR. Accordingly, sensitive personal information is data that may include a Social Security Number, driver’s license number, account log-in/debit/credit card information in combination with password or PIN. It may also include a consumer’s precise geolocation, the contents of their e-mails or texts to others, and racial, religious, biometric, or health data.

If directed to do so, businesses must limit the use of sensitive personal information to only those purposes that are necessary to provide a consumer’s requested services or goods.

To facilitate consumer exercise of this right, businesses may be required to add another link, “Limit the Use of my Sensitive Personal Information,” to their websites, in addition to any existing “Do Not Sell My Personal Information” link.

2. Right to Opt-Out of Cross-Context Behavioral Advertising

The CPRA requires a right of opt-out for “cross-context behavioral advertising” regardless of whether it constitutes a “sale” of personal information or not.

Continue Reading What Businesses Need to Know if Voters Pass Proposition 24 (California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, “CPRA”)
Blue EU flag fluttering in the wind

Schrems II: No Privacy Shield for EU-US Data Transfers, but Don’t Put Your Eggs into Standard Contractual Clauses Either

Image Credit: Capri23auto from Pixabay

On July 16th, 2020, privacy professionals scrambled after the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its decision in Schrems II. The ruling invalidated the US-EU Privacy Shield agreement, which authorized transfers of data from the EU to the US for Privacy Shield-certified companies. Though the ruling on Privacy Shield was unexpected given that it was not directly at issue, such a decision is not without precedent or historical pattern. Privacy Shield itself was a replacement for the Safe Harbor framework that was invalidated in 2015 in Schrems I.

Now that the Privacy Shield framework has been invalidated, both data controllers and data processors are likely concerned about the next steps to take to ensure that any data transfers integral to its operations can continue. Although the U.S. Department of Commerce has indicated that it will continue processing Privacy Shield certifications, affected companies such as U.S. data importers and EU data exporters should quickly explore and adopt other transfer legitimizing mechanisms with their service providers and vendors in order to prevent any gaps in compliance.

Continue Reading Schrems II: No Privacy Shield for EU-US Data Transfers, but Don’t Put Your Eggs into Standard Contractual Clauses Either
1 2 3 4 9