隱私 數(shù)據(jù)保護(hù) 和網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全 法律評(píng)論_第1頁(yè)
隱私 數(shù)據(jù)保護(hù) 和網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全 法律評(píng)論_第2頁(yè)
隱私 數(shù)據(jù)保護(hù) 和網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全 法律評(píng)論_第3頁(yè)
隱私 數(shù)據(jù)保護(hù) 和網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全 法律評(píng)論_第4頁(yè)
隱私 數(shù)據(jù)保護(hù) 和網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全 法律評(píng)論_第5頁(yè)
已閱讀5頁(yè),還剩36頁(yè)未讀, 繼續(xù)免費(fèi)閱讀

下載本文檔

版權(quán)說明:本文檔由用戶提供并上傳,收益歸屬內(nèi)容提供方,若內(nèi)容存在侵權(quán),請(qǐng)進(jìn)行舉報(bào)或認(rèn)領(lǐng)

文檔簡(jiǎn)介

ThePrivacy,

DataProtectionandCybersecurityLawReview

Editor

AlanCharlesRaul

LawBusinessResearch

ThePrivacy,DataProtectionandCybersecurityLawReview

ThePrivacy,DataProtectionandCybersecurityLawReviewReproducedwithpermissionfromLawBusinessResearchLtd.

ThisarticlewasfirstpublishedinThePrivacy,DataProtectionandCybersecurityLawReview-Edition1

(publishedinNovember2014–editorAlanCharlesRaul).

Forfurtherinformationpleaseemail

Nick.Barette@

ThePrivacy,

DataProtectionandCybersecurityLawReview

Editor

AlanCharlesRaul

LawBusinessResearchLtd

THELAWREVIEWS

THEMERGERSANDACQUISITIONSREVIEWTHERESTRUCTURINGREVIEW

THEPRIVATECOMPETITIONENFORCEMENTREVIEWTHEDISPUTERESOLUTIONREVIEW

THEEMPLOYMENTLAWREVIEW

THEPUBLICCOMPETITIONENFORCEMENTREVIEWTHEBANKINGREGULATIONREVIEW

THEINTERNATIONALARBITRATIONREVIEWTHEMERGERCONTROLREVIEW

THETECHNOLOGY,MEDIAANDTELECOMMUNICATIONSREVIEW

THEINWARDINVESTMENTANDINTERNATIONALTAXATIONREVIEW

THECORPORATEGOVERNANCEREVIEWTHECORPORATEIMMIGRATIONREVIEW

THEINTERNATIONALINVESTIGATIONSREVIEWTHEPROJECTSANDCONSTRUCTIONREVIEWTHEINTERNATIONALCAPITALMARKETSREVIEWTHEREALESTATELAWREVIEW

THEPRIVATEEQUITYREVIEW

THEENERGYREGULATIONANDMARKETSREVIEWTHEINTELLECTUALPROPERTYREVIEW

THEASSETMANAGEMENTREVIEW

THEPRIVATEWEALTHANDPRIVATECLIENTREVIEWTHEMININGLAWREVIEW

THEEXECUTIVEREMUNERATIONREVIEW

THEANTI-BRIBERYANDANTI-CORRUPTIONREVIEWTHECARTELSANDLENIENCYREVIEW

THETAXDISPUTESANDLITIGATIONREVIEWTHELIFESCIENCESLAWREVIEW

THEINSURANCEANDREINSURANCELAWREVIEWTHEGOVERNMENTPROCUREMENTREVIEWTHEDOMINANCEANDMONOPOLIESREVIEW

THEAVIATIONLAWREVIEW

THEFOREIGNINVESTMENTREGULATIONREVIEWTHEASSETTRACINGANDRECOVERYREVIEWTHEINTERNATIONALINSOLVENCYREVIEW

THEOILANDGASLAWREVIEWTHEFRANCHISELAWREVIEW

THEPRODUCTREGULATIONANDLIABILITYREVIEWTHESHIPPINGLAWREVIEW

THEACQUISITIONANDLEVERAGEDFINANCEREVIEW

THEPRIVACY,DATAPROTECTIONANDCYBERSECURITYLAWREVIEW

www.TheLawReviews.co.uk

PUBLISHER

GideonRoberton

BUSINESSDEVELOPMENTMANAGER

NickBarette

SENIORACCOUNTMANAGERS

KatherineJablonowska,ThomasLee,JamesSpearing

ACCOUNTMANAGER

FelicityBown

PUBLISHINGCOORDINATOR

LucyBrewer

MARKETINGASSISTANT

DominiqueDestrée

EDITORIALASSISTANT

ShaniBans

HEADOFPRODUCTIONANDDISTRIBUTION

AdamMyers

PRODUCTIONEDITOR

TimothyBeaver

SUBEDITOR

JaninaGodowska

MANAGINGDIRECTOR

RichardDavey

PublishedintheUnitedKingdombyLawBusinessResearchLtd,London

87LancasterRoad,London,W111QQ,UK

?2014LawBusinessResearchLtd

www.TheLawReviews.co.uk

Nophotocopying:copyrightlicencesdonotapply.

Theinformationprovidedinthispublicationisgeneralandmaynotapplyinaspecificsituation,nordoesitnecessarilyrepresenttheviewsofauthors’firmsortheirclients.Legaladviceshouldalwaysbesoughtbeforetakinganylegalactionbasedontheinformationprovided.Thepublishersacceptnoresponsibilityforanyactsoromissionscontainedherein.AlthoughtheinformationprovidedisaccurateasofNovember2014,beadvisedthatthisisadevelopingarea.

EnquiriesconcerningreproductionshouldbesenttoLawBusinessResearch,attheaddressabove.Enquiriesconcerningeditorialcontentshouldbedirected

tothePublisher–

gideon.roberton@

ISBN978-1-909830-28-8

PrintedinGreatBritainbyEncompassPrintSolutions,Derbyshire

Tel:08442480112

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

i

Thepublisheracknowledgesandthanksthefollowinglawfirmsfortheirlearnedassistancethroughoutthepreparationofthisbook:

ASTREA

BALLAS,PELECANOS&ASSOCIATESLPCBOGSCH&PARTNERSLAWFIRMDUNAUDCLARENCCOMBLES&ASSOCIéSELIG,ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW

JONESDAYKIM&CHANGNNOVATIONLLP

NOERR

PINHEIRONETOADVOGADOSSANTAMARINAYSTETA,SCSIDLEYAUSTINLLP

SYNCHADVOKATAB

URíAMENéNDEZABOGADOS,SLPWINHELLERRECHTSANWALTSGESELLSCHAFTMBH

CONTENTS

PAGE\*roman

iii

Editor'sPreface v

AlanCharlesRaul

Chapter1 EUROPEANUNIONOVERVIEW 1

WilliamLong,GéraldineScaliandAlanCharlesRaul

Chapter2 APECOVERVIEW 19

CatherineValerioBarradandAlanCharlesRaul

Chapter3 BELGIUM 31

StevenDeSchrijverandThomasDaenens

Chapter4 BRAZIL 43

AndréZonaroGiacchettaandCiroTorresFreitas

Chapter5 CANADA 54

ShaunBrown

Chapter6 FRANCE 70

MeravGriguer

Chapter7 GERMANY 83

Jens-MarwinKoch

Chapter8 GREECE 98

GeorgeBallasandTheodoreKonstantakopoulos

Chapter9 HONGKONG 113

YuetMingThamandJoanneMok

Chapter10 HUNGARY 127

TamásG?d?lleandPéterKoczor

PAGE\*roman

iv

Contents

Chapter11 ITALY 142

StefanoMacchidiCellere

Chapter12 JAPAN 156

TakahiroNonaka

Chapter13 KOREA 170

JinHwanKim,BrianTae-HyunChung,JenniferSKehandInHwanLee

Chapter14 MEXICO 180

CésarGCruz-AyalaandDiegoAcosta-Chin

Chapter15 RUSSIA 194

VyacheslavKhayryuzov

Chapter16 SINGAPORE 204

YuetMingTham,IjinTanandTeenaZhang

Chapter17 SPAIN 219

CeciliaálvarezRigaudiasandReyesBermejoBosch

Chapter18 SWEDEN 230

JimRunstenandCharlottaEmtefall

Chapter19 TURKEY 241

G?nen?Gürkaynakand?layY?lmaz

Chapter20 UNITEDKINGDOM 253

WilliamLongandGéraldineScali

Chapter21 UNITEDSTATES 268

AlanCharlesRaul,TashaDManoranjanandVivekMohan

Appendix1 ABOUTTHEAUTHORS 295

Appendix2 CONTRIBUTINGLAWFIRMS'CONTACTDETAILS 309

PAGE\*roman

v

EDITOR’SPREFACE

ThefirsteditionofThePrivacy,DataProtectionandCybersecurityLawReviewappearsatatimeofextraordinarypolicychangeandpracticalchallengeforthisfieldoflawandregulation.IntheUnitedStates,massivedatabreacheshaveviedwithEdwardSnowdenandforeignstate-sponsoredhackingtomakethebiggestimpressiononbothpolicymakersandthepublic.InEurope,the‘righttobeforgotten’,thedraconiannewpenaltiesproposedinthedraftDataProtectionRegulationandtheSnowdenleaks,havesignificantlyalteredthepolicylandscape.

Moreover,thefreneticconversionoftheglobaleconomytoanincreasinglydigital,internet-drivenmodelisalsostimulatingarapidchangeinprivacy,dataprotectionandcybersecuritylawsandregulations.Governmentsareplayingcatch-upwithtechnologicalinnovation.Itisreportedthathalftheworld’spopulationwillbeonlineby2016andtheeconomiesofemergingnations(except,perhaps,inAfrica)arebeingdevelopeddirectlythroughelectroniccommerceratherthantakingtheintermediatestepofindustrialgrowthasWesterneconomiesdid.Growthandchangeinthisareaisaccelerating,andrapidchangesinlawandpolicyaretobeexpected.

InFrance,whistle-blowinghotlinesaremeticulouslyregulated,butnow,incertainkeyareaslikefinancialfraudorcorruption,advanceauthorisationforthehotlinesisautomaticundera2014legalamendment.InSingapore,2014sawthefirstenforcementmatterunderthatcountry’sPersonalDataProtectionAct–imposingafinancialpenaltyonacompanythatsentunsolicitedtelemarketingmessages.InRussia,anew2014‘forcedlocalisation’lawrequiresdataaboutRussianstobestoredonserversin-countryratherthanwhereverthedatacanbemostefficientlymanagedandprocessed,andjurisdictionsaroundtheworldhavedebatedenactingsuchproposals.Interestingly,whilenoticeofthelocationoftherelevantserversmustbeprovidedtotheRussiandataprotectionauthority,itisnotclearwhetherthelawprohibitspersonaldatatobesimultaneouslystoredbothin-countryandinforeignservers.

TheEuropeanUnioncontinuestoseektoextenditsmodelfordataprotectionregulationaroundtheworldbydeemingonlycountriesthatadoptthe‘omnibus’legislativeapproachoftheEUtobe‘a(chǎn)dequate’fordataprotectionpurposes.TheEUmodelisnotbeinguniversallyendorsed,evenoutsidetheUSandtheAsiaandPacific

Editor’sPreface

PAGE\*roman

viii

EconomicCooperation(APEC)economies.Butnonetheless,theEU’sconstraintsoninternationaldatatransfershavesubstantiallyinhibitedtheabilityofmultinationalcompaniestomovepersonaldataaroundtheworldefficientlyforbusinesspurposes.Inparticular,conflictswiththeUSabound,exacerbatedbytheSnowdenleaksregardingUSgovernmentsurveillance.OneoftheprimarymethodsbywhichsuchEU–USdataflowsarefacilitated,theUS–EUSafeHarborregime,hascomeunderattackfromEUparliamentarianswhobelievethatsuchinformationwillnotbeascarefullyprotectedintheUSandcouldbecomemoresusceptibletosurveillance,despitethecomparablesurveillanceauthoritiesofEUintelligenceagencies.

WhilepolicyconflictsoverdataprotectionconflictsappearedtobemoderatingbeforetheSnowdenleaks,afterwards,officialsaroundtheworldprofessedtobesoshockedthatgovernmentswereconductingsurveillanceagainstpossibleterroriststhattheyappeartohavedecidedthatUSconsumercompaniesshouldpaytheprice.Someobserversbelievethatdigitaltradeprotection,andthedesiretopromoteregionalornational‘clouds’,playsomeroleintheantagonismleveledagainstUSinternetandtechnologycompanies.

ThefactthattheUSdoesnothaveanomnibusdataprotectionlaw,andthusdoesnothaveatop-levelprivacyregulatororcoordinator,meansthatithasbeendifficultfortheUStoexplainandadvocateforitsapproachtoprotectingpersonalinformation.ThishasallowedtheEUtofillaperceivedpolicyvoidbydenyingmutualrecognitiontoUSpractices,andtoimposesignificantextraterritorialregulatoryconstraintsonAmericanandothernon-Europeanbusinesses.

Nevertheless,itcannotbedeniedthatprivacyenforcementintheUSisdistinctlymoreaggressiveandpunitivethananywhereelseintheworld,includingtheEU.SubstantialinvestigationsandfinancialrecoverieshavebeenconductedandachievedbytheFederalTradeCommission(whichhascomprehensivejurisdictionoverconsumerdataandbusinesspractices),50stateattorneysgeneral(whohaveevenbroaderjurisdictionoverconsumerprotectionandbusinessactsandpractices),privateclassactionlawyerswhocanbringbroadlegalsuitsinfederalandstatecourts,andaplethoraofotherfederalandstateagencies,suchastheConsumerFinancialProtectionBureau,theFederalCommunicationsCommission,theDepartmentofHealthandHumanServices(formedicalandhealth-caredata),theDepartmentofEducation,theSecuritiesandExchangeCommissionandvariousbankingandinsuranceagencies.

Insum,therearenoshortageofprivacyregulatorsandenforcersintheUS,Europe,andAsia.EnforcementinSouthAmerica,aswellasAfricaandtheMiddleEastappearstobedevelopingmoreslowly.

Trumpingmanyotherprivacyconcerns,however,isthespateofdatabreachesandhackingthathavebeenepidemicandpartofpublicdiscourseintheyearsfollowingCalifornia’senactmentofthefirstdatabreachnotificationlawin2003.WhiletheUSappears(asaconsequenceofmandatoryreporting)tobesufferingthebulkofmajorcyberattacks–onretailers,financialinstitutionsandcompanieswithintellectualpropertyworthstealingbyforeigncompetitorsorgovernments–itisalsotruethattheUSisleadingtherestoftheworldondatabreachnotificationlawsandlawsrequiringthatcompaniesadoptaffirmativedatasecuritysafeguardsforpersonalinformation.

Forcorporateandcriticalinfrastructurenetworksanddatabases,theUShasalsoledthewaywithapresidentialexecutiveorderandtheCybersecurityFramework

developedbytheNationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnologyintheUSDepartmentofCommerce.TheUnitedKingdomhasalsobeenaleaderinthisarea,developingtheUKCyberEssentialsprogramme,whichwillsoonincludeanoptionforcompaniestobecertifiedascompliantwiththeprogramme’scybersecuritystandards.TheEUParliamenthasalsoenactedcybersecuritydirectives,andtheEU’sEuropeanNetworkandInformationSecurityAgencyhasprovidedextensiveandexpertanalysis,guidanceandrecommendationsforpromotingcybersecurityforEU-basedorganisations.

Despiteattemptstoimplementbaselinesforcybersafeguards,itappearsthatnooneisimmuneandnoorganisationissufficientlyprotectedtohaveanyconfidencethatitcanavoidbeingthevictimofsuccessfulcyberattacks,particularlybythesophisticatedhackersemployedbystatesponsors,organisedcrime,socialhacktivistsordetermined,renegadeinsiders(likeSnowden).Governmentagenciesandhighlyresourcedprivatecompanieshavebeenunabletopreventtheirnetworksfrombeingpenetrated,andsometimesarelikelytoidentify‘a(chǎn)dvancedpersistentthreats’monthsafterthemalwarehasbegunexecutingitsmaliciouspurposes.Thisphenomenallydestructivesituationcannotobtain,andpresumablysomemoreeffectivesolutionswillhavetobeidentified,developedandimplemented.Whatthoseremedieswillbe,however,isnotatallclearas2014yieldsto2015.

Inthecomingyear,itwouldseemplausiblethattherecouldbeeffortsatinternationalcooperationoncybersecurityaswellascross-borderenforcementagainstprivacyviolators.EnforcersintheEU,USandamongtheAPECeconomies,mayincreasinglyagreetoworktogethertopromotethesharedvaluesembodiedinthe‘fairinformationpracticesprinciples’thatarecommontomostnationalprivacyregimes.Inearly2014,astepinthisdirectionwastakenwhenAPECandtheEuropeanUnion’sArticle29WorkingParty(onDataProtection)jointlyreleasedaframeworkbywhichinternationaldatatransferscouldbeeffectuatedpursuanttotheguidelinesofbothorganisations.

Challengesandconflictswillcontinuetobefactorswithrespectto:assurancesofprivacyprotection‘inthecloud’;commonunderstandingsoflimitsonandtransparencyofgovernmentaccesstopersonaldatastoredeitherinthecloud,orbyinternetcompaniesandserviceproviders;differencesabouthowandwheninformationcanbecollectedinEurope(andperhapssomeothercountries)andtransmittedtotheUSforcivildiscoveryandlawenforcementorregulatorypurposes;freedomofexpressionforinternetpostsandpublications;theabilityofcompaniestomarketontheinternetandtotrack–andprofile–usersonlinethroughcookiesandotherpersistentidentifiers;andthedeploymentofdronesforcommercialandgovernmentaldataacquisitionpurposes.

Thebiggestloomingissueofthemall,however,willlikelybe‘bigdata’.Thisisahighlypromisingpractice–basedondatascienceandanalytics–thatcollectsandusesenormousquantitiesofdisparate(andoftenunstructured)data,andappliescreativenewalgorithmsenabledbyvastlycheaperandmorepowerfulcomputerpowerandstorage.Bigdatacandiscoverhelpfulnewpatternsandmakeusefulnewpredictionsabouthealthproblems,civicneeds,commercialefficiencies,andyes,consumerinterestsandpreferences.

ThepotentialsocialutilityofbigdatahasbeenunequivocallyacknowledgedbytheUSadministrationaswellasbythekeypolicymakersintheEU.But,bigdatachallengestheexistingprivacyparadigmofnoticeanddisclosuretoindividualswhoarethenfreeto

makechoicesabouthowandwhentheirdatacanbeusedandcollected.Manyexistingandproposedapplicationsofbigdataonlyworkifthevaststoresofdatacollectedbytoday’scompaniescanbemaintainedandanalysedirrespectiveofpurposelimitations.Suchlimitationsmayhavebeenrelevant(anddisclosed)atthepointofcollection,butnolongeraddressthevalueofthedatatocompaniesandconsumerswhocanbenefitfrombigdataapplications.NumeroushighlythoughtfulreportsbypolicymakersintheUSandEUhavenotedconcernsaboutthepossibilitythatunfetteredbigdataapplicationscouldresultinhiddendiscriminationagainstcertaindemographicgroupsthatmightbedifficulttoidentifyandcorrect;orcouldresultinundueprofilingofindividualsthatmightinhibittheirautonomy,limittheirfinancial,employment,insuranceorevenserendipitouschoices,orpossiblysomehowencroachontheirpersonalprivacy(totheextentthatotherwiseaggregateoranonymousdatacanbere-identified).

Thispublicationarrivesatatimeofenormousfermentforprivacy,dataprotectionandcybersecurity.Readersareinvitedtoprovideanysuggestionsforthenexteditionofthiscompendium,andwelookforwardtoseeinghowthemanyfascinatingandconsequentialissuesaddressedherewillevolveordevelopinthenextyear.

AlanCharlesRaulSidleyAustinLLPWashington,DCNovember2014

PAGE

268

Chapter21

UNITEDSTATES

AlanCharlesRaul,TashaDManoranjanandVivekMohan1

OVERVIEW

Thoughnotuniversallyacknowledged,theUnitedStates’commercialprivacyregimeisarguablytheoldest,mostrobust,welldevelopedandeffectiveintheworld.TheUnitedStates’privacysystemhasarelativelyflexibleandnon-prescriptivenature,relyingmoreonposthocgovernmentenforcementandprivatelitigation,andonthecorrespondingdeterrentvalueofsuchenforcementandlitigation,thanondetailedprohibitionsandrules.Withcertainnotableexceptions,theUSsystemdoesnotapplya‘precautionaryprinciple’toprotectprivacy,butrather,allowsinjuredparties(andgovernmentagencies)tobringlegalactiontorecoverdamagesfor,orenjoin,‘unfairordeceptive’businesspractices.However,USfederallawdoesimposeaffirmativeprohibitionsandrestrictionsincertaincommercialsectors,suchasthoseinvolvingfinancialandmedicaldata,andelectroniccommunications,aswellaswithrespecttochildren’sprivacy,backgroundinvestigationsand‘consumerreports’forcreditoremploymentpurposes,andcertainotherspecificareas.Statelawsaddnumerousadditionalprivacyrequirements.

LegalprotectionofprivacyincivilsocietyhasbeenrecognisedintheUScommonlawsince1890whenthearticle‘TheRighttoPrivacy’waspublishedintheHarvardLawReviewbyProfessorsSamuelDWarrenandLouisDBrandeis.Moreover,fromitsconceptionbyWarrenandBrandeis,theUSsystemforprotectingprivacyinthecommercialrealmhasbeenfocusedonaddressingtechnologicalinnovation.TheHarvard

1 AlanCharlesRaulisapartnerandTashaDManoranjanandVivekMohanareassociatesatSidleyAustinLLP.Passagesofthischapterwereoriginallypublishedin‘Privacyanddata

protectionintheUnitedStates’,TheDebateonprivacyandsecurityoverthenetwork:Regulationandmarkets,2012,FundaciónTelefónica;andRaulandMohan,‘TheStrengthoftheU.S.CommercialPrivacyRegime’,31March2014,amemorandumtotheBigDataStudyGroup,USOfficeofScienceandTechnologyPolicy.

UnitedStates

PAGE

269

professorsastutelynotedthat‘[r]ecentinventionsandbusinessmethodscallattentiontothenextstepwhichmustbetakenfortheprotectionoftheperson,andforsecuringtotheindividual[…]theright“tobeletalone”’.In1974,CongressenactedthefederalPrivacyAct,regulatinggovernmentdatabases,andfoundthat‘therighttoprivacyisapersonalandfundamentalrightprotectedbytheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates’.ItisgenerallyacknowledgedthattheUSPrivacyActrepresentedthefirstofficialembodimentofthefairinformationprinciplesandpracticesthathavebeenincorporatedinmanyotherdataprotectionregimes,includingtheEuropeanUnion’s1995DataProtectionDirective.

TheUShasalsoledthewayfortheworldnotonlyonestablishingmodellegaldataprotectionstandardsinthe1974PrivacyAct,butalsointermsofimposingaffirmativedatabreachnotificationandinformationsecurityrequirementsonprivateentitiesthatcollectorprocesspersonaldatafromconsumers,employeesandotherindividuals.ThestateofCaliforniawasthepathbreakerondatasecurityanddatabreachnotificationbyfirstrequiringin2003thatcompaniesnotifyindividualswhosepersonalinformationwascompromisedorimproperlyacquired.Sincethen,approximately47states,theDistrictofColumbiaandotherUSjurisdictions,andthefederalbanking,health-careandcommunicationsagencieshavealsorequiredcompaniestoprovidemandatorydatabreachnotificationtoaffectedindividuals,andimposedaffirmativeadministrative,technicalandphysicalsafeguardstoprotectthesecurityofsensitivepersonalinformation.Dozensofothermedicalandfinancialprivacylawsalsoexistinvariousstates.Thereis,however,nosingleomnibusfederalprivacylawintheUS.Moreover,thereisnodesignatedcentraldataprotectionauthorityintheUS,thoughtheFederalTradeCommission(FTC)hasessentiallyassumedthatroleforconsumerprivacy.TheFTCisindependentofthePresident,andisnotobliged(thoughitisencouraged)torespecttheAdministration’sperspectiveontheproperbalancebetweencostsandbenefitswithrespecttoprotectingdataprivacy.

AsintheEUandelsewhere,privacyanddataprotectionarebalancedintheUS

inaccordancewithotherrightsandintereststhatsocietiesneedtoprosperandflourish,namely,economicgrowthandefficiency,technologicalinnovation,propertyandfreespeechrightsand,ofcourse,thevaluesofpromotinghumandignityandpersonalautonomy.ThemostsignificantfactorincounterbalancingprivacyprotectionsintheUS,perhaps,istherighttofreedomofexpressionguaranteedbytheFirstAmendment.Preservingfreespeechrightsforeveryonecertainlyentailscomplicationsfora‘righttobeforgotten’sinceoneperson’sdesireforoblivionmayruncountertoanother’ssenseofnostalgia(orsomeotherdesiretomemorialisethepastforgoodorill).

TheFirstAmendmenthasalsobeeninterpretedtoprotectthepeople’srighttoknowinformationofpublicconcernorinterest,evenifittrenchestosomeextentonindividualprivacy.CompanieshavealsobeendeemedtohaveaFirstAmendmentrighttocommunicaterelativelyfreelywiththeircustomersbyexchanginginformationinbothdirections(subjecttotheinformationbeingtruthful,notmisleading,andotherwisenotthesubjectofanunfairordeceptivebusinesspractice).

ThedynamicandrobustsystemofprivacygovernanceintheUnitedStatesmarshalsthecombinedfocusandenforcementmuscleoftheUSFederalTradeCommission,stateattorneysgeneral,theFederalCommunicationsCommission,theSecuritiesandExchangeCommission,theConsumerFinancialProtectionBureau(andotherfinancialandbankingregulators),theDepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,

theDepartmentofEducation,thejudicialsystem,andlast–butcertainlynotleast–thehighlymotivatedandaggressiveUSplaintiffs’bar.Takentogether,thisenforcementecosystemhasproventobenimble,flexible,andeffectiveinadaptingtorapidlychangingtechnologicaldevelopmentsandpractices,respondingtoevolvingconsumerandcitizenexpectations,andservingasameaningfulagentofdeterrenceandaccountability.Indeed,theUSenforcementandlitigation-basedapproachappearstobeparticularlywellsuitedtodealwith‘recentinventionsandbusinessmethods’–namely,newtechnologiesandmodesofcommerce–thatposeeverchangingopportunitiesandunpredictableprivacychallenges.

THEYEARINREVIEW

AswithnearlyotherareaofrecentlegislativeactivityinWashington,Congresshasnotbeenabletoactonprivacy,consumerdatasecurity,databreachnotificationorcybersecuritylegislation.WhiletheAdministrationofPresidentObamahascalleduponCongresstoenacta‘ConsumerPrivacyBillofRights’andlegislationtohelpprotectcybersecurityfor‘criticalinfrastructure’,partisangridlock,aswellasconcernaboutover-regulatingtheprivatesector,hasstalledaction.Thecongressionalstalematewasconsiderablyshakenup,however,whenformerNationalSecurityAgency(NSA)contractorEdwardSnowdenleakedinformationregardingUSgovernmentsurveillanceprogrammestoTheGuardianandTheWashingtonPostinthesummerof2013.ThissparkedamediafrenzyaroundvariousNSAsurveillanceprogrammes.SomeoftheallegationsconcernedunauthorisedsurveillanceofUScitizensorforeignintelligencetargetswithintheUnitedStates,whileotherssuggestedwidespreadsurveillanceoutsidetheUS.

Asaresultofthesedisclosures,foreigngovernments,includingwithintheEuropeanUnion,expressedconcernregardingthebreadthofNSAsurveillanceoutsidetheUnitedStates.Forexample,theEUArticle29WorkingPartysentalettertoEUJusticeCommissionerVivianeRedingsuggestingapossibleinvestigationofviolationsbytheUSoftheEU’sdataprotectionrules.2

ThemediaandpoliticalfirestormsurroundingtheSnowdendisclosureshasledtheexecutivebranchtointroduceproposalsregardingNSAandcommercialdatacollectionprocesses.Inadditiontoitsproposalsforreformsofthegovernment’sbulkmetadatasurveillance,theWhiteHousehasalsoissuedreportsandrecommendationsfordatacollectionintheprivatebigdatasector.Followingcloselyonthis,on29MaytheFTCissuedamuchanticipatedreportonbigdatathatheavilycriticisedthelackoftransparencyinthedatabrokeringindustry,offeredrecommendationsforconsumercontrolofinformationandadvocatedforbroadlegislationthatwouldnotonlycreateobligationsforanalyticscompanies,butalsoforretailersthatmayprovidethemwithinformation.Significantly,however,thereportdoesnotsuggestthatanycurrentdatabrokerpracticesareillegalunderexistinglaw.

SeeJacobKohnstamm,ChairmanofEUArticle29WorkingParty,lettertoVivianeReding(13August2013),availableat

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/

documentation/other-document/files/2013/20130813_letter_to_vp_reding_final_en.pdf.

Cybersecurityremainsahottopic,althoughexpectationsforcongressionalactionremainuncertain.Legislativeactioninthestatescontinues,withKentuckybecomingthe47thstatetohavepasseddatabreachnotificationlegislation.Severalstateshavealsoamendedexistinglawstoexpandbreachobligations.

FTCactions

TheFTCannouncedon21January2014thatithadenteredintono-faultconsentorderswith12companiesthatallegedlyclaimedtheywereincompliancewiththeUS–EUandUS–SwitzerlandSafeHarborprogrammeswheninfacttheircertificationshadlapsed.Theagreementcoversseverallargebusinesses,includingthreeNFLfootballteamsandLevel3CommunicationsLLC,oneofthelargestinternetserviceprovidersintheworld.TheSafeHarborprogrammerequirescompaniestoannuallyre-certifytheircompliancewiththeSafeHarborframework.TheFTCchargedthatbyincludingstatementsint

溫馨提示

  • 1. 本站所有資源如無特殊說明,都需要本地電腦安裝OFFICE2007和PDF閱讀器。圖紙軟件為CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.壓縮文件請(qǐng)下載最新的WinRAR軟件解壓。
  • 2. 本站的文檔不包含任何第三方提供的附件圖紙等,如果需要附件,請(qǐng)聯(lián)系上傳者。文件的所有權(quán)益歸上傳用戶所有。
  • 3. 本站RAR壓縮包中若帶圖紙,網(wǎng)頁(yè)內(nèi)容里面會(huì)有圖紙預(yù)覽,若沒有圖紙預(yù)覽就沒有圖紙。
  • 4. 未經(jīng)權(quán)益所有人同意不得將文件中的內(nèi)容挪作商業(yè)或盈利用途。
  • 5. 人人文庫(kù)網(wǎng)僅提供信息存儲(chǔ)空間,僅對(duì)用戶上傳內(nèi)容的表現(xiàn)方式做保護(hù)處理,對(duì)用戶上傳分享的文檔內(nèi)容本身不做任何修改或編輯,并不能對(duì)任何下載內(nèi)容負(fù)責(zé)。
  • 6. 下載文件中如有侵權(quán)或不適當(dāng)內(nèi)容,請(qǐng)與我們聯(lián)系,我們立即糾正。
  • 7. 本站不保證下載資源的準(zhǔn)確性、安全性和完整性, 同時(shí)也不承擔(dān)用戶因使用這些下載資源對(duì)自己和他人造成任何形式的傷害或損失。

評(píng)論

0/150

提交評(píng)論