Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook - 2016 Edition

Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook 2016 Edition Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook 2014 Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook ©2015 Baker & McKenzie All rights reserved. This publication is copyrighted. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study or research permitted under applicable copyright legislation, no part may be reproduced or transmitted by any process or means without the prior permission of the editors. The material in this guide is of the nature of general comment only. It is not offered as legal advice on any specific issue or matter and should not be taken as such. Readers should refrain from acting on the basis of any discussion contained in this publication without obtaining specific legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue. While the authors have made every effort to provide accurate and up to date information on laws and regulations, these matters are continuously subject to change. Furthermore, the application of these laws depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each situation, and therefore readers should consult their attorney before taking any action. Baker & McKenzie International is a Swiss Verein with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a “partner” means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an “office” means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook Baker & McKenzie i Editors’ Note Managing Risk in an Information-Driven Digital World Baker & McKenzie is pleased to provide you with access to this complimentary edition of our Global Privacy and Information Management Handbook which is now available for the first time in three user-friendly formats: via our Global Privacy App (free download from Apple Store or Google Play), online at http://globalprivacymatrix.bakermckenzie.com/ and, for our clients, in hardcopy. The new digital formats enable us to provide you with updated content in a more timely fashion as key developments unfold around the globe. You will now be able to access, in one place, Baker & McKenzie’s wide and growing range of privacy and information management resources. Some noteworthy new and forthcoming features: • coverage of 66 jurisdictions including new chapters for Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, Portugal, Uruguay, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, California and Ukraine • Global Privacy Matrix, an online tool that enables you to compare privacy and information management standards and requirements across jurisdictions • iG360 - Information Governance Resource Center • Data Security Knowledge Center • BakerINFORM, a digital magazine focused on emerging global privacy and information management legal developments and trending topics • Webinars, Whitepapers, and Business Intelligence This new edition of the Handbook highlights the growing maturity of privacy laws around the globe and the convergence of such laws with an expanding range of information governance considerations, which are of top concern to global companies as more and more data are collected, used, and stored via various formats and for new business purposes. We are also witnessing a heightened awareness of data security risks and the impact of more robust breach notification requirements and regulatory enforcement. Finally, it is clear that technological and business innovation in areas such as connected cars, wearable devices, mobile payments, and digital marketing and user profiling is leading to new and more refined interpretations of existing laws and challenging data regulators to provide greater guidance to data controllers that deploy such technologies and pursue such activities. ii Baker & McKenzie Once again, we want to thank our friends at the International Association of Privacy Professionals (“IAPP”) for their help in making a special version of the Handbook available to IAPP members via our Global Privacy App. Baker & McKenzie is proud to be a lead supporter of the IAPP and of the fact that we have more IAPP Certified Information Privacy Professionals than any other legal service provider in the world. Theo Ling Chair, Baker & McKenzie Global Privacy & Information Management Leadership Team Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook Baker & McKenzie iii Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Leadership Team Anne-Marie Allgrove (Sydney) +61 2 8922 5274 anne-marie.allgrove@bakermckenzie.com Guillermo Cervio (Buenos Aires) +54 11 4310 2223 guillermo.cervio@bakermckenzie.com Ken Chia (Singapore) +65 6434 2558 ken.chia@bakermckenzie.com Lothar Determann (Palo Alto) +1 650 856 5533 lothar.determann@bakermckenzie.com Francesca Gaudino (Milan) +39 02 76231 452 francesca.gaudino@bakermckenzie.com Brian Hengesbaugh (Chicago) +1 312 861 3077 brian.hengesbaugh@bakermckenzie.com Theo Ling (Toronto) +1 416 865 6954 theo.ling@bakermckenzie.com Carolina Pardo (Bogota) +57 1 634 1559 carolina.pardo@bakermckenzie.com Michael Schmidl (Munich) +49 89 5 52 38 155 michael.schmidl@bakermckenzie.com Harry Small (London) +44 20 7919 1914 harry.small@bakermckenzie.com Ken Takase (Tokyo) +81 3 6271 9752 kensaku.takase@bakermckenzie.com iv Baker & McKenzie Associate Editor Joan Melcar T. Tan (Manila) +632 558 9421 joanmelcar.tan@bakermckenzie.com Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook Baker & McKenzie v Contributing Lawyers Argentina Guillermo Cervio Buenos Aires Tel: +54 11 4310 2223 guillermo.cervio@bakermckenzie.com Roberto Grané Buenos Aires Tel: +54 11 4310 2214 roberto.grane@bakermckenzie.com Australia Anne-Marie Allgrove Sydney Tel: +61 2 8922 5274 anne-marie.allgrove@bakermckenzie.com Patrick Fair Sydney Tel: +61 2 8922 5534 patrick.fair@bakermckenzie.com Adrian Lawrence Sydney Tel: +61 2 8922 5204 adrian.lawrence@bakermckenzie.com Toby Patten Melbourne Tel: +61 3 9617 4456 toby.patten@bakermckenzie.com Austria Lukas Feiler Vienna Tel: +43 1 24250 450 lukas.feiler@bakermckenzie.com Azerbaijan Gunduz Karimov Baku Tel: +994 12 4971 801 gunduz.karimov@bakermckenzie.com Jamil Alizada Baku Tel: +994 12 4971 801 jamil.alizada@bakermckenzie.com Belgium Elisabeth Dehareng Brussels Tel: +32 2 639 36 11 elisabeth.dehareng@bakermckenzie.com Daniel Fesler Brussels Tel: +32 2 639 36 11 daniel.fesler@bakermckenzie.com Brazil Esther Flesch Sao Paulo Tel: +55 11 3048 6940 esther.flesch@bakermckenzie.com Bruno Maeda Sao Paulo Tel: +55 11 3048 6838 bruno.maeda@bakermckenzie.com Flavia Rebello Sao Paulo Tel: +55 11 3048 6851 flavia.rebello@bakermckenzie.com Canada Lisa Douglas Toronto Tel: +416 865 6972 lisa.douglas@bakermckenzie.com Arlan Gates Toronto Tel: +416 865 6978 arlan.gates@bakermckenzie.com vi Baker & McKenzie Theodore Ling Toronto Tel: +416 865 6954 theodore.ling@bakermckenzie.com Jonathan Tam Toronto Tel: +416 865 2324 jonathan.tam@bakermckenzie.com Eva Warden Toronto Tel: +416 865 2350 eva.warden@bakermckenzie.com Chile Diego Ferrada Santiago Tel: +56 2 367 7087 diego.ferrada@bakermckenzie.com Antonio Ortuzar Jr. Santiago Tel: +56 2 367 7078 antonio.ortuzar.jr@bakermckenzie.com China (PRC) Nancy Leigh Hong Kong Tel: +852 2846 1787 nancy.leigh@bakermckenzie.com Zhenyu Ruan Shanghai Tel: +86 21 6105 8577 zhenyu.ruan@bakermckenzie.com Jacqueline Wong Hong Kong Tel: +851 2846 1563 jacqueline.wong@bakermckenzie.com Howard Wu Shanghai Tel: +86 21 6105 8538 howard.wu@bakermckenzie.com Tracy Zhang Shanghai Tel: +86 21 6105 8582 tracy.zhang@bakermckenzie.com Colombia Sandra Castillo Bogota Tel: +57 1 644 9595 Ext. 2756 sandra.castillo@bakermckenzie.com Carolina Pardo Bogota Tel: +57 1 644 9595 Ext. 2603 carolina.pardo@bakermckenzie.com Croatia Luka Tadić-Čolić Zagreb Tel: +1 385 1 4925 488 luka.tadic@wolftheiss.com Czech Republic Jiri Cermak Prague Tel: +420 236 045 001 jiri.cermak@bakermckenzie.com Milena Hoffmanova Prague Tel: +420 236 045 001 milena.hoffmanova@bakermckenzie.com Denmark Lisa Bo Larsen Copenhagen Tel: +45 38 77 45 68 lbl@kromannreumert.com Daiga Grunte-Sonne Copenhagen Tel: +45 38 77 41 18 DSO@kromannreumert.com Egypt Hatem Darweesh Cairo Tel: +2 02 2461 9301 hatem.darweesh@bakermckenzie.com Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook Baker & McKenzie vii Hazim Rizkana Cairo Tel: +2 02 2461 9301 hazim.rizkana@bakermckenzie.com Finland Hannu Järvinen Helsinki Tel: +358 9 6153 3466 hannu.jarvinen@borenius.com Lauri Leppänen Helsinki Tel: + 358 9 6153 3423 lauri.leppanen@borenius.com France Idriss Kechida Paris Tel: +33 1 44 17 59 08 idriss.kechida@bakermckenzie.com Denise Lebeau-Marianna Paris Tel: +33 1 44 17 53 33 denise.lebeaumarianna @bakermckenzie.com Magalie Dansac Paris Tel: +33 1 44 17 59 82 magalie.dansac@bakermckenzie.com Germany Julia Fitzner Munich Tel: +49 89 55238 261 julia.fitzner@bakermckenzie.com Wolfgang Fritzemeyer Munich Tel: +49 89 55238 154 wolfgang.fritzemeyer @bakermckenzie.com Daniel Krone Munich Tel: +49 89 55238 135 daniel.krone@bakermckenzie.com Holger Lutz Frankfurt Tel: +49 69 29908 508 holger.lutz@bakermckenzie.com Michael Schmidl Munich Tel: +49 89 55238 211 michael.schmidl@bakermckenzie.com Matthias Scholz Frankfurt Tel: +49 69 29908 203 matthias.scholz@bakermckenzie.com Matthias Scheck Munich Tel: +49 89 55 238 135 matthias.scheck@bakermckenzie.com Michaela Weigl Frankfurt Tel: +49 69 29908 508 michaela.weigl@bakermckenzie.com Julia Wendler Munich Tel: +49 89 55238 261 julia.wendler@bakermckenzie.com Benjamin Lotz Munich Tel: +49 89 55238 261 benjamin.lotz@bakermckenzie.com Greece Vassilis Constantes Athens Tel: +30 210 7206900 v.constantes@vplaw.gr Hong Kong Anna Gamvros Hong Kong Tel: +852 2846 2137 anna.gamvros@bakermckenzie.com viii Baker & McKenzie Susan Kendall Hong Kong Tel: +852 2846 2411 susan.kendall@bakermckenzie.com Hungary Ines Radmilovic Budapest Tel: +36 1 302 3330 ines.radmilovic@bakermckenzie.com Adam Liber Budapest Tel: +36 1 302 3330 adam.liber@bakermckenzie.com Iceland Hjördis Halldórsdóttir Reykjavik Tel: + 354 5 400 300 hjordis@logos.is India Probir Roy Chowdhury Bangalore Tel: +91-80-43503618 probir@jsalaw.com Sajai Singh Bangalore Tel: +91-98450 78666 sajai@jsalaw.com Indonesia Mark Innis Jakarta Tel: +62 21 2960 8618 mark.innis@bakermckenzie.com Susie Beaumont Jakarta Tel: +62 21 2960 8608 susie.beaumont@bakermckenzie.com Alvira M. Wahjosoedibjo Jakarta Tel: +62 21 2960 8503 alvira.m.wahjosoedibjo @bakermckenzie.com Aryadharma Alimsardjono Jakarta Tel: +62 21 2960 8501 aryadharma.alimsardjono @bakermckenzie.com Ireland John Cahir Dublin Tel: +353 1 649 2000 jcahir@algoodbody.com Alison Obernik Dublin Tel: +353 1 649 2461 aobernik@algoodbody.com Israel Nurit Dagan Tel Aviv Tel: +9722 3 692 7424 dagan@hfn.co.il Italy Francesca Gaudino Milan Tel: +39 02 76231 452 francesca.gaudino@bakermckenzie.com Lorenzo de Martinis Milan Tel: +39 02 76231-334 lorenzo.de.martinis@bakermckenzie.com Japan Daisuke Tatsuno Tokyo Tel: +813 6271 9479 daisuke.tatsuno@bakermckenzie.com Kensaku Takase Tokyo Tel: +813 6271 9752 kensaku.takase@bakermckenzie.com Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook Baker & McKenzie ix Kazakhstan Gulnur Bekmukhanbetova Almaty Tel: +7 727 330 0500 Tel: +7 727 250 99 45 gulnur.bekmukhanbetova @bakermckenzie.com Azamat Kuatbekov Almaty Tel: +7 727 330 0500 Tel: +7 727 250 99 45 azamat.kuatbekov@bakermckenzie.com Luxembourg Audrey Rustichelli Luxembourg Tel: +352 261844 249 audrey.rustichelli@bakermckenzie.com Malaysia Woo Wei Kwang Kuala Lumpur Tel: +603 2298 7898 weikwang.woo@wongpartners.com Ken Boon Low Kuala Lumpur Tel: +603 2298 7988 kenboon.low@wongpartners.com Shameen Mohd. Haaziq Pillay Kuala Lumpur Tel: +603 2298 7943 shameen.mohd.haaziqpillay @wongpartners.com Mexico Sergio Legorreta-Gonzalez Mexico City Tel: +52 55 5279 2954 sergio.legorreta-gonzalez @bakermckenzie.com Carlos Vela-Trevino Mexico City Tel: +52 55 5279 2911 carlos.vela-trevino@bakermckenzie.com Netherlands Remke Scheepstra Amsterdam Tel: +31 20 5517 831 remke.scheepstra@bakermckenzie.com Wouter Seinen Amsterdam Tel: +31 20 5517 161 wouter.seinen@bakermckenzie.com New Zealand Karen Ngan Auckland Tel: +64 9 977 5080 karen.gan@simpsongrierson.com Carl Blake Auckland Tel: +64 9 977 5163 carl.blake@simpsongrierson.com Norway Espen Sandvik Oslo Tel: +47 98 29 45 41 esa@adeb.no Paraguay Nestor Loizaga Asuncion Tel: 595 21 318 3000 ext. 117 nloizaga@ferrere.com Peru Javier Tovar Lima Tel: +51 1 618 8500 Ext. 550 javier.tovar@bakermckenzie.com Teresa Tovar Lima Tel: +51 1 618 8500 Ext. 552 teresa.tovar@bakermckenzie.com Viviana Chavez Lima Tel: +51 1 618 8500 Ext. 421 viviana.chavez@bakermckenzie.com x Baker & McKenzie Philippines Bienvenido Marquez Manila Tel: +63 2 819 4936 bienvenido.marquez @quisumbingtorres.com Divina Ilas-Panganiban Manila Tel: +63 2 819 4961 divina.Ilas-panganiban @quisumbingtorres.com Carlo Abarquez Manila Tel: +63 2 819 4993 carlo.abarquez @quisumbingtorres.com Poland Magdalena Kogut-Czarkowska Warsaw Tel: +48 22 445 3452 magdalena.kogut-czarkowska @bakermckenzie.com Radosław Nożykowski Warsaw Tel: +48 22 445 3210 radoslaw.nozykowski @bakermckenzie.com Jakub Falkowski Warsaw Tel: +48 22 445 3294 jakub.falkowski@bakermckenzie.com Portugal César Bessa Monteiro Lisbon Tel: 351 21 326 4747 c.monteiro@pbbr.pt César Bessa Monteiro, Jr. Lisbon Tel: 351 21 326 4747 cesar.bmonteiro@pbbr.pt Ricardo Henriques Lisbon Tel: 351 21 326 4747 ricardo.henriques@pbbr.pt Russia Edward Bekeschenko Moscow Tel: +7 495 787 2700 edward.bekeschenko @bakermckenzie.com Ekaterina Kobrin Moscow Tel: +7 495 787 2700 ekaterina.kobrin@bakermckenzie.com Evgeny Reyzman Moscow Tel: +7 495 787 2700 evgeny.reyzman@bakermckenzie.com Dmitry Lysenko Moscow Tel: +7 495 787 2700 dmitry.lysenko@bakermckenzie.com Saudi Arabia George Sayen Riyadh Tel: + 966 11 265 8900, Ext. 8911 george.sayen@bakermckenzie.com Aisha Gondal Riyadh Tel: + 966 11 265 8900, Ext. 8913 aisha.gondal@bakermckenzie.com Haifa Bahaian Riyadh Tel: + 966 11 265 8900, Ext. 8968 haifa.bahaian@bakermckenzie.com Judes Abboud Dubai Tel: + 971 442 30080 judes.abboud@bakermckenzie.com Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook Baker & McKenzie xi Singapore Ken Chia Singapore Tel: +65 6434 2558 ken.chia@bakermckenzie.com Quan Nguyen Singapore Tel: +65 6434 2592 quan.nguyen@bakermckenzie.com South Africa Darryl Bernstein Johannesburg Tel: +27 (0) 11 911 4367 Darryl.bernstein@bakermckenzie.com Widaad Ebrahim Johannesburg Tel: +27 (0) 11 911 4384 widaad.ebrahim@bakermckenzie.com Deepa Ramjee Johannesburg Tel: +27 (0) 11 911 4368 deepa.ramjee@bakermckenzie.com South Korea Boseong Kim Seoul Tel: +82 2 721 4130 boskim@kcllaw.com Junghwa Lee Seoul Tel: +82 2 721 4147 jhlee@kcllaw.com Mike Shin Seoul Tel: +82 2 721 4140 mikeshin@kcllaw.com Spain Raul Rubio Madrid Tel: +34 91 436 6639 raul.rubio@bakermckenzie.com Jordi Masdevall Barcelona Tel: +34 93 206 0820 jordi.masdevall@bakermckenzie.com Maria Pons Barcelona Tel: +34 932551117 maria.pons@bakermckenzie.com Rosario Alvarez Madrid Tel: +34 91 230 4513 rosario.alvarez@bakermckenzie.com Sweden Sten Bauer Stockholm Tel: +46 8 566 177 16 sten.bauer@bakermckenzie.com Johan Strand Stockholm Tel: +46 8 566 177 41 johan.strand@bakermckenzie.com Switzerland Nicolas Passadelis Zurich Tel: +41 44 384 1209 nicolas.passadelis@bakermckenzie.com Taiwan H. Henry Chang Taipei Tel: +886 2 2715 7259 henry.chang@bakermckenzie.com Chris Tsai Taipei Tel: +886 2 2715 7310 chris.tsai@bakermckenzie.com Thailand Dhiraphol Suwanprateep Bangkok Tel: +66 02 636 2000 Ext. 4950 dhiraphol.suwanprateep @bakermckenzie.com xii Baker & McKenzie Pattaraphan Paiboon Bangkok Tel: +66 02 636 2000 Ext. 4568 pattaraphan.paiboon @bakermckenzie.com Turkey Hakki Can Yildiz Istanbul Tel: +90 212 376 64 54 can.yildiz@bakermckenzie.com Can Sozer Istanbul Tel: +90 212 376 64 43 can.sozer@bakermckenzie.com Ukraine Oleksiy Stolyarenko Kyiv Tel: + 380 44 590 0101 oleksiy.stolyarenko@bakermckenzie.com United Kingdom Robbie Downing London Tel: +44 20 7919 1161 robbie.downing@bakermckenzie.com Benjamin Slinn London Tel: +44 20 7919 1783 benjamin.slinn@bakermckenzie.com United States Amy de La Lama Chicago Tel: +1 312 861 2923 amy.delalama@bakermckenzie.com Lothar Determann Palo Alto Tel: +1 650 856 5533 lothar.determann@bakermckenzie.com Brian Hengesbaugh Chicago Tel: +1 312 861 3077 brian.hengesbaugh@bakermckenzie.com Michael Stoker Chicago Tel: +1 312 861 2870 michael.stoker@bakermckenzie.com Heather Mantegna Chicago Tel: +1 312 861 8808 heather.mantegna@bakermckenzie.com Karen Sewell Chicago Tel: +1 312 861 8228 karen.sewell@bakermckenzie.com Lindsay Martin Chicago Tel: +1 312 861 2949 lindsay.martin@bakermckenzie.com Brandon Moseberry Chicago Tel: +1 312 861 8265 brandon.moseberry@bakermckenzie.com Marc Elzweig San Francisco Tel: +1 415 576 3018 marc.elzweig@bakermckenzie.com Michael Egan Washington, D.C. Tel: +1 202 452 7022 michael.egan@bakermckenzie.com Uruguay Martin Pesce Montevideo Tel: +598 2900 1000 ext. 1200 mpesce@ferrere.com Stephania Bresque Montevideo Tel: +598 2900 1000 ext. 1531 sbresque@ferrere.com Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook Baker & McKenzie xiii Venezuela Maria Eugenia Salazar Caracas Tel: +58 212 276 5161 mariaeugenia.salazar @bakermckenzie.com Luis Miguel Vicentini Caracas Tel: +58 212 276 5069 luis.miguel.vicentini@bakermckenzie.com Vietnam Andrew Fitanides Ho Chi Minh City Tel: +84 8 3520 2687 andrew.fitanides@bakermckenzie.com Tran Manh Hung Hanoi Tel: +84 4 3936 9398 tmh@bmvn.com.vn Minh Tri Quach Hanoi Tel: +84 4 3936 9605 minhtri.quach@bmvn.com.vn Yee Chung Seck Ho Chi Minh City Tel: +84 8 829 6234 yeechung.seck@bakermckenzie.com *This list includes just some of our global Privacy practitioners. To find a Baker & McKenzie lawyer or other professional, please visit www.bakermckenzie.com. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook Baker & McKenzie xv Table of Contents Editors’ Note..................................................................................................... i Contributing Lawyers....................................................................................... v Argentina ......................................................................................................... 1 Australia ........................................................................................................15 Austria ...........................................................................................................27 Azerbaijan .....................................................................................................37 Belgium .........................................................................................................43 Brazil .............................................................................................................61 Canada..........................................................................................................73 Alberta, Canada ............................................................................................89 British Columbia, Canada............................................................................100 Manitoba, Canada.......................................................................................110 Ontario, Canada..........................................................................................120 Quebec, Canada .........................................................................................129 Chile............................................................................................................137 China...........................................................................................................143 Colombia.....................................................................................................155 Croatia.........................................................................................................171 Czech Republic ...........................................................................................185 Denmark......................................................................................................197 Egypt...........................................................................................................215 Finland ........................................................................................................223 France.........................................................................................................239 Germany .....................................................................................................257 Greece ........................................................................................................271 Hong Kong ..................................................................................................291 Hungary.......................................................................................................311 Iceland.........................................................................................................327 India ............................................................................................................343 xvi Baker & McKenzie Indonesia.....................................................................................................355 Ireland .........................................................................................................363 Israel ...........................................................................................................377 Italy..............................................................................................................395 Japan ..........................................................................................................409 Kazakhstan ................................................................................................. 421 Luxembourg ................................................................................................431 Malaysia ......................................................................................................443 Mexico .........................................................................................................453 Netherlands................................................................................................. 461 New Zealand ...............................................................................................473 Norway ........................................................................................................485 Paraguay.....................................................................................................497 Peru .............................................................................................................505 Philippines...................................................................................................513 Poland.........................................................................................................525 Portugal.......................................................................................................537 Russia .........................................................................................................561 Saudi Arabia................................................................................................571 Singapore....................................................................................................581 South Africa................................................................................................. 593 South Korea ................................................................................................607 Spain...........................................................................................................617 Sweden .......................................................................................................631 Switzerland..................................................................................................643 Taiwan.........................................................................................................653 Thailand ......................................................................................................663 Turkey .........................................................................................................675 Ukraine........................................................................................................687 United Kingdom...........................................................................................697 United States...............................................................................................711 Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook Baker & McKenzie xvii United States California Privacy Laws.........................................................717 United States Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) ............724 United States Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act........732 United States Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act..............743 United States State Data Security Laws......................................................757 United States State Security Breach Notification Laws ...............................763 Uruguay.......................................................................................................769 Venezuela ...................................................................................................783 Vietnam .......................................................................................................789 Baker & McKenzie Offices Worldwide.........................................................799 Argentina Guillermo Cervio Buenos Aires Tel: +54 11 4310 2223 guillermo.cervio@bakermckenzie.com Roberto Grané Buenos Aires Tel: +54 11 4310 2214 roberto.grane@bakermckenzie.com 2 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments First ruling from the National Supreme Court of Justice limiting the liability of search engines On 28 October 2014, the National Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favor of search engines in the case filed by an Argentine model who claimed that her privacy, honor, and intellectual property rights were violated, after she found that search results linked her name to sites with manipulated sexual content. The Supreme Court ruled that the liability of search engines is based on the “negligence system” (as opposed to the “strict liability” system), whereby search engines will only be liable if, after receiving notice of the existence of illicit content, they do not proceed to remove the same. As this is the first judgment issued by the National Supreme Court with respect to the liability of search engines, this will prove to be a significant case which will affect cases with similar factual backgrounds. New telecom law: Argentina Digital and Net Neutrality obligations On 16 December 2014, the National Congress enacted the Argentina Digital Law No. 27,078, which regulates information technology and communication services (“IT/C Services”), declaring them as public services and creating a series of obligations applicable to IT/C service providers. The Argentina Digital law also regulates Net Neutrality, forbidding IT/C service providers from blocking, interfering, discriminating, degrading or restricting the use, delivery, reception or access to any content, application, service or protocol, unless there is a judicial order in place or express request from the user. The law also prohibits IT/C service providers from calculating prices for Internet access with regard to the content, services, protocols or applications included in the service plan. Amendment and restatement of the National Civil and Commercial Codes On 8 October 2014, the National Congress resolved to issue an amendment and restatement of the Civil and Commercial Code, to be effective on 1 August 2015. As a result, several civil and commercial provisions have been amended, and new rules have been inserted. For instance, from an ecommerce perspective, the new Civil and Commercial Code provides that any contractual disputes arising from electronic contracts will be resolved by the authorities of the jurisdiction in which the consumer has received or should have received the product or service; any clause providing otherwise will be considered null and void. New National “Do Not Call” List On 2 July 2014, the Argentine Congress enacted Law No. 26,951 which creates a “Do Not Call” list applicable at a national level. The purpose of the law is to protect consumers against abusive telemarketing activities designed Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Argentina Baker & McKenzie 3 to promote or sell unrequested products or services. Any natural or legal person has the right to register their mobile or fixed phone numbers with such list for free. Those who promote products or services through telemarking activities are prohibited from contacting any number registered on the list, and are required to search the registry at least once every 30 (thirty) days and update their internal call list accordingly. Companies that have a pre-existing relationship with a consumer are exempted from such restriction, provided that the calls specifically relate to the purpose of the agreement with the consumer and are performed in a reasonable manner and within business hours. Electoral campaigns or campaigns destined for public welfare, health emergency or security emergency are also excluded from such restriction. The supervisory authority is the Argentine Personal Data Protection Authority. On 17 December 2014, the Executive Branch issued Decree No. 2501/2014, which regulates the procedural aspects of the registration and the manner of reporting infringements. New withholding regime for the City of Buenos Aires for audiovisual entertainment rendered through the Internet On 3 September 2014, the Official Gazette of the City of Buenos Aires published Resolution N° 593/AGIP/14, which establishes a withholding tax regime on gross revenue for online subscriptions of movies, TV and other audiovisual entertainment (e.g., movies and series) that are rendered through the Internet to TVs, computers and other Internet-connected devices, as well as subscription to buy and/or rent digital content related to music, games, videos, etc. The resolution designates the issuers of credit, debit and purchase cards involved in the detailed operations as withholding agents on the payments made to the companies that provide those services. The withholding rate is 3% on the net price of the transaction. New procedural regulation for Digital Signature Certifiers applications The Digital Signature Law No. 25,506 enumerates the legal grounds for the issuance and use of digital signature certificates in Argentina. In Argentina, electronic signatures are not at the same level of enforceability as written and/or digital signatures. According to the law, instruments signed with digital signatures are presumed to be signed by the signatory registered with the certifying licensee and, in the case that a party denies the authenticity of the digital signature, such party must provide evidence to bolster their position. On the contrary, instruments signed with electronic signatures do not have this legal presumption. If a party denies the authenticity of an electronic signature, the enforcing party must prove its authenticity to the Courts. The Digital Signature Law further establishes that companies that wish to operate as Certifying Authorities must obtain an operating license with the National Authority. 4 Baker & McKenzie On 30 October 2014, the Chief Head of Ministries enacted the Administrative Decision No. 927/14, which establishes the procedural rules and requirements applicable to the application process for obtaining an operation license with the National Authority. App Privacy Guidelines On 10 April 2015, the Argentine National Data Protection Authority issued Disposition No. 18/2015 which creates “Best Practice Guidelines for the Development of Apps”. This guidance is targeted at app developers: it focuses on the design and development of apps and the need to keep privacy top of mind in that creative process. The guidelines cover new concepts such as “Privacy by Default” and “Privacy by Design” and describe different security measures that can be used by app developers to protect the personal data of users in accordance with Argentine privacy laws and regulations. New regulations on the use of drones From a regulatory perspective, on 15 July 2015, the National Civil Aviation Administration (“ANAC”) enacted Resolution No. 527/2015 (the “Resolution”). The Resolution sets forth the requirements and conditions for the use and operation of unmanned aerial vehicles, or “UAVs” (commonly referred to as “Drones”). The requirements include, among others, limitations on the use of Drones within certain areas and/or heights, obligation to maintain permanent visual contact with the Drone, and registration of the Drone under the corresponding registry. In addition, owners of Drones will need to obtain a psycho-physiological certificate and an insurance for damages caused by the Drone. The Regulation also classified Drones into the following three categories: (i) small Drones (up to 10 kg); (ii) intermediary Drones (between 10 kg and 150 kg); and (iii) big Drones (over 150 kg). Certain exceptions are contemplated for the use of small Drones for recreational purposes. The Resolution will come into force on 12 November 2015. From a privacy perspective, on 27 May 2015, the National Data Protection Authority issued Disposition No. 20/2015 (the “Disposition”). The Disposition approves the “Legal Terms for the Collection of Personal Data through Drones or UAVs” and the “Privacy Recommendations for the use of Drones or UAVs”. The Disposition covers any personal data collection activities performed using photographic, film, audio or any other kind of material, stored in digital format, made by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones, for recording purposes or any other treatment. The Disposition also provides rules for drones or UAVs used for scientific or recreational purposes. The Disposition became effective on 4 June 2015. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends Mandatory Breach Notification. There is no requirement to report a breach of the security of personal data. However, best practices would indicate that it is necessary to alert the data owners about the breach in certain cases. It is Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Argentina Baker & McKenzie 5 likely that the Argentine Data Protection Authority will closely monitor the data controller’s and data processor’s adoption of security measures and registration of databases. Online Direct Marketing. There are no restrictions regarding online direct marketing. Nevertheless, when engaging in direct marketing using various electronic channels, companies should ensure that consumers are given the freedom to choose whether or not to engage in a relationship or receive communications from companies. Anti-spam Legislation. There is no specific anti-spam legislation in Argentina. The unsolicited commercial electronic messages should contain the procedure by which consumers can avoid receiving unsolicited product or service information. In addition, this information should also be supported with articles from the Data Protection Law and its Executive Order. Bring Your Own Device. The two main concerns regarding this matter are the following: (i) Monitoring activities. Usually, the employer informs its employees that by enrolling in the so called “Mobile Device Policy”, they allow their devices to be remotely monitored. As a general rule, an employer may not monitor an employee’s personal e-mails unless there is a genuine suspicion of the employee being disloyal, acting in breach of company policies or that the company has a serious concern that the employee is using the IT equipment for (for example) pornographic or racist purposes (nevertheless, as per current trends, even in these cases, consent of the Data Owner may be required. This matter is highly debatable); and (ii) Personal information. It is likely that in case of termination of the labor contract with cause, the employee alleges that the loss of certain information will cause damage. The company should refrain from maintaining information that could be clearly considered as private information of the employees. Social Media. The main impact of social media is in connection with its use by employees. It is advisable that employers put into effect policies regarding the proper use of social media sites. Employees who are allowed to access social media sites during working hours should do so reasonably and must act in good faith. The employer may prohibit or limit the time spent on these sites, and sanction any infringement thereof. Sanctions should be fair and reasonable. Employee Monitoring. Monitoring of employees’ computers is a sensitive matter. Employers should have in place an internal policy -duly notified to employees-which clearly states that computers, emails received and sent from the company’s email addresses, and other IT resources used or provided by the company are work tools and therefore belong to the company, that said resources should not be used by employees for personal purposes, and that at any time the company may monitor the activities of the employees while using the work tools/resources provided by the company. It is advisable that 6 Baker & McKenzie the internal policy clearly state, in highlighted fashion, that employees have no expectation of privacy over work tools. Documents and Records Retention Policy. Documents and records retention policies apply, with different criteria depending on the content of the corresponding documents. For example, under the Argentine Civil and Commercial Code, companies have the duty to keep their corporate and accounting books for ten (10) years. Also, the statute of limitations for the enforcement of most civil and commercial actions is ten (10) years. In this regard, a ten (10) year retention period policy would be appropriate for commercial related documents, unless there is a special legal obligation to retain certain documents for a longer period of time. Different statutes of limitation apply for other areas (2 years for labor matters, 10 years for social security matters and 5 years for tax matters.) Cookie Consent Requirement. The use of cookies and web beacons would be, in principle, permitted provided that proper notice on their use is given to users (e.g., in the privacy policy). In this regard, the terms and conditions of the privacy policy should indicate that by accepting said terms and conditions, the users accept the deployment and use of cookies and web beacons. It is also recommended that the privacy policy describe the manner in which the cookies can be deactivated (i.e., from browsers) and the consequences for doing so. Do Not Call Registry. On 2 July 2014, the Argentine Congress enacted Law No. 26,951 which creates a “Do Not Call” list applicable at a national level. Pursuant to this law, any natural or legal person has the right to register their mobile or fixed phone numbers with such list on a free basis. Those who promote products or services through telemarking activities are prohibited from contacting any number registered with the list, and are required to search the registry at least once every 30 (thirty) days and update their internal call list accordingly. Companies that have a pre-existing relationship with a consumer are exempted from such restriction, provided that the calls specifically relate to the purpose of the agreement with the consumer and are performed in reasonable manner and within business hours. Electoral campaigns or campaigns destined for public welfare, health emergency or security emergency are also excluded from such restriction. The supervisory authority is the Argentine Personal Data Protection Authority. On 17 December 2014 the Executive Branch issued the Decree No. 2501/2014, which regulates the procedural aspects of the registration and report of infringements. Click-Through/ Click-wrap/ Electronic Contracting. There is no integrated regulation that specifically governs electronic contracting, and therefore the general rules for contracts apply. The Argentine Civil and Commercial Code recognizes the existence of electronic contracts, and requires the provider to provide consumers with all the necessary information to use the electronic Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Argentina Baker & McKenzie 7 method in a correct manner and understand the risks from using the same. It further establishes that the applicable jurisdiction for electronic contracts is determined by the ‘place of performance’, which corresponds to the place in which the consumer received, or should have received, the goods or services. From a probationary perspective, consent can be validly expressed by tacit or express means, and therefore the contract so entered will be subject to evidence -in case it is challenged by one of the parties to the contract. According to limited legal precedents, local courts would consider: (i) the evidence regarding identities of the parties, and acceptance of the agreement by electronic means; (ii) if the content of the electronic contract has (or has not) been altered once it has been accepted; and (iii) if the messages exchanged between the parties have actually been sent and received by said parties (e.g., acknowledgement receipt, confirmatory e-mails, etc.) Electronic Signature. In Argentina, electronic signatures are not at the same level of enforceability as written and/or digital signatures. According to the Digital Signatures Law No. 25,506, instruments signed with digital signatures are presumed to be signed by the signatory registered with the certifying licensee and, in the case a party denies the authorship of the digital signature, then such party must evidence their position. On the contrary, instruments signed with electronic signatures do not have this legal presumption; if a party denies the authorship of an electronic signature, then the enforcing party must prove such authorship to the Courts. Binding Corporate Rules. The Argentine Data Protection Authority has not approved the Binding Corporate Rules or “Burrs”, understood as those rules developed for intra-organizational transfers of personal data across borders. Data Protection Enforcement. The Argentine Data Protection Authority is active in enforcing applicable regulations. However, such approach would be friendly and business-oriented in the sense that usually, before applying fines or other penalties, the Argentine Data Protection Authority would seek compliance or corrective actions from the erring companies. Cybercrime/ Cybersecurity. As already indicated, in case of data breach for cybercrimes, there is no need to report to the Argentine Data Protection Authority, but it is highly recommended to alert the data owners, depending on the type of information stolen. In addition, security measures are required to be taken, depending on the type of stored personal data. Please refer to Section 3 for the regulation that provides the applicable security measures. 3. Law applicable The applicable laws in Argentina on data protection are the following: Law Nº 25,326 (the “Act”) Executive Order Nº 1558/2001. 8 Baker & McKenzie Resolutions issued by the Argentine Data Protection Authority. For instance, Disposition No. 11/2006 about “Security Measures for the Processing and Storage of Personal Data Contained in Public Non-State and Private Files, Records, Databases Databanks”; and Disposition No. 4/2009, about “Marketing Activities”. Disposition No. 11/2006 Disposition No. 4/2009 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data The Act defines “Personal Data” as information of any kind referring to ascertainable physical persons or legal entities. The Act protects Personal Data used for reporting purposes and recorded in data files, registers, databases or by other technical means. b. Data Processing The Act covers the protection of Personal Data with regard to both manual and automatic processing. The Act defines “data processing” as systematic operations and procedures, either electronic or otherwise, that enable the collection, preservation, organization, storage, modification, relation, evaluation, blocking, destruction, and in general, the processing of personal information, as well as its communication to third parties through reports, inquiries, interconnections or transfers. c. Processing by Data Controllers The Act defines “Data Processor” as any person - public or private - carrying out, at its sole discretion, data processing, whether contained in files, records, or databases of its own, or through connection therewith. “Data Owner” is defined in the Act as any individual or corporation domiciled in the country, or having offices or branches in the country, whose data is subject to this Act. A Data Controller, a person or organization that holds personal or sensitive information on one or more Data Owners cannot, in principle, process data without the consent of the Data Owners. Nevertheless, under certain circumstances, Data Owner’s consent is not necessary. Furthermore, the Act covers all private persons creating files, records or databases that are not intended exclusively for personal use. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The Act applies to any physical person or legal entity having a legal domicile, or local offices or branches in Argentina. Registers, data files, databases or databanks that are interconnected through networks at inter-jurisdictional, national or international level fall within the federal jurisdiction, and are, thus, subject to the provisions of the Act. Other registers, data files, databases or databanks may also fall under provincial jurisdiction. In this regard, some of Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Argentina Baker & McKenzie 9 the provinces of Argentina have issued regulations for the “habeas data” remedy. Also, several Provinces have adhered to the content of the Act. e. Sensitive Personal Data The Act defines “Sensitive Personal Data” as Personal Data revealing racial and ethnic origin, political opinions, religious, philosophical or moral beliefs, labor union membership, and information concerning health conditions or sexual habits or behavior. The Act provides that Data Owners cannot be compelled to provide Sensitive Personal Data (nevertheless, certain exceptions may apply, such as health-related and union membership information, information which is necessary for employment purposes). It is prohibited to create files, banks or registers storing information that directly or indirectly reveal Sensitive Personal Data. f. Employee Personal Data Employees’ Personal Data is likely to include Sensitive Personal Data (e.g., health-related and union-membership information) and non-sensitive Personal Data. Generally, an employer may be entitled to process certain Sensitive Personal Data of its employee without the employee’s consent if and to the extent it is necessary for employment purposes. This occurs, nevertheless, in very specific and limited cases and should be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Act does not set forth when it is “necessary” for the employer to collect Sensitive Personal Data. 5. Consent a. General Consent of the Data Owner is generally required prior to the collection, processing and disclosure of Personal Data. The processing of Personal Data is unlawful unless the Data Owner has given his or her express consent in writing, or through any other similar means, depending on the circumstances. The consent must appear in a prominent and express manner. Furthermore, consent must be an informed consent and is revocable by the Data Owner. Consent shall not be deemed necessary when Personal Data: • is secured from unrestricted public access sources; • is collected for the performance of the duties inherent to the powers of the State or in virtue of legal obligations; • consists of lists limited to name, ID number, tax or social security identification number, profession, date of birth, and domicile; or • is derived from a contractual, scientific or professional relationship with the Data Owner (e.g., employment relationship) provided that such Personal Data is necessary for the development of or compliance with the terms of such relationship. 10 Baker & McKenzie is collected by financial entities in connection with transactions performed by the customers of said financial entities. b. Sensitive Data The Act requires express consent from Data Owners for the processing of Sensitive Personal Data. Exceptions to this rule are: • processing of Sensitive Personal Data for reasons of general interest authorized by applicable laws; • processing of Sensitive Personal Data for statistical or scientific purposes, provided that Data Owners cannot be identified (dissociation method); • Sensitive Personal Data referring to records on criminal or other offenses, provided that the same is processed only by competent public authorities within the framework established by applicable laws and regulations; or • processing of Sensitive Personal Data relating to the physical or mental condition of patients by public or private health institutions, and medical science professionals, in pursuance of the principles of professional secrecy. c. Minors There is no provision that specifically addresses consent requirements for minors. In general, consent cannot be obtained from minors, but can be given by a legal guardian or parent. The Comprehensive Protection of the Rights of Children and Teens Act No. 26,061 prohibits the exposure, circulation and/or disclosure of personal data and images of minors in any medium without consent from the minor and its parents, tutors or legal representatives, when such actions may affect the dignity of reputation of the minors or are intrusive to their private life. d. Employee Consent There is no provision that specifically addresses consent requirements for employees. e. Online/Electronic Consent In Argentina, electronic consent is permissible and can be effective if properly structured and evidenced. 6. Information/Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Owners with information about the organization’s identity; the types of Personal Data being collected; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; the consequences of not Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Argentina Baker & McKenzie 11 providing consent; the rights of the Data Owners; how the Personal Data is to be retained; where the Personal Data is to be transferred; where the Personal Data is to be stored; how to contact the privacy officer or other person who is accountable for the organization’s policies and practices; how to make an inquiry or file a complaint; and how to access and/or correct the Data Owners’ Personal Data. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Owners have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Owner; access the Data Owners’ Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Owners’ Personal Data; request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Owners’ Personal Data; and exercise the writ of habeas data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements The Act states that any public or private “data file, register or database intended to provide reports must be registered with the registry to be established for such purpose.” The Argentine Data Protection Authority has extended the registration requirement to encompass not only data collected in order to provide reports, but also all data collected for purposes beyond personal use. 10. Data Protection Officers Organizations are required to designate a privacy officer or other individual who will be accountable for the privacy practices of the organization. According to the criteria adopted by the Data Protection Authority, such officer or individual must be located in Argentina. 11. International Data Transfers The transfer of Personal Data to a third country may take place only if such third country provides similar levels of protection as the ones established by Argentine Law. Exceptions to this requirement are: • consent of Data Owners; • execution of an international data transfer agreement by and between the data exporter and the data importer, in accordance with certain guidelines issued by the Argentine Data Protection Authority; • international judicial cooperation; 12 Baker & McKenzie • exchange of medical information when so required for the treatment of the Data Owner; • exchange of medical information required for epidemiological research, provided that Data Owners cannot be identified (dissociation method); • stock exchange or banking transfers in pursuance of the applicable laws; • when the transfer is agreed upon within the framework of international treaties signed by Argentina; or • When the transfer is made for international cooperation purposes between intelligence agencies in order to fight against organized crime, terrorism and drug-trafficking. 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organization security safeguards to protect Personal Data, and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. The Argentine Data Protection Authority has approved three different levels of security measures that the person responsible for a database shall enforce depending on the type of Personal Data that is processed in such database. The different levels of technical and organizational security measures are the following: (i) basic level (for processors of general Personal Data); (ii) medium level (for utilities, government agencies or private entities that must keep their data secret); and (iii) critical level (for entities processing Sensitive Data). The technical and organizational security measures should include the procedure to be followed by the company in case Personal Data stored in the database is stolen. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Organizations that disclose Personal Data to third parties are required to use contractual or other means to protect Personal Data, and are required to comply with sector specific requirements. Organizations shall be liable together with third party providers in case of breach by the latter. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, data authority orders, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, seizure of equipment or data, civil actions, class actions, criminal proceedings, and/or private rights of action. Furthermore, the Argentine Data Protection keeps a record of infractions that is publicly available, so reputational damages may also exist. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Argentina Baker & McKenzie 13 15. Data Security Breach There is no specific mandatory obligation under the current applicable regulations to notify the Argentine Data Protection Authority of a security breach. From a practical standpoint, when a security breach occurs and becomes public, the Argentine Data Protection Authority usually initiates an investigation to confirm whether the company affected by the security breach has adopted the security measures required by the Act and regulations enacted by the Authority. There is also no obligation under the Act to notify consumers about a security breach. Nevertheless, companies affected by a security breach usually consider reporting the incident to Data Owners to allow them to adopt the appropriate course of action to protect their information and minimize damages. For instance, when the incident affects information related to any password or similar private information used by its employees, the company should report the incident to the affected employees to allow them to adopt the appropriate course of action (e.g., change of the password). 16. Accountability Organizations are required to conduct trials prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies, which shall not be performed directly into databases containing Personal Data, unless such organizations have adopted the necessary security measures required by local regulations. 17. Whistleblower Hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Argentina as long as they are in compliance with local laws. If an organization plans to create a database with the information received as a consequence of the implementation of a whistleblower hotline, such database will have to be registered with the Authority. Furthermore, employees will have to be duly informed about the existence of the whistle-blower hotline and relevant policies in relation thereto. 18. E-Discovery The process whereby electronically-stored information is reviewed, processed and presented for the purposes of litigation or regulatory requests is recognized under Argentine Law. Electronic information can be stored in databases as structured content, in emails or instant messages as semistructured content, and in documents or files as unstructured content. Nevertheless, employers should advise employees about the implementation of an e-discovery system and the fact that computer use in the workplace (e.g., e-mail, Internet) is being monitored and that information such as e-mails will be stored. Nevertheless, employees may request the employer to destroy any Personal Data stored as a consequence of the implementation of the 14 Baker & McKenzie e-discovery system. The employer may justify its position by alleging that such information is crucial for complying with regulations and/or for purposes of litigation. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering The main issues relate to how the spam-filtering solution is implemented, (e.g., whether the spam-filtering solution is automatic and applicable in the same manner to all of the employees and whether it allows certain IT officers of the company to monitor for spam). In practice, companies have installed software that filters spam and automatically sends a list of all of the spam that was filtered by the system to the relevant employee. 20. Cookies The use of cookies and web beacons would be, in principle, permitted provided that proper notice on their use is given to users (e.g., in the privacy policy). In this regard, the terms and conditions of the privacy policy should indicate that by accepting said terms and conditions, the users accept the deployment and use of cookies and web beacons. It is also recommendable that the privacy policy describes the manner in which the cookies can de deactivated (i.e., from browsers) and the consequences for doing so. 21. Direct Marketing As regards Direct Marketing performed by fixed or mobile phones, same is regulated by the so-called Do Not Call regulations, according to which those individuals or legal entities that promote products or services through telemarking activities are prohibited from contacting any number registered with the list, and are required to search the registry at least once every 30 (thirty) days and update their internal call list accordingly. As regards online direct marketing, when engaging in direct marketing using various electronic channels, companies should ensure that consumers are given the freedom to choose whether or not to engage in a relationship or receive communications from companies. In addition, the messages provided through electronic means should also contain a transcription of certain articles from the Data Protection Law and its Executive Order. Australia Anne-Marie Allgrove Sydney Tel: +61 2 8922 5274 anne-marie.allgrove@bakermckenzie.com Adrian Lawrence Sydney Tel: +61 2 8922 5204 adrian.lawrence@bakermckenzie.com Patrick Fair Sydney Tel: +61 2 8922 5534 patrick.fair@bakermckenzie.com Toby Patten Melbourne Tel: +61 3 9617 4456 toby.patten@bakermckenzie.com 16 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments The key legislation regulating privacy in Australia is the Privacy Act 1988 (the “Privacy Act”). Significant amendments to the Privacy Act were passed on 29 November 2012 and came into effect on 12 March 2014. Since these reforms, there has not been any significant new privacy-related legislation in Australia and there have not been any determinations or case law made under the new law (although there have been a number of privacy assessments and one enforceable undertaking). The regulator, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), has released various guidelines in the meantime. The key guidelines are: • APP Guidelines - this provides practical guidance on the application and interpretation of the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs). • Guide to developing an APP privacy policy - this sets out a step by step process to assist organisations in complying with APP 1 which relates to the creation of an organisation’s privacy policy. • Guide to undertaking privacy impact assessments - a privacy impact assessment identifies how a project can affect an individual’s privacy and formalizes recommendations for minimizing the impact. This guide sets out 10 steps to planning a privacy impact assessment. • Data breach notification guide - the guide suggests steps to take once an organization becomes aware of a data breach and states that it may be a reasonable step (pursuant to APP 11- security of personal information) to notify individuals and the regulator of a data breach and provide relevant information. • Guide to securing personal information - this guide sets out practical steps for organisations to appropriately protect the personal information that they hold e.g., the circumstances to consider when formulating reasonable steps, the internal processes to put in place. • Handling privacy complaints - this guide details the regulator’s approach to handling complaints (the commissioner can make enquiries into the matter, investigate, and/or attempt to conciliate, and may also decline to investigate complaints.) • Privacy management framework -this guide sets out steps that the regulator has indicated it expects organisations to take to ensure their compliance with the APPs, including with respect to internal processes, culture, and response to complaints. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Australia Baker & McKenzie 17 • Privacy Regulatory Action Policy - this policy indicates that the regulator’s enforcement approach will generally be conciliatory, working together with organisations to ensure compliance rather than necessarily enforcing immediate strict sanctions. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends • Data breach notification - although organisations are not currently required to notify individuals or the regulator of a data breach, legislation to require this has been foreshadowed as being implemented before the end of 2015. The regulator has already released guidelines regarding how organisations should deal with data breaches (see Section 1 above). • Increase in privacy complaints - the regulator has indicated that there has been a significant increase in complaints since the reforms were implemented and that these have been generally due to increased access to personal information, more complex business relationships, direct marketing, data breaches and disclosure of health information. • Stricter view towards hacking incidents defence - the regulator has also indicated that it is not sufficient to use being hacked as an excuse if the organization has not implemented appropriate security protections. 3. Law Applicable The key privacy legislation in Australia is the Privacy Act which applies to the private sector and Commonwealth public sector. The key data-handling principles applicable to both the private and public sectors sector are contained in the thirteen APPs. The APPs are grouped into five sets of principles intended to reflect the “life cycle” of handling of personal information. They cover: • the practices, procedures and systems that entities have in place relating to how they handle personal information; • how entities collect personal information, including unsolicited personal information; • how entities manage personal information, including how they use and disclose personal information, disclose information overseas, and how they use Government identifiers; • how entities ensure the integrity, quality and security of personal information; and • how entities deal with requests for access to, and correction of, personal information; 18 Baker & McKenzie APP Guidelines: The regulator responsible for the Privacy Act, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (“OAIC”) has issued guidelines to provide further context to the APPs. Some states and territories have privacy legislation and/or administrative guidelines which apply to the State/Territory public sector. Victoria and New South Wales also have specific legislation governing the collection, storage, use and transfer of health information (the Victorian Health Records Act 2001 and the New South Wales Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002), which applies in addition to the applicable APPs. “Health information” is broadly defined as personal information about the physical or mental health or a disability of an individual, or information relating to the provision of health services, the donation of body parts or substances, or genetic information that could be predictive of the health of an individual or their relatives. To the extent that an organization collects, uses, stores or discloses health information, it will be subject to the Health Privacy Principles, which require consent in Victoria and notification in New South Wales when that health information is collected and which restrict trans-border data flows out of the State, except in limited circumstances. The Australian Capital Territory also has health specific legislation, the Health Records (Privacy and Access) Act 1997, which covers health records held in the public sector in the Australian Capital Territory. This legislation also seeks to apply to acts or practices in the private sector to the extent not covered by the Privacy Act. Finally, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory also have human rights legislation, which includes a right for individuals not to have their privacy interfered with unlawfully or arbitrarily. The responses below relate specifically to the obligations in the Privacy Act that are applicable to private and Commonwealth public sector entities. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data “Personal information” is defined in the Privacy Act as “information or an opinion about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable: • whether the information or opinion is true or not; and • whether the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not.” The APP Guidelines provide that the concept of information being “reasonably identifiable” can include information which is not “personal information” in its own right, can still come under the Privacy Act if there is a likelihood of it Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Australia Baker & McKenzie 19 being combined with other information held by an organisation which would enable an individual to be reasonably identifiable. b. Data Processing The APPs in the Privacy Act apply to the acts and practices of entities in respect of personal information, including in relation to open and transparent management of personal information (including clear and technology neutral privacy policies), anonymity, collection of solicited and unsolicited information, notification of collection, use, disclosure, direct marketing, cross-border disclosure, use of government related identifiers, quality and security of the information held and access and correction of information held. The EU definition of “processing” is not used in the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act applies to personal information held in hard-copy and electronically and to both manual and automated handling of data. c. Processing by Data Controllers The Privacy Act applies to entities that undertake any of the acts or practices covered by the APPs. No distinction is made between entities that control the personal information and those that process it on behalf of other entities. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality Subject to certain exemptions (see below), the Privacy Act applies to acts and practices: • done in Australia in relation to personal information by an entity that is subject to Australian law (other than State or Territory Authorities); and • done outside of Australia in relation to personal information of an Australian citizen or person living in Australia by an entity that either has a link to Australia (such as being a Commonwealth government agency, a partnership formed in Australia or a body corporate incorporated in Australia) or that carries on business in Australia (including by having an online presence in Australia) and collected or held the information in Australia at the time of the act or practice. The Privacy Act contains a number of exemptions, including in respect of acts or practices: • of individuals only for the purpose of or in connection with their personal, family or household affairs, or otherwise other than in the course of a business carried on by that individual; • of small businesses with a turnover of AUD$3 million or less (except those who are related to an entity that has a turnover greater than AUD$3 million, who provide a health service, or who satisfy other criteria specified in the Privacy Act); • relating to employee records (see Section 4(f) below for further detail); or 20 Baker & McKenzie • undertaken overseas and that are required by foreign laws. e. Sensitive Personal Data “Sensitive information” is personal information relating to racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, membership of a political association, professional or trade association or trade union, religious beliefs or affiliations, philosophical beliefs, sexual preferences or practices, criminal record, biometric information or health information. Pursuant to APP 3, an entity must not collect sensitive information unless: • the entity obtains the consent of the individual (see Section 5(a), below for further detail) and the information is reasonably necessary for the activities or functions of the entity; • collection is required by law; • collection is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of any individual, where it is unreasonable or impracticable to obtain the consent of the individual to whom the information relates; • the information is collected by a non profit organization and relates to the organizations activities and relates solely to the organization’s members or persons who have regular contact with the organization in connection with its activities; • collection is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defense of a legal or equitable claim; • where the entity is a Commonwealth enforcement body, the collection is necessary for the performance of that enforcement body’s functions or activities; • the information is collected in the process of providing a health service, and is either collected as authorized by law or subject to a professional code of ethics; or • the information is collected in the course of medical research that is subject to professional safeguards and where obtaining consent is impracticable, and the research cannot be performed without the information being collected. Unless consent is given for an additional use, sensitive information may only be used for the purpose for which it was collected or for a secondary purpose directly related to the purpose of its collection that the individual would reasonably expect the information to be used for. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Australia Baker & McKenzie 21 f. Employee Personal Data Employee records are given a limited exemption from coverage under the Privacy Act, to the extent applicable to a private organization (as opposed to a Commonwealth public sector agency). This exemption effectively allows private employers to use information concerning their employees for appropriate internal purposes. Three requirements need to be satisfied for the exemption to apply: • the organization is acting in its capacity as a current or former employer of an individual; • the use of employee information is directly related to a current or former employment relationship between the employer organization and the individual; and • the use of employee information is directly related to an employee record held by the employer organization and relating to the individual. For the exemption to apply, the individual and the organization must be or have been in an employment relationship. The Privacy Act does not define the scope of employment, but it is accepted that this exemption does not extend to contractors, subcontractors, consultants and company directors, all of whom are outside of the employment relationship. Future or prospective employment relationships also do not fall within the exemption, which means that recruitment processes and recruitment agencies must comply with the Privacy Act. The exclusion of both recruitment processes and contractors has the practical effect of requiring human resources processes to implement privacy principles in at least some areas of their handling of personal information. The use of employee information must be directly related to the employment relationship and also must be directly related to employee records held by the employer. This is intended to prevent employers from using employee records for commercial purposes unrelated to the employment relationship or exploiting the employee records exemption for commercial purposes. The employee records exemption only applies to employee records held by the employer and does not continue if the employee records are disclosed by the employer to another organization. For example, if records containing personal information about an employee are disclosed to the employer’s insurer for the purposes of workers’ compensation insurance, then those records do not retain their exempt status in the hands of the insurance company. That is, in the hands of the insurance company, the personal information is subject to the coverage of the Privacy Act. g. Data handling practices Entities are required to take reasonable steps to implement practices, procedures and systems to ensure that they comply with the APPs and can 22 Baker & McKenzie deal with inquiries or complaints about their compliance with the APPs. This principle is intended to keep the Privacy Act up-to-date with international trends and encourage entities to ensure that privacy compliance is included in the design of information systems, goods and service offerings from their inception. An organization is expected to take an active role in monitoring its privacy handling practices, including determining whether information it holds is still required for the purposes for which it was collected, the accuracy of that information and whether the use of identifiable information is necessary for an organisation’s intended purposes or if de-identified information could instead be used. Information which is no longer required should be destroyed or deidentified. 5. Consent a. General There is no express requirement for an entity to obtain an individual’s consent to collect personal information so long as the entity only uses that information for the purpose for which it was collected or for a related purpose (or directly related secondary purpose in the case of Sensitive Data) that the individual would reasonably expect the information to be used for. Except in limited circumstances, an entity must obtain the individual’s consent to use the Personal Data for any other purpose. Consent by the Data Subject must always be voluntary, informed, explicit and unambiguous. Consent can be express or implied, but the appropriate form of consent will depend on the circumstances, expectations of the Data Subject, and sensitivity of the Personal Data. When the Data Subject gives consent, it is usually understood to only cover the identified purpose(s). There is no mandatory requirement that consent must be in writing for it to be valid. It can be usually provided orally or in different forms and formats. The Data Subject also has the right to withdraw consent at any time. In addition, consent does not need to be in the local language provided that the Data Subject understands the language in which consent is given. b. Sensitive Data Australian law recognizes Sensitive Data as a special category of Personal Data. It is therefore subject to additional and special consent requirements. In non-binding guidelines, the Privacy Commissioner expressed the view that an entity would ordinarily need clear evidence that an individual had consented to it collecting Sensitive Data. (See Section 5(a)). Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Australia Baker & McKenzie 23 c. Minors While consent from minors is not specifically addressed in the Privacy Act, the Privacy Commissioner has expressed the view through non-binding guidelines that organizations should consider in each case whether an individual has capacity to give consent and, “as a general principle, a young person is able to give consent when he or she has sufficient understanding and maturity to understand what is being proposed. In some circumstances, it may be appropriate for a parent or guardian to consent on behalf of a young person.” d. Employee Consent In Australia, there are some doubts as to whether consent given in the context of an employment relationship can be considered valid. It is questionable whether consent would qualify as voluntary, given that the employee may feel forced to consent due to the subordinate nature of their relationship with their employer. Consent has also been construed as misleading where statutory permission to collect, process, and use Personal Data is available. As a matter of practice, in order for such consent to be valid, the employer may need to be able to demonstrate that the employee had a genuine option not to consent. This issue arises less commonly under the Privacy Act because of the limited employee records exemption for some aspects of employee record processing (See Section 4(f)). e. Online/Electronic Consent: In Australia, online or electronic consent is permissible and deemed effective if it is properly structured and evidenced. 6. Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about the organization’s identity; if Personal Data is collected from a third party or if the Data Subject is not aware that the organization has collected the Personal Data, the fact that the organization has collected that Personal Data and the circumstances of the collection; if the collection is required or authorized by Australian law or court order, the fact that the collection is required by that law or court order (including the details of the law or court which issued the order); the types of Personal Data being collected; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; that the organization has a privacy policy containing information on how the Data Subject may access Personal Data about the Data Subject and seek correction, and associated complaint processes; third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; the consequences to the Data Subject if the Personal Data is not collected; and whether the Personal Data is likely to be disclosed outside of Australia, and if so, to which countries (if known and practicable to specify those countries). 24 Baker & McKenzie 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected; anonymize the Personal Data whenever possible; provide the Data Subject the option to use a pseudonym or remain anonymous whenever possible; and delete/ anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; and, request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data. 9. Registration/ Notification Requirements An organization that collects and processes Personal Data are not required to register, file and notify the appropriate data authority. 10. Data Protection Officers In Australia, there is no requirement to appoint or designate a data privacy officer or other individual who will be accountable for the privacy practices of the organization. However, organizations are required to make available a privacy policy on request from a Data Subject. (See Section 1.) 11. International Data Transfers If an organization discloses Personal Data to a recipient outside of Australia, it must take reasonable steps to ensure that the recipient does not breach the APPs. Unless an exception applies, if the recipient handles the Personal Data in a manner that would breach the APPs if that recipient were subject to the APPs, the organization that disclosed the information will be taken to have breached the APPs. A key exception is if the recipient to which Personal Data is disclosed is subject to a law or binding scheme which provides the same protection as under the Privacy Act, and there are mechanisms that the Data Subject can access to enforce that law or binding scheme. A further exception is if the organization expressly informs Data Subjects that if information is disclosed outside of Australia, the organization will not be responsible for any failure of the recipient to protect the Personal Data in a manner consistent with the APPs, and having been so informed the Data Subject consents to the disclosure. Safe Harbor registration may assist in establishing that reasonable steps have been taken if the organization applied Safe Harbor principles to Personal Data from Australia. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Australia Baker & McKenzie 25 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organization security safeguards to protect Personal Data, and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Organizations that disclose Personal Data to third parties may be required to use contractual or other means to protect the Personal Data. There may be additional obligations to comply with requirements for specific sectors. In case of an occurrence of data breach, the outsourcing organization may be held liable together with the third party provider. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, data authority orders, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, civil actions, class actions, and/or private rights of action. 15. Data Security Breach Although currently there is no legal requirement in Australia for organizations to notify Data Subjects when a privacy breach occurs, this is an area of focus for the OAIC and the OAIC has issued voluntary guidelines regarding data breach. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to an administrative fine, penalty or sanction, or civil actions and/or class actions if it has breached the APPs. 16. Accountability The changes to the Privacy Act are in many ways non-prescriptive, and put the onus on an organization to develop its systems such that privacy compliance is a key consideration. The OAIC has stated that “establishing a comprehensive and practical privacy policy … will get you started with a ‘privacy by design’ approach to your business”, and further recommends that organizations look closely at their information security and data breach plans as against the new laws. Finally, it is also recommended that organizations conduct privacy impact assessments for new projects. The OAIC has issued a “Privacy Impact Assessment Guide” to assist organizations. 26 Baker & McKenzie 17. Whistle-blower hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Australia provided that they are in compliance with local laws. 18. E-discovery When implementing an e-discovery system, an organization may be required to: obtain the consent of employees if the collection of personal data is involved; and advise employees of the implementation of an e-discovery system, the monitoring of work tools and the storage of information. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering When implementing an anti-spam filter solution into its operations, an organization is required to inform employees of monitoring policies being implemented in the workplace. 20. Cookies There are no specific laws/rules that regulate the use and deployment of cookies in Australia. In general, the use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. As such, consent of Data Subjects may have to be obtained before cookies can be used. 21. Direct Marketing Whether businesses can use Personal Data for direct marketing will depend on how they collected the information (whether it was directly from the relevant Data Subject or from a third party) and whether individuals would reasonably expect their information to be used for this purpose. There is also a new opt-out requirement that applies to all direct marketing communications. Additional restrictions apply to the use of Sensitive Data for direct marketing. In an on-line context, the APP Guidelines provide an example that direct marketing may include the display of an advertisement on a social media site that an individual is logged into where those advertisements are tailored based on that individual’s browsing history, but not where advertisements appear uniformly to any browser of that website. Austria Lukas Feiler Vienna Tel: +43 1 24250 450 lukas.feiler@bakermckenzie.com 28 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments The Data Protection Amendment Act 2014, which was passed in May 2013 and entered into force on 1 January 2014, transformed the Data Protection Commission to a monocratic agency and renamed it the Data Protection Authority (“Authority”). Appeals against decisions by the Authority will now have to be lodged at the Federal Administrative Court, which was created by the Administrative Judicial Reform 2012. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends Internal compliance investigations – Internal compliance investigations are becoming more common, particularly with potential competition law enforcement actions and leniency applications. The requirements concerning the confidentiality and swiftness of such investigations pose significant challenges under Austrian data protection law, in particular if the investigation entails the review of corporate and private emails sent or received via corporate email accounts. Practice has shown that compliance risks can only be mitigated to acceptable levels if certain technological safeguards are implemented in the forensic process. Big Data – The use of analytics applications in analyzing huge amounts of typically unstructured data has significant economic potential for any enterprise and also brings with it serious data protection compliance challenges regarding the principle of purpose limitation. To address these challenges, data protection should be considered early on when designing Big Data applications and the associated (automated) decision processes. 3. Law Applicable The amended Austrian Federal Data Protection Act 2000 (Datenschutzgesetz) (the “DSG”), effective as of 1 January 2000, implementing the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC and last amended by the Data Protection Amendment Act 2014, which was passed in May 2013 and entered into force on 1 January 2014. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data The DSG applies to information relating to Data Subjects who are identified or identifiable (individuals and legal persons) (the “Data Subject”). b. Data Processing “Processing of data” means collecting, recording, storing, keeping, sorting, comparing, modifying, linking, reproducing, culling, disseminating, utilizing, committing, blocking, deleting, destroying or any other kind of handling of data, with the exception of the transmission of data. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Austria Baker & McKenzie 29 “Transmission of data” is the transfer of data to recipients other than the Data Subject, the Controller or a Processor, in particular publishing of such data as well as the use of data for another application or purpose. “Committing of data” is the transfer of data from the Controller to a Processor. “Use” describes any kind of handling of data, therefore includes both the processing and the transmission of data. c. Processing by Data Controllers The DSG applies to the party responsible for the purposes and the manner that Personal Data is to be used (“Data Controller”). If the Data Controller outsources processing activities to a third party (a “Processor”), that Processor is subject to the DSG as well. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The DSG applies to: • Data Controllers established in Austria; • Data Controllers established outside Austria, but within an EU Member State, that use Personal Data for an establishment that the Data Controller has in Austria; • Data Controllers not established in any EU Member State which use Personal Data in Austria. e. Sensitive Personal Data The DSG imposes additional requirements for the use of special categories of Personal Data (“Sensitive Personal Data”) – that is, data relating to natural persons concerning their racial or ethnic origin, political opinion, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, health and sexual life. Specifically, the use of Sensitive Personal Data is prohibited, unless certain conditions are met, including: • the Data Controller obtains the explicit and unambiguous consent of the Data Subject (see Section 5(b) below); • the use is necessary to protect the vital interests of the Data Subject or of a third party where the Data Subject is physically or legally incapable of giving consent; • the data has evidently been made public by the Data Subject himself or herself; • the use is necessary in order to assert, exercise, or defend legal claims, and there is no reason to assume that the Data Subject has an overriding legitimate interest in excluding the use; 30 Baker & McKenzie • the use is necessary for the purposes of scientific research, and the scientific interest in carrying out the research project substantially outweighs the Data Subject’s interest in excluding use, and the purpose of the research cannot be achieved in any other way or would otherwise necessitate a disproportionate effort; • the use is necessary for medical purposes and the processing is undertaken by a health professional or person with the equivalent duty of confidentiality as a health professional; or • the use is required in view of the Data Controller’s rights and obligations in connection with labor or employment law and is admissible pursuant to special legal provisions, whereby the rights of the works council relating to the use remain unaffected. f. Employee Personal Data Employee Personal Data is likely to include Sensitive Personal Data (e.g., health-related information, religious denomination) and Personal Data. An employee’s Sensitive Personal Data generally may only be processed with the employee’s explicit consent (as the other circumstances mentioned in Section 4(e) above will usually be irrelevant in a standard employment relationship), unless specific statutory rules (other than the DSG) otherwise allow the processing of such data, as is the case, e.g., with respect to information regarding religious denomination for church tax reasons (pursuant to relevant tax provisions). An employee’s Personal Data may be processed by a Data Controller in certain circumstances, including if the processing activities are necessary for the performance of the employment contract – i.e., if: (i) they are required for the fulfillment of primary or collateral contractual or pre-contractual duties; or (ii) they are necessary to safeguard justified interests of the Data Controller and there is no reason to assume that the employee has an overriding legitimate interest in his or her Personal Data being excluded from processing or use. A fallback justification for processing of both Sensitive Personal Data and Personal Data in the employment context is the provision of consent by the Data Subject. However, it is debatable whether consent can be validly given in the employment context (see Section 5(d) below). 5. Consent a. General Consent of the Data Subject is generally required prior to the collection, processing and disclosure of Personal Data. Consent by the Data Subject must always be voluntary, informed, explicit and unambiguous, though it is not required in certain prescribed circumstances. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Austria Baker & McKenzie 31 Consent is contemplated as a justification or legal grounds for the collection, processing, and/or use of Personal Data. Consent can be express or implied, but the appropriate form of consent will depend on the circumstances, expectations of the Data Subject, and sensitivity of the Personal Data. When the Data Subject gives consent, it is understood to only cover the identified purpose(s). Fresh consent is required for purposes that have not been previously identified and consented to. There is no requirement that consent must be in writing. It can be provided orally or in different forms and formats. In addition, the Data Subject also has the right to withdraw consent at any time. Generally, consent must be in the local language to be valid. However, it may be considered valid consent even if it is not in the local language if the Data Subject understands the language in which consent is given. b. Sensitive Data Austrian law recognizes Sensitive Data as a special category of Personal Data. It is subject to additional and special consent requirements. While Sensitive Data may only be collected and processed with the express consent of the Data Subject, Sensitive Data may be processed without obtaining consent in certain prescribed circumstances. c. Minors While consent from minors is not specifically addressed in any law, the general rule is that minors are considered incapable of giving consent. However, parents or legal guardians of minors are allowed to provide consent on behalf of the minor, and may even be allowed to obtain information about the minor from third parties without the need of consent from the minor. Nevertheless, there are certain circumstances where consent given by a minor may be considered valid. d. Employee Consent In Austrian legal literature, there are doubts as to whether consent given in the context of an employment relationship can be considered valid. First, it is questioned whether the consent would qualify as voluntary, given that the employee may feel forced to consent due to the subordinate nature of their relationship with their employer. Secondly, it has been held that consent would be misleading where statutory permission to collect, process, and use Personal Data is available. Therefore, a consent declaration is only considered unproblematic if the declaration of intent is based on a free decision. In a relationship of dependence such as an employer-employee relationship, this freedom of decision can be significantly restricted, potentially making consent declarations by employees problematic. 32 Baker & McKenzie In any case, where a works council exists, the conclusion of an agreement with that works council regarding the employee data processing is typically required. The general rule is that employee consent is required to collect and process an employee’s Personal Data; however, there are instances when employee consent is not required, e.g., to carry out an employment contract or administer an employment relationship, or to fulfill a legitimate interest of the employer. e. Online/Electronic Consent In Austria, online or electronic consent is permissible and deemed effective if properly structured and evidenced. 6. Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about the organization’s identity, the purposes for collecting Personal Data, the consequences of not providing consent, and the rights of the Data Subject. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected; anonymize the Personal Data whenever possible; provide the Data Subject the option to use a pseudonym or remain anonymous whenever possible; and delete/ anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and how the Data Subject’s Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and exercise the writ of habeas data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements Though not mandatory, an organization that collects and processes Personal Data may be required to register, file and notify the appropriate data authority. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Austria Baker & McKenzie 33 10. Data Protection Officers In Austria, there is no requirement to appoint or designate a data privacy officer or other individual who will be accountable for the privacy practices of the organization. 11. International Data Transfers Transfers of Personal Data (the Transmission or Committing of Data) from Austria to other EEA countries are generally permitted without the need for further approval by the Austrian Data Protection Authority, provided that such transfers would be legal within Austria. The same applies with respect to transfers to Canada, Switzerland, the Isle of Man, Argentina, Andorra, New Zealand, Uruguay, Faroe Islands, Israel, Jersey, and Guernsey, which are subject to European Commission findings of adequacy (subject to the fulfillment of certain pre-conditions) in relation to their data protection laws. Transfers to the U.S. are permitted without prior approval by the Authority where the recipient has registered under the Safe Harbor arrangement and provided that the transfers would be legal within Austria. Transfers to the U.S. or any other countries outside the EEA that do not provide an adequate level of data protection are legal if based on unmodified or modified versions of the relevant EU Model Clauses, provided always that such transfers would be legal within Austria. However, the Austrian Data Processing Register has to be notified in any case, unless covered by the above mentioned exceptions (covered by a standard application; contain solely published data or data for the management of public registers and catalogues; contain data solely for which neither the Data Controller, any Processor or any recipient can determine the identity of the Data Subject; contain only Personal Data or family data for private purposes or data for journalistic purposes). Furthermore, any transmissions based on the EU Model Clauses also require the prior approval by the Austrian Data Protection Authority. Transfers of Personal Data to countries outside the EEA may further take place even without additional measures to ensure an adequate level of data protection at the recipient’s end where: • the Data Subject has consented to the transfer; • the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract between the Data Subject and the Data Controller, or to take steps at the Data Subject’s request with a view to entering into a contract with them; • the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract between the Data Controller and a third party in the interest of the Data Subject; • the transfer is necessary for the purpose of establishing, exercising, or defending legal claims before a foreign authority; or 34 Baker & McKenzie • the Personal Data have been published legitimately in Austria (e.g., available from a public register). The general rules concerning the legality of processing must always be fulfilled (i.e., the transfer would need to be legal even within Austria). In all other cases, prior authorization by the Authority is required by law. 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organizational security safeguards to protect Personal Data, and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Organizations that disclose Personal Data to third parties are required to use contractual or other means to protect the Personal Data. There may be additional obligations to comply with requirements for specific sectors. In case of an occurrence of data breach, the outsourcing organization may be held liable together with the third party provider. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, data authority orders, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, seizure of equipment or data, civil actions, criminal proceedings and/or private rights of action. 15. Data Security Breach Organizations that are involved in a data breach situation are required to comply with mandatory data breach notification requirements, take steps to contain the breach, and comply with data authority orders and court orders. Depending on the nature and scope of the breach, the organization is not required to notify the data authority. However, the organization may have to notify the impacted Data Subjects in case of a data breach. The organization may be required to gather information about the breach, assess the potential risk of harm to the Data Subjects, take steps to prevent future similar breaches and assist authorities with any investigation relating to the breach. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to a closure or cancellation of the file, register or database, an administrative fine, penalty or sanction, or civil actions and/or class actions. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Austria Baker & McKenzie 35 16. Accountability There is no existing law in Austria that requires organizations to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. It is also not a requirement to furnish evidence relating to the effectiveness of the organization’s privacy management program to privacy regulators. 17. Whistle-blower hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Austria provided that they are in compliance with local laws. 18. E-discovery When implementing an e-discovery system, an organization is required to advise employees of the implementation of an e-discovery system, the monitoring of work tools and the storage of information. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering When implementing an anti-spam filter solution into its operations, an organization may be required to inform employees of monitoring policies being implemented in the workplace, give employees the opportunity to opt-out from the spam-filtering solution, and give employees the opportunity to review the isolated emails designated as spam. 20. Cookies There are specific laws/rules that regulate the deployment of cookies, and hence, the use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. Consent of Data Subjects must be obtained before cookies can be used. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject may be required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. Azerbaijan Gunduz Karimov Baku Tel: +994 12 4971 801 gunduz.karimov@bakermckenzie.com Jamil Alizada Baku Tel: +994 12 4971 801 jamil.alizada@bakermckenzie.com 38 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments The Information Acquisition Law (as defined below) was amended to include information on financial operations within the scope of personal data. Access to such information is restrained. The State Secrecy Law (as defined below) was amended to introduce the additional conditions on access of officials to state secrets and commitment on non-disclosure thereof and grounds for rejection of such access. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends No emerging trends. 3. Law Applicable Azerbaijani privacy law issues are addressed in a number of laws, including the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan (the “Constitution”), the Law On Information, Informatization and Protection of Information dated 3 April 1998 (the “Information Law”), the Law On Obtaining Information dated 30 September 2005 (the “Information Acquisition Law”), Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Azerbaijan No. 38 On Approval of Certain Legal Acts Regarding Implementation of Law on Obtaining Information dated 7 February 2006 (the “Resolution 38”), the Law On Freedom of Information dated 19 June 1998 (the “Freedom of Information Law”), the Law On State Secrecy dated 7 September 2004 (the “State Secrecy Law”), the Law On Commercial Secrecy dated 4 December 2001, the Law On Personal Data dated 11 May 2010 (the Personal Data Law”), the Law On Biometrical Information dated 13 June 2008 (the “Biometric Information Law”) and the Labor Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated 1 February 1999 (the “Labor Code”). 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data The Personal Data Law defines personal data as any information which makes it possible to identify a person directly or indirectly. The Labor Code further includes as personal data general information on an employee, such as his or her name, home address, and any other information reflected in his or her national identification card. Personal data may be classified as either general or private. Personal information such as a person’s first, second and patronymic name is regarded as general personal data. The Information Acquisition Law restricts the collection of private information on an individual’s political views, religious affiliation, ethnicity, health and similar matters. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Azerbaijan Baker & McKenzie 39 b. Data Processing The Information Law defines data processing as the creation, collection, processing, storage, search and dissemination of information. The Information Law further regulates data processing through the use of information resources. Resolution 38 establishes rules on data processing applicable to: (i) document storage, systematization and protection; (ii) creation, storage and updating of document registers; and (iii) the use of documents maintained in a register. c. Processing by Data Controllers A data controller is a “holder of information” required by law to provide information to the public upon request. Under the Information Acquisition Law, a “holder of information” is defined as including: (i) state and municipal authorities; (ii) public entities (vested with certain social responsibilities); and (iii) legal entities and individuals providing services in the areas of education, medicine and culture. Entities having a dominant position in a particular market are also regarded as “holders of information”. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The privacy-related laws listed in Section 3 apply to the creation, collection, processing, storage, search, and dissemination of information in Azerbaijan. e. Sensitive Personal Data The Information Acquisition Law restricts public access to certain categories of personal data including information: (i) on political views, religion, ideology, ethnic and racial origin; (ii) on health and physical and mental disabilities; (iii) collected during criminal investigations prior to publication in open court hearings; (iv) on social welfare program applications; (v) on previous convictions; (vi) on domestic violence; and (vii) on collected taxes, excluding tax arrears. The Biometric Information Law also restricts public access to biometric information, i.e., information on a person’s intrinsic physical traits such as fingerprints, DNA, face and iris recognition, etc. The Information Acquisition Law also restricts public access to certain information on family life including data relating to: (i) sex life; (ii) matrimonial and other family matters; (iii) child adoption; and (iv) notarial acts. f. Employee Personal Data Employee-related information (i.e., name, residential address and any other information reflected on a national identification card) is personal data. Information on an employee’s salary, title, business address and telephone number, however, is not personal data. 40 Baker & McKenzie 5. Consent Requirements a. General Article 32.3 of the Constitution requires the subject’s consent for the collection, processing, storage and dissemination of information relating to the subject’s data. b. Sensitive Data Release of personal data relating to the subject without his or her consent is prohibited. c. Minors No consent is required to release information on minors (under 18) to their parents, guardians and other legal representatives. d. Employee Consent The Labor Code prohibits employers from releasing information relating to its employees without the employees’ consent. e. Online/Electronic Consent While the Information Acquisition Law specifically provides for an electronic release of information, it is silent on the availability of “electronic” consent. As a general matter, consent must be in writing (i.e., signed) to be effective. 6. Information/Notice Requirements Not applicable. 7. Processing Rules Resolution 38 establishes the processing rules. 8. Rights of Individuals An individual is entitled to have access to information unless such information is classified. The data subject has also a right to obtain documented personal information without restriction. The Information Acquisition Law authorizes certain entities and individuals access to personal data including: (i) parents, guardians and custodians – with regard to personal data relating to the children in their custody; and (ii) guardians – with regard to personal data relating to handicapped persons in their custody. Azerbaijani law provides additional rights, including an individual’s right to: (i) correction of information about himself or herself if information is inaccurate; and (ii) assistance from data controllers in connection with the release of information. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Azerbaijan Baker & McKenzie 41 9. Registration/Notification Requirements A data controller must register in its database: (i) information in its possession, including personal data; and (ii) requests for release of information. No particular notification requirements are established (other than notifications to data controllers to data requesters). 10. Data Protection Officers The Information Acquisition Law imposes certain obligations on data controllers. 11. International Data Transfers Under the Personal Data Law, any data transfer, including international data transfers, requires the subject’s written consent. International data transfers are prohibited if they pose a threat to the national security of Azerbaijan or if the laws of a recipient country do not provide the legal protection of personal data afforded to subjects under Azerbaijani law. 12. Security Requirements Yes. The Information Acquisition Law requires a data controller to ensure protection of personal data. 13. Special Rules for the Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties It is neither prohibited nor specifically authorized. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions A violation of Azerbaijani law on document storage, systematization and protection is a misdemeanor. Azerbaijani law subjects individuals, officers and legal entities to a fine up to AZN 25, AZN 90 and AZN 300, respectively. 15. Data Security Breach Except for the general right of a person to require adequate protection of collected data, Azerbaijani laws do not set legal requirements in the event of a data security breach. 16. Accountability Organizations are not required to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. It is also not a requirement to furnish evidence relating to the effectiveness of the organization’s privacy management program to privacy regulators. 42 Baker & McKenzie 17. Whistle-blower Hotline There are no rules/laws in Azerbaijan that govern whistle-blower hotlines. 18. E-discovery system There are no rules/laws in Azerbaijan that govern e-discovery. 19. Anti-spam-filter As spam-filtering (often coupled with deleting emails) involves a detailed analysis of email content, it raises a customer’s privacy concern. 20. Cookies The use of cookies must comply with Azerbaijani laws that relate to privacy. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject may be required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. The organization may be required to obtain consent for a specific activity as bundled consent may not be considered valid consent. Belgium Elisabeth Dehareng Brussels Tel: +32 2 639 36 11 elisabeth.dehareng@bakermckenzie.com Daniel Fesler Brussels Tel: +32 2 639 36 11 daniel.fesler@bakermckenzie.com 44 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments Information security: new notification forms for security breaches adopted by the Belgian Privacy Commission and new version of security guidance Since 2014, Information security has definitely become a must for any processing of Personal Data (defined below) in Belgium, following the recommendations adopted and enforcement actions taken by the Belgian Privacy Commission in 2013. In 2014, the Privacy Commission issued new electronic notification forms and procedures for the reporting of security breaches (mandatory procedure for telecommunication network or service operators, and non mandatory for others). These forms are available in a new section of the Belgian Privacy Commission’s website dedicated to information security and data breaches. In December 2014, the Belgian Privacy Commission also adopted a new version (version 2.0) of its Guidelines for the security of personal data, that are applicable to all data processing activities subject to a prior authorization. These Guidelines clearly draw inspiration from the International Standards 27002, 27005 and 27018. Although the Privacy Commission has no power to enact mandatory rules, it is clearly of the view that to comply with such guidelines is part of the data controllers’ and data processors’ legal duty to adopt and implement technical and organizational measures aimed at protecting the security of personal data. By merely replicating certain specifications of the international standard 27002 in its guidelines, the Privacy Commission gives to such specifications the status of state of the art norms in such a way that it will become difficult for data controllers and data processors not to comply with them. In 2014, the Belgian Privacy Commission and the Dutch Data Protection Authority closed their investigation on the security measures implemented by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (“SWIFT”). SWIFT had already dealt with an investigation from the Belgian Privacy Commission between 2006 and 2008. SWIFT, based in Belgium with an operating center in the Netherlands where traffic data is processed and stored, exchanges standardized financial messages in more than 200 countries every day. The Belgian and Dutch data protection authorities concluded that SWIFT had not infringed data protection requirements regarding European citizens’ financial transaction data. New guidance regarding privacy at the workplace In 2014, the Belgian Privacy Commission issued a new brochure summarizing its previous advice and recommendations regarding privacy at the workplace, including issues such as camera monitoring, “Bring Your Own Devices” policies, geolocation of employees, use of biometric data, etc. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Belgium Baker & McKenzie 45 Draft recommendation and public consultation on the use of cookies Following a public consultation in 2014, the Belgian Privacy Commission published its final recommendation on the use of cookies (CO-AR-2012-004) in February 2015. This is the commission’s first official guidance on cookies and similar technologies, and it covers both technical and legal aspects. The recommendation notably provides guidance on the information obligation, the consent requirement and the exemptions thereto, as set forth under the Belgian Electronic Communication Act of 13 June 2005. The Privacy Commission recommends following a granular approach, giving users the possibility to accept all or only certain types of cookies. Opinions regarding the use of cloud computing by hospitals, use of ‘Dashcams’, drones, right to be forgotten, use of electronic identity cards In 2014, the Privacy Commission issued a number of opinions and recommendations relating to different matters with privacy implications, such as the use of dashcams in cars, privacy-related questions regarding the use of drones, questions relating to the scope of the right to be forgotten following the Judgment of the EU Court of Justice of 13 May 2014 in Case C-131/12, or the use of Belgian electronic identity cards by private companies for authentication of their employees. In 2015, the Privacy Commission issued an advice with respect to draft guidelines regarding the use of “cloud” by hospitals (CO-A-2014-053). This opinion covers both the legal and technical aspects regarding the processing and storage of health-related data. Data transfer agreements: approval process On trans-border personal data flows, the Privacy Commission and the Belgian Department of Justice adopted a protocol in June 2013 according to which all data transfer agreements had to be submitted to the Belgian Privacy Commission for review and approval. Agreements conforming to the Standard Contractual Clauses adopted by the EU Commission were automatically approved by the Belgian Privacy Commission. Non conforming agreements have to be approved by the King, i.e., the Federal Government. This Protocol was corrected in June 2014 to clarify that no Royal Decree – nor any other form of authorization – is required for data transfer agreements conforming to the EU Commission Standard Contractual Clauses, which are automatically recognized as offering sufficient guarantees in terms of protection of data subjects’ privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms. The King, i.e., the Federal Government, must still approve non-conforming agreements. 46 Baker & McKenzie 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends • Information security requirements - As outlined above, the main privacy issues and trends initiated in 2014 are again related to data breaches and information security requirements, notably in light of a number of hacking of personal data - including sensitive personal data - reported in the press. • Cloud computing - The privacy issue in relation to the processing and transfer of Personal Data in the cloud computing environment is still a hot topic in 2015, with a new opinion of the Privacy Commission regarding the use of “cloud” by hospitals. • New EU data protection framework - Another important hot topic consists in the revision of the EU data protection framework, particularly around the EU Commission Proposal for a Regulation on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of Personal Data and on the free movement of such data. On 5 February 2014, the Privacy Commission issued an own-initiative opinion (Opinion No. 10/2014) on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, as voted by the LIBE Committee of the European Parliament on 17 October 2013 (CO-A-2014-001). On 17 June 2015, on its own initiative, the Privacy Commission issued a new opinion (Opinion 23/2015) in view of the trilogue to come on the proposals of European Regulation relating to the protection of individuals with respect to the processing of personal data and free movement of such data as proposed by the EU Commission and adopted by the European Parliament and Council (CO-A-2015-024). • IP tracking, behavioral advertising and direct marketing, particularly the new “Do Not Call Lists”, as well as processing of personal data by social media websites, were also key privacy concerns in 2014 and are very hot topics in 2015 with the first court case initiated by the Belgian Privacy Commission in that respect. • Internal investigations and privacy at the workplace - Key issues also include the development of internal investigations within Belgian companies, and, as the case may arise, at European or worldwide group levels, the processing and transfer of personal data in relation to ediscoveries and forensic reviews, as well as the monitoring and review of employees’ electronic communications data within the context of such investigations. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Belgium Baker & McKenzie 47 3. Law Applicable The applicable law includes the Act of 8 December 1992 on Privacy Protection in relation to the Processing of Personal Data, as modified by the implementing Act of 11 December 1998 and the Act of 29 February 2003, and as supplemented by the Royal Decree of 13 February 2001 (the “DPA”).Data protection rules may also be found in, e.g., the Criminal Code, the Act of 11 March 2003 on Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services, the Electronic Communications Act of 13 June 2005, the Act of 21 March 2007 on Surveillance Cameras and in collective bargaining agreements. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data The DPA applies to any information (“Personal Data”) relating to an identified or identifiable individual (“Data Subject”). An identifiable person is one who can be identified directly or indirectly, by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity. Personal Data is not necessarily identifying data. Data will only be considered ‘anonymous’, and therefore not ‘Personal Data’ in the sense of the DPA, provided that the individual to whom it relates cannot be identified, whether by the Data Controller or by any other person, taking account of all the means reasonably likely to be used either by the controller or by any other person to identify that individual. b. Data Processing “Processing” is very broadly defined and will cover any operation or set of operations performed on Personal Data including collection, recording, organization, storage, adaptation, alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment, combination, as well as blocking, erasure, and deletion of Personal Data. The DPA applies to the processing of Personal Data wholly or partly by automatic means, as well as to manual data processing where the data so processed is recorded in or is intended to form part of a filing system. c. Processing by Data Controllers The DPA applies to those persons who, alone or jointly with others, determine the purposes for which and the manner in which any Personal Data is or will be processed (“Data Controller”). 48 Baker & McKenzie d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The DPA applies to: • Data processing activities carried out by Data Controllers established in Belgium; and • Data processing activities of Data Controllers that are not established in the EU but that use equipment based in Belgium to carry out data processing activities (other than merely for transit purpose). The DPA therefore applies independently of the nationality/residence/location of the Data Subjects whose data are being processed. e. Sensitive Personal Data The DPA imposes additional requirements for the processing of sensitive Personal Data, i.e., data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs or trade union membership, data concerning sex life, as well as health-related data. Pursuant to Article 6 of the DPA, the processing of data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs or trade-union membership as well as data concerning sex life is prohibited unless: a. the Data Subject has given his written consent to the processing, it being understood that such consent can be withdrawn at any time (see Section 5(b) below); b. the processing is necessary for the purpose of carrying out the specific obligations and rights of the Data Controller in the employment field; c. the processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the Data Subject or another person, provided that the Data Subject is physically or legally incapable of giving his consent; d. the processing relates to Personal Data that has obviously been made public by the Data Subject; e. the processing is necessary for social security purposes; f. the processing is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims; g. the processing is necessary for scientific research and carried out under the terms established by the King in a decree agreed upon in the Council of Ministers after advice of the Commission for the protection of privacy; h. the processing is carried out in pursuance of the law of July 4, 1962 on public statistics; or i. the processing is made mandatory by law, decree, or ordinance, or another important reason of public interest, etc. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Belgium Baker & McKenzie 49 Pursuant to Article 7 of the DPA, the processing of health-related data is prohibited unless: a. the Data Subject has given his or her written consent to the processing, it being understood that such consent can be withdrawn at any time; b. the processing is necessary for the purpose of carrying out the specific obligations and rights of the Data Controller in the employment field; c. the processing is necessary for social security purposes; d. the processing is made mandatory by law, decree, or ordinance, or another important reason of public interest; e. the processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the Data Subject or of another person, provided that the Data Subject is physically or legally incapable of giving his or her consent; f. the processing is necessary for the prevention of an actual danger or the suppression of a specific criminal offense. g. the processing relates to Personal Data that has obviously been made public by the Data Subject; or h. the processing is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims, etc. Additionally, pursuant to Article 7, § 4, of the Data Protection Act, healthrelated data can only be processed under the responsibility of a health care professional, except where the written consent of the Data Subject has been obtained or if the processing is necessary for the prevention of an actual danger or the suppression of a specific criminal offense. It is worth noting that Article 42, § 2, of the Act of 13 December 2006 containing various health provisions provides that the communication of any Personal Data relating to health is subject to an authorization of principle of the Health Section of the Sector Committee of Social Security; specific exemptions may apply. Furthermore, the processing of judicial data, including Personal Data relating to litigations that have been submitted to courts as well as administrative judicial bodies, regarding suspicions, persecutions or convictions in matters of criminal offenses, administrative sanctions or security measures, is also prohibited in principle, unless such processing is performed: • under the supervision of a public authority or ministerial officer, if processing is necessary for the performance of their tasks; • by other persons, if processing is necessary for the realization of objectives that have been laid down by or by virtue of a law, decree, or ordinance; 50 Baker & McKenzie • by natural persons or private or public legal persons, as far as necessary for the management of their own litigations; • by attorneys at law or other legal advisers, as far as necessary for the protection of the interests of their clients; or • where the processing is necessary for scientific research and carried out under the conditions established or laid down by royal decree. Persons authorized to process such Personal Data shall be subject to secrecy obligations. Under Belgian law, an employer (current or potential) cannot rely on its employees’ written consent to process their sensitive Personal Data, except where the processing aims to grant them an advantage. The same applies if the Data Subject is in a dependent position with respect to the Data Controller, preventing the Data Subject from giving his or her free consent. Lastly, additional security measures apply to the processing of sensitive Personal Data (in addition to the security requirements applying to all data): a. the categories of persons having access to the Personal Data must be designated by the Data Controller, or, as the case may arise, by the Data Processor, with a detailed description of their function with respect to the processing of sensitive Personal Data; b. a list of categories of the designated persons must be put at the Privacy Commission’s disposal by the Data Controller or, as the case may arise, by the Data Processor; c. the designated persons must be held, by a legal or statutory obligation, or by an equivalent contractual provision, to preserve the confidential character of sensitive Personal Data; d. when informing the Data Subject about the processing of his or her data, the Data Controller must mention the act or regulation authorizing the processing; e. if the processing is only authorized with the Data Subject’s written consent, the Data Controller must inform the latter of the reasons for the processing and provide him or her with a list of the categories of individuals having access to the Personal Data. Non sensitive Personal Data may be processed if at least one of the following preconditions is met: a. the Data Subject has unambiguously given his or her consent to the processing (although there are some concerns regarding consent given in the employment context - see Section 5(d) below); Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Belgium Baker & McKenzie 51 b. the processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the Data Subject is a party or for the performance of pre-contractual measures taken at the request of the Data Subject; c. the processing is necessary for compliance with an obligation to which the Data Controller is subject by or by virtue of law (to be understood as Belgian law); d. the processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the Data Subject; e. the processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data is disclosed; f. the processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests of the Data Controller or of the third party to whom the data is disclosed, provided that such interest is not overridden by the Data Subjects’ fundamental rights and freedoms. f. Employee Personal Data Employee Personal Data is likely to include sensitive Personal Data (e.g., trade union membership or health-related information) and non sensitive Personal Data. Sensitive employee Personal Data may only be processed in the circumstances mentioned in Section 4(e) above and, in particular, for the purpose of carrying out the Data Controller’s specific rights and obligations under employment law. For instance, employers must process data with respect to leaves of absence of their employees in order to allow the due payment of social security indemnities. However, employers are not entitled to record the nature of illnesses affecting their employees. It must be stressed that, in Belgium, such processing operations are generally performed by the so-called “Secrétariats sociaux”, i.e., external service providers that manage the payrolls of their clients. Additionally, trade union membership data may only be processed by the employer for the purpose of payment of trade union premiums and/or to register the status of a protected employee. Lastly, it is worth noting that an employee’s National Registry Number (Social Security Number) may only be processed for the purpose of complying or proceeding with ONSS (National Social Security Office) requests and/or filings, and in no case as a company internal reference for the employee. Non sensitive Personal Data may be processed by a Data Controller in the circumstances mentioned in Section 4(e) above and, in particular, for the performance of a contract to which the Data Subject is a party, for the purpose of carrying out the Data Controller’s legal obligations, or where processing is 52 Baker & McKenzie necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests of the Data Controller not overriding the Data Subject’s fundamental rights and freedoms. A fallback justification for processing non sensitive Personal Data in the employment context may be the Data Subject’s consent. However, employees may not consent to the processing of their sensitive Personal Data (except where the processing aims to grant advantages to the employee), and there is some concern whether employees may validly consent to the processing of their Personal Data by their employers (see Section 5(d) below). 5. Consent a. General Consent of the Data Subject is generally a straightforward way to justify the collection, processing and disclosure of Personal Data. Consent given by the Data Subject must always be voluntary, informed, explicit and unambiguous, though it is not required in certain prescribed circumstances. Consent is contemplated as a justification or legal grounds for the collection, processing, and/or use of Personal Data. Consent can be express or implied, but the appropriate form of consent will depend on the circumstances, expectations of the Data Subject, and sensitivity of the Personal Data. When the Data Subject gives consent, it is understood to only cover the identified purpose(s). Fresh consent is required for purposes that have not been previously identified and consented to. There is no mandatory requirement that consent be in writing, except for the processing of sensitive Personal Data. It may be provided orally or in different forms and formats. In addition, the Data Subject also has the right to withdraw consent at any time. There is no specific language requirement other than resulting from Belgium’s general linguistic legislation, which requires the use of a specific language depending on the geographical location of the employer and the status of the employee. The Data Subject should in any case be informed about the processing of his/her Personal Data (and be invited to give his or her consent, as the case may arise) in an understandable language. b. Sensitive Data Belgian law recognizes sensitive Personal Data as a special category of Personal Data. It is subject to additional and special consent requirements. While sensitive Personal Data may only be collected and processed with the express (written) consent of the Data Subject, it may be processed without obtaining consent in certain prescribed circumstances. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Belgium Baker & McKenzie 53 c. Minors The general rule is that minors under the age of 18 are considered incapable of giving consent. However, parents or legal guardians of minors are allowed to provide consent on behalf of the minor, and may even be allowed to obtain information about the minor from third parties without the need of consent from the minor. Further, parents or legal guardians have the right to be informed of the collection of information, to access and rectify the Personal Data and to have recourse to the Privacy Commission or the President of the First Instance Court. Nevertheless, there are certain circumstances where consent given by a minor may be considered valid. In its Opinion 38/2002 relating to the privacy protection of minors on the Internet, the Privacy Commission seems to consider that the legal representative’s consent should not be systematically required when data relating to minors who have not reached the age of discernment (which is between 12 and 14 years old) is processed on the internet. d. Employee Consent The Article 29 Working Party has produced an opinion on the processing of Personal Data in the employment context which states that it is not appropriate for an employer to try to rely on an employee’s consent as it is unlikely to be freely given. In Belgium, the processing of sensitive Personal Data generally cannot be validly authorized by employees, except where the processing aims to grant them advantages. However, subject to caution, such consent might validly permit the processing of non-sensitive Personal Data. However, employee consent is generally not required where the data processing is necessary to carry out an employment contract or administer an employment relationship, or to fulfill a legitimate interest of the employer. e. Online/Electronic Consent In Belgium, online or electronic consent is permissible and deemed effective if properly structured and evidenced. However, where the law requires written consent (e.g., regarding sensitive data), specific requirements need to be met. 6. Notice Requirements A Data Controller that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects, at the time his or her data is collected or first recorded, with information about the Data Controller’s identity and address; the types of Personal Data being collected; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; its privacy practices (which must be given in a clear and transparent way); third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; whether the provision of 54 Baker & McKenzie Personal Data is mandatory and the consequences of refusal to provide Personal Data; the rights of access, rectification and objections of the Data Subject; where the Personal Data is to be transferred; where the Personal Data is to be stored; and how to access and/or correct the Data Subject’s Personal Data. 7. Processing Rules A Data Controller that processes Personal Data must: limit the use of Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected; anonymize the Personal Data whenever possible; and delete/anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. In addition, when entrusting the processing of Personal Data to a third party processor acting on its behalf (a “Data Processor”), the Data Controller must choose a Data Processor providing sufficient guarantees in respect of the technical and organizational measures governing the processing to be carried out. In addition, the processing must be carried out under a contract that (i) is in writing, (ii) requires the Data Processor to act - and causes any person acting under its authority and having access to personal data to act - only on the instructions of the Data Controller, (iii) requires the Data Processor to comply with security obligations equivalent to those imposed on the Data Controller, and (iv) lays out the liability of the Data Processor towards the Data Controller. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by a Data Controller of the Personal Data the Data Controller holds about the Data Subject and how the Data Subject’s Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; object to the processing of Data Subject’s Personal Data for direct marketing purposes at any time and free of charge; and request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data for legitimate reasons. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements Any Data Controller established in Belgium or, if established outside the European Economic Area, using means located on the Belgian territory for the purpose of its data processing (other than for mere transit purposes) is required to file a notification with the Belgian Privacy Commission before any wholly or partly automated data processing starts. Exemptions to the requirement for notification apply for the processing of data dealing merely with the management of employees’ wages and/or payroll, as well as for mere clientele management, subject to certain conditions. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Belgium Baker & McKenzie 55 10. Data Protection Officers In Belgium, there is no requirement to appoint or designate a data privacy officer accountable for the privacy practices of the organization. 11. International Data Transfers Except for the communication of health-related data (see Section 4(e)), transfers of Personal Data from Belgium to EEA Member States are permitted without the need for further approval. The same applies to transfers to countries that have been recognized by the European Commission as having adequate data protection laws. Subject to the specific exceptional authorizations above, Personal Data may not be transferred to countries outside the EEA, unless the destination country provides adequate protection for the Personal Data. Exceptions are as follows: • the Data Subject has given his or her unambiguous consent to the transfer; • the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract between the Data Subject and the Data Controller or for the implementation of precontractual measures taken in response to the request of the Data Subject; • the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract concluded or to be concluded in the interest of the Data Subject between the Data Controller and a third party; • the transfer is necessary or legally required on important public interest grounds, or for the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims; • the transfer is made from a public register which, by law, is intended to provide information to the public and which is open to consultation either by the public in general or by any person who can demonstrate a legitimate interest; or • a data transfer agreement is in place. Following a Protocol entered into between the Privacy Commission and the Belgian Department of Justice in June 2013, as amended in 2014, all data transfer agreements intended to cover transfers of data out of the European Economic Area to countries not providing an adequate level of data protection must be submitted to the Belgian Privacy Commission. Data transfers agreements not conforming to EU Commission’s Standard Contractual Clauses must be approved by the King (i.e., the Federal Government). 12. Security Requirements Data Controllers and Data Processors are required to take steps to: ensure that Personal Data in their possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and 56 Baker & McKenzie organization security safeguards to protect Personal Data; and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Data Controllers that disclose Personal Data to third parties are required to use contractual or other means to protect the Personal Data. In case of an occurrence of data breach, the outsourcing organization may be held liable together with the third party provider. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints; data authority investigations/audits; seizure of equipment or data; civil actions; criminal proceedings; and/or private rights of action. The court may also order the seizure of any privacy infringing equipment or data, the rectification or destruction of Personal Data, and the publication of its judgment in whole or by excerpt in one or more newspapers. The court may also prohibit the Data Controller from processing any personal data for up to 2 years. 15. Data Security Breach There is currently no express general legal requirement under Belgian law for a Data Controller or a Data Processor to notify Data Subjects or government authorities about the hacking of Personal Data or, more generally, to notify them about a security failure allowing unauthorized access to such data. However, the Act of 10 July 2012 amending the 2005 Electronic Communications Act implemented into Belgian law a limited notification obligation in case of a security breach of an electronic communications service accessible to the public relating to Personal Data. In case of a security breach of an electronic communications service accessible to the public relating to Persona Data, the undertaking providing the services must notify without delay the Belgian Institute for Post and Telecommunications (BIPT) about the data breach. Where such breach may negatively affect Personal Data or a subscriber or an individual’s privacy, the undertaking must also inform without delay the subscriber or individual at stake about the breach. The notification to the subscriber or individual is not necessary if the undertaking has satisfactorily evidenced to the BIPT that it put all appropriate technological measures in place and that these were applied to data concerned by such breach. Such technological measures render data incomprehensible for any person not authorized to access them. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the BIPT may require that the undertaking inform the concerned subscribers or individuals. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Belgium Baker & McKenzie 57 The notification to be made to the subscriber or individual shall describe, at minimum, the nature of the Personal Data breach and contact points where further information may be obtained, and recommend measures to be taken to reduce potential negative consequences. In addition, the notification to the BIPT must describe the consequences of the data breach, the appropriate measures proposed or implemented to remedy the breach. Additionally, the Belgian Act of 11 March 2003 on certain legal aspects of the information society, makes it an obligation for transport, caching and hosting service providers to report to the public prosecutor alleged illegal activities on their systems of which they become aware. This might then apply to the hacking of Personal Data or to the unauthorized access to data they transport, cache or host. More generally, informing the Data Subjects about a potential data security breach arguably falls within the scope of the Data Controller’s general loyalty obligation set forth by Article 4 of the DPA, combined with the obligation to inform data subjects about the “recipient(s)” of their data (Article 9 of the of the DPA). In a Recommendation nr. 1/2013, dated January 21, 2013 on information security and, in particular, working with computer files, the Belgian Privacy Commission even considers that companies must implement procedures for reporting data security incidents. In the case of a public incident (it being noted that a public incident is not defined by the Privacy Commission), the Privacy Commission considers that it should be informed of the cause(s) and impact of the incident with 48 hours and that awareness campaigns to inform the public should be initiated within 24 to 48 hours following notification to the Commission. In any case, in accordance with the Belgian civil law principles of good faith and fairness in contractual relationships between the parties as well as with the Belgian law on torts, it is advisable for a Data Controller to inform Data Subjects about a potential data security breach so that the latter can take appropriate measures, if any, to mitigate their risks or prejudice. Any Data Controller that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to the sanctions outlined under Section 14 above. Violations of the limited security breach notification requirement under the 2005 Electronic Communications Act are also sanctioned by fines from € 300 to € 300,000. 16. Accountability Subject to regulatory guidance, organizations in Belgium may be required to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. 58 Baker & McKenzie 17. Whistle-blower hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Belgium provided they are in compliance with local laws and with requirements of registering and filing with the Belgian Privacy Commission. (cf. the Belgian Privacy Commission’s recommendation of 2006 regarding the compatibility of whistleblowing hotlines with the Belgian DPA). 18. E-discovery When implementing an e-discovery system, an organization must comply with the general requirements of the DPA, as well as with other legal requirements applicable to the review of employees’ or Data Subject’ electronic communication data, including, the Criminal Code, the Electronic Communications Act of 13 June 2005, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement n° 81 on the monitoring of electronic online communication data. The organization may be required to obtain the consent of employees. In addition, an organization is required to advise employees of the implementation of an e-discovery system, the monitoring of work tools and the storage of information in accordance with the above-mentioned legal texts. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering When implementing an anti-spam filter solution into its operations, an organization will have to comply with the general requirements of the DPA. Besides, to the extent that a spam-filtering solution consists of intercepting emails, it must comply with the Electronic Communications Act of 13 June 2005 and the Criminal Code. Article 125, § 1, 6°, of the Electronic Communications Act provides that Article 124 of the same and Articles 259bis and 314bis of the Criminal Code (which prohibit the interception of data transferred by way of telecommunications without the consent of all persons interested, directly or indirectly, in such communications) do not apply to acts carried out for the sole purpose of providing spam-filtering services to the end-user, provided that the end-user’s prior authorization is obtained to that effect. 20. Cookies There are specific laws/rules that regulate the deployment of cookies, and hence, the use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. Consent of Data Subjects must be obtained before cookies can be used, except in limited exemptions. The Belgian Privacy Commission issued guidance on the use of cookies and similar technologies in February 2015. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Belgium Baker & McKenzie 59 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject may be required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent, depending on the communication means to be used. Consent can generally not be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. An organization may be required to obtain consent for a specific activity. The Belgian Privacy Commission issued guidance on the use of personal data for direct marketing purposes in 2013. Brazil Esther Flesch Sao Paulo Tel: +55 11 3048 6940 esther.flesch@bakermckenzie.com Bruno Maeda Sao Paulo Tel: +55 11 3048 6838 bruno.maeda@bakermckenzie.com Flavia Rebello Sao Paulo Tel: +55 11 3048 6851 flavia.rebello@bakermckenzie.com 62 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments At the beginning of 2015, the Brazilian Ministry of Justice, submitted for public consultation a first Draft Bill of Law for Protection of Personal Data (the “Draft Bill”). The Draft Bill applies to individuals and public and private entities that process Personal Data through automated means, and aims to regulate the treatment and protection to be given to Personal Data in Brazil in view of the Data Subject’s fundamental rights to freedom, intimacy and privacy. As drafted, the Bill of Law intends to create a set of obligations and responsibilities to all public and private entities and individuals who collect and use Personal Data in any way, regardless of where such entity is located or where the data is to be stored. The key provisions contained in the Draft Bill include the requirement to obtain consent from the Data Subject to process Personal Data, subject to limited exceptions (for instance, no consent is needed in cases where data collected was previously made public or if data has been unrestricted); and the prohibition to process Sensitive Personal Data, subject to certain limited exceptions. For instance, a Data Subject needs to provide separate consent to allow the processing of Sensitive Data, and must be given the right to revoke the consent at any time. It also expressly forbids the processing of Sensitive Personal Data revealing racial, genetic and sexual information, as well as religious, moral and political convictions. In addition, the Draft Bill provides that minors aged 12 to 18 may be permitted to provide consent for processing of their Personal Data, subject to certain conditions (which consent may be revoked at any time by the parents or legal representatives of the minor). The treatment of Personal Data of children below 12 years old will, however, require parental authorization. In several instances, the Draft Bill also suggests that a specific governmental agency is to be created to regulate this matter and verify compliance with the law. This fact is also sustained by declarations of those agents of the Ministry of Justice more closely involved with the Draft Bill It is unclear whether the Draft Bill will be modified by the Ministry of Justice based on the comments that it received during the public consultation process, and it is difficult to predict how it will evolve during the legislative process at the National Congress. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends Besides the discussion raised by the Draft Bill, as discussed in Section 1, consumer authorities in Brazil have been consistently enforcing privacy rules related to consumer relations. Enforcement actions range from requests for explanation from entities to administrative procedures that can lead to the imposition of penalties on entities deemed not to be in compliance with privacy rules within the Consumer Defense Code. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Brazil Baker & McKenzie 63 3. Law Applicable The legal protection afforded to Personal Data arises from general rules and principles disseminated in several different pieces of legislation. Brazilian Federal Constitution (Article 5, X): contains general provisions on privacy. According to the Brazilian Federal Constitution, the individual’s rights to intimacy, privacy, honor and image are fundamental rights and any violation thereof entitles the Data Subject to indemnification for both moral and material damages. Moreover, the secrecy of correspondence, telegraphic, data and telephone communication is also a Constitutional guarantee. Brazilian Civil Code (Law No. 10,406/02, Article 21): among other general provisions, it considers the right to privacy as a personality right, which cannot be waived or assigned as a matter of public policy. Brazilian Consumer Protection Code – CDC (Law No, 8078/90): contains certain rules regarding the collection, storage and use of consumer databases. The CDC regulates the creation of databases containing consumers’ personal information. Pursuant to the CDC, “consumer” is any individual or legal entity that acquires a good or a service as an end-user. By this definition of consumer, the CDC governs not only retail sales to consumers, but also sales of products and services to legal entities, that will be treated as consumers when and if they are end-users of products and services (on a case-by-case basis). Internet Legal Framework (Law No. 12,965/14): establishes general principles, warranties, rights and duties that govern the use of the Internet in Brazil and regulates the protection of privacy and data online. It contains several provisions regarding Internet users’ rights to the protection of logs, Personal Data and private communications, as pointed out in later sections in this chapter. Although the Internet Legal Framework is very recent and, in theory, only applies to data collected over the Internet, it may be, henceforth, used by courts as a general guideline in the absence of a specific data privacy law. Some aspects of this Law are still to be regulated by a governmental decree not yet enacted until this date, but a draft decree had been under public consultation at the beginning of 2015. Brazilian Criminal Code: as amended by Law No. 12,737/12, has general provisions addressing crimes relating to the inviolability of correspondence and crimes of invasion of information technology device. Accordingly, the Law provides that it is a criminal offense to invade third parties’ information devices, whether or not such devices are connected to the Internet, by means aimed at obtaining, altering or destroying data or information without express or implied authorization from the device owner or to install vulnerabilities to obtain illicit advantages. The crime is punishable by detention of three (3) months to one (1) year, plus payment of a fine. This penalty also applies to 64 Baker & McKenzie anyone who makes, offers, distributes, sells or discloses a computer device or software aimed at enabling the conducts described above. Also, in the event that the invasion results in obtaining content from private electronic communications, industrial or trade secrets, confidential information or the unauthorized remote control of the device, the penalty is increased to imprisonment of six (6) months to two (2) years, plus payment of a penalty. This latter penalty is also increased in the event that the data or information obtained is disclosed, traded or transmitted to third parties. Federal Law 9,296/96 - Interception of telephone communication Law: determines that such procedure may only be authorized by a judge in the context of a criminal investigation. Complementary Law No. 105/01: establishes rules regarding bank secrecy with which financial institutions must comply in the banking sector. Please note that other sector-specific rules may also apply. Brazilian Information Access Law (Law No. 12,527/11, article 4, IV): regulates the access to information held by public entities and agencies in Brazil; it also gives a legal definition of what is considered “Personal Data”, as analyzed in Section 4. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data Brazilian laws do not contain a specific definition of “Personal Data”. Nevertheless, the Constitutional protection of privacy and the provisions of the Civil Code are very broad as they refer to the protection of the individual’s privacy and intimacy. The Consumer Protection Code refers to any information included in registrations or forms and any data regarding the acquisition of products or services. In addition to the above, Brazilian Information Access Law defines personal information as information regarding an identified or identifiable individual (i.e., subject to be identified). This definition may be used as reference for purposes of data protection laws and is generally adopted in courts and by scholars when addressing this matter. b. Data Processing There is no definition of “Data Processing” under Brazilian laws. In the absence of a specific definition and due to the Constitutional protection of privacy, the concept of data processing should be understood in a broad way, including any form of use, collection, processing, disclosure, transfer, organizing, amending, recording, handling and storage of data, whether on a manual or automated basis. c. Processing by Data Controllers Brazilian laws do not contain specific definitions of “Data Controllers”. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Brazil Baker & McKenzie 65 d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The Brazilian Federal Constitution, Civil Code, and Consumer Protection Code are considered public order rules and will apply to the use, collection, processing, disclosure, transfer, organizing, amending, recording, handling and storage of data relating to Data Subjects residing in Brazil. The Internet Legal Framework sets forth the mandatory application of Brazilian laws for the collection, storage and processing of Personal Data or communications if: (a) at least one of such actions takes place in Brazil or (b) at least one of the endpoints is located in Brazil. This rule shall equally apply to foreign companies (i) to the extent there is a Brazilian entity of the corporate group in Brazil or (ii) their services are offered to the Brazilian public. The main goal of such provisions is to prevent Brazilian entities of multinational groups from arguing that data is stored in servers abroad, subject to foreign laws and, accordingly, that Brazilian laws should not apply. e. Sensitive Personal Data There is no specific definition of “Sensitive Personal Data” under Brazilian laws. f. Employee Personal Data There is no specific definition of “Employee Personal Data”. Consequently, employee’s Personal Data is generally treated as other Personal Data, but with some particularities that are typical of an employment relationship (please refer to Section 5(d) below). 5. Consent a. General Consent of the Data Subject is required prior to the collection, use, processing, transfer and disclosure of Personal Data. Consent by the Data Subject must always be voluntary, informed, explicit and unambiguous, though it is not required in certain prescribed circumstances. The consent should include: (a) clear and complete information on the purposes for which the company intends to collect information; (b) to whom data may be disclosed; (c) where data will be stored (indicating if cross-border transfers are necessary/envisaged) and; (d) what means are used to protect it. When the Data Subject gives consent, it only covers the identified purpose(s). Fresh consent is required for purposes that have not been previously identified and consented to. The Data Subject also has the right to withdraw consent at any time in given circumstances. 66 Baker & McKenzie b. Sensitive Data There are no specific rules in Brazil defining or regulating Sensitive Personal Data. It is important to note that the more sensitive the data is, the greater the risks of claims for damages regarding its improper collection, use or disclosure. Therefore, to the extent feasible, any use, including without limitation, the collection and processing of Sensitive Personal Data (e.g., health information) without the previous and specific consent from the Data Subject should be avoided. c. Minors According to the Brazilian Civil Code, only individuals over the age of 18 are capable of binding themselves personally. Minors under 16 are considered absolutely incapable, while those between 16 and 18 are considered relatively incapable (in other words, they can bind themselves with the assistance of their parents or guardians). As the collection of Personal Data in Brazil (under the Federal Constitution and the Civil Code) depends on the prior consent of the Data Subject, parental consent is required for those under 18 years old. It should be noted, however, that relatively incapable minors (between 16 and 18) will not be able to claim the invalidity of a contract (or the consent to collect, process and/or use Personal Data) if they have falsely declared themselves to be above 18. d. Employee Consent There are no specific rules addressing this issue. Consequently, Personal Data relating to an employee is generally treated in the same way as other Personal Data. It should be noted, however, that the general interpretation of Brazilian laws is that, with respect to employee Personal Data, the Constitutional privacy rights should be interpreted in a more flexible manner in view of the rights granted by the Brazilian Labor Code to employers to manage and control their employees’ activities during working hours, as well as by the Brazilian Civil Code, which in its Article 932, III, establishes that the employer can also be liable for the implications arising from actions taken by its employees during working time. In fact, based on those grounds, Brazilian Courts have adopted the understanding that the employer has the right to monitor and review the use of the electronic resources (including email, Internet and corporate computers) made available to the employees, regardless of previous notice, as long as the employee is advised of such possibility and has, therefore, no privacy expectations when using these work tools. e. Online/Electronic Consent There is no provision that specifically addresses online/electronic consent requirements. However, considering that the Internet Legal Framework applies to data collected over the Internet and requires the Data Subjects’ prior express consent, it is implied that online/electronic consent is permitted. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Brazil Baker & McKenzie 67 Since the Data Subject’s consent shall be express, an opt-in system (e.g., a check-box or an “I agree” button) is usually understood as the appropriate means for such purpose. Electronic consent mechanisms are generally enforceable in Brazil and considered sufficient to evidence the Data Subject’s agreement with the terms of a consent form to the extent that the Data Controller is able to prove that the systems and processes used to secure the consent are robust and reliable for the purposes of establishing the authenticity and integrity of the consent. It is worth noting that under the Internet Legal Framework, consent language shall be visually different from other dispositions of the agreement, such as the terms of use. The law does not establish a clear definition of how different such language should be, but such obligation is commonly interpreted as language which should stand out from the other provisions, by using bold or capital letters, or a different font size, for instance. Furthermore, consumer protection rules further provide that the terms of the agreement must be readable (with a minimum font size of 12 pt.) and written in easily comprehensible Portuguese. 6. Information/Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about: (a) the organization’s identity; (b) the types of Personal Data being collected; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; (c) its privacy practices (which must be given in a clear and transparent way); (d) third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; (e) the consequences of not providing consent; (f) the rights of the Data Subject; (g) how the Personal Data is to be retained; (h) where the Personal Data is to be transferred; (i) where the Personal Data is to be stored; (j) how to access and/or correct the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and (h) the duration of the proposed processing. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected; and delete/ anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: (a) be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and how the Personal Data is being processed; (b) access the Data Subject’s Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; (c) request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; (d) request the deletion and/or 68 Baker & McKenzie destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and (e) exercise the writ of habeas data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements There are no requirements for organizations that collect and process Personal Data to register, file or notify a local data authority. 10. Data Protection Officers There is no requirement for organizations to designate a privacy officer or other individual who will be accountable for the privacy practices of the organization. 11. International Data Transfers The Internet Legal Framework determines that Personal Data may only be transferred to third parties (including abroad) upon the free, express and informed consent of the Data Subject. 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to: (a) ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; (b) implement appropriate physical, technical and organization security safeguards to protect Personal Data; and (c) ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. The Internet Legal Framework determines that security measures and proceedings shall be informed to the Data Subject in a clear manner and shall meet the standards determined by the applicable regulation. However, such regulation is yet to be issued under a governmental decree, which had been under public consultation in early 2015. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Organizations that disclose Personal Data to third parties are required to use contractual or other means to protect Personal Data, and are required to comply with sector specific requirements. Organizations shall be liable together with third party providers in case of breach by the latter. The Internet Legal Framework determines that Personal Data may only be transferred to third parties (including abroad) upon the free, express and informed consent of the Data Subject. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Brazil Baker & McKenzie 69 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, administrative fines, penalties, or sanctions, civil actions, and/or criminal proceedings. Specifically in relation to the Internet Legal Framework, failure to comply with any of its rules regarding protection of Personal Data and private communications may result in (i) warnings; (ii) fines in the amount of up to 10% of the economic group’s gross revenues in Brazil in the last fiscal year; (iii) temporary suspension of data collection activities in Brazil and/or (iv) prohibition of data collection activities in Brazil. Furthermore, the law expressly determines that the Brazilian entity of a group shall be jointly liable with the foreign entity for any fines imposed on the 15. Data Security Breach There are no specific rules addressing data security breaches. However, as Data Controllers are generally liable for any data security breach, it is highly advisable to inform the affected Data Subjects and the relevant bodies as soon as the Data Controller becomes aware of a data security breach. This is especially important in situations where an early notice can be helpful to mitigate possible damages to the Data Subjects (e.g., by allowing the Data Subjects to change passwords or take other precautionary measures to avoid damages). Accordingly, the Data Controllers may also be able to reduce their liability for damages that can be mitigated by means of an early notification of the security breach. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to an administrative fine, penalty or sanction, or civil actions and/or class actions. However, neither the Internet Legal Framework nor any other Brazilian law regulates the applicable procedure for such cases. 16. Accountability Organizations are not required to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. 17. Whistle-Blower Hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Brazil as long as they are in compliance with local laws. 18. E-Discovery In Brazil, there are no specific rules regarding the discovery of electronically stored information, therefore, the general rules under the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code shall apply. 70 Baker & McKenzie Moreover, if an organization obtains prior written consent from its employees for the collection of Personal Data in connection with the implementation of an e-discovery system, then no specific issues should arise. On the other hand, if no consent is obtained, specific privacy issues may develop depending on the specific circumstances of the case and the type of data to be collected, processed and/or disclosed. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering In principle, no privacy issue arises from the introduction of a spam-filtering solution in an organization. However, in case there is a possibility of the organization gaining access to private emails received by an employee due to the spam-filtering solution, the employee should be previously informed of such possibility so that he or she would have no privacy expectations related to the use of the corporate email account. 20. Cookies There are no specific laws/rules in Brazil that regulate the use and deployment of cookies. Nevertheless, in view of Brazilian general data privacy laws, to the extent that any information collected through cookies identifies or might personally identify a Data Subject, prior express consent (opt-in) should be secured from the Data Subject for such data collection, use, storage, process and transfer. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject may be required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. • Do-Not-Call Registry - The State of São Paulo Decree No. 53,921, of December 30, 2008, created the Telemarketing Enrollment List to Blocked Calls (“Register”), regulating State Law No. 13,226 of December 07, 2008. This legislation benefits users of fixed and mobile telephony with area code numbers from the State of São Paulo. The Consumer Defense and Protection Foundation (“PROCON”) is responsible for the maintenance and implementation of the Register, which is available through the Internet or in local service centers of the State of São Paulo. Thirty days after consumers are listed in the Register, telemarketing companies will no longer be allowed to call the numbers included, unless the consumer grants prior permission in writing and with an express expiration date. Companies that fail to comply with the rules of State Decree No. 53,921 will be subject to administrative penalties of the Consumer Protection Code. Philanthropic entities that use telemarketing to raise funds are exempted from the effects of the Decree. Moreover, many States in Brazil have adopted similar laws such as Alagoas (Law No. 7,127/09), Amazonas (Law No. 3,633/11), Ceará (Law 15.111/12), Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Brazil Baker & McKenzie 71 Espírito Santo (Law No. 9,176/09), the Federal District (Law No. 4,171/08), Goiás (Law No. 17,424/11), Maranhão (Law No. 9,053/09), Mato Grosso do Sul (Law No. 3,641/09), Paraíba (Law No. 8,841/09), Paraná (Law No. 16,135/09), Pernambuco (Law No. 13,796/09), Rio Grande do Sul (Law No. 13,249/09), and Santa Catarina (Law No. 15,329/10). • Marketing Emails - A Code of Self-Regulation (“Code”) aimed at the responsible, ethical and correct use of marketing emails, and which serves as guidance for the use of email for marketing purposes, has been published by a Council formed by representatives of 14 civil society organizations. Some of these associations are the Brazilian Direct Marketing Association, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, the Brazilian Internet Providers Association, and the Brazilian Consumer Defense Association (“PRO TESTE”). While the Code is not a formal law, it provides important guidelines on how marketing emails can be sent without breaching Brazilian privacy law. In addition to other provisions, the Code requires the parties to provide a “Privacy and Data Use Policy” on their respective websites, under penalty of, among others, recommendation of blockage of the sender’s domain name. The Code adopted an “opt-in” system according to which non-requested messages are prohibited. The only exception to this is when the parties have a long standing commercial relationship which implies the concept of the so called “soft-opt-in”. The Code also contains other requirements that must be observed, including the clear identification of the sender, the subject of the e-mail must relate to the content of the e-mail and an opt-out mechanism should be offered to the recipient in the body of the message. Such opt-out option shall include (i) one unsubscribe link, and (ii) at least one additional contact option for such purpose (e.g., e-mail, telephone, SMS, mail, etc.). In addition, the Code provides that the users’ option to unsubscribe must be complied with within two days when directly requested by the user through an unsubscribe link, or within five days when requested by other means. Furthermore, the company responsible for sending marketing emails must use its own domain names. In case of violation of any of the Code’s provisions, sanctions shall be imposed by an Ethics Committee formed by the Self-Regulation Code Council. Canada Lisa Douglas Toronto Tel: +416 865 6972 lisa.douglas@bakermckenzie.com Arlan Gates Toronto Tel: +416 865 6978 arlan.gates@bakermckenzie.com Theodore Ling Toronto Tel: +416 865 6954 theodore.ling@bakermckenzie.com Jonathan Tam Toronto Tel: +416 865 2324 jonathan.tam@bakermckenzie.com Eva Warden Toronto Tel: +416 865 2350 eva.warden@bakermckenzie.com 74 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments Amendments to Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act In June 2015, amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) came into effect. PIPEDA generally governs the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by private sector organizations in all Canadian provinces except for Alberta, British Columbia, and Québec. Some of the key changes to PIPEDA are as follows. • Organizations are now expressly permitted to use and disclose individuals’ personal information without their knowledge or consent where the personal information is necessary to determine whether to proceed with or complete a business transaction, and certain measures are taken to protect the information. If the transaction is not completed, all personal information must be returned or destroyed by the recipient. If the transaction is completed, the recipient may continue to use the personal information as long as certain security measures are taken, the personal information is necessary for carrying on the activity that was the object of the transaction, and the individuals are notified of the completion of the transaction and the disclosure of their personal information within a reasonable amount of time afterwards. Notably, this exception to the general consent requirement does not apply where the purpose of the transaction is to buy, sell, or lease personal information. • Federal works, undertakings, or businesses (“FWUBs”) may now collect, use, and disclose the personal information of an individual without his or her consent where it is necessary to establish, maintain, or terminate an employment relation between that individual and the FWUB, and the FWUB has informed the individual of the purpose of the collection, use, and disclosure of the information. • On an unspecified day in the future, amendments regarding data breach notifications will come into force. These amendments require organizations affected by a data breach to make prescribed disclosures to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (the “OPC”) and affected individuals where there is a reasonable expectation that the data breach could create a risk of significant harm. Knowingly failing to report a data breach could result in fines of up to C$100,000 as well as publication of any such data breach. • Organizations may now disclose personal information to another organization without the knowledge or consent of an individual where it is reasonable for the purposes of investigating a breach or possible breach of an agreement or Canadian law and it is reasonable to expect that obtaining the individual’s consent would compromise the investigation. Similar exceptions also apply to investigations involving the detection, Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 75 suppression or prevention of fraud where a person is suspected of being a victim of financial abuse. • The amendments authorize the OPC to enter into binding compliance agreements with organizations where it believes on reasonable grounds that an organization has, will, or is likely to commit an act or omission that would contravene PIPEDA. Compliance agreements are voluntary on the part of the organizations and, in exchange, the OPC will not apply to the court for a hearing or suspension of any pending applications. At the same time, entering into a compliance agreement does not preclude individual complaints against the organization or the prosecution of an offense under PIPEDA. The agreements may contain any terms that the OPC considers necessary to ensure compliance with PIPEDA. If the OPC is of the opinion that the agreement has been complied with by the organization, the OPC shall notify the organization and withdraw any outstanding applications. If, however, the OPC is of the opinion that the agreement has not been complied with by the organization, the OPC shall notify the organization and may apply to the court for an order requiring compliance with the agreement or commence or reinstate proceedings under PIPEDA. Canada’s Anti-Spam Law Provisions on Installing Computer Programs Now in Force On January 15, 2015, the provisions of Canada’s Anti-Spam Law (“CASL”) that apply to the installation of computer programs came into force. These provisions are separate from those under CASL that prohibit the transmission of commercial electronic messages without the recipient’s consent, which came into force last year. The provisions on the installation of computer programs under CASL generally prohibit the installation of a program on another person’s computer system in the course of a commercial activity without obtaining the express consent of the owner or authorized user of that computer system in a prescribed manner. Specific types of computer programs such as cookies and HTML code are exempt from this prohibition where it is reasonable to believe that the owner or authorized user of the computer system consents to that program’s installation. The term “computer system” generally covers laptops, desktops, mobile devices, gaming consoles, and other connected devices. To obtain a person’s express consent to install a computer program on their computer system, an organization must at the time of installation disclose certain contact information, provide a clear and simple description of the function and purpose of the program to be installed, and state that the person can withdraw their consent. Where a person expressly consented to the installation of an update or upgrade of a computer program at the time the program was installed, an organization may generally install such updates or 76 Baker & McKenzie upgrades on that person’s computer without having to obtain their fresh express consent. Special requirements may apply if an organization installs a program (including an update or upgrade) on another person’s computer system which causes it to operate in a manner contrary to the reasonable expectations of its owner or authorized user. These special requirements, which are more onerous and intended to deter unauthorized installation of malware, apply to programs that perform any of a prescribed list of functions, such as interfering with the user or authorized user’s control of the computer system, or causing the computer system to communicate with another computer system without the authorization of the owner or authorized user. As with the provisions relating to the sending of commercial electronic messages, penalties for non-compliance run as high as CAD $10 million in potential administrative penalties for organizations. Starting on July 1, 2017, a private right of action for non-compliance with CASL will also become available, exposing organizations to the risk of class actions. Parties found to have installed programs in contravention of CASL could be subject to statutory damages of CAD $1 million per day on which a contravention occurred, in addition to compensatory damages. Several Enforcement Actions Taken under Canada’s Anti-Spam Law The maximum penalty for a violation under Canada’s Anti-Spam Law (“CASL”) is C$10 million for organizations. In early March 2015, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “CRTC”), which regulates the anti-spam provisions under CASL, announced that it would seek a C$1.1 million penalty against a Québec-based company for violating CASL. According to the CRTC, the infringing company sent commercial emails to recipients without their consent and failed to include proper unsubscribe mechanisms in the messages. In addition, the CRTC announced in late March 2015 that it had entered into an undertaking with an organization that runs a popular dating service for C$48,000 after investigating consumer complaints that the company sent commercial emails to registered users without an unsubscribe mechanism that could be readily performed. In July 2015, a Canadian airline also agreed to pay C$150,000 as part of an undertaking with the CRTC. The CRTC alleged that the airline failed to include or clearly set out an unsubscribe mechanism in commercial emails, failed to provide complete contact information on commercial emails, failed to honour unsubscribe requests within ten business days, and was unable to provide proof that it had obtained consent for each electronic address that received its commercial emails. In addition to the payment, the airline has undertaken to implement an enhanced compliance program that will include increased training and education for staff and improved corporate polices and procedures. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 77 Canada’s Top Court Releases Two Decisions on the Role of Privacy in State Investigations The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) released two decisions that contribute to the growing Canadian case law on individual privacy interests in the context of the state’s exercise of its investigative powers and subsequent use of evidence. In R v Fearon, 2014 SCC 77, the police conducted a warrantless search of the accused’s cell phone in connection with a robbery before they had located the stolen items or the weapon used in the robbery. The evidence discovered in the course of the search, which included a draft text message and a photograph of the handgun used in the crime, was used to convict the accused at trial. In considering the constitutionality of the search of the cell phone, the SCC established that the following four conditions must be met for the search of a cell phone or similar device incidental to arrest to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: 1. The arrest must be lawful. 2. The search must be “truly incidental” to the arrest, meaning searches must be done promptly upon arrest in order to effectively serve law enforcement purposes. Specifically, these purposes may include protecting the police, the accused or the public; preserving evidence; and discovering evidence if there is a risk that the investigation will be stymied or significantly hampered absent the ability to conduct the search. 3. The nature and the extent of the search must be tailored to its purpose, meaning that, in practice, only recently sent or drafted emails, texts, photos and the call log will generally be available. 4. The police must take detailed notes of what they have examined on the device and how they examined it. In this case, the SCC held that the search breached the accused’s constitutional right to security against unreasonable search and seizure because it did not meet the fourth condition above. Nonetheless, the SCC did not exclude the evidence because the impact on the accused’s protected interests was not especially grave in this case. Moreover, other factors (such as society’s general interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits) favoured inclusion. Separately, in Imperial Oil v Jacques, 2014 SCC 66, plaintiffs at the exploratory stage of a Quebec-based civil class action were allowed to access wiretap evidence gathered in a related Competition Bureau criminal investigation. The SCC confirmed that disclosure of the evidence to the plaintiffs was permitted subject to two conditions: that the recordings be disclosed solely to the lawyers and experts participating in the civil proceedings, and that they be screened to protect the privacy of third parties having nothing to do with the proceedings. 78 Baker & McKenzie However, in an acknowledgment of the privacy protections enshrined in the Criminal Code of Canada and Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the SCC held that there is no right to access intercepted communications until those interceptions have been found, or are conceded to be, lawful and admitted into evidence in a criminal proceeding. Moreover, the SCC cautioned that while a trial judge has discretion to order disclosure under the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, such a request must be denied where either legislation or the courts have established an immunity from disclosure. According to the SCC, the judge’s exercise of discretion in determining whether and how to order disclosure may take into account a number of considerations, such as: the relevance of the documents to the issues between the parties (which generally is interpreted broadly at the exploratory stage), the potential impact of disclosure on the privacy interests of a party or third party to the proceedings, the efficient conduct of criminal proceedings, and the accused’s right to a fair trial. The results of these cases suggest a tendency towards permitting disclosure and use of information obtained in the course of criminal investigations. Federal Court Certifies Class-Action lawsuit for Tort of Intrusion upon Seclusion The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Condon v The Queen, released in July 2015, has major implications for organizations that have experienced large-scale data breaches. In Condon v The Queen, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Federal Court to certify a class action lawsuit based on the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. In this case, over 500,000 Canadian students sued the federal government after the loss of their personal information. These students received student loans through the Canada Student Loans Program and provided personal information as part of the approval process for receiving the loans. The personal information was being held temporarily on a hard drive and stored in an employee’s desk. The information went missing and was not recovered by the time the Federal Court of Appeal made its decision. • The Federal Court found that the class action could be certified even though the students could not prove specific tangible damages but could only prove intangible damages. This decision was upheld on appeal. Organizations should therefore be aware that data breaches can expose organizations to potentially large damage awards under Canadian law, even if the action is based on allegations of recklessness and tangible damages have not been proved; even an award of C$10,000 to each of the 583,000 members of the class would result in a damages award of over C$5 billion. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 79 Canadian Government Introduces Anti-Terrorism Bill that Would Allow Increased Disclosures between Federal Government Institutions and Grant Increased Powers to Canadian Enforcement Authorities In January 2015, the Canadian federal government tabled Bill C-51, known by its short title the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015. The bill would enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, which is designed to remove the information sharing barriers among federal public bodies on the basis of protecting national security interests. In particular, the legislation would generally allow a federal institution to, on its own initiative or upon request, disclose information to the prescribed federal institution if the information is relevant to the recipient’s jurisdiction in respect of “activities that undermine the security of Canada”. Such activities are defined broadly to include those relating to a wide range of purposes, such as espionage, terrorism, proliferation of weapons and interference with critical infrastructure. The bill would also amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act such that, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a particular activity constitutes a threat to the security of Canada, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (“CSIS”) may take reasonable and proportional measures inside or outside of Canada to reduce the threat. CSIS would be required to obtain a warrant where those measures will contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill would also authorize the Federal Court of Canada to issue assistance orders requiring third parties to assist with the measures taken by CSIS. The bill would make a number of other security-related amendments, including the creation of an offence for knowingly advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general, and the establishment of a more formal and expanded “do not fly list” targeted at persons who may engage in an act that poses a threat to transportation security or who may travel by air for the purpose of committing a terrorism offence. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends In January 2015, the OPC held a meeting with industry stakeholders to discuss certain privacy issues that it views as being important areas of focus in the next five years. The areas identified by the OPC are as follows: • Economics of Personal Information This relates to the exchange of personal information for services such as applications and access to free offerings, and related issues of transparency, fair information practices and lack of regulation. 80 Baker & McKenzie • Government Services and Surveillance This relates to the privacy risks and benefits of the Government of Canada’s consideration of adopting new technologies and increasing information sharing between departments, government and jurisdictions. • Protecting Canadians in a Borderless World This relates to privacy issues around cross-border transfers of data and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s increasing coordination with international privacy regulators in conducting investigations. • Reputation and Privacy This relates to questions around profiling individuals and how to suppress and refute negative, outdated or inaccurate information about oneself that has been shared publicly. • The Body as Information This relates to the security and privacy issues accompanying the prevalence of sensors, wearables, and other technologies used to extract information from the body. • Strengthening Accountability and Privacy Safeguards This reflects an increased focus on ensuring that the government and private organizations remain accountable for their privacy practices and secure the personal information under their control/custody. 3. Law Applicable An Act to Promote the Efficiency and Adaptability of the Canadian Economy by Regulating Certain Activities that Discourage Reliance on Electronic Means of Carrying out Commercial Activities, and to Amend the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act, SC 2010, c 23 (“CASL”). Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5 (“PIPEDA”). Health Information Custodians in the Province of Ontario Exemption Order, SOR/2005-399. Order Binding Certain Agents of Her Majesty for the Purposes of Part 1 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SOR/2001-8. Organizations in the Province of Alberta Exemption Order, SOR/2004-219. Organizations in the Province of British Columbia Exemption Order, SOR/2004-220. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 81 Organizations in the Province of Quebec Exemption Order, SOR/2003-374. Personal Health Information Custodians in New Brunswick Exemption Order, SOR/2011-265. Regulations Specifying Investigative Bodies, SOR/2001-6. Regulations Specifying Publicly Available Information, SOR/2001-7. Principles set out in the National Standard of Canada Entitled Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information, CAN/CSAQ830- 96 (“Sch. 1”). PIPEDA applies to all collection, use, or disclosure of Personal Information (as defined in Section 4(a) below) in the course of commercial activity by: • federally-regulated private sector organizations, including those in the telecommunications, broadcasting, and inter-provincial transportation and banking sectors, with respect to both customer and employee Personal Information; and • organizations that trade in Personal Information across provincial or national borders for consideration. An “organization” is defined to include an association, a partnership, a person, and a trade union. However, in provinces where a law has been passed that is substantially similar to PIPEDA, organizations and their collection, use, or disclosure activities within the province that are covered by the provincial law are exempted from the application of PIPEDA. Provincial private sector privacy legislation has been deemed substantially similar to PIPEDA in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, and, in relation to personal health information, Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador (Nova Scotia is expected to be added to this list in regards to personal health information). PIPEDA continues to apply to employee Personal Information of federallyregulated businesses everywhere in Canada, and to inter-provincial and international collection, use, or disclosure of Personal Information. 4. Scope of the Law a. Personal Data PIPEDA applies to personally identifiable information (“Personal Information”) about an identifiable individual (“Data Subject”), i.e., any factual or subjective information, recorded or not about a Data Subject. Financial, health, employment, consumer contact and preferences data typically fall within the definition of Personal Information. Personal Information includes personal health information, which is defined as information about a Data Subject’s mental or physical health, including information concerning health services provided and information about tests and examinations. Personal Information generally does not include the name, title or business address or telephone number of an employee of an organization. 82 Baker & McKenzie PIPEDA applies broadly to the collection, use, disclosure, handling and care, and any other processing of Personal Information in any form or representation, including electronic data recorded or stored on any medium, computer system, or other similar device, and that can be read or perceived by a person, system, or other device (e.g., display, printout, audio/video recording, or other data output). b. Data Processing “Processing” is not expressly defined in PIPEDA but is a broad concept that encompasses an operation or set of operations performed on Personal Information pursuant to guidance or instruction of the Data Controller, including handling, collecting, recording, disclosing, storing, correcting, amending, organizing, communicating, and deleting Personal Information – whether on a manual or automated basis. c. Processing by Data Controllers PIPEDA applies to Personal Information that: • the organization collects, uses or discloses in the course of commercial activities; or • is about an employee of the organization and that the organization collects, uses or discloses in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or business. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality PIPEDA applies to all Personal Information collected or processed in Canada, subject to the qualifications noted in Section 3 above regarding provinces where a law has been passed that has been deemed substantially similar to PIPEDA. Federal and provincial public sector privacy statutes apply to personal information in records held by government and other public sector entities. While these laws do not apply directly to commercial businesses, they can be relevant to private sector companies that supply or otherwise transact business with government and other public sector entities in Canada. e. Sensitive Personal Data In determining the requisite form of consent to be obtained, organizations are required to take into account the sensitivity of the Personal Information. Accordingly, the form of the consent sought by the organization below may vary, depending upon the circumstances and the type of Personal Information to be collected, used or disclosed. Although any Personal Information can be sensitive, depending on the context, note that some types of Personal Information, such as medical records and income records, are almost always considered to be sensitive. Employment and health care are generally matters Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 83 of provincial regulation, and as such are not covered by PIPEDA for provincially regulated companies. f. Employee Personal Data Employee Personal Information is treated in the same manner as other Personal Information. Employee Personal Information typically does not include an employee’s name, title, or business address or telephone number. Note, however, that PIPEDA does not apply to employee Personal Information of a provincially regulated organization, because regulation of the processing of such Personal Information falls under the jurisdiction of applicable provincial privacy laws. 5. Consent a. General The consent of a Data Subject is required for the collection, use, or disclosure of Personal Information. Consent must be obtained before or at the time of collection. When Personal Information that has been collected is to be used for a purpose not previously identified, consent of the Data Subject shall be obtained prior to use by informing the Data Subject of such new purpose. PIPEDA does not necessarily require that the consent be obtained in writing. In determining the appropriate form of consent to be obtained from a Data Subject, consideration should be given to the reasonable expectations of the Data Subject, circumstances surrounding the collection, and sensitivity of the Personal Information involved. However, when consent is implied or obtained orally, for evidentiary reasons, an organization should as a matter of course keep some record of the consent obtained. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada recommends that express consent be used whenever possible and in all cases when the Personal Information is considered to be sensitive. Relying on express consent protects both the Data Subject and the organization. At a minimum, a request for consent should specify in plain language: the nature of the Personal Information to be collected, used, or disclosed; the specific uses to which the Personal Information will be put by receiving parties; the identity of the parties, if any, to whom Personal Information is to be disclosed; the channels available for the Data Subject to amend or withdraw his or her consent (e.g., e-mail, regular mail, 1-800 number, etc.). A Data Subject should only be required to consent to the collection, use, or disclosure of Personal Information in order to fulfil the explicitly specified and legitimate purposes. 84 Baker & McKenzie Data Subjects can give consent in many ways. Data Subjects can withdraw consent at any time. Consent can be given by an authorized representative (such as a legal guardian or a Data Subject having a power of attorney). Consent clauses should be easy to find, use clear and straightforward language, avoid using blanket categories for purposes, uses, and disclosures, and be as specific as possible about which organizations handle the Personal Information. Consent shall not be obtained through deception. In certain circumstances, Personal Information may be collected, used, or disclosed without the knowledge and consent of the Data Subject. For example, consent need not be obtained where legal, medical, or security reasons make it impossible or impractical to seek consent. Similarly, when the Personal Information is being collected for the detection and prevention of fraud or for law enforcement, it may not be necessary to obtain consent of the Data Subject, as doing so might defeat the purpose of collecting the Personal Information. b. Sensitive Data An organization should seek express consent from a Data Subject when the Personal Information involved is likely to be considered sensitive, having regard to the reasonable expectations of the Data Subject. This is intended to ensure that the consent is given freely and is provided on an informed basis. c. Minors For a Data Subject who is a minor, consent may be obtained from a legal guardian or person having power of attorney. d. Employee Consent Federal works, undertakings and business (e.g., airlines and banks) may collect, use, and disclose the personal information of an employee without his or her consent where it is necessary to establish, manage, or terminate the employment relationship as long as the employee is informed of such collection, use, or disclosure. All the requirements set out by PIPEDA for the giving of consent by any Data Subject shall equally apply to consent given by employees covered by PIPEDA. e. Online/Electronic Consent Electronic consent will usually suffice if appropriate steps are taken to ensure that a Data Subject is aware of the Data Controller’s data processing practices and policies (e.g., an appropriately accessible hyperlink – directly above a consent button). Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 85 6. Notice Requirements Under PIPEDA, an organization is required to ensure that individuals are able to acquire information about an organization’s policies and practices without unreasonable effort. The organization shall also ensure that this information is in a form that is generally understandable, and includes: • the name or title, and the address, of the person who is accountable for the organization’s policies and practices and to whom complaints or inquiries can be forwarded; • the means of gaining access to Personal Information held by the organization; • a description of the type of Personal Information held by the organization, including a general account of its use; • a copy of any brochures or other information that explains the organization’s policies, standards, or codes; and • what Personal Information is made available to related organizations (e.g., subsidiaries). 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must: limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected, and delete/ anonymize Personal Information once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject; be informed by an organization of how the Data Subject’s Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data, subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements No formal registration requirements apply. 10. Data Protection Officers Under PIPEDA, an organization is responsible for Personal Information under its control and shall designate an individual or individuals who are accountable for the organization’s compliance with the principles. Upon request, the organization shall disclose the identity of the designated individual(s). 86 Baker & McKenzie Notwithstanding the fact that the designated individual(s) are accountable for the organization’s compliance with the principles, other individuals within the organization may be responsible for the day-to-day collection and processing of Personal Information. In addition, other individuals within the organization may be delegated to act on behalf of the designated individual(s). 11. International Data Transfers Under PIPEDA, there are no formal restrictions on transfers of Personal Information from Canada to other jurisdictions. However, an organization is obligated to put appropriate data transfer agreements or other measures in place to address the obligations of third-party Data Processors and recipients of Personal Information in the context of onward transfers. 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required: to take steps to ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organization security safeguards to protect Personal Data, and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Under PIPEDA, an organization shall be responsible for Personal Information in its possession or custody, including information that has been transferred to a third party for processing. The organization shall use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection while the information is being processed by the third party. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, data authority orders, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, seizure of equipment or data, civil actions, class actions, criminal proceedings, publication of breaches, and/or private rights of action. 15. Data Security Breach On an unspecified date in the future, amendments establishing a data breach notification requirement under PIPEDA will come into force. According to this new requirement, where there is a security breach and it is reasonable in the circumstances to believe that the breach could create a risk of significant harm, an organization must notify the OPC, any affected individual(s), and any third-party organizations that may be able to reduce the possible harm. The disclosure to the OPC and other third parties may be made without the prior consent of the individual where it is made for the purpose of reducing harm to the individual(s) affected by the security breach. The notification must contain Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 87 sufficient information to allow the affected individual(s) to understand the significance and consequence of the breach to allow them to take any necessary steps to prevent or mitigate such harm. Any notice must be conspicuous and given directly to the individual in the prescribed form and manner as soon as is feasible. PIPEDA defines significant harm as “bodily harm, humiliation, damage to reputation or relationships, loss of employment, business or professional opportunities, financial loss, identity theft, negative effects on the credit record and damage to or loss of property”. Organizations must also keep and maintain records of all security breaches and provide these records to the OPC upon request by the OPC. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to: a suspension of business operations, closure or cancellation of the file, register or database, an administrative fine, penalty or sanction, civil actions and/or class actions, and/or a criminal prosecution. 16. Accountability There is currently no requirement for organizations to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. 17. Whistle-blower hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Canada provided that they are in compliance with local laws. 18. E-discovery To the extent that Personal Information is to be collected, used and disclosed during an e-discovery process, such activity must be in compliance with PIPEDA. An organization should take privacy-related issues into consideration prior to the commencement and during the course of litigation. Courts will often limit the scope of e-discovery by imposing privacy-protective measures to ensure that any invasion of privacy is kept to a minimum. Furthermore, if a third-party provider is involved in the hosting of an ediscovery system, the organization shall use contractual or other means to ensure that Personal Information and such system are protected while being processed by the third party. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering Section 184(1) of the Criminal Code sets out the general rule that it is illegal to willfully intercept a private communication, ‘Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a 88 Baker & McKenzie private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.’ Therefore, organizations should ensure that the introduction and the implementation of a spam-filtering solution is in compliance with PIPEDA and the Criminal Code. 20. Cookies There are specific laws/rules in Canada that regulate the use and deployment of cookies. In general, the use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. Some types of cookies that track or monitor the user may not be permitted. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject is required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior express (opt-in) consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. The organization must obtain consent for a specific activity, as bundled consent is not considered valid consent. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 89 Alberta, Canada 1. Recent Privacy Developments The Government of Alberta Implements an Amended Provincial Personal Information Protection Act On December 17, 2014, amendments to the Alberta Provincial Personal Information Protection Act (“Alberta PIPA”) came into force. The amendments, which respond to a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that struck down the statute in its entirety, allow labour unions in the context of a labour dispute to engage in reasonable collection, use or disclosure of personal information without an individual’s consent, provided the following conditions are met: • the collection, use, or disclosure of the personal information is for the purpose of informing or persuading the public about a matter of significant public interest or importance relating to a labour relations dispute; • the collection, use, or disclosure of the personal information is reasonably necessary for that purpose; and • the collection, use, or disclosure of the personal information without consent is reasonable in the context, taking into consideration all relevant considerations, including the nature and sensitivity of the personal information. The Supreme Court of Canada had ruled in Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, 2013 SCC 62, that the version of the Alberta PIPA then in effect was unconstitutional. The case arose in the context of a strike lasting 305 days. During the course of the dispute, both the union and the employer videotaped and photographed individuals crossing the picket line. The union used signs to notify individuals in the picketing area that they were being recorded, and images of persons crossing the picket line were used in union newsletters, posters and pamphlets. An adjudicator appointed by the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner concluded that the union’s collection, use and disclosure of the information was not authorized by the Alberta PIPA. The issue before the Supreme Court of Canada was whether the Alberta PIPA unjustifiably limits a union’s right to freedom of expression in the context of a strike. In deciding that it does, the Supreme Court of Canada criticized the legislation for limiting the collection, use and disclosure of personal information (other than with consent) without regard for the nature of the personal information, the purpose for which it is collected, used or disclosed, and the situational context for that information. Finding that the Alberta PIPA failed to achieve a constitutionally acceptable balance between the privacy 90 Baker & McKenzie interests of individuals and unions’ freedom of expression, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Alberta PIPA and gave the Government of Alberta 12 months to amend the legislation accordingly. Alberta, Federal and British Columbia Privacy Commissioners Issue Guidelines for Obtaining Meaningful Consent in the Online Environment In May 2014, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta (“OIPCA”), in collaboration with its federal and British Columbian counterparts, jointly issued the “Guidelines for Online Consent” (“the Guidelines”) to help organizations understand their legal obligations around obtaining meaningful consent in the online environment. For more information, see the “Recent Privacy Developments” in the Canada chapter. Alberta Privacy Commissioner Signs Open Letter Calling for Mandatory Privacy Policies in Mobile Apps after Participating in Global Privacy Enforcement Network Privacy Sweep In May 2014, the OIPCA engaged in the second annual Global Privacy Enforcement Network Privacy Sweep in concert with 25 other privacy authorities around the world. This year’s Privacy Sweep focused on how transparent organizations are regarding the privacy practices of their mobile applications. The OIPCA evaluated 21 Alberta-based mobile apps in the private, public and health sectors (of 1,211 apps examined globally). Following the sweep, the OIPCA signed a joint open letter with 22 other privacy authorities from around the world addressed to mobile application marketplaces calling for, among other things, mandatory privacy policies in mobile applications that collect personal information. For more information on the privacy sweep, see the “Recent Privacy Developments” in the Canada chapter. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends In its strategic business plan for 2015-2018, the OIPCA has stressed that it will take a more proactive approach to privacy law enforcement and has highlighted the following, among others, as items that it may focus on: • Compliance with data breach • Compliance with privacy impact assessments under Alberta’s personal health information laws • The privacy implications of the use and prevalence of: o Biometrics o Mobile devices o Geo-location tracking software o Interoperability of information systems Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 91 o Social media o Open data initiatives Spam – Federal anti-spam legislation came into force on July 1, 2014, and the provisions thereunder that regulate the installation of computer programs came into force on January 15, 2015. For more information, see the summary of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) in the Canada chapter. 3. Law Applicable Personal Information Protection Act, SA 2003, c P-6.5 (“Alberta PIPA”) and related regulations. Health Information Act, RSA 2000, c H-5 and related regulations. This chapter focuses on the Alberta PIPA and related regulations. The purpose of the Alberta PIPA is to govern the means by which private sector organizations handle personal information, and ensure this occurs in a manner that recognizes both the right of an individual (“Data Subject”) to have his or her personally identifiable information (“Personal Information”) protected and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose Personal Information for purposes that are reasonable. An organization includes a corporation, an association that is not incorporated, a trade union, a partnership and an individual acting in a commercial way (e.g., an individual running an unincorporated business). 4. Scope of the Law a. Personal Data The Alberta PIPA applies to information about an identifiable individual (“Personal Information”) (e.g., name, home address, home phone number, ID numbers, physical description, educational qualifications, blood type, etc.). “Business contact information” is a subset of Personal Information. It includes a Data Subject’s name, position or title, business telephone number, business email address, and other business contact information. The Alberta PIPA does not apply to business contact information when it is collected, used or disclosed for the purpose of contacting an individual in his or her business capacity. The Alberta PIPA applies to a “record,” which means a record of information in any form or in any medium, whether in written, printed, photographic, electronic, or any other form, but does not include a computer program or other mechanism that can produce a record. 92 Baker & McKenzie b. Data Processing Processing is not expressly defined in the Alberta PIPA but is a broad concept that encompasses an operation or set of operations performed on Personal Information pursuant to guidance or instruction of the Data Controller, including the handling, collecting, recording, disclosing, storing, correcting, amending, organizing, communicating, or deleting of Personal Information - whether on a manual or automated basis. c. Processing by Data Controllers The Alberta PIPA applies to every organization and with respect to all Personal Information. The Alberta PIPA does not apply: • if the collection, use, or disclosure of Personal Information is for personal or domestic purposes; • if the collection, use, or disclosure of Personal Information is for artistic, literary, or journalistic purposes; • if the collection, use, or disclosure of business contact information is for the purpose of contacting an individual in that individual’s capacity as an employee of an organization; • if the Personal Information is in the custody or control of a “public body”; • if the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies; • if the information is health information as defined in the Health Information Act; • if the information is about an individual who has been dead for 20 years or more or in a record that is 100 years old or older; or • if the information is Personal Information in court files. An organization is responsible for all of the Personal Information that is either in its custody or under its control. Where an organization engages the services of a person, whether as an agent, by contract or otherwise, the organization is, with respect to those services, responsible for that person’s compliance with the Alberta PIPA. The organization must designate one or more individuals to be responsible for ensuring the organization complies with the Alberta PIPA. An organization must develop and follow policies and practices that are reasonable for the organization to meet its obligations under the Alberta PIPA, and make information about such policies and practices available on request. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 93 d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The Alberta PIPA applies to provincially regulated businesses, non-profit organizations (only when they collect, use or disclose Personal Information in connection with a “commercial activity”), trade unions and other organizations in Alberta. “Commercial activity” means a transaction, act or conduct that has a commercial character to it, such as selling, bartering or leasing donor, membership or other fundraising lists. It also includes operating a private school or college or an early childhood services program. However, PIPEDA will in most instances still apply to provincially regulated organizations when they transfer Personal Information across Alberta’s borders, in the course of commercial activity (i.e., for consideration). Organizations should thus consider obtaining consent, as appropriate, in connection with such trans-border transfers. PIPEDA will also still apply to federally-regulated businesses in Alberta. Federal and provincial public sector privacy statutes apply to personal information in records held by government and other public sector entities. While these laws do not apply directly to commercial businesses, they can be relevant to private sector companies that supply or otherwise transact business with government and other public sector entities in Canada. e. Sensitive Personal Data The form of the consent sought by the organization pursuant to Section 5 below may vary, depending upon the circumstances and the type of information to be collected, used, or disclosed. In determining the form of consent to use, organizations shall take into account the sensitivity of the information. Although some information (for example, health and financial information) is almost always considered to be sensitive, any information can be sensitive depending on the context. In such circumstances, as a best practice, organizations should obtain clear and express consent. f. Employee Personal Data An “Employee” includes an apprentice, a volunteer, a participant, a work experience or co-op student and an individual acting as an agent for an organization, employed by the organization or who performs a service for the organization as a partner or a director, officer or other office-holder of the organization, whether or not the individual is paid. “Employee Personal Information” means, in respect to an individual who is a potential, current or former employee of an organization, Personal Information that is reasonably required by an organization to establish, manage or end an employment or volunteer work relationship, or to manage a post-employment relationship. 94 Baker & McKenzie 5. Consent a. General An organization generally must not collect, use or disclose Personal Information about a Data Subject without first obtaining consent. A Data Subject may give consent subject to any reasonable terms, conditions or qualifications established, set, approved by or otherwise acceptable to the Data Subject. Consent may not be obtained by providing false or misleading information regarding the collection, use or disclosure of information through deception. The Alberta PIPA recognizes the following types of consent: express consent, implied consent; and opt-out consent. The Alberta PIPA does not require an organization to provide notice when relying on implied consent to collect Personal Information. An organization may not collect, use or disclose Personal Information for a different purpose than the purpose or purposes for which it was collected. A Data Subject can consent to an organization collecting his or her Personal Information from another organization. A Data Subject is deemed to have consented to the collection of his or her Personal Information by an organization if the collection took place prior to 1 January 2004, and such consent may be relied upon where the Personal Information is used or disclosed for the purposes for which it was originally collected. A Data Subject can change or withdraw consent by giving the organization reasonable notice, as long as doing so does not contravene a legal duty or obligation between the Data Subject and the organization. On receipt of such notice, an organization must inform the Data Subject of the likely consequences to the Data Subject of withdrawing consent. An organization must not prohibit a Data Subject from withdrawing consent to the collection, use or disclosure of Personal Information related to the Data Subject. Following withdrawal of consent to the collection, use or disclosure of Personal Information by a Data Subject, the organization must stop collecting, using or disclosing the Personal Information unless the collection, use or disclosure is permitted without consent. A Data Subject may not withdraw consent given for the performance of a legal obligation. The Alberta PIPA provides that neither an organization nor a Data Subject can impose a liability or an obligation on the other as a result of the withdrawal or variation of consent. An organization must not, as a condition of supplying a product or service, require a Data Subject to consent to the collection, use or Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 95 disclosure of Personal Information beyond what is necessary to provide the product or service. An organization may collect, use or disclose Personal Information about a Data Subject without consent, if the collection, use and disclosure is clearly in the interests of the Data Subject: • when another Act or regulation requires or allows for collecting information without consent; • when the Personal Information is collected in accordance with the provisions of a treaty; • when it relates to a subpoena, warrant, or court order; • when it is provided by a public body; • when it is necessary for medical treatment; • when the collection is for an investigation or a proceeding; • when the Personal Information is publicly available; • when the organization is a credit reporting agency; • when it is required or authorized by law; • for disclosures without consent; • for the collection of a debt; or • for transfer of Personal Information to a third party. Under certain circumstances, a trade union may also collect personal information about an individual without his or her consent for the purpose of informing or persuading the public about a significant matter relating to a labour relations dispute involving the trade union. An organization may disclose Personal Information about its employees, customers, directors, officers, or shareholders without their consent to a prospective party in a business transaction. A business transaction is defined to mean the purchase, sale, lease, merger, amalgamation, acquisition, or disposal of an organization (or part of an organization) or any business or activity or business asset of an organization. If a business transaction does not proceed or is not completed, a prospective party must destroy or return to the organization any Personal Information that the prospective party collected about the employees, customers, directors, officers, and shareholders of the organization. An organization may not disclose Personal Information in a business transaction where the primary purpose, objective, or result of the transaction is the purchase, sale, lease, transfer, disposal, or disclosure of Personal Information. 96 Baker & McKenzie b. Sensitive Data An organization should seek express consent when Personal Information is likely to be considered sensitive, having regard to the reasonable expectations of the Data Subject. This is intended to ensure that the consent is given freely and is provided on an informed basis. Thus, at a minimum, a request for consent should refer to (i) the nature of the information to be collected, used or disclosed; (ii) the specific uses to which the information will be put by the parties receiving it; and (iii) the identity of the parties to whom information is to be disclosed, as applicable. A request for consent should also specify, in simple terms, the channels that are available (e.g., e-mail, regular mail, 1-800 number, etc.) for the Data Subject to amend or withdraw his or her consent. The more sensitive the Personal Information is, the greater the likelihood that express consent will be required for its collection, use, and disclosure. c. Minors The guardian of a minor may give or refuse consent to the collection, use and disclosure of Personal Information of the minor if the minor is incapable of exercising that right (i.e., if the minor is incapable of understanding his or her rights under the Alberta PIPA and the consequences of exercising them). d. Employee Consent The Alberta PIPA permits an organization to collect, use or disclose Employee Personal Information without consent for reasonable purposes related to managing or recruiting personnel. “Managing personnel” means the carrying out of that part of human resource management relating to the duties and responsibilities of employees. It can also refer to administering personnel and includes activities such as payroll and succession planning. Consent is required for the collection by the employer of Personal Information that does not constitute Employee Personal Information, such as information collected in relation to charitable donations, personal family issues or nonwork related health, religious or financial issues. An organization shall collect, use or disclose Employee Personal Information only if it is for a reasonable purpose, the information relates to the employment or volunteer work relationship and the organization has provided the Data Subject with reasonable notification before collection, use or disclosure of the information. Where an organization outsources “back office” human resources functions such as payroll or administration, the Alberta PIPA may also permit the contracting organization to collect the Employee Personal Information without consent. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 97 e. Online/Electronic Consent Consent given or transmitted by electronic means will qualify as “written consent” only where the receiving organization produces or is capable of producing a version of that consent in paper form. Organizations that make use of paperless and/or signature-less contracts via their websites must ensure that they can produce evidence or paper versions of the consent upon request. 6. Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Information generally must or should provide Data Subjects with information about the organization’s identity, the types of Personal Information collected, the purposes for collecting the Personal Information, the organization’s privacy practices (which must be clear and transparent), third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Information, the rights of the Data Subject, how the Personal Information is to be retained, where the Personal Information is to be transferred, where the Personal Information is to be stored, how to make an enquiry or file a complaint, how to access and/or correct the Data Subject’s Personal Information, the duration of the proposed processing, and the means of transmission of the Personal Information. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Information must limit the use of the Personal Information to those activities that are necessary to fulfil the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Information was collected, and delete/destroy/anonymize Personal Information once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to be informed by an organization of the Personal Information that the organization holds about the Data Subject, and how the Data Subject’s Personal Information will be used and disclosed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Information, subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Information; and request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Information. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements An organization that collects and processes Personal Data is not required to register, file and notify the appropriate data authority. 10. Data Protection Officers An organization must designate one or more individuals to be responsible for ensuring that the organization complies with the Alberta PIPA. 98 Baker & McKenzie 11. International Data Transfers Under the Alberta PIPA, there are no formal restrictions on transfers of Personal Information from Canada to other jurisdictions. However, organizations are required to notify individuals if they use service providers outside Canada to collect and/or process Personal Information. As the definition of “service providers” is quite broad and includes affiliated entities, it is recommended that appropriate data transfer agreements be put in place to address the obligations of recipients of Personal Information in the context of onward transfers. 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to ensure that Personal Information in its possession and control is protected from unauthorized access and use, and implement appropriate physical, technical and organizational security safeguards to protect Personal Information. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties An organization is responsible for Personal Information that is in its custody or under its control and where an organization engages the services of a person, whether as an agent, by contract or otherwise, the organization is, with respect to those services, responsible for that person’s compliance. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints; data authority investigations/audits; data authority inquiries and orders; administrative fines, penalties or sanctions; seizure of equipment or data; civil actions/private rights of action; class actions; and prosecution for offences. 15. Data Security Breach Alberta is the first Canadian jurisdiction to require mandatory data security breach notification in the private sector. Organizations are required to report incidents of security breach to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta when there is a real risk of significant harm to an individual and the Commissioner can require such organizations to notify affected individuals. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to various penalties as noted above under ‘Enforcement and Sanctions”. 16. Accountability There is currently no requirement for organizations to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Information. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 99 17. Whistle-blower hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Alberta provided that they are in compliance with local laws. 18. E-discovery To the extent that Personal Information is to be collected, used and disclosed during an e-discovery process, such activity must be in compliance with the Alberta PIPA. An organization should take privacy-related issues into consideration prior to the commencement and during the course of litigation. Courts will often limit the scope of e-discovery by imposing privacy-protective measures to ensure that any invasion of privacy is kept to a minimum. Furthermore, if a third-party provider is involved in the hosting of an e-discovery system, the organization is required to use contractual or other means to ensure that Personal Information and the system employed are protected while being processed by the third party. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering Subsection 184(1) of the Criminal Code (Canada) sets out the general rule that it is illegal to wilfully intercept a private communication: ‘Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.’ Therefore, the organization shall ensure that the introduction and implementation of a spam-filtering solution is in compliance with the Alberta PIPA and the federal Criminal Code. 20. Cookies There are specific laws/rules in Alberta that regulate the use and deployment of cookies. In general, the use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. Some types of cookies that track or monitor the user may not be permitted. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject is required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior express (opt-in) consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. The organization must obtain consent for a specific activity, as bundled consent is not considered valid consent. 100 Baker & McKenzie British Columbia, Canada 1. Recent Privacy Developments British Columbia Supreme Court orders search results removed globally based on the “right to be forgotten” principle In June 2014, the British Columbia Supreme Court (“BCSC”) ordered an online search engine to remove a group of websites from both its Canadian domain, and its global search index. The case, Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack, 2014 BCSC 1063, affirmed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal, did not have a privacy issue at its core and mostly concerned the advertising of a counterfeit item in search results. However, the BCSC relied on a well-known decision of the European Court of Justice to support an order with global effect. In that decision, the European Court of Justice recognized that individuals have a right to be forgotten in the results of an online search. In order to give effect to this right, the BCSC stated that in certain instances it has the ability to order a search engine to remove all mention to infringing data from its service. While the European Court of Justice limited its order to Europe, the BCSC placed no such geographical limitation on its order. The BCSC reasoned that if a search engine does business by advertising in Canada, the Court has jurisdiction over its global activities where a connection between the local activity and the global activity exists. As such, the decision contributes to the increasing attention on the nexus between local law and global access to information, including the potential extraterritorial jurisdiction of domestic statutes and courts. British Columbia, Federal and Alberta Privacy Commissioners Issue Guidelines for Obtaining Meaningful Consent in the Online Environment In May 2014, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (“OIPCBC”), in collaboration with its federal and Albertan counterparts, jointly issued the “Guidelines for Online Consent” (“the Guidelines”) to help organizations understand their legal obligations around obtaining meaningful consent in the online environment. For more information, see the “Recent Privacy Developments” in the Canada chapter. British Columbia Privacy Commissioner Signs Open Letter Calling for Mandatory Privacy Policies in Mobile Apps after Participating in Global Privacy Enforcement Network Privacy Sweep In May 2014, the OIPCBC engaged in the second annual Global Privacy Enforcement Network Privacy Sweep in concert with 25 other privacy authorities around the world. This year’s Privacy Sweep focused on how transparent organizations are regarding the privacy practices of their mobile Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 101 applications. The OIPCBC evaluated 15 financial apps popular in B.C. (of 1,211 apps examined globally), such as consumer expense trackers, budget and debt management apps, mortgage calculators, receipt scanners, and banking apps. The OIPCBC reported that 54% of the apps it examined failed to comply with notice and consent requirements under the British Columbia Personal Information Protection Act (“BC PIPA”). Following the sweep, the OIPCA signed a joint open letter with 22 other privacy authorities from around the world addressed to mobile application marketplaces calling for, among other things, mandatory privacy policies in mobile applications that collect personal information. For more information on the privacy sweep, see the “Recent Privacy Developments” in the Canada chapter. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends In its most recent budget submission, the OIPCBC indicated that its priorities for 2015-2016 may include the privacy legal implications of: • modern digital technologies that collect, use and disclose personal health information • the use of video and audio surveillance systems • auditing public bodies to identify and address privacy vulnerabilities Spam – Federal anti-spam legislation came into force on July 1, 2014, and the provisions thereunder that regulate the installation of computer programs came into force on January 15, 2015. For more information, see the summary of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) in the Canada chapter. Tips and Guidance for IT Security and Employee Privacy In June 2015, the OIPCBC released a regulatory guidance document that outlines the privacy issues that employers should consider before implementing information technology (“IT”) security tools that collect the personal information of employees. The document summarizes the application of privacy law in British Columbia in the employment context and sets out ten tips to help employers protect the personal information of their employees, including (1) completing a privacy impact assessment during the planning stages of implementing new IT tools; (2) ensuring IT and procurement staff consult the privacy officer when considering and implementing new IT tools; (3) providing notice of updated information practices to employees; (4) avoiding the continuous, real-time collection of personal information about employees; (5) having updated privacy training programs in place; and (6) evaluating the effectiveness of IT security programs on an ongoing basis. 102 Baker & McKenzie 3. Law Applicable Personal Information Protection Act, SBC 2003, c 63 (“BC PIPA”) and related regulations. The purpose of the BC PIPA is to govern the collection, use, and disclosure of Personal Information by organizations in a manner that recognizes both the right of individuals to protect their Personal Information and the need of organizations to collect, use, or disclose Personal Information for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances. An organization includes a person (which at law includes corporations), an unincorporated association, a trade union, a trust, or a not-for-profit organization. It excludes a “private trust” and an individual “acting as an employee.” 4. Scope of the Law a. Personal Data The BC PIPA applies to personally identifiable information (“Personal Information”) about an identifiable individual (“Data Subject”) and includes employee Personal Information, but does not include: • business contact information; or • work product information. The BC PIPA applies to a “Document” which includes: • a thing on or by which information is stored; and • a document in electronic or similar form. The BC PIPA applies broadly to the collection, use, disclosure, handling and care, and any other processing of Personal Information in any form or representation, including electronic data recorded or stored on any medium, computer system or other similar device, and that can be read or perceived by a person, system, or other device (e.g., display, printout, audio/video recording, or other data output). The BC PIPA does not apply to general information used to operate the organization’s business. b. Data Processing Processing is not expressly defined in the BC PIPA but is a broad concept that encompasses an operation or set of operations performed on Personal Information pursuant to guidance or instruction of the Data Controller, including the handling, collecting, recording, disclosing, storing, correcting, amending, organizing, communicating, or deleting of Personal Information – whether on a manual or automated basis. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 103 c. Processing by Data Controllers The BC PIPA applies with limited exceptions to “every organization”. It covers commercial and not-for-profit activities and employee Personal Information within employment relationships. The BC PIPA does not apply: • if collection, use or disclosure is for personal or domestic purposes, journalistic, artistic or literary purposes or where the federal PIPEDA or the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (BC) applies; • to Personal Information in a court document; • to solicitor-client privilege information; • to information available by law to a party or a proceeding; and • to the collection of Personal Information that was collected prior to the date the legislation came into force. The BC PIPA applies to Personal Information that: • an organization considers appropriate in the circumstances; and • is under its control, including Personal Information that is not in the custody of the organization. PIPEDA applies to transfers of Personal Information across borders. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The BC PIPA applies to provincially regulated businesses, non-profit organizations, trade unions and other organizations in British Columbia. However, PIPEDA will in most instances still apply to provincially regulated organizations when they transfer Personal Information across British Columbia’s borders in the course of commercial activity (i.e., for consideration). Organizations should thus consider obtaining consent, as appropriate, in connection with such trans-border transfers. PIPEDA will also still apply to federally-regulated organizations operating in British Columbia. Federal and provincial public sector privacy statutes apply to personal information in records held by government and other public sector entities. While these laws do not apply directly to commercial businesses, they can be relevant to private sector companies that supply or otherwise transact business with government and other public sector entities in Canada. e. Sensitive Personal Data The form of the consent sought by the organization pursuant to Section 5 below may vary, depending upon the circumstances and the type of information to be collected, used or disclosed. In determining the form of consent to use, organizations are required to take into account the sensitivity of the information. 104 Baker & McKenzie Although some information (for example, health and financial information) is almost always considered to be sensitive, any information can be sensitive depending on the context. In such circumstances, as a best practice, organizations should obtain clear and express consent. f. Employee Personal Data Employee Personal Information includes Personal Information about a Data Subject that is collected, used or disclosed solely for the purposes reasonably required to establish, manage or terminate an employment relationship between the organization and that Data Subject, but does not include Personal Information that is not about a Data Subject’s employment. Employee Personal Information does not include business contact information or work product information. The term “employees” is defined to include volunteers. 5. Consent a. General An organization must not collect, use or disclose Personal Information about a Data Subject without first obtaining consent. In order for a consent to be valid, the organization must inform the Data Subject, verbally or in writing, of the purpose for the collection of his/her Personal Information. An organization must not, as a condition of supplying a product or service, require a Data Subject to consent to the collection, use or disclosure of Personal Information beyond what is necessary to provide the product or service. Consent shall not be obtained by providing false or misleading information respecting the collection, use or disclosure of information through deception. The BC PIPA recognizes the following types of consent: express consent, deemed consent, and opt-out consent. An organization may not collect, use or disclose Personal Information for a purpose different than the purpose for which it was collected. The BC PIPA does not apply to the collection, use, or disclosure of Personal Information that was collected before 1 January 2004. However, if the Personal Information that was collected before 1 January 2004, is used for a new purpose, fresh consent would have to be obtained in connection with such new purpose. A Data Subject can cancel or change his or her consent by giving the organization reasonable notice. On receipt of such notice, an organization must inform the Data Subject of the likely consequences to the Data Subject of withdrawing his or her consent. An organization must not prohibit a Data Subject from withdrawing his or her consent to the collection, use, or disclosure of Personal Information. Pursuant to withdrawal of consent to the Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 105 collection, use, or disclosure of Personal Information by an organization, the organization must stop collecting, using, or disclosing the Personal Information unless continued collection, use, or disclosure is permitted without consent. A Data Subject may not withdraw consent given for the performance of a legal obligation or consent given to a credit reporting agency. An organization may collect, use, or disclose Personal Information about a Data Subject without consent in certain situations (e.g., medical emergency, investigation, or required or authorized by law). An organization may disclose Personal Information about its employees, customers, directors, officers, or shareholders without their consent to a prospective party in a business transaction. A business transaction is defined to mean the purchase, sale, lease, merger, amalgamation, acquisition, or disposal of an organization (or part of an organization) or any business or activity or business asset of an organization. If a business transaction does not proceed or is not completed, a prospective party must destroy or return to the organization any Personal Information that the prospective party collected about the employees, customers, directors, officers, and shareholders of the organization. The organization is not authorized to disclose Personal Information to a party or prospective party for purposes of a business transaction that does not involve substantial assets of the organization other than this Personal Information. An organization may disclose, without the consent of a Data Subject, Personal Information for a research purpose, including statistical research and for archival or historical purposes. b. Sensitive Data An organization should seek express consent when Personal Information is likely to be considered sensitive, having regard to the reasonable expectations of the Data Subject. This is intended to ensure that the consent is given freely and is provided on an informed basis. Thus, at a minimum, a request for consent should refer to (i) the nature of the information to be collected, used, or disclosed; (ii) the specific uses to which the information will be put by the parties receiving it; and (iii) the identity of the parties to whom information is to be disclosed, as applicable. A request for consent should also specify, in simple terms, the channels that are available (e.g., e-mail, regular mail, 1-800 number, etc.) for the Data Subject to amend or withdraw his or her consent. It should be noted that the more sensitive the Personal Information is, the greater the likelihood that express consent will be required for its collection, use, and disclosure. c. Minors The guardian of a minor may give or refuse consent to the collection, use, and disclosure of Personal Information of the minor if the minor is incapable of exercising that right in the circumstances. 106 Baker & McKenzie d. Employee Consent An organization may collect, use, and disclose employee Personal Information without the consent of the Data Subject if the collection is reasonable for the purposes of establishing, managing, or terminating an employment relationship between the organization and the Data Subject. An organization must notify the Data Subject that it will be collecting employee Personal Information about the Data Subject and the purposes for the collection before the organization collects the employee Personal Information without the consent of the Data Subject. e. Online/Electronic Consent Electronic consent will suffice if appropriate steps are taken to ensure that a Data Subject is aware of the Data Controller’s data processing practices and policies (e.g., inclusion of an appropriately accessible hyperlink – directly above a consent button). 6. Notice Requirements A organization that collects Personal Information generally must or should provide Data Subjects with information about: the organization’s identity, the types of Personal Information being collected, the purposes for collecting the Personal Information, its privacy practices (which must be clear and transparent), third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Information, the rights of the Data Subject, how the Personal Information is to be retained, where the Personal Information is to be transferred, where the Personal Information is to be stored, how to make an enquiry or file a complaint, how to access and/or correct the Data Subject’s Personal Information, the duration of the proposed processing and the means of transmission of the Personal Information. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Information must limit the use of the Personal Information to those activities that are necessary to fulfil the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Information was collected, and delete/destroy/anonymize Personal Information once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Information that the organization holds about the Data Subject, and how the Data Subject’s Personal Information will be used and disclosed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Information, subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Information; and request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Information. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 107 9. Registration/Notification Requirements An organization that collects and processes Personal Data is not required to register, file and notify the appropriate data authority. 10. Data Protection Officers An organization must designate one or more individuals to be responsible for ensuring compliance. The identity and contact information of the privacy officer(s) must be made available to the public. The privacy officer(s) may also be the contact person for answering questions about the BC PIPA and for handling access requests and complaints. 11. International Data Transfers Under the BC PIPA, there are no formal restrictions on transfers of Personal Information from Canada to other jurisdictions. However, it is recommended that appropriate data transfer agreements be put in place to address the obligations of recipients of Personal Information in the context of onward transfers. 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required: to take steps to ensure that Personal Information in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use, and implement appropriate physical, technical and organizational security safeguards to protect Personal Information. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Under BC PIPA, an organization is responsible for personal information under its control, including Personal Information that is not in the custody of the organization. Organizations that disclose Personal Information to third parties are required to use contractual or other means to protect Personal Information and comply with sector specific requirements. Organizations shall be liable together with the third party providers in case of breach by the latter. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints; data authority investigations/audits; data authority Inquiries and orders; administrative fines, penalties or sanctions; seizure of equipment or data’ civil actions/private rights of action; class actions; and prosecution for offences. 108 Baker & McKenzie 15. Data Security Breach While the BC PIPA does not create an explicit legal requirement to notify the B.C. Commissioner or affected individuals in the event of a data security breach, it obliges organizations to take reasonable security measure to protect Personal Information in their custody. The Information & Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia has also published guidance documents regarding privacy breaches and breach notification and privacy breaches which provide information on how to address data security breaches and what information to include if an organization decides to report the breach to the Commissioner or to affected individuals. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to various penalties as noted above under ‘Enforcement and Sanctions.” 16. Accountability There is currently no requirement for organizations to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Information. 17. Whistle-blower hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in British Columbia provided that they are in compliance with local laws. 18. E-discovery To the extent that Personal Information is to be collected, used and disclosed during an e-discovery process, such activity must be in compliance with the BC PIPA. An organization should take privacy-related issues into consideration prior to the commencement and during the course of litigation. Courts will often limit the scope of e-discovery by imposing privacy-protective measures to ensure that any invasion of privacy is kept to a minimum. Furthermore, if a third-party provider is involved in the hosting of an e-discovery system, the organization is required to use contractual or other means to ensure that Personal Information and the system employed are protected while being processed by the third party. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering Subsection 184(1) of the Criminal Code (Canada) sets out the general rule that it is illegal to wilfully intercept a private communication, ‘Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.’ Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 109 Therefore, the organization shall ensure that the introduction and implementation of a spam-filtering solution is in compliance with the BC PIPA and the federal Criminal Code. 20. Cookies There are specific laws/rules in British Columbia that regulate the use and deployment of cookies. In general, the use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. Some types of cookies that track or monitor the user may not be permitted. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject is required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior express (opt-in) consent, which cannot be inferred from a data subject’s failure to respond. The organization must obtain consent for a specific activity, as bundled consent is not considered valid consent. 110 Baker & McKenzie Manitoba, Canada 1. Recent Privacy Developments Manitoba Enacts Private Sector Privacy Law In 2013, the Manitoba government enacted The Personal Information Protection and Identity Theft Prevention Act (“Manitoba PIPITPA”), making it the fourth province along with British Columbia, Alberta and Québec to enact broadly applicable private sector privacy legislation. The Manitoba PIPITPA, which is not yet in force, will apply to all private sector organizations including corporations, unincorporated associations, unions, partnerships and individuals acting in a commercial capacity. The Manitoba PIPITPA generally requires organizations to obtain the consent of an individual before collecting, using or disclosing his or her Personal Information. The Manitoba PIPITPA also requires organizations to provide Data Subjects with reasonable access and correction rights and to take reasonable security precautions against privacy risks. The Manitoba PIPITPA resembles the private sector privacy laws of Alberta and British Columbia in many ways, such as by establishing offences punishable by fines of up to CAD $100,000 and by providing exceptions for employers collecting, using and disclosing the Personal Information of employees under certain circumstances. An important distinction between the Manitoba PIPITPA and the privacy laws of Alberta and British Columbia is that it provides fewer circumstances in which an individual gives implied consent. For example, the privacy legislation of Alberta and British Columbia provide that consent is implied where the individual has an interest in a pension plan and the processing of Personal Information relates to enrollment or coverage under the plan. The Manitoba PIPITPA does not contain a similar provision. The Manitoba PIPITPA will be administered in part by the Manitoba Ombudsman, who is currently responsible for investigating complaints and reviewing compliance with respect to The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which is Manitoba’s public sector privacy legislation, and The Personal Health Information Act, which relates to Manitoba’s health sector. Unlike the privacy commissioners of Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec, the Manitoba Ombudsman does not have the power to make orders respecting issues of legal compliance. The privacy regime in Manitoba is further complemented by the provincial Privacy Act, which creates a private cause of action for breach of privacy. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 111 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends Spam – Federal anti-spam legislation came into force on July 1, 2014, and the provisions thereunder that regulate the installation of computer programs came into force on January 15, 2015. For more information, see the summary of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (“CASL”) in the Canada chapter. 3. Law Applicable The Personal Information Protection and Identity Theft Protection Act, CCSM c P33.7 (“Manitoba PIPITPA”) (not yet in force). The Privacy Act, CCSM c P125. Personal Health Information Act, CCSM c P33.5 and related regulations. This chapter focuses on the Manitoba PIPITPA. The purpose of the Manitoba PIPITPA is to govern the collection, use, and disclosure of Personal Information by organizations in a manner that recognizes both the right of individuals to protect their Personal Information and the need of organizations to collect, use, or disclose Personal Information for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances. An organization includes a person (which at law includes corporations), an unincorporated association, a trade union, a trust, or a not-for-profit organization. It excludes a “private trust” and an individual “acting as an employee.” 4. Scope of the Law Please note that the Manitoba PIPITPA is not yet in force. a. Personal Data The Manitoba PIPITPA applies to Personal Information that can identify an individual (e.g., name, home address, home phone number, ID numbers) and information about a Data Subject (e.g., physical description, educational qualifications, blood type). “Business contact information” is a subset of Personal Information. It includes a Data Subject’s name, position or title, business telephone number, business email address, and other business contact information. The Manitoba PIPITPA does not apply to business contact information when it is collected, used or disclosed for the purpose of contacting an individual in his or her business capacity. The Manitoba PIPITPA applies to a “record,” which means a record of information in any form or in any medium, whether in written, printed, photographic, electronic, or any other form, but does not include a computer program or other mechanism that can produce a record. 112 Baker & McKenzie b. Data Processing Processing is not expressly defined in the Manitoba PIPITPA but is a broad concept that encompasses an operation or set of operations performed on Personal Information pursuant to guidance or instruction of the Data Controller, including the handling, collecting, recording, disclosing, storing, correcting, amending, organizing, communicating, or deleting of Personal Information - whether on a manual or automated basis. c. Processing by Data Controllers The Manitoba PIPITPA applies to every organization and with respect to all Personal Information. The Manitoba PIPITPA does not apply: • if the collection, use, or disclosure of Personal Information is for personal or domestic purposes; • if the collection, use, or disclosure of Personal Information is for artistic, literary, or journalistic purposes; • if the collection, use, or disclosure of business contact information is for the purpose of contacting an individual in that individual’s capacity as an employee of an organization; • if the Personal Information is in the custody or control of a “public body”; • if the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies; • if the information is health information as defined in the Personal Health Information Act; • if the information is about an individual who has been dead for 20 years or more or in a record that is 100 years old or older; or • if the information is Personal Information in court files. An organization is responsible for all of the Personal Information that is either in its custody or under its control. Where an organization engages the services of a person, whether as an agent, by contract or otherwise, the organization is, with respect to those services, responsible for that person’s compliance with the Manitoba PIPITPA. The organization must designate one or more individuals to be responsible for ensuring the organization complies with the Manitoba PIPITPA. An organization must develop and follow policies and practices that are reasonable for the organization to meet its obligations under the Manitoba PIPITPA, and make information about such policies and practices available on request. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 113 d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The Manitoba PIPITPA applies to provincially regulated businesses, non-profit organizations (only when they collect, use or disclose Personal Information in connection with a “commercial activity”), trade unions and other organizations in Manitoba. “Commercial activity” means a transaction, act or conduct that has a commercial character to it, such as selling, bartering or leasing donor, membership or other fundraising lists. It also includes operating a private school or college or an early childhood services program. However, PIPEDA will in most instances still apply to provincially regulated organizations when they transfer Personal Information across Manitoba’s borders, in the course of commercial activity (i.e., for consideration). Organizations should thus consider obtaining consent, as appropriate, in connection with such trans-border transfers. PIPEDA will also still apply to federally-regulated businesses in Manitoba. Federal and provincial public sector privacy statutes apply to Personal Information in records held by government and other public sector entities. While these laws do not apply directly to commercial businesses, they can be relevant to private sector companies that supply or otherwise transact business with government and other public sector entities in Canada. e. Sensitive Personal Data The form of the consent sought by the organization pursuant to Section 5 below may vary, depending upon the circumstances and the type of information to be collected, used, or disclosed. In determining the form of consent to use, organizations shall take into account the sensitivity of the information. Although some information (for example, health and financial information) is almost always considered to be sensitive, any information can be sensitive depending on the context. In such circumstances, as a best practice, organizations should obtain clear and express consent. f. Employee Personal Data An “Employee” includes an apprentice, a volunteer, a participant, a work experience or co-op student and an individual acting as an agent for an organization, employed by the organization or who performs a service for the organization as a partner or a director, officer or other office-holder of the organization, whether or not the individual is paid. “Employee Personal Information” means, in respect to an individual who is a potential, current or former employee of an organization, Personal Information that is reasonably required by an organization to establish, manage or end an employment or volunteer work relationship, or to manage a post-employment relationship. 114 Baker & McKenzie 5. Consent a. General An organization must not collect, use or disclose Personal Information about a Data Subject without first obtaining consent. A Data Subject may give consent subject to any reasonable terms, conditions or qualifications established, set, approved by or otherwise acceptable to the Data Subject. Consent shall not be obtained by providing false or misleading information regarding the collection, use or disclosure of information through deception. The Manitoba PIPITPA recognizes the following types of consent: express consent; deemed consent; and opt-out consent. The Manitoba PIPITPA does not require an organization to provide notice when relying on implied consent to collect Personal Information. An organization may not collect, use or disclose Personal Information for a different purpose than the purpose for which it was collected. A Data Subject can consent to an organization collecting his or her Personal Information from another organization. A Data Subject is deemed to have consented to the collection of his or her Personal Information by an organization if the collection took place prior to the date upon which the Manitoba PIPITPA comes into force, and such consent may be relied upon where the Personal Information is used or disclosed for the purposes for which it was originally collected. A Data Subject can change or take back his or her consent by giving the organization reasonable notice, as long as doing so does not break a legal duty or promise between the Data Subject and the organization. On receipt of such notice, an organization must inform the Data Subject of the likely consequences to the Data Subject of withdrawing his or her consent. An organization must not prohibit a Data Subject from withdrawing his or her consent to the collection, use or disclosure of Personal Information related to the Data Subject. Pursuant to withdrawal of consent to the collection, use or disclosure of Personal Information by a Data Subject, the organization must stop collecting, using or disclosing the Personal Information unless the collection, use or disclosure is permitted without consent. A Data Subject may not withdraw consent given for the performance of a legal obligation. The Manitoba PIPITPA provides that neither an organization nor a Data Subject can impose a liability or an obligation on the other as a result of the withdrawal or variation of consent. An organization must not, as a condition of supplying a product or service, require a Data Subject to consent to the Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 115 collection, use or disclosure of Personal Information beyond what is necessary to provide the product or service. An organization may collect, use or disclose Personal Information about a Data Subject without consent, if the collection, use and disclosure is clearly in the interests of the Data Subject: • when another Act or regulation requires or allows for collecting information without consent; • when the Personal Information is collected in accordance with the provisions of a treaty; • when it relates to a subpoena, warrant, or court order; • when it is provided by a public body; • when it is necessary for medical treatment; • when the collection is for an investigation or a proceeding; • when the Personal Information is publicly available; • when the organization is a credit reporting agency; • when it is required or authorized by law; • for disclosures without consent; • for the collection of a debt; or • for transfer of Personal Information to a third party. An organization may disclose Personal Information about its employees, customers, directors, officers, or shareholders without their consent to a prospective party in a business transaction. A business transaction is defined to mean the purchase, sale, lease, merger, amalgamation, acquisition, or disposal of an organization (or part of an organization) or any business or activity or business asset of an organization. If a business transaction does not proceed or is not completed, a prospective party must destroy or return to the organization any Personal Information that the prospective party collected about the employees, customers, directors, officers, and shareholders of the organization. An organization may not disclose Personal Information in a business transaction where the primary purpose, objective, or result of the transaction is the purchase, sale, lease, transfer, disposal, or disclosure of Personal Information. b. Sensitive Data An organization should seek express consent when Personal Information is likely to be considered sensitive, having regard to the reasonable expectations of the Data Subject. This is intended to ensure that the consent is given freely 116 Baker & McKenzie and is provided on an informed basis. Thus, at a minimum, a request for consent should refer to (i) the nature of the information to be collected, used or disclosed; (ii) the specific uses to which the information will be put by the parties receiving it; and (iii) the identity of the parties to whom information is to be disclosed, as applicable. A request for consent should also specify, in simple terms, the channels that are available (e.g., e-mail, regular mail, 1-800 number, etc.) for the Data Subject to amend or withdraw his or her consent. The more sensitive the Personal Information is, the greater the likelihood that express consent will be required for its collection, use, and disclosure. c. Minors The guardian of a minor may give or refuse consent to the collection, use and disclosure of Personal Information of the minor if the minor is incapable of exercising that right. d. Employee Consent The Manitoba PIPITPA permits an organization to collect, use or disclose Employee Personal Information without consent for reasonable purposes related to managing or recruiting personnel. “Managing personnel” means the carrying out of that part of human resource management relating to the duties and responsibilities of employees. It can also refer to administering personnel and includes activities such as payroll and succession planning. Consent is still required for the collection by the employer of Personal Information that does not constitute Employee Personal Information, such as information collected in relation to charitable donations, personal family issues or non-work related health, religious or financial issues. An organization shall collect, use or disclose Employee Personal Information only if it is for a reasonable purpose, the information relates to the employment or volunteer work relationship and the organization has provided the Data Subject with reasonable notification before collection, use or disclosure of the information. Where an organization outsources “back office” human resources functions such as payroll or administration, the Manitoba PIPITPA may also permit the contracting organization to collect the Employee Personal Information without consent. The Manitoba PIPITPA applies to Employee Personal Information in the same manner and to the same extent as it does to all other Personal Information. e. Online/Electronic Consent Consent given or transmitted by electronic means will qualify as “written consent” only where the receiving organization produces or is capable of producing a version of that consent in paper form. Organizations that make use of paper- and/or signature-less contracts via their websites must ensure Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 117 that they can produce evidence or paper versions of the consent upon request. 6. Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about the organization’s identity; the types of Personal Data being collected; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; its privacy practices (which must be given in a clear and transparent way); third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; the rights of the Data Subject; how the Personal Data is to be retained; where the Personal Data is to be transferred; where the Personal Data is to be stored; how to access and/or correct the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and the duration of the proposed processing. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must: limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected, and delete/ anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and how the Data Subject’s Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data, subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements No formal registration requirements apply. 10. Data Protection Officers An organization must designate one or more individuals to be responsible for ensuring that the organization complies with the Manitoba PIPITPA. 11. International Data Transfers Under the Manitoba PIPITPA, there are no formal restrictions on transfers of Personal Information from Canada to other jurisdictions. However, organizations are required to notify individuals if they use service providers outside Canada to collect and/or process Personal Information. As the definition of “service providers” is quite broad and includes affiliated entities, it is recommended that appropriate data transfer agreements be put in place to address the obligations of recipients of Personal Information in the context of onward transfers. 118 Baker & McKenzie 12. Security Requirements An organization must protect Personal Information that is in its custody or under its control by making reasonable security arrangements against such risks as unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure, copying, modification, disposal or destruction. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties An organization is responsible for Personal Data that is in its custody or under its control and where an organization engages the services of a person, whether as an agent, by contract or otherwise, the organization is, with respect to those services, responsible for that person’s compliance. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, data authority orders, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, seizure of equipment or data, civil actions, class actions, criminal proceedings and/or private rights of action. 15. Data Security Breach An organization is required to report incidents of security breach to an individual when the Personal Information about the individual that is under its control is stolen, lost or accessed in an unauthorized manner. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to: a suspension of business operations, closure or cancellation of the file, register or database, an administrative fine, penalty or sanction, civil actions and/or class actions, and/or a criminal prosecution. 16. Accountability There is currently no requirement for organisations to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. 17. Whistle-blower hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Canada provided that they are in compliance with local laws. 18. E-discovery To the extent that Personal Information is to be collected, used and disclosed during an e-discovery process, such activity must be in compliance with the Manitoba PIPITPA. An organization should take privacy-related issues into consideration prior to the commencement and during the course of litigation. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 119 Courts will often limit the scope of e-discovery by imposing privacy-protective measures to ensure that any invasion of privacy is kept to a minimum. Furthermore, if a third-party provider is involved in the hosting of an e-discovery system, the organization shall use contractual or other means to ensure that personal information and such system are protected while being processed by the third party. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering Section 184(1) of the Criminal Code sets out the general rule that it is illegal to wilfully intercept a private communication, ‘Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.’ Therefore, the organization shall ensure that the introduction and the implementation of a spam-filtering solution is in compliance with the Manitoba PIPITPA (not yet in force) and the Criminal Code. 20. Cookies There are specific laws/rules in Canada that regulate the use and deployment of cookies. In general, the use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. Some types of cookies that track or monitor the user may not be permitted. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject is generally required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior express (opt-in) consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. The organization must obtain consent for a specific activity, as bundled consent is not considered valid consent. 120 Baker & McKenzie Ontario, Canada 1. Recent Privacy Developments Ontario Courts Issue Additional Case Law on Tort of “Intrusion Upon Seclusion” Ontario courts have continued to recognize and apply the tort of “intrusion upon seclusion”, which was first established by the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) in 2012 as a right to bring a civil action for damages for the invasion of personal privacy. In a decision released in July 2014, the ONCA held that a major bank could be vicariously liable for its employee’s commission of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, and certified a class action against both the employee and the bank. The employee in question had confessed to accessing private and confidential information of the bank’s customers and providing it to his girlfriend who, in turn, disseminated the information to third parties for fraudulent and improper purposes. The case follows on an earlier decision of the Federal Court in March 2014, which certified a class action against the government for the tort of inclusion upon seclusion. The decision of the ONCA further extends the practical application of the tort to the context of vicarious liability. In another decision released in October, the ONCA held that the plaintiff had established a factual basis for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, but that the evidence presented did not support a claim for damages for the defendant’s improper access to the plaintiff’s private information. Nonetheless, the ONCA provided guidance on how such damages might be quantified. According to the ONCA, the following elements are required to establish a successful claim: • The conduct must be intentional; • There must be an “invasion” without lawful jurisdiction of a person’s private affairs or concerns; and • A reasonable person would consider the event as highly offensive causing anguish, humiliation or distress. The ONCA thereby confirmed the status of an intentional breach of privacy as an actionable claim that may lead to a damage award, in addition to any other damages, if substantiated by the evidence presented. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 121 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends Privacy Commissioner calls for change in the wake of health-related privacy class actions Following a number of high-profile privacy breaches and several class actions against Ontario hospitals, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (“IPCO”) has called for an increased focus on privacy in the context of the provision of health care. In one case involving the sale of the Personal Information of thousands of patients by hospital staff, the IPCO commented that the hospital had failed to implement reasonable safeguards several months after the investigation. The IPCO has also publicly commented in favour of the development of a procedure to prosecute offenders, as well as legislative changes so as require hospitals to report privacy breaches to the IPCO on a mandatory basis. Spam – Federal anti-spam legislation came into force on July 1, 2014, and the provisions thereunder that regulate the installation of computer programs came into force on January 15, 2015. For more information, see the summary of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (“CASL”) in the Canada chapter. 3. Law Applicable Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, SO 2004, c 3, Schedule A (“PHIPA”) and related regulations. PHIPA establishes rules that govern the collection, use and disclosure of Personal Health Information regarding an individual (“Data Subject”) in order to protect the confidentiality of the information and the privacy of the Data Subject with respect to that information. PHIPA applies to “health information custodians” when they collect, use or disclose Personal Health Information. Health information custodians are doctors, other health care practitioners, long-term care facilities, health care clinics, laboratories, pharmacies, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care as well as certain other health-related organizations. PHIPA also applies to organizations and individuals outside the health system when they receive Personal Health Information from an organization or an individual within the health system such as employers or insurance companies. It applies to everyone with respect to the collection, use or disclosure of health insurance plan numbers of Ontario residents. 4. Scope of the Law a. Personal Data “Personal Health Information” means identifying information with respect to a Data Subject in oral or recorded form whether the information relates to the physical or mental health of the Data Subject, including for example, information regarding the health history of the Data Subject’s family and the 122 Baker & McKenzie provision of health care to the Data Subject. “Identifying information” means information that identifies a Data Subject or for which it is reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances that it could be utilized, either alone or with other information, to identify a Data Subject (“Personal Information” or “Personal Data”). Personal Health Information does not include identifying information contained in a record that is in the custody or under the control of a health information custodian if either: (i) the identifying information contained in the record relates mostly to one or more employees or agents of the custodian; or (ii) the record is maintained primarily for a purpose other than the provision of health care or assistance in providing health care to the employees or other agents. b. Data Processing “Processing” is not expressly defined in PHIPA but is a broad concept that encompasses an operation or set of operations performed on Personal Information pursuant to guidance or instruction of the Data Controller, including handling, collecting, recording, disclosing, storing, correcting, amending, organizing, communicating, deleting Personal Information – whether on a manual or automated basis. Further, a health information custodian may use Personal Health Information about a Data Subject for the purpose of obtaining payment or processing, monitoring, verifying or reimbursing claims for payment for the provision of health care or related goods and services. c. Processing by Data Controllers PHIPA governs the manner in which Personal Health Information is collected, used and disclosed within the health care system. It also regulates individuals and organizations that receive Personal Information from health care professionals. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality PHIPA governs the Personal Health Information that is collected, used and disclosed in Ontario’s health care system. PIPEDA applies to all commercial activities relating to the exchange of Personal Health Information between provinces and territories and to information transfers outside of Canada. PIPEDA applies to federally regulated commercial organizations operating in Ontario. Federal and provincial public sector privacy statutes apply to Personal Information in records held by government and other public sector entities. While these laws do not apply directly to commercial businesses, they can be relevant to private sector companies that supply or otherwise transact business with government and other public sector entities in Canada. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 123 e. Sensitive Personal Data In determining the requisite form of consent to be obtained, organizations are required to take into account the sensitivity of the Personal Information. Personal Health Information is almost always considered sensitive therefore it should be treated in the manner described in Section 5 below. f. Employee Personal Data Personal Health Information does not include identifying information contained in a record that is in the custody or under the control of a health information custodian if: (i) the identifying information contained in the record relates primarily to one or more employees or other agents of the custodian; or (ii) the record is maintained primarily for a purpose other than the provision of health care or assistance in providing health care to the employees or other agents. 5. Consent a. General Generally, health information custodians must obtain a Data Subject’s consent to collect, use and disclose Personal Health Information unless an exception to this requirement applies. A Data Subject’s consent may be express or implied. A Data Subject may withdraw his or her consent at any time for the collection, use, or disclosure of his or her Personal Health Information by providing notice to the health information custodian. In accordance with PHIPA, consent is valid if it is knowledgeable, voluntary, related to the information in question and given by the Data Subject. In order to meet the criteria of knowledgeable, the Data Subject must know why a health information custodian collects, uses or discloses his or her Personal Health Information and that his or her may withhold or withdraw consent. A health information custodian is not required to obtain a Data Subject’s written or verbal consent each time Personal Health Information is used, disclosed or collected. PHIPA allows a custodian to assume implied consent where information is exchanged between custodians within the circle of care when providing direct health care unless the custodian has reason to believe that the Data Subject has expressly withdrawn or withheld their consent. Implied consent is also acceptable if a health information custodian collects, uses or discloses names or addresses for the purpose of fundraising. Also, if the Data Subject has provided information regarding his or her religious beliefs to the health care facility, the facility may rely on implied consent to disclose the Data Subject’s name and location within the facility to a person representing his or her religious organization in certain circumstances. 124 Baker & McKenzie Express consent is required in the following circumstances and is subject to very few exceptions: (i) where the Personal Health Information is disclosed to a Data Subject or organization, such as an insurance company if the organization is not a health information custodian; (ii) where information is disclosed from one custodian to another for a purpose other than providing or assisting in providing health care; and (iii) when a custodian: • collects, uses or discloses Personal Health Information other than a Data Subject’s name and mailing address for the purposes of fundraising; • collects Personal Information for marketing research or activities; and/or • collects, uses or discloses Personal Information for research purposes, unless certain conditions are met. When a Data Subject requests a health information custodian not to use or disclose his or her Personal Health Information to another custodian, the custodian must inform the recipient custodian that some Personal Health Information is inaccessible because it was “locked” by the Data Subject, if the custodian considers some of the locked information to be reasonably necessary for the provision of health care. However, a custodian may disclose the locked information in certain circumstances. PHIPA generally presumes that Data Subjects are able to provide their consent to collection, use or disclosure of Personal Information when they are able to understand and appreciate the consequences of providing, withholding, or withdrawing consent. However, if a health information custodian is of the opinion that a Data Subject is not able to provide consent, PHIPA allows a substitute decision-maker to make a decision on behalf of the Data Subject. b. Sensitive Data An organization should seek express consent from a Data Subject when Personal Health Information is involved as health information is almost always considered sensitive. This is intended to ensure that the consent is given freely and is provided on an informed basis. c. Minors If the Data Subject is a child who is less than 16 years of age, a parent of the child or a children’s aid society or other person who is lawfully entitled to give or refuse consent in the place of the parent may give consent on behalf of the child unless the information relates to (i) treatment within the meaning of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, about which the child has made a decision on his or her own in accordance with that Act, or (ii) counselling in which the child has participated on his or her own under the Child and Family Services Act. If the Data Subject is a child who is less than 16 years of age and who is Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 125 capable of consenting to the collection, use or disclosure of the information and if there is a person who is entitled to act as the substitute decision-maker of the child as described above, a decision of the child to give, withhold or withdraw the consent or to provide the information prevails over a conflicting decision of that person. d. Employee Consent All the requirements set out by PHIPA for the giving of consent by any Data Subject shall equally apply to consent given by employees covered by PHIPA. e. Online/Electronic Consent Electronic consent will usually suffice if appropriate steps are taken to ensure a Data Subject is aware of the Data Controller’s data processing practices and policies (e.g., an appropriately accessible hyperlink, i.e., directly above a consent button). 6. Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about: the organization’s identity; the types of Personal Data being collected; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; its privacy practices (which must be given in a clear and transparent way); third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; the rights of the Data Subject; how the Personal Data is to be retained; where the Personal Data is to be transferred; where the Personal Data is to be stored; how to access and/or correct the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and the duration of the proposed processing. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must: limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected, and delete/ anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and how the Data Subject’s Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data, subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements No formal registration requirements apply. 126 Baker & McKenzie 10. Data Protection Officers A personal health information custodian must designate a contact person who is authorized to: • facilitate the custodian’s compliance; • ensure that all agents of the custodian are appropriately informed of their duties under this PHIPA; • respond to inquiries from the public about the custodian’s information practices; • respond to requests of an individual for access to or correction of a record of Personal Health Information about the individual that is in the custody or under the control of the custodian; and • receive complaints from the public Where the custodian is an individual (a natural person, not a company or an institution), the personal health custodian may act as the contact person. 11. International Data Transfers Under PHIPA, the following restrictions apply in the case of transfers of Personal Health Information outside Ontario. A health information custodian may disclose Personal Health Information about a Data Subject collected in Ontario to a person outside Ontario only if: (a) the Data Subject consents to the disclosure; (b) PHIPA permits the disclosure; (c) the person receiving the information performs functions comparable to the functions performed by a person to whom PHIPA would permit the custodian to disclose the information in certain prescribed circumstances; (d) the following conditions are met: (i) the custodian is a prescribed entity in connection with planning the administration of the health system; (ii) the disclosure is for the purpose of health planning or health administration; (iii) the information relates to health care provided in Ontario to a person who is a resident of another province or territory in Canada; and (iv) the disclosure is made to the government of that province or territory; (e) the disclosure is reasonably necessary for the provision of health care to the Data Subject, but not if the Data Subject has expressly instructed the custodian not to make the disclosure; or (f) the disclosure is reasonably necessary for the administration of payments in connection with the provision of health care to the Data Subject or for contractual or legal requirements in that connection. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 127 12. Security Requirements An organization is required to ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organizational security safeguards to protect Personal Data; and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Organizations that disclose Personal Data to third parties are required to use contractual or other means to protect Personal Data, and must comply with sector specific requirements. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, data authority orders, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, seizure of equipment or data, civil actions, class actions, criminal proceedings and/or private rights of action. 15. Data Security Breach Subject to certain exceptions, a health information custodian that has custody or control of Personal Health Information about an individual shall notify the individual at the first reasonable opportunity if the information is stolen, lost, or accessed by unauthorized persons. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to: a suspension of business operations, an administrative fine, penalty or sanction, civil actions and/or class actions, and/or a criminal prosecution. 16. Accountability There is currently no requirement for organisations to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. 17. Whistle-blower hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Canada provided that they are in compliance with local laws. 18. E-discovery To the extent that Personal Data is to be collected, used and disclosed during an e-discovery process, such activity must be in compliance with PHIPA. An organization should take privacy-related issues into consideration prior to the commencement and during the course of litigation. 128 Baker & McKenzie Courts will often limit the scope of e-discovery by imposing privacy-protective measures to ensure that any invasion of privacy is kept to a minimum. Furthermore, if a third-party provider is involved in the hosting of an e-discovery system, the organization shall use contractual or other means to ensure that Personal Information and such system are protected while being processed by the third party. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering Section 184(1) of the Criminal Code sets out the general rule that it is illegal to willfully intercept a private communication. ‘Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.’ Therefore, an organization should ensure that the introduction and the implementation of a spam-filtering solution is in compliance with PHIPA and the Criminal Code. 20. Cookies There are specific laws/rules in Canada that regulate the use and deployment of cookies. In general, the use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. Some types of cookies that track or monitor the user may not be permitted. 21. Direct Marketing An organisation that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject is generally required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior express (opt-in) consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. The organisation must obtain consent for a specific activity, as bundled consent is not considered valid consent. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 129 Quebec, Canada 1. Recent Privacy Developments Quebec Privacy Legislation Applies to Telecommunications Companies and Banks A decision of the Commission d’accès à l’information (“CAI”) (the office of the provincial information and privacy commissioner in Quebec) has confirmed that Quebec’s private sector privacy legislation, An Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector (the “Quebec Act”), applies to telecommunications companies and banks in the province. Following a complaint against a major telecommunications company, the company made submissions in proceedings before the CAI without admitting the CAI’s jurisdiction over the matter. The company reasoned that telecommunications undertakings are an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution Act and that, as such, are only subject to the federal privacy legislation (PIPEDA). However, in its decision, the CAI reasoned that a telecommunications company carrying on an “organized economic activity” in the province falls within the meaning of an “enterprise” in the Civil Code of Quebec; as such, the telecommunications company fell within the scope of the Quebec Act, which applies to every person who “collects, holds, uses or communicates [personal information] to third persons in the course of carrying on an enterprise” in the province. The CAI cited its own previous decisions and a 2014 decision of the Superior Court of Quebec in concluding that the Quebec Act applies to enterprises that fall under federal jurisdiction, which would include telecommunications companies and financial institutions. In order to exclude the application of the Quebec Act, a party would have to establish that such application has the effect of impairing the core of the federal power in question (e.g., telecommunications matters or banking). Moreover, as established in a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada cited by the CAI, where provincial and federal legislation may apply to the same situation and particularly where they have the same objective, an interpretation must be favoured that reconciles the two. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends According to the CAI’s most recent annual management report, pamphlets and guidance documents, the following areas may be priorities for the CAI in the 2014-2018 period: • Online behavioural advertising • Informing the public about their access and other privacy rights 130 Baker & McKenzie • The application of privacy laws to landlord-tenant agreements • Ensuring proper destruction of records containing Personal Information Spam – Federal anti-spam legislation came into force on July 1, 2014, and the provisions thereunder that regulate the installation of computer programs came into force on January 15, 2015. For more information, see the summary of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) in the Canada chapter. 3. Law Applicable An Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector, RSQ, c P-39 (“Quebec Act”). 4. Scope of the Law a. Personal Data Personal Information is any information which relates to a natural person (“Data Subject”) and allows that person to be identified (“Personal Information” or “Personal Data”). The Quebec Act applies to such information whatever the nature of its medium and whatever the form in which it is accessible, whether written, graphic, taped, filmed, computerized, or other. However, the Quebec Act does not apply to oral disclosures of Personal Information. The Personal Information must be in an accessible recorded form. The expression of an opinion about a Data Subject is a description of that Data Subject and, therefore, qualifies as his or her Personal Information. It is the nature of the information that characterizes it as Personal Information under the Quebec Act. The Quebec Act, which has been in force since 1994, deals with the protection of Personal Information relating to other persons which a person collects, holds, uses or communicates to third persons in the course of carrying on an enterprise. The Quebec Act applies to both natural and legal persons carrying on an enterprise. b. Data Processing Processing is not expressly defined in the Quebec Act but is a broad concept that encompasses an operation or set of operations performed on Personal Information pursuant to guidance or instruction of the Data Controller, including the handling, collecting, recording, disclosing, storing, correcting, amending, organizing, communicating, or deleting of Personal Information – whether on a manual or automated basis. c. Processing by Data Controllers A “file” (which is broadly defined as a group of organized data elements in some form of media – e.g., in writing, electronic media) may only be established when there is a serious and legitimate reason for doing so. The purpose/object of a file must be determined when the file is first established. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 131 Personal Information for a file (described above) may be collected only as necessary for the object of the file. A Data Controller cannot deny a Data Subject goods or services based only on the Data Subject’s refusal to disclose his or her Personal Information, unless: • it is necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract; • it is authorized by law; or • there are reasonable grounds to believe that the request is not lawful. The Quebec Act expressly extends the foregoing prohibition to the employment context. An enterprise cannot refuse a Data Subject’s request for employment by reason only that the Data Subject has refused to disclose Personal Information, unless the information is necessary for determining whether the Data Subject is a suitable employment candidate. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality All persons carrying on an enterprise in Quebec are subject to the Quebec Act, even if the enterprise’s head office is elsewhere. An enterprise cannot avoid the application of the Quebec Act by transferring files containing Personal Information collected, held and used in Quebec to a location outside the province. The federal PIPEDA does not apply to those organizations in the province of Quebec that are subject to the Quebec Act with respect to their collection, use and disclosure of Personal Information within the province. PIPEDA applies to (i) federal works, undertakings and businesses in the province of Quebec and (ii) all transborder collections, uses and disclosures of Personal Information in the course of commercial activity. Federal and provincial public sector privacy statutes apply to Personal Information in records held by government and other public sector entities. While these laws do not apply directly to commercial businesses, they can be relevant to private sector companies that supply or otherwise transact business with government and other public sector entities in Canada. e. Sensitive Personal Data The Quebec Act does not include a definition of Sensitive Personal Information. f. Employee Personal Data The Quebec Act does not include a definition of Employee Personal Information. 132 Baker & McKenzie 5. Consent a. General Consent to the communication or use of Personal Information must be manifest, free, and enlightened, and must be given for a specific purpose. A consent that does not meet these requirements is without effect. A valid consent need not be in writing, but it must be precise and given for particular purposes. The Quebec Act prohibits the use of overly broad forms of consent. A new consent is required for each new purpose. While the Quebec Act does not define “manifest, free and enlightened,” these terms suggest that consent must be evident, uncoerced and informed. An enterprise must provide Data Subjects with an opportunity to opt out of using their Personal Information for internal marketing purposes. b. Sensitive Data An organization should seek express consent when Personal Information is likely to be considered sensitive, having regard to the reasonable expectations of the Data Subject. This is intended to ensure that the consent is given freely and is provided on an informed basis. The more sensitive the Personal Information is, the greater likelihood that express consent is required for its collection, use and disclosure. c. Minors The Quebec Act does not include any unique consent requirements applicable specifically to minors. d. Employee Consent The Commission d’accès à l’information (“Commission”) may, on written request and after consulting the professional orders concerned, grant a person authorization to receive communication of Personal Information on professionals regarding their professional activities, without the consent of the professionals concerned, if it has reasonable cause to believe: • that the communication protects professional secrecy, especially in that it does not allow the identification of the person to whom the professional service is rendered, and does not otherwise invade the privacy of the professionals concerned; • that the professionals concerned will be notified periodically of the intended uses and the ends contemplated and will be given a valid opportunity to refuse to allow such information to be preserved or to allow such information to be used for the intended uses or the ends contemplated; and Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 133 • that security measures have been put into place to ensure the confidentiality of Personal Information. Such authorization shall be granted in writing. It may be revoked or suspended if the Commission has reasonable cause to believe that the authorized person is not complying with the above prescriptions, the intended uses or the ends contemplated. The authorized person may communicate such Personal Information if: • the information is communicated in a combined form that does not allow the identification of a specific professional act performed by a professional; • the professionals concerned are periodically given a valid opportunity to refuse to be the subject of such a communication of information; and • the person receiving communication of such information undertakes to use the information only for the intended uses and the ends contemplated. e. Online/Electronic Consent The Quebec Act does not include any provisions concerning written versus electronic consents. However, electronic consent will suffice if appropriate steps are taken to ensure a Data Subject is aware of the Data Controller’s data processing practices and policies (e.g., an appropriately accessible hyperlink, i.e., directly above a consent button). 6. Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about: the organization’s identity; the types of Personal Data being collected; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; its privacy practices (which must be given in a clear and transparent way); third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; the rights of the Data Subject; how the Personal Data is to be retained; where the Personal Data is to be transferred; where the Personal Data is to be stored; how to access and/or correct the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and the duration of the proposed processing. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must: limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected, and delete/ anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 134 Baker & McKenzie 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and how the Data Subject’s Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data, subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements An organization that collects and processes Personal Data is not required to register, file and notify the appropriate data authority. 10. Data Protection Officers Organizations may be required to designate a privacy officer or other individual(s) who will be responsible for the privacy practices of the organization. 11. International Data Transfers An enterprise subject to the Quebec Act, which either communicates Personal Information outside Quebec about Quebec residents or gives a person outside Quebec the authority to hold, use or communicate the information on his or her behalf, is still accountable for that information and must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the information is not used for purposes irrelevant to the object of the file, nor communicated to third parties without consent of the Data Subject to whom the information relates. 12. Security Requirements A person carrying on an enterprise must take the security measures necessary to ensure the protection of the Personal Data collected, used, communicated, kept or destroyed and that are reasonable given the sensitivity of the information, the purposes for which it is to be used, the quantity and distribution of the information and the medium on which it is stored. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Organizations that disclose Personal Data to third parties are required to use contractual or other means to protect Personal Data, and must comply with sector specific requirements. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, data authority orders, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, seizure of equipment or data, civil actions, class actions, criminal proceedings and/or private rights of action. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Canada Baker & McKenzie 135 15. Data Security Breach There are no explicit security breach notification requirements in the Quebec Act. Nevertheless, an organization is generally required to take reasonable security measures to protect Personal Information under its control, and take appropriate action to address security breach situations that may arise, which action may include notification of Data Subjects, data authorities, and/or other parties. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to: a suspension of business operations, closure or cancellation of the file, register or database, an administrative fine, penalty or sanction, civil actions and/or class actions, and/or a criminal prosecution. 16. Accountability There is currently no requirement for organisations to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of personal data. 17. Whistle-blower hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Canada provided that they are in compliance with local laws. 18. E-discovery To the extent that Personal Information is to be collected, used and disclosed during an e-discovery process, such activity must be in compliance with Quebec Act. An organization should take privacy related issues into consideration prior to the commencement and during the course of litigation. Courts will often limit the scope of e-discovery by imposing privacy-protective measures to ensure that any invasion of privacy is kept to a minimum. Furthermore, if a third-party provider is involved in the hosting of an e-discovery system, the organization shall use contractual or other means to ensure that Personal Information and such system are protected while being processed by the third party. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering Section 184(1) of the Criminal Code (Canada) (“Criminal Code”) sets out the general rule that it is illegal to willfully intercept a private communication, ‘Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.’ 136 Baker & McKenzie Therefore, the organization shall ensure that the introduction and the implementation of a spam-filtering solution is in compliance with Quebec Act and the Criminal Code. 20. Cookies There are specific laws/rules in Canada that regulate the use and deployment of cookies. In general, the use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. Some types of cookies that track or monitor the user may not be permitted. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject is required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior express (opt-in) consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. The organization must obtain consent for a specific activity, as bundled consent is not considered valid consent. Chile Diego Ferrada Santiago Tel: +56 2 367 7087 diego.ferrada@bakermckenzie.com Antonio Ortuzar Jr. Santiago Tel: +56 2 367 7078 antonio.ortuzar.jr@bakermckenzie.com 138 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments The current government has rejected the idea of the “consolidated bill” and has presented for public comments an entirely new bill (the “New Bill”) which will wholly replace the current Personal Data Protection Act. The New Bill is supposed to be presented to Congress in the next few months. The New Bill seeks to introduce the following main changes to the current Personal Data Protection Law: a. A Data Protection Council will be created, which will be in charge of enforcing the Personal Data Protection Act and will have powers to impose important fines against violators. b. The New Bill will impose fines for the first time, which are expected to reach USD 700,000.00. c. In case of serious and repeated offences, a data controller will be prohibited from processing personal data. d. The Law will incorporate most OECD personal data protection principles. e. Data bases will have to register with the data protection authority. f. There is also discussion about personal data of minors and personal data of deceased individuals. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends With the New Bill, the Chilean government intends to bring the Chilean legislation to a higher standard. 3. Law Applicable The Personal Data Protection Act No. 19,628 (“Act”) came into force on 28 October 1999, and was amended by Act No 19,812 of 13 June 2002, Act No 20,463 of October 25, 2010 and Act No 20,575 of February 17, 2012. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data “Personal Data” is defined as any information relating to identified or identifiable individuals. b. Data Processing Generally, Personal Data may be processed only when the Act or other legal provisions allow such processing or the Data Subject has expressly consented after being duly informed of the collection of its Personal Data and the purpose thereof. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Chile Baker & McKenzie 139 c. Processing by Data Controllers The Act does not provide for a data protection authority or require that private enterprises register Data Controllers or databases. The Act is a selfassessment compliance regime. It regulates the processing of Personal Data in databases (whether automated or not). d. Sensitive Personal Data “Sensitive Data” is defined as Personal Data that refers to the physical or moral characteristics of the Data Subject or to facts or circumstances of his private life such as personal habits, racial origin, political ideologies and opinions, religious beliefs, the status of his physical and mental health and his sexual life. e. Employee Personal Data With respect to employees, the law prohibits setting as a condition for hiring the absence of negative commercial information, or to require any statement or certificate on the same. The law exempts from this prohibition the case of hiring employees who will have the authority to represent their employer (managers, agents, etc.) and those who will work in collection, administration or custody of funds or securities. 5. Consent a. General Data Subjects should be informed about the purpose of the collection, processing and storage of Personal Data. According to the Act, the consent of the Data Subject should be voluntary, informed, and unambiguous, and must be in writing. There are some exceptions where no consent is required: (i) the Personal Data comes from sources available to the public; or, (ii) the Personal Data is processed for the exclusive use and general benefit of private legal entities, their members or affiliated entities, for statistical purposes, price setting or other purpose of general benefit. Personal Data should only be used for the purposes for which it was obtained. b. Sensitive Data Sensitive Data cannot be processed except when the Act allows for such processing; the Data Subject has given consent; or the Personal Data is necessary to determine or grant medical benefits that belong to the Data Subject. c. Minors There are no specific rules for minors. 140 Baker & McKenzie d. Employee Consent Section 4 of the Act unambiguously requires express written consent by the Data Subject for the processing of any Personal Data. If such Data Subject is an employee of the Data Controller/Data Processor, from a practical point of view, the easiest way to obtain consent from employees is to include a special clause in the standard format of employment agreements and the company’s Internal Regulations. This practice ensures that all employees will provide their consent prior to the data collection. The Data Subject must have authorized the transmission of Personal Data. Authorization to collect and process Personal Data does not serve as authorization to transmit. Therefore, special language must be included in the authorization to collect and process authorizing the transmission of the Personal Data. Further, the general rule in the case of Sensitive Data is that a special authorization must be provided. To satisfy such requirement, it would be advisable to alert the Data Subject in the transmission authorization that Sensitive Data could be transmitted. e. Online/Electronic Consent Electronic consent is permissible and can be effective if properly structured and evidenced. 6. Information/Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about: the organization’s identity; the types of Personal Data being collected; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; where the Personal Data is to be transferred; and the means of transmission of the Personal Data. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and how the Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and exercise the writ of habeas data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements There are no requirements for organizations that collect and process Personal Data to register, file or notify the local data authority. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Chile Baker & McKenzie 141 10. Data Protection Officers There is no requirement for organizations to designate a privacy officer or other individual who will be accountable for the privacy practices of the organization. 11. International Data Transfers The Act does not contain any special restrictions on the transfer of Personal Data to third countries. The new Bill (as discussed in Section 1) intends to establish territorial restrictions. 12. Security Requirements The Act does not contain any specific security requirements. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Generally, the party responsible for the database will remain liable for the acts of the third party provider. The outsourcing services agreement must be in writing and must clearly indicate the scope of the services and liability of the third parties. Should the third party provider breach the contract, it may be subject to an independent liability under the Act. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, civil actions, class actions, or private rights of action. 15. Data Security Breach There are no specific rules addressing data security breaches. Organizations that are involved in a data breach situation may be required to gather information about the breach; take steps to mitigate the harm to impacted Data Subjects; take steps to contain the breach and prevent future similar breaches; assist authorities with any investigation relating to the breach; and comply with court orders. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to civil actions and/or class actions. 16. Accountability Organizations are not required to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. 17. Whistle-Blower Hotline There are no laws/rules regulating whistle-blower hotlines in Chile. 142 Baker & McKenzie 18. E-Discovery When implementing an e-discovery system, an organization is required to obtain the consent of employees if the collection of Personal Data is involved, and advise employees of the implementation of such system, the monitoring of work tools and the storage of Personal Data. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering Generally, when a spam filtering solution is an automated process, it does not create privacy issues. 20. Cookies The use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. Some types of cookies that track or monitor the user may not be permitted. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject may be required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. China Nancy Leigh Hong Kong Tel: +852 2846 1787 nancy.leigh@bakermckenzie.com Zhenyu Ruan Shanghai Tel: +86 21 6105 8577 zhenyu.ruan@bakermckenzie.com Jacqueline Wong Hong Kong Tel: +851 2846 1563 jacqueline.wong@bakermckenzie.com Howard Wu Shanghai Tel: +86 21 6105 8538 howard.wu@bakermckenzie.com Tracy Zhang Shanghai Tel: +86 21 6105 8582 tracy.zhang@bakermckenzie.com 144 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments Consumer Protection Law Amended to Better Protect Consumer Data More comprehensive consumer rights, particularly with respect to personal data protection and additional responsibilities for online business operators, came into effect on 15 March 2014, with the amendment to the PRC Consumer Protection Law. The law significantly improves protection of consumer rights in their personal data (as further discussed below). Infringement of the law could lead to civil liability, fines of up to RMB 500,000.00 or in serious cases, the business could be shut down and its licence revoked. Supreme Court Provisions Confirm Tortious Liability for Privacy Infringement on Information Network The Supreme People’s Court issued the Provisions on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law to Trial of Civil Disputes Concerning Infringement of Personal Rights over Information Networks, effective from 10 October 2014 (“SPC Provisions”). The SPC Provisions stipulate that subject to prescribed justifications, Internet users or Internet service providers which publicize a natural person’s privacy or other personal information through information networks that cause harm to the individual shall be liable for tortious liabilities. Infringers may be ordered to offer an apology, eliminate negative influence or restore the reputation of the infringed person. They may be liable for compensatory damages if the infringed person suffered severe mental impairment or financial losses (the latter may include reasonable expenses incurred to cease the infringement such as legal fees). Regulations on Telecommunications and Internet User Personal Data Protection The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (“MIIT”) promulgated the Regulations on Telecommunications and Internet User Personal Data Protection (“MIIT Data Protection Regulations”), which came into effect on 1 September 2013. The Regulations provide that telecommunications operators and Internet information service providers (“IISPs”) must comply with certain notification and handling requirements when collecting and using user personal data in the course of providing their services. The Regulations also stipulate storage and security requirements and require administrative authorities to investigate violations of the Regulations. Fines of up to RMB 30,000.00 may be imposed. IISPs include all companies with a PRC-based website, i.e., a site registered with or licensed by MIIT. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – China Baker & McKenzie 145 AQSIQ and SSC Released Guidelines on Personal Information Protection for Public and Commercial Service Providers General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (“AQSIQ”) and the State Standards Commission (“SSC”) published the Information Security Technology - Guidelines for Personal Information Protection within Information System for Public and Commercial Services, which came into effect on 1 February 2013. The Guidelines set out the requirements regarding collection, processing, transfer and deletion of personal data. In particular, the Guidelines require data subject consent before transfer of personal data outside of China. The Guidelines only serve as a voluntary national standard (similar to a best practice standard) and its compliance is not mandatory. Requirements on the Handling of Life Insurance Customer Information The China Insurance Regulatory Commission (“CIRC”) issued the Interim Measures for the Authenticity of Life Insurance Customer Information on 4 November 2013. The Interim Measures require life insurance companies and insurance brokers to restrict internal access to customer data, adopt measures to ensure security of customer data and to prevent data leakage, and prohibit disclosure and resale of customer data by the insurance salespersons. Trial Measures for the Administration of Population Health Information The National Health and Family Planning Commission promulgated the Trial Measures for the Administration of Population Health Information on 5 May 2014. “Population health information” is defined as “basic information of the population and medical and health services information, as generated by medical and health institutions of different types and at different levels in the process of their service provision and administration”. The Trial Measures require medical and health institutions to ensure information security of and protect personal privacy in the collection, utilization and management of population health information. In this connection, storing population health information in overseas servers, and hosting or leasing overseas servers, are prohibited under the Trial Measures. New Regulations to Safeguard Security of Personal Information of Postal and Courier Service Users The State Post Bureau issued the Provisions on Managing the Security of Personal Information of Postal and Courier Service Users on 26 March 2014. The Provisions require postal enterprises and courier service providers to adopt internal procedures and technical methods, as well as establish emergency response mechanisms, to manage user information collected in their service process. The Provisions prohibit disclosure of user information to third parties without legal authorization or user consent. In case of information 146 Baker & McKenzie leakage or loss, the responsible enterprise is required to take remedial measures and report to the post authority immediately. Draft Amendment to Criminal Law China is seeking better privacy protection by revamping its Criminal Law. The ninth draft amendment to the Criminal Law was released in November 2014 for public comment. Under the draft amendment, “selling or illegally providing personal information without consent of the information subject” is introduced as a criminal offence that carries a penalty of up to two years’ detention or imprisonment and/or fines. The crime of “misappropriating personal information obtained during the performance of duty or services” is currently limited to staff of government agencies and companies in certain industry sectors, and the draft amendment removes this limitation, resulting in a much wider scope of application. In addition, Internet service providers which persistently refuse to fulfill security management obligations causing serious leakage of user information could face criminal liability of up to three years’ imprisonment and/or fines. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends The personal data protection provisions under the amended Consumer Protection Law and the various new regulations mentioned in Section 1 represent the continuing trend in China to regulate the collection and use of personal data. The draft amendment to the Criminal Law, in the wake of massive data leakage incidents and misappropriation cases, reflects a growing consensus on the necessity of criminal law protection of privacy and personal information. 3. Law Applicable While there is wide recognition in China for the need to protect privacy, there has yet been no specific legislation for the protection of personal data or privacy in China. The General Provisions of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (effective as of 1 January 1987) (the “Civil Code”), the Opinion of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Problems in the Implementation of the Civil Code (issued in 1988 and revised in 1990) and the Answers of the Supreme People’s Court to Several Questions on Trying Cases Concerning Right to Reputation (effective on August 7, 1993) (collectively the “Opinions”) address several issues relating to “privacy.” This changed when the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Tortious Liability (the “Tortious Liability Law”) came into effect on 1 July 2010 and privacy rights were formally recognized as a form of civil rights and interests. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – China Baker & McKenzie 147 Under the current legal framework, the following laws and regulations are also relevant to privacy protection: • the Criminal Law, as amended on and became effective on 28 February 2009; • the Decision on Strengthening the Protection of Network Information, passed by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on 28 December 2012 (the “NPC Decision”); • the amended Consumer Protection Law, effective from 15 March 2014; • industry-specific regulations governing telecommunications, banking, insurance, real estate brokerage, post and courier, health and other sectors (see Section 1 for examples). 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data Neither the Tortious Liability Law nor the Civil Code or the Opinions refer to the term “personal data.” The Tortious Liability Law refers to “privacy rights” but gives no further elaboration on the scope of such privacy rights and/or the types of personal information that may be protected. The relevant term used in the Civil Code and the Opinions is “private affairs” of an individual. The term “private affairs” is not defined but potentially includes any type of personal information relating to individuals. Personal data in the cyberspace that is protected under the NPC Decision includes information in the Internet/networking environment that may identify an individual and/or relate to an individual’s privacy (“Electronic Personal Information”). Examples given by the Supreme People’s Court of privacy and personal information include genetic information, medical history, medical checkup records, criminal records, home address and private activities of a natural person. Following the amendments to the Consumer Protection Law, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce promulgated the Measures for Punishments against Infringements of Consumer Rights and Interests, which came into effect on 15 March 2015. The Measures define “consumer personal information” as “information collected by a business operator during the provision of goods or services that may, independently or in combination with other information, ascertain the identity of a consumer such as the consumer’s name, gender, occupation, date of birth, identity document number, residential address, contact details, income and financial position, health information, and consumption habits, etc.” 148 Baker & McKenzie Industry-specific regulations typically set out their own definitions of “personal information” that is protected under the regulations. These definitions, while varying among different business sectors, generally cover the personal information of service users that are collected or possessed by service providers during or as a result of the service provision. b. Data Processing Under the NPC Decision, companies that, in their business operations, collect and use Electronic Personal Information: • should only collect and use Electronic Personal Information where it is lawful, legitimate and necessary to do so; • must explicitly inform the data subjects of the purposes, scope and manner of data collection and use, and must obtain the data subjects’ consent to the same; • must only collect and use the Electronic Personal Information in compliance with the law and as agreed with the data subjects; • must keep the Electronic Personal Information collected strictly confidential, and must not disclose, tamper with, damage, sell or unlawfully provide the same to a third party; • must adopt technical and other necessary measures to ensure that the data is secure, and must take remedial steps immediately where data disclosure, damage or loss occurs or may occur; • must only send commercial electronic messages to a recipient’s email address, land line or mobile number with the recipient’s consent or at his/her request, or where the recipient has not expressly declined the receipt of the same. There are very similar provisions under the amended Consumer Protection Law which impose the obligations on business operators that provide goods or services to PRC consumers. Industry-specific regulations raise additional considerations with respect to data privacy in the relevant service sectors (e.g., telecommunications, insurance, post and courier, health, etc.). For instance, banking institutions in China must comply with the relevant rules issued by the China Banking Regulatory Commission in respect of cross-border transfer of personal data. Another example is that medical institutions in China are not allowed to store population health data (such as electronic medical records of patients) on servers located outside China. A business operator is also advised to check the relevant industry-specific regulations and guidelines for specific requirements or recommendations on data processing. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – China Baker & McKenzie 149 c. Processing by Data Controllers See Section 4(b) above. No distinction has been drawn between a data controller and any other user/processor of personal data. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality None of the laws and regulations set out above have any extraterritorial effect. e. Sensitive Personal Data No such term is defined under the laws and regulations set out above. Under Chinese censorship rules, sensitive data is generally associated with prohibited data. Prohibited data generally includes data which may harm the interests of the State, cause social instability or infringe another person’s rights. In China, personal data relating to religious or other beliefs or political opinions may be regarded as prohibited data, the production, reproduction, access and dissemination of which is prohibited. f. Employee Personal Data The Administrative Regulations for Employment Services and Employment (effective as of 1 January 2008) (the “Employment Management Regulations”) use the term “personal data”, but this term is not further defined in the regulations. Although there is no definition under Chinese law of “employee personal data,” general rules governing record retention of enterprises refer to special retention and local government/trade union consent requirements for documents and materials that arise from the operation and management of an enterprise whose preservation is of “value to the State, society and the enterprise.” Discussions with selected government officials indicate that such materials could include the personal data of employees, and it is recommended that local authorities be consulted regarding certain categories of data (e.g., health records, disciplinary action, pensions, social security information, etc.). 5. Consent Requirements a. General With the issuance of the NPC Decision, the consent of data subjects should be obtained for the collection and use of personal data in the cyberspace. Under the amended Consumer Protection Law, the collection and use of consumer personal data, and the sending of unsolicited commercial messages are subject to consumer consent. b. Sensitive Data No such term is defined under any of the laws and regulations set out above (but see Section 4(e)). 150 Baker & McKenzie c. Minors The Law of the PRC on the Protection of Minors (effective from 1 June 2007) provides that no person may disclose the private matters of PRC citizens under the age of 18. There is no guidance on the application of the requirements, however, and the general view is that the collection and lawful use of the personal data of minors with the consent of their parents or guardians is acceptable. d. Employee Consent Under the Employment Management Regulations, employers should keep their employees’ personal data confidential, and must obtain an employee’s written consent before publicizing his or her personal data. In addition, if an employer has formulated a data processing policy, and such policy forms part of the employer’s company rules, the employer is required to consult the employees through the trade union, the employee representatives’ congress or other means. e. Online/Electronic Consent Electronic signatures are valid under PRC law, and data messages that can exhibit their contents in tangible form and can be retrieved, consulted and can reliably ensure that its contents have maintained their integrity without modification since its finalization shall be deemed to be a written document and an original document. Though PRC law provides that the use of a data message as evidence may not be refused solely on the grounds of its creation, sending, receipt or storage in electronic form, in practice, it is generally much more difficult to submit an electronic contract/data message as evidence as opposed to a hard copy signature. 6. Information/Notice Requirements With the issuance of the NPC Decision, data subjects should be informed of the purpose, scope and manner of data collection and use of personal data. Similarly, under the amended Consumer Protection Law, consumers should be informed of the purpose, scope and manner of the collection and use of their personal data. The MIIT Data Protection Regulations require telecommunications operators and IISPs to advise users of the purpose, method and scope of the collection and use of their personal information, and the ways to inquire or correct information, as well as the consequences of refusal to provide such information. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – China Baker & McKenzie 151 7. Processing Rules A business operator is advised to check the relevant industry-specific regulations and guidelines for specific rules or recommendations on data processing. Please also refer to Section 4(b) above and Section 13 below. 8. Rights of Individuals Under the Tortious Liability Law, “civil rights and interests” of natural and legal persons are protected and the term “civil rights and interests” is broadly defined to include, among other things, the right to one’s name, reputation, honor, image and privacy. A person whose civil rights and interests have been infringed may demand that the infringer bear tortious liability by ceasing the perpetration of the act, returning property or restoring it to the original state, paying compensation for loss, making an apology and/or elimination of the effect and restoration of reputation. Under the Criminal Law, it is a criminal offence for anyone who works in a government organization and companies in certain industry sectors to sell or illegally provide personal information obtained in the performance of duty or services, and for anyone who illegally obtains such personal information. Under the NPC Decision, the State protects electronic information that identifies an individual and/or relates to an individual’s privacy, and imposes certain obligations on organizations that collect and use such personal electronic information in their business operations. As mentioned in Section 1 above, the amended Consumer Protection Law provides protection of consumer rights in their personal data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements No specific requirements for registration/notification with government authorities. However, if an information safety incident (such as a massive data leakage) occurs, the affected entity is generally required to report the incident to the industry regulator (see also Section 15 below). 10. Data Protection Officers No specific requirements apply. 11. International Data Transfers Transfers of personal data out of China are permitted so long as the consent of the data subject has been obtained and the effect of such transfer does not fall within any of the scenarios described in Section 4(e) above. Selected regulations suggest that local government authorities in charge of archives should be consulted before the implementation of international data transfers. Certain sectors, however, are subject to specific restrictions. For example, according to rules issued by the People’s Bank of China, personal financial information collected within China must be stored, processed and analyzed in 152 Baker & McKenzie China unless otherwise exempted. Similarly, medical and health institutions are prohibited from storing “population health information” on overseas servers (see Section 1 above). 12. Security Requirements The NPC Decision requires that companies adopt technical and other necessary measures to ensure that the data collected is secure, and to take remedial steps immediately where data disclosure, damage or loss occurs or may occur. The amended Consumer Protection Law also imposes similar obligations on business operators that provide goods or services to PRC consumers. Certain industry specific regulations contain detailed security requirements, for example, the State Post Bureau’s Provisions on Managing the Security of Personal Information of Postal and Courier Service Users. 13. Special Rules for the Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties The consent of data subjects is required as the NPC Decision does not provide for any exemption for outsourcing arrangements. Certain sectors such as the financial sector may impose specific requirements. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Any infringement of privacy rights (as described in Section 4 above) will give rise to claims for injunctive relief and compensatory damages under the Tortious Liability Law. Administrative penalties (e.g., issuing a warning, confiscating illegal income, imposing a fine, revoking the business license, etc.) may be imposed for violation of the privacy principles set out in the NPC Decision. In serious cases, the above-mentioned activities may amount to a violation of the Law of the PRC on the Imposition of Penalties in Connection of the Administration of Law and Order (effective from 1 March 2006) (the “Penalties Law”). The Penalties Law is applicable to cases where the circumstances are not serious enough to amount to a crime but the administrative penalties are insufficient. Penalties imposed by the Public Security Bureaus under the Penalties Law include detention of up to 20 days. Under the Criminal Law of the PRC: • anyone who works in a government organization or a financial, telecommunications, transport, educational or medical institution and sells or unlawfully provides to a third party the personal information acquired in the course of providing the relevant services or fulfilling his or her duties shall be sentenced to three-year imprisonment or criminal detention and/or subject to a fine in serious cases; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – China Baker & McKenzie 153 • for those stealing or illegally obtaining the aforesaid information, the same sanctions will apply in serious cases; and • if any of the above offenses is committed by an organization, it will be subject to a fine and all management and officers who are directly responsible will be subject to the sanctions stated above. 15. Data Security Breach There is currently no “data protection authority” in China. None of the laws and regulations set out above specify any duty to notify data subjects. That being the case, there are a number of “information safety/security” regulations, which were promulgated, not particularly for the protection of personal data, but more out of concern for preserving state secrets and preventing data loss and business disruption which are considered harmful to the “public interest” in general. In that regard, government organizations and sensitive industries are required to install security systems, take preventive measures, and when any “information safety/security incident” occurs, report in a timely manner to the authorities and take emergency measures. “Information safety incidents” is a very broad concept, and generally covers all malicious attacks, equipment malfunctions or natural disasters which result in a massive breakdown of an information system and/or data loss or theft (it is a broader concept than that of “security breach”). These regulations do not include specific requirements for notifying the affected individuals, as they were drafted mainly from the perspective of state supervision and maintenance of order, instead of mitigating the impact on individuals. In addition, there are industry specific regulations that impose special duties on certain types of data carriers, including telecommunications service providers as well as companies in the financial and securities industries. Failure to comply with the notification requirements as discussed above may lead to investigations and queries from the relevant authority and ultimately result in the imposition of administrative penalties. 16. Accountability An organization has no legal obligation to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. 17. Whistle-blower hotline There are no laws/rules that govern whistle-blower hotlines in China. 18. E-discovery system The implementation of an e-discovery system within an organization will not specifically raise any privacy issues in China. 154 Baker & McKenzie 19. Anti-Spam filter solution The introduction of a spam-filtering solution in an organization will not raise privacy issues in China. 20. Cookies There is no specific law/rule that governs the use and deployment of cookies in China. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject may be required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. Under the amended Consumer Protection Law, a business operator is prohibited from sending unsolicited commercial information to consumers who have not consented to receiving such information and who have expressly refused to receive the same. Colombia Sandra Castillo Bogota Tel: +57 1 644 9595 Ext. 2756 sandra.castillo@bakermckenzie.com Carolina Pardo Bogota Tel: +57 1 644 9595 Ext. 2603 carolina.pardo@bakermckenzie.com 156 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments National Database Registry The Colombian Personal Data protection statute (“Law 1581”) created the National Register of Databases Registry (“NRDR”), which is a public list of databases operating in Colombia. According to Law 1581, the registration of databases will be administered by the Superintendence of Industry and Trade (“SIC”) and specifically by the Colombian Data Protection Authority (“DPA”). On 13 May 2014, the Colombian government issued Decree 886 of 2014 (“Decree 886”), which regulates Article 25 of Law 1581 on the creation of the National Database Registry (“NDR”). The obligations under Decree 866 will not become effective until the DPA implements the NDR. For more details on this development and the current status of its implementation, please see Section 9 below. Accountability Guidelines The Deputy for the Protection of Personal Data at the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (Colombian Data Protection Authority “DPA”), recently issued the document “Guidelines for the Implementation of the Accountability Principle” (hereinafter referred to as the “Guidelines”). This document was issued by the DPA to help data controllers and processors of personal data of Colombian individuals implement within the organizations the accountability principle, which was introduced in the Colombian legislation through a chapter contained in Decree 1377 of 2013 (“Decree 1377”), secondary regulation of Colombia’s main data protection statute, Law 1581 of 2012 (“Law 1581”). Articles 26 and 27 of Decree 1377 provide that data controllers in charge of the collection and processing of personal data of individuals who reside in the Colombian territory have the obligation to adopt the accountability principle in the processing of such data and must be capable of showing to the DPA that they have adopted effective and appropriate internal measures to comply with the obligations set forth in both Law 1581 and Decree 1377. As per article 27, the internal measures adopted by data controllers must guarantee (i) that within the organization there is an administrative structure directly proportional to the structure and size of the data controller; (ii) that internal mechanisms are adopted to put into practice policies that include tools to implement and train personnel in the processing of data and in the policies related thereto; and (iii) to adopt procedures to attend to consultations and claims from data subjects. The Guidelines are aimed at explaining and detailing to data controllers the specific measures that can be adopted by them to comply with the obligation contained in Decree 1377. It is worth highlighting that as indicative of its Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Colombia Baker & McKenzie 157 name, the Guidelines are a guiding tool for data controllers in complying with the obligation, but are not mandatory. Nevertheless, the DPA has highlighted what Decree 1377 provided in relation to the implementation of the accountability principle and it is that all organizations that that undertake the commitment to protect personal data adopting the measures detailed in the Guidelines or equivalent measures applying the accountability principle, will be treated with preferential leniency in the graduation and imposition of fines for lack of fulfillment of the obligations contained in Law 1581 and Decree 1377. This is particularly relevant as the DPA has recognized that it has limited resources to pursue every single infringement of the personal data protection laws and therefore, if a data controller is able to demonstrate that it has adopted the measures similar or identical to those described in the Guidelines and that the infringement was isolated, the DPA may decide to even refrain from opening an investigation. Some of the highlights of what the Guidelines have defined as an Integral Personal Data Management Program (hereinafter referred to as the “Program”) aimed at applying the accountability principle, are the following: • Involvement of the company’s top management in developing, implementing and verifying compliance of and adequate adoption by all areas of the company. • The appointed area or person within the company with data protection officer duties (having this person or area is mandatory as per article 23 of Decree 1377), must, among other duties: o Actively contribute in the development and implementation of the Program and the drafting of policies for the processing of personal data; o Develop a personal data risk assessment system; o Be the liaison between top management and all areas of the company for data processing and any projects that entail processing of personal data; o Promote a culture of personal data protection within the company; o Keep an inventory of all databases of the company that contain personal data; o Conduct the recordal of databases with the DPA once the National Database Registry is implemented; o Process and obtain the corresponding declarations of conformity with the DPA for specific data processing and sharing projects, o Review, amend and approve data transmission agreements; 158 Baker & McKenzie o Conduct internal trainings related to the effective compliance with the System and with the internal policies adopted by the company to effectively and lawfully process personal data. o Attend and respond within the standards adopted by the System and the time frames provided for in Law 1581 to claims and consultations made by data subjects regarding the processing of their personal data. o Actively cooperate with the DPA whenever said entity opens an investigation to the company or makes any information request regarding the processing of personal data by the company. • Internal report and auditing mechanisms for data processing and management. • Effective control systems for compliance of the System and policies for the processing of personal data. • Effective administrative and operation protocols. • Adequate database inventory • Adoption of data processing policies and manuals consistent with the content requirements of Decree 1377 and with the realities of the company’s data flows. • Adoption of privacy impact assessment mechanisms that have the following phases: i) identification; ii) measurement; iii) control; and iv) monitoring. • Robust internal training programs for all employees to guarantee knowledge, awareness and compliance with the law, the System and the company’s internal policies and procedures. • Adopt a robust methodology to receive and attend claims and consultations from data subjects. • Adequately manage the relationship with data processors and the crossborder circulation of data in the way in which they handle, process and circulate personal data, which includes having robust contracts with them regulating the circulation of data in compliance with Law 1581 and Decree 1377. • Appropriate communication strategies of internal and external data subjects to be duly informed and become aware of their rights, how to exercise them and the company’s policies in relation to the processing of personal data. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Colombia Baker & McKenzie 159 • Periodical supervision, evaluation and assessment of effective compliance of the law and the System. The Guidelines extensively comment and develop all of the above mentioned recommendations and we highlight and applaud the effort that the Colombian DPA has put into developing a clear and informative document that will become a very useful tool for data controllers to understand the implications that handling personal data has. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends Some of the highlights of Decree 1377 include the following: • The Decree introduces the concept of “transmission” which differs from that of “transfer”. The transfer of Personal Data requires prior, express and informed consent of the Data Subject (unless said transfer is subject to the exceptions provided by Law 1581). On the other hand, transmission is understood as the movement of Personal Data from Data Controllers to Data Processors. Transmissions will no longer require prior and informed consent of the Data Subjects if the Data Controller and the Data Processor enter into a transmission agreement. Furthermore, the transmission will be upheld if the parties sharing the data have all adhered to the same privacy policy accepted by the Data Subjects. • The Decree also develops the concept of “prior, express and informed consent”- See Section 5(a). • Processing of Personal Data of minors- See Section 5(c). • The Decree introduces the concepts of “privacy policy” and “privacy notice”- See Section 6. • Obligation of Data Controllers and Data Processors to appoint a Data Protection Officer- See Section 10. • Data breach obligations - See Section 15. • Introduction of the accountability principle- See Section 16. • Do not call approaches and developments- See Section 21. 3. Law Applicable and Data Protection Authorities a. Law Applicable The Colombian Constitution introduced the fundamental right to habeas data, which is the right that every person has to self-determine the collection, use, storage, processing and transfer of his or her Personal Data, granting it special protection. 160 Baker & McKenzie The Constitution mandates that the protection of fundamental rights must be detailed and ratified by one or more Statutory Laws. Statutory Laws require absolute majorities and a special proceeding within the Colombian Congress to be approved and must be signed into law by the President before they come into force. In Colombia, the protection of the habeas data right is currently based on the provisions of the Constitution, and the following laws that regulate the right: • Statutory Law 1581, which regulates privacy rights in respect of Personal Data collected and processed in any type of database, (“Law 1581”). • Statutory Law 1266, which regulates data privacy rights related to commercial and financial data for credit rating purposes, (“Law 1266”). • Statutory Law 1273 of 2009, which provides that certain actions undertaken in managing and processing Personal Data are inappropriate and qualify as felonies under the Colombian Criminal Code (“Law 1273”). The abovementioned statutes have been subject to interpretation by the Constitutional Court (the “Constitutional Rulings”). These Constitutional Rulings should be referred to in clarifying and understanding the context and rights under the relevant statutes. Although data protection rules are generally applicable across all databases, the SIC, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism, issued a supplementary regulation through Decree 1377 of 2013, to develop further specific issues already covered by Law 1581 and more recently, Decree 866 of 2014 in relation to the National Database Registry. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data Law 1266 regulates the collection, processing, storage, transfer and use of Personal Data related to credit rating activities. This Law defines Personal Data as any piece of information linked to one or more identifiable individuals or legal entities or to information which may be associated with a certain individual or legal entity. Under Law 1266, Personal Data is classified into three different categories: (i) private data, which has a reserved and intimate nature that concerns a Data Subject; (ii) semi-private data is data that refers to an individual or person and is required by third parties (e.g., financial entities) to make certain assessments with respect to a person; and (iii) public data, which refers to information of a determined person, that has been validly recorded in public registries, judicial rulings or public documents, and all other data that are not private or semi-private in nature. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Colombia Baker & McKenzie 161 On the other hand, Law 1581 provides for a general framework related to the protection of data privacy rights. Hence, this Law regulates the collection, processing, storage, transfer and use of Personal Data, when such treatment occurs in any database in Colombia or with respect to Data Subjects domiciled in Colombia, where such data is susceptible to treatment by public or private entities. Law 1581 only applies to individuals. According to the Constitutional Ruling of 2011, Law 1581 could apply to the protection of data privacy rights of legal entities when there is an infringement to the rights of individuals who are part of such entity. For the purpose of this document, “Personal Data” and “Data Subject” should be understood as defined in Law 1581, unless otherwise stated or when specifically making reference to Law 1266. According to the Rulings of the Constitutional Court referring to Law 1581 and Law 1266, the right of a person to authorize the processing of his Personal Data is not transferable. However, Law 1581 makes reference to some cases where a legal representative or a third party representing the Data Subject can validly grant consent. This is the case, for example, when the life or health of the Data Subject is at risk. b. Data Processing Law 1581 defines Data Controller as “an individual or legal entity, public or private, that either alone or in association with others, decides over the data base and/or on processing of the data” and Data Processor as “an individual or legal entity, public or private, that either alone or in association with others, processes Personal Data on behalf of the data controller”. Any processing of Personal Data governed under Law 1581 has to be done in accordance with the obligations that Data Controllers and Data Processors have under said Law. According to the Constitutional Ruling of 2011, Law 1581 is applicable to residents in the territory of Colombia. It is also applicable to processing that takes place outside of Colombia but in relation to residents within the Colombian territory. This is specially relevant to cloud computing and online processing of Personal Data. c. Processing by Data Controllers A Data Controller or information operator can only process Personal Data within the scope of the prior, express and informed Consent granted by the Data Subject, unless one of the exceptions established in Law 1581 or in Law 1266 applies. According to Law 1266, prior, express and informed Consent is required to report credit history of individuals and legal entities to financial databases. The databases are subject to registration and rules relating to the management of 162 Baker & McKenzie the data and the publication of reports regarding such credit history. Failure to abide by such rules, triggers fines and sanctions. According to Law 1581, prior and informed Consent of the Data Subject will be required except for the following circumstances: • when the processing is authorized by a Law for historic, statistical, scientific, or other purposes; • when the information is of a public nature; • when the information is required by a government authority exercising its duties, as explicitly conferred by law; • when the circulation of Personal Information is necessary in the event of a medical or sanitary emergency; and • information regarding the civil registry. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality Law 1266 applies equally to individuals and legal entities, in connection with data privacy rights related to credit rating activities in Colombia or related to Colombian persons. Law 1581 establishes that its provisions are applicable to Data Subjects in the following cases: • All data processing carried out in Colombia. • All data processing carried out abroad but performed by a Data Processor or Data Controller whose acts are ruled by Colombian provisions according to international treaties. This means that activities of a Data Processor or a Data Controller that refer to individuals domiciled in Colombia, are subject to the provisions of Law 1581. e. Sensitive Personal Data The concept of Sensitive Personal Data includes, but is not limited to, any racial and ethnic origin, political opinions, religious, philosophical or moral beliefs, labor union membership, and information concerning health conditions or sexual preferences or habits and behavior. In general, Law 1581 defines Sensitive Personal Data as that which can affect the privacy of the Data Subject or the misuse of which can lead to discrimination. f. Employee Personal Data Employees’ Personal Data is likely to include Sensitive Personal Data (e.g., health-related information) and non-sensitive Personal Data. Employees’ Sensitive Personal Data should be processed in accordance with the applicable laws mentioned in Section 4(e) and the Constitutional Rulings. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Colombia Baker & McKenzie 163 5. Consent a. General Under Law 1581, any collection, use, transfer, storage and processing of Personal Data requires prior, express and informed Consent from the Data Subject, except as provided for in Section 4(c). In the Constitutional Ruling of 2011, the Court stated that consent can be granted through a “specific indication”. Hence it is possible to consider that an affirmative action will be construed as express consent, and thus if the elements of a prior and informed authorization from a Data Subject are also met, this should amount to adequate consent. In many Constitutional Rulings and also in the Constitutional Ruling of 2011, the Court has confirmed that silence, tacit consent and blanket consents are not acceptable. Data Subjects have the right to revoke or request the suppression of their Personal Data at any time, except for certain instances in which the Data Controller must preserve the Personal Data (i.e., fraud prevention, etc.) b. Sensitive Data Law 1581 specifically establishes that processing of Sensitive Personal Data is unlawful unless the Data Subject has given his or her explicit consent or the processing is within the following exceptions: • Processing is necessary to protect the life and health of the Data Subject and he or she is not legally or physically able to express his or her consent; In these cases, their representative must grant the authorization; • If the processing corresponds to legitimate activities carried out with the appropriate guarantees by foundations, NGOs, associations or any other non-profit organization with a political, philosophical, religious or trade union purpose, if such data processing is only related to the members of the association or persons with whom the association is in recurrent contact because of its objective. In these events, the data may not be provided to third parties without the permission of the Data Subject; • Processing refers to data that is necessary for the recognition, exercise or defense of a right under a judicial proceeding and; • The processing has a historical, statistical or scientific purpose. In this event, measures must be taken for suppression of the Data Subject can be identified. c. Minors Minors are children and adolescents under the age of 18. In the Constitutional Ruling of 2011, the Court brought up the definition of minor from the Code of Infancy and Adolescents, indicating that for purposes of Law 1581, children 164 Baker & McKenzie are individuals between 0 and 12 years old and adolescents are individuals between 12 and 18 years old. However, the Constitutional Ruling of 2011, established that the prohibition of the processing of data of Minors does not apply when such processing of data guarantees that the fundamental rights of Children and Adolescents will be safeguarded, which implies that any processing of Personal Data of Minors should strictly comply with the Constitution and Law 1581, and other provisions as applicable. Although Law 1581 does not contemplate explicitly the need for the consent from minors, the Constitutional Ruling of 2011 has included some guidelines that must be followed for the processing of minors’ Personal Data to be lawful: (i) the treatment shall respond to and comply with the highest interests of the children and adolescents; (ii) it shall be compliant with the minors’ constitutional rights; and (iii) as far as possible, the treatment shall be made taking into account the opinion of the minor to whom the Personal Data refers, in consideration of their maturity, autonomy and capacity to understand the situation referred to such processing of their Personal Data and the consequences that this entails. The evaluation of these factors must be made on a case by case basis. These guidelines inspired Article 12 of Decree 1377 and therefore, they are no longer mere guidelines but current regulation that must be followed whenever the processing of data of minors is required. d. Employee Consent Law 1581 and Decree 1377 do not provide for a specific provision on the requirements to implement monitoring mechanisms on employees (i.e., through their computers, surveillance cameras, telephones and cellphones, among others). However, multiple Constitutional rulings have established that the employer should seek prior, express and informed consent from employees to collect and process their Personal Data through such monitoring devices, even though the devices belong to the company. In addition, in Colombia, employee consent is required when implementing a “Bring Your Own Device” (“BYOD”) program in the workplace. e. Online/Electronic Consent Consent can be obtained electronically since electronic contracts are valid and binding in Colombia. The foregoing is based on the rules established in Law 527 of 1999 (“Law 527”), which indicate that unless otherwise required by law, the parties are free to enter into any contract by any means and express their will to bind themselves in any way they choose and to the extent permitted by law. Electronic messages have the same legal effects as written documents and therefore in principle they can replace the requirement of the written document as per Law 527. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Colombia Baker & McKenzie 165 6. Information/Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about: the organization’s identity; the types of Personal Data being collected; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; its privacy practices (which must be given in a clear and transparent way); third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; the rights of the Data Subject; how the Personal Data is to be retained; where the Personal Data is to be transferred; where the Personal Data is to be stored; how to contact the privacy officer or other person accountable for the organization’s policies and practices; how to make an inquiry or file a complaint; how to access and/or correct the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and the duration of the proposed processing. Decree 1377 introduces the concept of a “privacy policy” and the obligation of its implementation by Data Controllers. It also specifies the content required to appear in the said policy. In addition, Decree 1377 states that a “privacy notice”, which contains the organization’s “privacy policy”, should be made available especially in cases where information of said policy cannot be provided to the Data Subject. In any case, the privacy notice must contain a link or a reference indicating where to access and consult the privacy policy. Decree 1377 provides a description of the information that the privacy notice must contain. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected; and delete/ anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. One of the obligations that Data Controllers and Processors have is to adopt an internal manual of policies and procedures that are followed to guarantee that the provisions contained in Law 1581 and its applicable regulations, are effectively followed. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and how the Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and exercise the writ of habeas data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements Law 1581 created the National Database Registry (“NDR”), which is a public list of databases operating in Colombia. The registration of the databases will be administered by the SIC and specifically by the DPA. 166 Baker & McKenzie On May 13, 2014, the Colombian government issued Decree 886 of 2014 (“Decree 886”), which regulates Article 25 of Law 1581 on the creation of the National Database Registry (“NDR”). Decree 886 extensively regulates the obligation that Data Controllers have under Article 25 of Law 1581 of 2012 to record with the NDR, information on certain characteristics of their databases containing personal data and which processing is subject to Colombian laws. This obligation will not become effective until the Colombian DPA implements the NDR. In February 2015, the DPA officers published for public comments an implementation regulation of the NDR, along with the draft of the proposed manual of the NDR, after which tests and trials will be conducted to confirm the stability of the system. Thus, we anticipate that the NDR will be fully implemented around or before mid-2015. Once the NDR is implemented by the SIC and in accordance with the provisions of Decree 886, Data Controllers will have the obligation to record certain information pertaining their databases. The main highlights of this new regulation include: • One year recordal deadline for databases created before the implementation of the NDR. Data controllers will have to record their databases created before the official implementation date of the NDR, within one year counted as of the official implementation date of the NDR. • Two months recordal deadline for databases created after the implementation of the NDR. Data controllers will have to record their databases created after the official implementation date of the NDR, within two months counted as of the creation of the corresponding database. • No recordal of the database itself. Decree 886 does not require the recordal of the database itself. The purpose of the NDR is more focused on informing Data Subjects and the SIC of the databases that Data Controllers have and the conditions in which Data Controllers process Personal Data. • Separate filings must be made per database. Data Controllers will have to make separate filings with the NDR for each database in which they hold Personal Data that they collect and process. • Database information that must be recorded with the NDR. For each database that is recorded with the NDR, Decree 866 requires specific information and documentation to be detailed and uploaded. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Colombia Baker & McKenzie 167 10. Data Protection Officers Organizations are required to designate a privacy officer or individual who will be responsible for the privacy practices of the organization. The duties of this officer can be exercised either by a specific individual or by an area or division within the organization. While Colombian laws do not require the privacy officer to be located in Colombia, such privacy officer is obliged to respond in a timely manner to all queries and complaints in Spanish, and must be fully knowledgeable of the organization’s operations and privacy policies. 11. International Data Transfers The general rules established by Law 1266/08 and the Constitutional Court require that any transfer of private or semi-private Personal Data should be previously authorized by the Data Subject. Personal Data that originates from a foreign country does not require the Data Subject’s prior Consent. Law 1581 prohibits the transfer of any Personal Data to countries that do not provide adequate levels of protection. Law 1581 provides that there is an adequate level of protection if the regulations of said country meet the standards set by the SIC on the subject, which in no case can be lower than the standards established by Law 1581. The prohibition for the international transfer of Personal Data has the following exceptions, as described in Law 1581: (i) prior authorization from the Data Subject; (ii) exchange of medical information for reasons of health and public hygiene; (iii) exchange of financial information in connection with transfers or banking operations, according to the applicable legislation; (iv) transfer of data in compliance with an international treaty which Colombia is a party to; (v) necessary transfer of Personal Data for the execution of a contract between the Data Subject and the Data Controller; and (vi) transfers of data legally required to protect the public interest. The Constitutional Ruling of 2011 provided some guidelines on the international transfer of Personal Data. Law 1581 gave the Colombian Government the authority to issue: a supplementary regulation on binding corporate rules (“BCRs”); the certification of good practices in data protection; and a list of countries with adequate levels of protection for the cross-border transfer of Personal Data. To date, the Colombian government has not yet issued a list of countries that are deemed to have adequate levels of protection. Nor has it issued a regulation governing BCRs. In effect, even if an organization has BCRs in place, they are not deemed useful for purposes of international transfers of data, where processing of data is subject to Colombian laws. 168 Baker & McKenzie 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organization security safeguards to protect Personal Data, and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Organizations that disclose Personal Data to third parties are required to use contractual or other means to protect Personal Data, and are required to comply with sector specific requirements. Organizations shall be liable together with third party providers in case of breach by the latter. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, data authority orders, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, civil actions, criminal proceedings, and/or private rights of action. Sanctions and penalties will be subject to reduction if data controllers and processors apply the accountability guidelines on which the SIC is currently working. 15. Data Security Breach Pursuant to Law 1581, both Data Controllers and Data Processors have the duty to notify the Data Deputy of any breach to security codes and risks in the management of Data Subjects’ Personal Data, regardless of the nature and scope of the breach. There is no obligation under Law 1581 to report the security breach to the Data Subject. However, the accountability principle guidelines on which the government is currently working on, include a recommendation on notifying Data Subjects, which is deemed by the SIC as an advisable practice that will be seen in a favorable light in case any investigations are initiated pursuant to a data breach report. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to a suspension of business operations; closure or cancellation of the file, register or database; administrative fine, penalty or sanction; civil actions and/or class actions, or a criminal prosecution. 16. Accountability Data Controllers must be capable to demonstrate to the Colombian data protection authorities that they are in compliance with the measures included in the Decree and with the obligations established in Law 1581. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Colombia Baker & McKenzie 169 Subject to regulatory guidelines, which are currently being drafted by the SIC and have already been subject to discussion with select organizations that have shown interest in working with the SIC in developing guidance and regulations that ease the compliance of the existing laws and regulations, organizations may be required to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data; furnish the results of the privacy impact assessments to the privacy regulators upon request; and furnish evidence relating to the effectiveness of the organization’s privacy management programme to privacy regulators upon request. 17. Whistle-Blower Hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Colombia as long as they are in compliance with local laws. 18. E-Discovery The process by which electronically-stored information is reviewed, processed and presented for the purposes of litigation or regulatory requests is valid under Colombian law. Electronic information can be stored in databases as structured content, in emails or instant messages as semi-structured content, and in documents or files as unstructured content. Nevertheless, employers should advise employees of the implementation of an e-discovery system and also that the use of work tools (e.g., e-mail, Internet) is being monitored and information such as e-mails will be stored. Nevertheless, employees may request the employer to destroy any Private Information stored as a consequence of the implementation of the e-discovery system. The employer may justify his position by alleging that such information is crucial for complying with regulations and/or for purposes of litigation. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering When implementing an anti-spam filter solution into its operations, an organization is required to inform employees of monitoring policies being implemented in the workplace. 20. Cookies There are no specific laws/rules in Colombia that regulate the use and deployment of cookies. In general, the use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. Consent of Data Subjects must be obtained before cookies can be used. 170 Baker & McKenzie 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject may be required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. Opt-out consent is permissible. Consent of the Data Subject must be obtained for a specific activity. Bundled consent is not considered valid consent. The Communications Regulation Commission (“CRC”, a special government agency) has developed the Excluded Numbers Registry, in which consumers can sign up their mobile numbers to stop receiving advertising text messages. This registry was created by Resolution No. 2229 of 2009. Despite this specific regulation, Law 1581 requires the Data Subjects’ prior, express and informed consent when any contact is made for advertising purposes; otherwise, such contact would be deemed as illegal. Croatia Luka Tadić-Čolić Zagreb Tel: +1 385 1 4925 488 luka.tadic@wolftheiss.com 172 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments The key legislation regulating data protection in Croatia is the Data Protection Act (“Act”). The Act came into force in 2003 and to date has been amended three times: in 2006, 2008 and 2011, respectively. As of the 2011 amendments, the Act has been fully harmonized with EU data protection legislation (most notably with EU Directive 95/46/EC on Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (“Directive”). Supervision of data protection compliance in Croatia is entrusted to the Croatian Data Protection Agency (“DPA”). In addition, the DPA maintains the relevant data protection registers, provides guidance on a range of data protection matters and decides on data protection violations. To date, the DPA has not published any consolidated guidance, list of principles or similar document that would list their practices and recommendations with respect to data protection matters in Croatia. This lack of regulation has two immediate consequences. Firstly, EU soft law (including communications, working papers, decisions and other available materials) represents a principal interpretative tool in all data protection matters in Croatia in which the DPA has not already decided and taken a standpoint. Secondly, a number of emerging data protection issues (such as privacy aspects of cloud computing and specific issues of cybersecurity, regulation of big data industry) remain, to a considerable degree, in a state of constant flux, without definitive guidelines as to what businesses and organizations can and cannot do. However, despite this lack of legislative initiative by the DPA, the last few years have been very exciting times for all data protection practitioners in Croatia. The DPA has put considerable efforts into implementing and maintaining an effective and coherent data protection country-wide policy, and the results are beginning to show. For example, in the last two years the number of administrative acts issued by the DPA is believed to have increased by approximately 200%. New important directions for data protection in Croatia will most likely come from the EU and be related to the new, much debated European Commission proposals on data protection reform. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends The DPA recently published its Action Plan for 2015 – 2017. The main focus of the plan is to increase data protection enforcement. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Croatia Baker & McKenzie 173 The DPA plans to expand its efforts in improving the operational part of its enforcement and monitoring activities. Having in mind continuous technology developments (which almost as a rule comes in Croatia through users, and not developers who would ensure compliance with local laws from early on), the regulator plans to allocate more significant resources to educate local businesses and individuals on the importance of data protection compliance. Besides the plan, the DPA also recently initiated and engaged in a debate on the following data protection matters: • Social Media. In the last year, the DPA has, on several occasions, dealt with the issue of privacy in social media. This especially concerned protection of the privacy of minors, in relation to the content they upload online . • Employee Monitoring. The DPA recently issued an opinion on monitoring at the workplace, finally drawing a clear line on what types of monitoring are permitted by employers and under which circumstances. The opinion relies on established EU standpoints on this issue. • Cookie Consent Requirement. Croatian legislation has fully adopted EC e-Privacy Directive and opted for the so-called “opt-in” approach with respect to cookies. For details, see Section 20. • Online Direct Marketing. Online direct marketing is generally allowed in Croatia as long as the individual is informed that his/her personal data will be used for marketing purposes and that he/she has the right to deny the consent for such use. For details, see Section 21. • Cybercrime/Cybersecurity. Cybersecurity is becoming more and more important in Croatia. In the past year, identity thefts and “false enforcements”, using stolen or otherwise illegally procured personal tax numbers of Croatian citizens, have increased significantly. The problem is particularly complex as in many cases, citizens voluntarily give their tax numbers in job applications, promotional offers and similar cases. The DPA also recently organized a series of events dealing with this issue. 3. Law Applicable The Act is the principal legislative act dealing with data protection and privacy in Croatia. The English translation of the Act may be found at: http://azop.hr/page.aspx?PageID=79. Apart from the Act, specific aspects of data protection are regulated in sectorspecific statutes, such as Labour Act (employment-related aspects of data protection and processes), Patient Rights Protection Act (privacy of patient data) or the Electronic Communications Act (use of cookies). 174 Baker & McKenzie As Croatian data protection legislation is fully harmonized with the EU data protection rules, communications, working papers and the jurisprudence of the EU data protection bodies are regularly used as interpretative tools in all cases when local rules are silent on certain issues. 4. Key Privacy Concepts In light of the harmonization of EU data protection legislation with the Croatian data protection rules, Croatian privacy concepts are almost, without exception, identical to the ones set out by the Directive. a. Personal Data The Act provides a rather broad definition of personal data describing it as any information pertaining to an identified individual or an identifiable individual (i.e., the one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, particularly on the basis of an identification number or one or more factors specific to the person’s physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity). Therefore, personal data would constitute any information that can be used to identify or profile a particular individual. Specific examples of personal data include an email address, bank account number, school records, filled out questionnaires, a photo and other data. b. Data Processing The Act adopts the same definition of data processing as the Directive, defining it as any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, such as collection, recording, organization, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or making it otherwise available, alignment or combination, blocking, erasure or destruction. However, under the Act, data processing also includes performing logical, mathematical and other operations on such data. c. Processing by Data Controllers A data controller is an individual or an entity which determines the purpose and means of data processing. Although the Act allows personal data to also be processed by data processors (based on a contract with data controllers), the data controller’s responsibilities are considerably wider than those of data processors and include ensuring that the data is collected and disposed of in a legal and appropriate manner, in accordance with the Act and other applicable legislation. For details on processing rules in Croatia, see Section 7. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Croatia Baker & McKenzie 175 d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The Act applies to the collection and processing of personal data of all individuals on the territory of the Republic of Croatia, regardless of their citizenship or place of residence or any other factors. This also applies even if the data controller does not have its residence or seat in one of the Member States, and uses equipment for personal data processing which is located in the Republic of Croatia (except when such equipment is used solely for the transfer of personal data through European Union territory). The Act does not apply to the processing of personal data conducted by individuals exclusively for personal or private purposes. e. Sensitive Personal Data The Act differentiates between sensitive personal data and non-sensitive personal data. Sensitive personal data is any personal data pertaining to racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or other beliefs, trade union membership, health or sexual orientation, as well as personal data regarding criminal and misdemeanour proceedings. Under the Act, sensitive data may be collected and subsequently processed only if all of the following three conditions are met: A. one of the following grounds for collection and processing of sensitive data has been met: o where the relevant individual consents to such processing; o if the processing is necessary to exercise the rights and obligations of the data controller based on special regulations; o if the processing is necessary for the protection of life or physical integrity of another person, when the individual is unable to provide his/her consent to such processing; o if the processing is carried out within the scope of legal activity of an institution, association or any other non-profit entity, provided that such processing relates solely to the members of this entity, and that the data obtained is not disclosed to a third party without the prior consent of the individual; o if data processing is necessary to establish, obtain or protect claims prescribed by law; o when the individual personally published such data; and 176 Baker & McKenzie o if data processing is necessary for the purpose of preventive medicine, medical diagnosis, health care or management of health institutions, on the condition that the data is processed by a health official based on the rules and regulations adopted by competent authorities. B. the data collection of sensitive data is labelled as such; and C. the controller has ensured sufficient technical protection of such data, in accordance with the Regulation on Technical Protection of Sensitive Data (the Regulation may be found at: http://azop.hr/page.aspx?PageID=79). Personal data pertaining to misdemeanour and criminal records may be processed exclusively under the control of competent authorities. f. Employee Personal Data The collection and processing of employees’ personal data is regulated by both the Act and the Croatian Labour Act. Under the Labour Act, employers are obliged to maintain a record of employees’ data containing “personal employees’ data” (generally interpreted as data necessary for the performance of the employer’s duties arising from the employment relationship, such as payment of salary), data on their working hours and data required by pension system rules. Apart from this data, employers may generally collect other data related to or necessary for the purposes of the employment relationship, provided that the mandatory provisions of the Act are observed. 5. Consent a. General Under the Act, an individual’s consent means any freely given, informed and clear statement given by the individual towards approving the processing of his/her personal data for a specific purpose of which he/she has been notified. In Croatia, consent is not mandatory for collection and/processing of personal data – rather – it is only one of the grounds under which personal data may be legally collected and processed. b. Sensitive Data Consent for collection of sensitive data in Croatia is required only in the absence of other statutory grounds for the collection of such data. For more details on this question, please see Section 4(e). c. Minors The Act does not contain any special provisions regarding the minor’s consent. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Croatia Baker & McKenzie 177 Rather, it only stipulates that any minor’s personal data may be collected and processed only “in accordance with the Act and by implementing special security measures set in other statutes”. The DPA to date has not issued any guidance or opinion specifying these statutes. Presumably, a special provision would apply in specific cases regulated by relevant laws, such as for example, in case of misdemeanour or criminal procedures against minors. However, the DPA has in several decisions noted that a minor’s consent actually should be interpreted as consent of their parents (or other legal guardians). d. Employee Consent Typically, an individual’s consent to data collection is required only in case if the collection cannot be justified under some other grounds provided in the Act. In case of data collection from employees, an employee’s consent would not be required as long as (i) data collection is necessary for the performance of the employer’s statutory obligations (e.g., collecting data required under labour law legislation as explained under Section 4(f), or (ii) data collection is necessary for the purposes of the employee’s employment (e.g., taking the employee’s photo in order to upload it on the employer’s webpage), or (iii) if the employer has a legitimate interest for such collection (e.g., if certain data is necessary for the restructuring of its business). Should the collection of personal data go beyond these limits, an employee’s consent would be required. e. Online/Electronic Consent The Act does not expressly prescribe the required form in which the individual would have to give his/her consent, although it requires for the consent to be explicit. With reference to the Croatian rules on contractual obligations, it is a general practice that consent may be given in any suitable form as long as it is explicit, clear and, to the extent possible, gives a suitable impression that it is freely given. 6. Information Requirements The Act prescribes elaborate information compliance requirements, similar to the ones set out in the Directive. Prior to collecting any personal data, the data controller (or the data processor) must inform the individual whose personal data is being collected about: • identity of the data controller; • intended purpose of processing his/her data; 178 Baker & McKenzie • right to access the collected data; • right to correct the collected data; • recipients or categories of recipients of the collected data; • whether the data collection is voluntary or mandatory; • the possible consequences of withholding the data; and • (in case of mandatory collection of such data), the legal basis for personal data processing As an exception to the above, such information does not have to be provided to the individual if (i) data is merely given to be used or is collected from existing personal data files in order to be processed for statistical purposes or for the purposes of historic or scientific research, or (ii) informing the individual would require an excessive effort, or (iii) such processing of personal data has been explicitly allowed by law. 7. Processing Rules According to the Act, the data controller is responsible to ensure that personal data: • is collected only for the purpose explicitly provided for and subsequently processed only for that purpose or for a purpose related with that purpose; • such purpose is known to the individual; • is relevant for the accomplishment of the established purpose and is not collected in larger quantities than necessary for achieving such purpose; • is accurate, complete and up-to-date; and • is kept in a form which permits identification of the individual for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data was collected or for which it is further processed. Personal data collected and processed in accordance with these rules will be deemed valid in Croatia. 8. Rights of Individuals Under the Act, individuals have the following rights towards data collectors: • Right to Access Personal Data. Within 30 days from receipt of the individual’s request, data collectors must grant the individual access to his/her personal data and provide all relevant information related to the individual’s personal data that is being processed and deliver notices, excerpts, statements and all other relevant documents in its possession. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Croatia Baker & McKenzie 179 • Right to Withdraw the Consent. If the individual’s personal data is being processed based on his/her consent, the individual is entitled to withdraw his/her consent at any time. • Right to Modify/Erase. At the individual’s request, the data collector must supplement, modify and/or erase any incorrect or otherwise incomplete individual’s personal data or if such data is not processed in accordance with the applicable laws. Related to the right to modify/erase, in case that the data collector independently establishes that the personal data in their databases is incorrect or otherwise incomplete or not being processed in accordance with the applicable laws, he/she is obliged to supplement, modify, and/or erase all such data and notify the individual on such amendments within a 30-day period. In case an individual believes that any of his/her rights has been violated by illegal data collection or processing, he/she may report such breach to the DPA, which will decide on the alleged breach in an administrative proceeding. Should the DPA find that the individual’s right to privacy has been breached, it may order the data processor to cease the activities breaching the right to privacy. The DPA’s finding may be later used for a damages claim before the competent court. 9. Notification/Registration Requirements Under the Act, data collectors must report every collection and processing of personal data to the DPA. The reporting is done by registration of a database with the Data Protection Register administered by the DPA (“Register”). This process consists of two steps. 1) Prior to actual registration of a database or amendment of an existing registration (by registering, for example, the fact that the data in the database is transferred out of Croatia or otherwise re-processed), data collectors are obliged to notify the DPA about the intention of such registration. The notification should be made prior to commencing the collection of personal data or actual processing. This obligation to notify the DPA does not apply if a special statute requests such data collection and/or processing in individual cases. 2) Once the personal data is collected and a database is compiled, or when the processing has been performed, the data collector is also obliged to register with the Register such database or the fact of processing of an existing database. These registrations should be made within 15 days from the creation of the new database or the performance of the processing action. 180 Baker & McKenzie 10. Data Protection Officers The obligation to appoint data protection officers in Croatia is set out both in the Act and the Croatian Labour Act. Under both statutes, employers hiring 20 or more employees are obliged to appoint a data protection officer who is in charge of monitoring the collection, processing, use and transfer of employees’ personal data. In particular, the data protection officer must: • ensure that data processing is performed in accordance with applicable laws; • inform all persons working on personal data protection about their legal obligation to protect personal data; • ensure the exercise of the individual’s rights as provided in the Act; and • cooperate with the DPA on implementing the supervision of personal data processing. Data protection officers are appointed by a written decision of the employer which has to be delivered to the DPA within one month from the appointment. The DPA maintains the Register of Data Protection Officers. 11. International Data Transfers As a rule, data controllers are free to execute international data transfers under the following conditions: A. the country or organization to which personal data is being transferred to provides an adequate level of data protection. The countries with an adequate level of protection of personal data include all EU Member States, three EEA countries (Norway, Liechtenstein and Island) and some other countries that can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/dataprotection/document/international-transfers/adequacy/index_en.htm; B. the individuals have been informed of the transfer; and C. the transfer has been registered with the Register in the relevant data controller’s database. In case that the “adequate level of protection” requirement is not satisfied, the data collector must obtain an “opinion” from the DPA that the data transfer in that particular case can be legally executed. Under the Act, in case that a country where personal data is being transferred to does not provide an “adequate level of protection”, data transfer may be executed only under one of the following conditions: • if the individual consents to the transfer; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Croatia Baker & McKenzie 181 • if the transfer is essential for protecting the life or the physical integrity of the individual; • if the data controller provides sufficient guarantees regarding the protection of privacy and the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals by using contractual provisions regulating the transfer for which the DPA has established that they comply with the regulations in force governing personal data protection; • if the transfer of data is necessary for the execution of a contract between the data controller and the individual; • if the data transfer is necessary for the conclusion or execution of a contract between the data controller and a third person, and which is in the interest of the individual; • if the data transfer is necessary or determined by law for protecting public interest or to establish, obtain or protect the claims prescribed by law; or • in case that data is being transferred from a database that is available to the public under law, data transfer may be executed in a degree (with respect to the documents) to which the applicable statutes allow for such transfer in each individual case. In practice, even though the Act refers to the DPA’s input in case of international data transfers as an “opinion”, it should in fact be understood as a consent for such a transfer. The current practice of the DPA when it comes to exporting personal data abroad is very rigid and formal. Even a slightest lack in form may result in the DPA refusing to issue the necessary “opinion”. 12. Security Requirements The data controller and recipient of personal data are obliged to ensure that appropriate and proportionate technical, staffing and organizational measures aimed at protecting personal data are in place. These measures should protect personal data from (i) accidental loss or destruction, (ii) unauthorized access, (iii) unauthorized alterations, (iv) unauthorized dissemination, and (v) all other forms of abuse. Furthermore, the data controller and recipient of personal data must ensure that all persons entrusted with the processing of personal data sign a confidentiality statement. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Croatian laws allow for outsourcing of data processing to third parties (data processors). Under the Act, a data processor may only be a legal or natural person which is (i) registered for performing data processing activities, and (ii) which can secure a sufficient level of protection for the outsourced data. 182 Baker & McKenzie Data processing can be outsourced to data processors only by a written agreement between the data controller and data processor. The data processing agreement must contain the clauses obliging the data processor to: • process outsourced data exclusively in accordance with data controller’s orders; • refrain from providing outsourced data to any third persons; • process outsourced data only for the purpose set out in the data processing agreement; and • ensure that the appropriate technical, organizational and staffing measures are in place for personal data protection. In case of an occurrence of data breach, the outsourcing organization may be held liable together with the data processor. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, data authority orders, administrative fines, civil actions (including damages claims) and/or criminal liability. With respect to administrative fines, under the Act they range between approximately USD 3,200 to USD 6,400 for entities and between USD 1,000 to USD 2,000 for the responsible individual within the entity. For misdemeanours set out by the Labour Act, the fines for entities can range up to USD 17,000, while the fines for the responsible individuals within the entity are the same as under the Act. With respect to criminal liability, the Croatian Criminal Code prescribes imprisonment for up to one year for unauthorised collection, processing or use of personal data. If the criminal act concerns a child or is committed on sensitive data, the maximum sentence is up to three years. To the best of our knowledge, in practice, privacy offences are not enforced by way of criminal prosecution by the State Attorney (although the DPA has in the last few years reported several offences to the State Attorney’s Office). 15. Data Security Breach Under the Act, there is no duty to notify the individuals in case of a data security breach. In case of a data security breach, data controllers could be liable for misdemeanour (for failing to secure adequate security measures) and incurred damages to individuals (if any). Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Croatia Baker & McKenzie 183 16. Accountability Apart from (a very) general provision that the data controller and recipient must ensure that proportionate technical, staffing and organisational measures aimed at protecting personal data are in place, the Act is silent on the issue of accountability. However, although not expressly provided for in the Act, the DPA has in several of its opinions stated the importance of implementing the “Privacy by Design” approach, under which data controllers are responsible to regularly update their security system to be fit for its purpose and the categories of data it contains. For more details on the issue of data security, see Section 12. 17. Whistle-Blower Hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may generally be established in Croatia. Organizations wishing to implement a whistle-blower hotline are required to: (i) include in the internal by-laws or other document detailing the employer’s IT policy a provision(s) on the scope and purpose of the whistle-blower hotline, (ii) notify its employees of its existence and the data it may collect, and (iii) notify and register the hotline as a database with the Register (as explained in Section 9 above). As the Act does not provide any guidance regarding the whistle-blower systems, particular importance should be paid to its design, to make sure that it is proportionate to its purpose and does not collect more personal data than is necessary. 18. E-Discovery The Croatian legal system does not recognize nor use the institute of discovery, including e-discovery. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering When implementing an anti-spam filter solution into its operations, an organization is required to: (i) include in the internal by-laws or other document detailing the employer’s IT policy a provision(s) on the scope and purpose of the anti-spam filtering, (ii) inform employees of the monitoring policies being implemented in the workplace, and (iii) if applicable, notify and register the anti-spam filter as a database with the Register (as explained in Section 9 above). In any case, filtering should be executed as a generic surveillance of types of messages, and not as surveillance of the content of individual employees’ emails. 184 Baker & McKenzie 20. Cookies Cookie compliance in Croatia is regulated by the Electronic Communications Act. However, the data protection “aspect” of the cookie compliance is that the “user’s consent” is interpreted in line with the Act. The Electronic Communications Act requires webpage owners to make sure that users give their explicit informed consent to the use of cookies (“opt-in” approach). This would involve, for example, a pop-up window informing the user on the use of cookies together with ticking a check-box for consent to use them and clicking the “continue” tab. 21. Direct Marketing The use of personal data in direct marketing will depend on whether such data is obtained directly from individuals or in some other manner. The Act envisages only the situation where personal data is obtained directly from the individuals. In such cases, businesses that wish to use personal data in marketing services must inform the individual that they wish to use his/her personal data for marketing services and about his/her right to refuse such use. Even if the individual does not initially object to the use of his/her data for marketing purposes, he/she may withdraw his/her consent at any later point, in which case direct marketing must cease. In case that businesses conduct their direct marketing activities using data not directly obtained from individuals (by, for example, random selection of phone numbers or by using data that was collected by a third party), they are not required to ask in advance whether they can perform marketing activities using the individual’s personal data. However, individuals still have the right to withdraw their (implied) consent for such marketing, in which case all marketing activities must cease. Should businesses not comply with the individual’s request to cease marketing activities, they would be held liable for a misdemeanour in accordance with the Act. Czech Republic Jiri Cermak Prague Tel: +420 236 045 001 jiri.cermak@bakermckenzie.com Milena Hoffmanova Prague Tel: +420 236 045 001 milena.hoffmanova@bakermckenzie.com 186 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments Opinion of the Office for Personal Data Protection on the redundant obtaining of consent to statute-based processing of personal data In August 2014, the Office for Personal Data Protection issued an opinion regarding the redundant obtaining of consent from the Data Subjects to processing of their Personal Data in cases where such processing is based on statutory legal grounds. The Office articulated that where the processing of Personal Data is imposed upon a Data Controller by a statute (e.g., processing of Personal Data pursuant to the Act on Selected Measures Against Legitimization of Proceeds of Crime and Financing of Terrorism), it is redundant to request consent of the Data Subject to such statute-based processing. The Data Controller is obliged to process Personal Data irrespective of whether the Data Subject consents thereto or not. Therefore, obtaining consent in such cases is misleading and confusing to the Data Subject, given that the Data Subject may believe revoking his/her consent would terminate the processing. The above redundancy in obtaining the consent amounts to a violation of the obligation of the Data Controller to duly inform the Data Subject about the nature of the data processing, as the Data Subject might incorrectly rely on the possibility of revoking the consent in instances where the data processing is statute-based. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends There are no new developments in the Czech Republic. 3. Law Applicable The Czech Data Protection Act No. 101/2000 Coll. (“CDP”), effective 1 June 2000, implementing the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC). 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data The CDP applies to the processing of any information relating to natural persons (“Data Subjects”) who can be identified either directly or indirectly from that information, in particular by reference to a number, code or to one or more factors specific to their physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity (“Personal Data”). b. Data Processing According to the CDP, processing of Personal Data means any operation or a set of operations, systematically executed by a Data Controller (see Section 4(c) below) in an automatic or other manner. Processing means, in particular, the collection of Personal Data, its storage on data carriers, retrieval, modification or alteration, searching, using, transferring, distributing, publishing, preserving, exchanging, sorting or combining, blocking or liquidating (i.e., deleting or destroying) Personal Data. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Czech Republic Baker & McKenzie 187 The CDP applies to any processing of Personal Data, whether executed automatically (e.g., electronically) or otherwise and thus both hard and soft/electronic copy of records of Personal Data are covered by the CDP and considered data carriers. The CDP does not apply to Personal Data processed for purely personal purposes or the occasional collection of Personal Data which is not subsequently processed any further. c. Processing by Data Controllers Any person or entity (e.g., an employer) who specifies the purpose and the means of the processing of Personal Data, executes such processing and is responsible for it, is viewed as a Data Controller (“Data Controller”) for the purposes of the CDP. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The CDP applies to processing carried out by Data Controllers established in the Czech Republic as well as foreign-established Data Controllers that process Personal Data in the Czech Republic, except for the transfer of Personal Data through the territory of the European Union (including the Czech Republic). e. Sensitive Personal Data The CDP imposes additional requirements for the processing of Sensitive Personal Data - that is, data relating to nationality, racial or ethnic origin, political attitudes, membership of trade unions, religious and philosophical beliefs, criminal convictions, health conditions and sexual life, genetic data of the Data Subject, or biometric data, which enables the Data Controller to directly identify or authenticate the Data Subject. Sensitive Personal Data may be processed only if the Data Subject has given explicit consent (in writing) to such processing. However, the CDP stipulates that the consent is generally not required if: • the processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the Data Subject, or to address an immediate danger threatening his property, and where the Data Subject is physically, mentally, or legally incapable of giving consent, or is missing, or because of any similar reason; • the processing is necessary for providing health care, public health protection, health insurance, public administration in the area of healthcare, or examination of health conditions pursuant to a specific law; • the processing is necessary to fulfill the obligations and rights of the Data Controller in the field of employment or labor law (arising under a specific law); 188 Baker & McKenzie • the processing (i) is carried out in the course of legitimate activities by a foundation, association or any other non-profit-seeking body with a political, philosophical, religious or trade union aim, (ii) is duly authorized, (iii) relates only to the members of such a body, and (iv) Personal Data is not disclosed without the consent of the Data Subject; • the processing of Personal Data is required to provide health insurance, social security insurance, old age pension security, state social subsidy and other social care according to specific laws; • the processing relates to Personal Data that is made public by the Data Subject; • the processing is necessary for the establishment or exercise of legal claims; • Personal Data is processed only for archiving purposes pursuant to a special law; or • the processing is carried out according to special laws in the course of prevention, investigation, detection of criminal activity, prosecution of criminal offenses and searching for individuals. f. Employee Personal Data The CDP does not recognize a special category of employee Personal Data and, therefore, the general rules for processing set forth in the CDP apply. However, in the case of an employment relationship, if the scope of Personal Data collected does not exceed the scope of data required for concluding or performing an employment agreement under the Czech Labor Code, employee consent (as described in Section 5(a) below) and notification to the Office would not be required. However, the Labor Code does not specifically state what Personal Data is necessary for concluding or performing an employment relationship. Sensitive Personal Data, by its definition, does not fall within the scope of employee Personal Data which can be collected and processed without the employee’s consent. Nevertheless, it is generally acknowledged by the Office, that any Personal Data that is collected for the purpose of an employment agreement and granting of additional employee benefits can be collected without the employee’s consent (e.g., data regarding name, address, date of birth, citizenship, phone numbers, education, salary, bonus, social security, bank account, etc.). A fallback justification for processing both Personal Data and Sensitive Personal Data in the employment context is when the employee as the Data Subject provides consent. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Czech Republic Baker & McKenzie 189 According to the CDP, the fact that Sensitive Personal Data belongs to an employee is not relevant in respect of the rules for processing of such Personal Data. Accordingly, processing of Sensitive Personal Data in excess of the scope permitted under the Labor Code must be justified by the employee’s consent or another ground in Section 4(e). 5. Consent a. General Under the CDP, the general rule is that a Data Controller may process Personal Data as long as the consent of the Data Subject is obtained. However, CDP provides for a number of exceptions. Consent must be voluntary, informed, explicit and unambiguous, and must be obtained prior to or at the time of collection of data. Consent only covers identified purposes, and hence, fresh consent is needed for purposes not previously identified and consented to. The Data Subject can revoke the consent at any time. The CDP does not stipulate in what language consent must be given. The Office regularly communicates in the Czech language; however, in practice, the Office is flexible in this area and usually accepts documents in the English language as well. In addition, consent can be translated into the Czech language should the Office so require. b. Sensitive Data Subject to specific exceptions stipulated in the CDP, Sensitive Personal Data may be processed only if the Data Subject has given explicit consent (in writing) to such processing. Prior to giving consent to the processing of Sensitive Personal Data, the Data Subject must be informed of (i) the purpose(s) of processing for which the consent is given, (ii) the scope of the Personal Data being processed, (iii) the Data Controller to which the consent is given, and (iv) the period of time for which the consent is given. The Data Controller must be able to prove the existence of the consent during the entire period of the processing of Personal Data and the Data Subject can revoke the consent at any time. c. Minors According to the Czech Civil Code, a person becomes fully competent to acquire and assume rights and obligations through legal acts upon reaching the age of 18 years. However, the Civil Code also stipulates that minors (i.e., persons below 18 years of age) can execute such legal acts in law which correspond to the level of their mental and moral maturity. In addition, the Civil Code regulates certain specific rights of minors who have reached the age of 15 years (e.g., right to express last will). 190 Baker & McKenzie In light of this, it has been generally acknowledged by the Office, that minors between 15 and 18 years of age can execute legal acts in relation to their Personal Data (i.e., can provide consent to Data Controller). The statutory representatives (e.g., parents) of a minor represent and act on behalf of minors that are below 15 years of age. d. Employee Consent There are no special rules or limitations stipulated in the CDP in relation to consent granted by an employee to the employer. Therefore, the general consent rules apply to employee Personal Data. e. Online/Electronic Consent Consent can also be given electronically as long as the Data Controller: assures that each consent can be unequivocally assigned to a particular identified Data Subject, and the consent includes all required information. An electronic signature that meets the requirements set forth in the Czech Act on Electronic Signatures (implementing EU Directive 1999/93/EC) provides the highest standard of legal certainty with respect to identification of the acting person. It is therefore advisable to comply with these requirements wherever possible. 6. Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about: the organization’s identity, the types of Personal Data being collected, the purposes for collecting Personal Data, third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data, the consequences of not providing consent, the rights of the Data Subject, where the Personal Data is to be transferred, how to make an inquiry or file a complaint, how to access and/or correct the Data Subject’s Personal Data, and the duration of the proposed processing. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected, and delete/ anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and how the Data Subject’s Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Czech Republic Baker & McKenzie 191 9. Registration/Notification Requirements Generally, processing of Personal Data requires registration with the Office. Registration is not required if (i) only publicly available Personal Data is being processed, (ii) the processing is carried out on the basis of a special law or is necessary to fulfill the legal obligations and rights of the data controller, or (iii) the processing is carried out in the course of legitimate activities by a foundation, association or any other non-profit seeking body with a political, philosophical, religious or trade union aim, and the processing is duly authorized and relates only to the members of such a body. Given the foregoing, before commencement of processing of Personal Data, the Data Controller needs to notify the Office. The notification is carried out by filling in an online notification form available on the website of the Office. 10. Data Protection Officers In the Czech Republic, there is no requirement for organizations to appoint a data protection officer or other individual who will be accountable for the privacy practices of the organization. 11. International Data Transfers According to the CDP, Personal Data can be transferred: • to EEA member states without any limitation; and • to third countries (i.e., non-EEA countries) if (i) such transfers are permitted under a ratified international treaty binding on the Czech Republic or (ii) Personal Data is transferred on the basis of the decision of an EU authority. If the abovementioned conditions are not met, Personal Data can only be transferred to recipients outside the Czech Republic if: • the Data Subject has given consent to or instructions for the transfer; • the recipient’s country provides sufficient special safeguards for protection of Personal Data which are specified in an agreement between the Data Controller and the recipient of the transferred Personal Data, provided that such an agreement: (i) ensures application of the special safeguards or (ii) includes the standardized contractual clauses published in the Office’s Gazette. In addition to the EEA countries, the Office considers, inter alia, Switzerland, Norway, Argentina, Faeroe Islands, Guernsey, Jersey, Iceland, the Isle of Man, Canada, Andorra, Liechtenstein and Israel as providing sufficient special safeguards for cross-border data transfer. Although the Office does not consider the US to be a “safe” country in this respect, Data Controllers can benefit from the Safe Harbor Agreement when transferring Personal Data to recipients located in the US; 192 Baker & McKenzie • the transfer is made from a public register or a register accessible to everyone who proves a legal interest; • the transfer is necessary for the establishment or exercise of an important public interest arising under a special Act or an international treaty binding on the Czech Republic; • the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the Data Subject is party, or if the processing is essential for the Data Subject to enter into negotiations for the formation of a contractual relationship or for the amendment of an existing contract; • the transfer is necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract entered into between the Data Controller and third parties in the interests of, or at the request of, the Data Subject; or • the transfer is necessary for the protection of the rights or vital interests of the Data Subject, especially for the protection of the Data Subject’s life or provision of healthcare. Subject to the exemptions provided by (i) international treaties binding on the Czech Republic (e.g., the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108) (“Convention 108”), to which the Czech Republic is a signatory), or (ii) decisions of the competent bodies of the European Union (e.g., decision No. 2000/520/EC of the European Commission on the adequacy of the protection provided by the Safe Harbor privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce), the Data Controller must apply for Office approval in relation to every transfer of Personal Data to a third country (i.e., non-EEA country). Since the Czech Republic is a signatory country to Convention 108, the provisions of Convention 108 supersede the provisions in the CDP regarding the transfer of Personal Data to other countries. According to Article 12 of Convention 108, a contracting state must not, for the sole purpose of the protection of privacy, prohibit or subject to special authorization cross border flows of Personal Data going to the territory of another contracting state. Article 12 applies to transfers across national borders, by whatever medium, of Personal Data undergoing automatic processing or collected with a view to being automatically processed. At the time of writing, the following countries are contracting states to Convention 108: all EU countries, Albania, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, and Ukraine. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Czech Republic Baker & McKenzie 193 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to: ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organization security safeguards to protect Personal Data; and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties There are no specific rules for outsourcing in the Czech Republic. As long as the outsourcing entity complies with its duties as Data Processor and the Data Controller complies with its duties, the outsourcing may be considered valid. Special rules may however apply in certain sectors (such as the banking sector). 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, data authority orders, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, seizure of equipment or data, civil actions, criminal proceedings and/or private rights of action. 15. Data Security Breach Generally, if there is a data security breach, the breach does not have to be reported under the CDP. However, given that a duty to prevent damage generally applies, any security breach that may cause damage to Data Subjects must be duly reported to them in order to allow them to adopt the appropriate course of action (e.g., change of the password, etc.). Such notice should be delivered to the Data Subjects as soon as possible in order to ensure that they will be able to prevent potential damage. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to an administrative fine, penalty or sanction, and civil actions and/or class actions. 16. Accountability Subject to regulatory guidance, organizations may be required to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data, furnish the results of the privacy impact assessments to privacy regulators upon request, and furnish evidence relating to the effectiveness of the organization’s privacy management program to privacy regulators upon request. 194 Baker & McKenzie 17. Whistle-blower hotline Whistle-blowing is not specifically regulated in CDP. Therefore, any processing of Personal Data carried out in connection with operation of a whistle-blowing hotline in the Czech Republic will be subject to general rules and obligations regarding the processing of Personal Data. The CDP requires all persons intending to process Personal Data in relation to Data Subjects in the Czech Republic to register with the Office. Registration is not required, inter alia, if the processing is carried out on the basis of a special law or is necessary to fulfil the legal obligations and rights of the Data Controller arising under a special law (e.g., labor law, criminal law, etc.). Given the foregoing, in case of the processing of Personal Data due to a whistle-blowing hotline, an argument can be made that such processing is excluded from the general registration obligation according to the CDP on the grounds that the Data Controller fulfils the legal obligations and rights arising under law (e.g. prevention of occurrence of damage or breach of applicable laws). However, given the fact that processing of Personal Data in connection with the whistle-blowing hotline is often carried out on the basis of requirements of a foreign law or statute (e.g., the US Sarbanes Oxley Act) rather than to fulfil the legal obligations arising under Czech law and such processing often exceeds the Personal Data processing that falls within the exception as stipulated above, it is generally recommended to register the respective Personal Data processing connected with the operation of the whistle-blowing hotline with the Office. 18. E-discovery In general, the monitoring and recording of employees may take place only if the employees are informed that such monitoring is conducted and information such as e-mails will be stored, including the detailed list of the devices that are monitored. This is important since all employees should receive clear information about those areas where they can expect privacy and those that are under continuous or irregular surveillance by the employer. Please note that strict privacy protection principles apply in the Czech Republic in relation to the employer’s monitoring of the employee’s activities and communication carried out during the time spent at work (including the monitoring of e-mails). According to these rules, without a serious cause consistent with and within the employer’s activities as an employer, the employer may not encroach upon employees’ privacy in the workplace and employer’s common premises by open or concealed surveillance (monitoring) of employees, interception (including recording) of telephone calls, or checking electronic mail or postal consignments addressed to a certain employee. Monitoring of the content of incoming correspondence addressed Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Czech Republic Baker & McKenzie 195 to a particular employee (i.e., incoming e-mails including all attachments) is forbidden under Czech law. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering Whether there are any regulatory concerns pertaining to the deployment of spam filtering technology is determined by considering the nature of the software that is implemented (i.e., whether the spam-filtering solution is automatic and applicable in the same manner for all of the employees or whether it allows certain IT officers of the company to monitor the content of the spam). 20. Cookies There has been a transition in the regulatory regime from opt-out to opt-in requirements when it comes to deployment of cookies. The recent EU Directive 2009/136/EC calls for express prior consent, i.e., opt-in; nevertheless, the methods for giving such a consent remain rather broad. Particularly, within the Czech jurisdiction, according to the opinion of the Office, it is acceptable not only to provide express consent for the use of cookies by accepting the terms when opening a website, but also through setting the web browser to accept the cookies by default. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject may be required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. Denmark Lisa Bo Larsen Copenhagen Tel: +45 38 77 45 68 lbl@kromannreumert.com Daiga Grunte-Sonne Copenhagen Tel: +45 38 77 41 18 DSO@kromannreumert.com 198 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments The key legislation regulating data privacy in Denmark is the Danish Act on Processing of Personal Data, Act no. 429 of 31 May 2000 with subsequent amendments (the Data Protection Act), which is based on EC Directive No. 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 (the Data Protection Directive). Within the last year (2014), no new legislative acts or amendments of significance to the Data Protection Act have been adopted. However, there have been amendments to the Danish Financial Business Act, which have resulted in a new set of financial whistle-blower rules that came into force on 1 September 2014. These rules require all financial institutions to implement a mandatory whistle-blower scheme that must offer: • a special, autonomous and independent report channel (meaning independent of the daily management of the entity), • access to report any violation of the applicable financial rules, regardless of the significance of the suspected violation, • access to file a report anonymously, • access to file a report for all Danish employees (no requirement about access to file reports for employees of other group entities or third parties), and • access for the employees to file a report on the entity as such, on other employees and/or on board members. In this respect, the interpretation of “financial institutions” is fairly broad and includes mortgage-credit institutions, investment trusts, financial services advisers, company pension funds, banks, financial services companies and the securities services. Prior to the implementation of such scheme, the financial institution in question must submit an application to the Danish Data Protection Agency (the “DPA”), which is the local data protection supervisory authority, and await its approval. In addition, the institution must submit an application for processing of personal data in the HR department, unless such approval has already been granted by the DPA. The fee for approval of each application is DKK 2,000 (approximately EUR 270). The scheme may be outsourced to a third party, either a supplier of whistleblower hotline solutions or, for example, an intra-group entity, but the responsibility for ensuring compliance with the requirements under Danish law remains with the financial institution in question. Further, Denmark is at the moment anticipating the coming EC General Data Protection Regulation (the “Data Protection Regulation”), which will replace the current and somewhat outdated Data Protection Directive from 1995 and Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Denmark Baker & McKenzie 199 thus the Data Protection Act. Besides a greater harmonization in the area, the Data Protection Regulation will take globalization and technological developments into account as well as implement larger fines for noncompliance with the Data Protection Regulation (up to 100 million EUR or as much as 5 % of a company’s yearly turnover). Such fines are substantially higher than any fine issued in Denmark (the highest fine was issued in 2003 and amounted to DKK 25,000, which corresponds to approximately EUR 3,360), which undoubtedly will bring more awareness amongst companies in relation to data protection issues. The Data Protection Regulation is currently awaiting the Council’s first reading and is expected to come into force in 2016. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends The DPA has published four new guidelines focusing mainly on IT security in relation to the processing of personal data. The following areas have been highlighted: • Security of login to databases containing personal data - according to the DPA’s guidelines, the security of such databases can be considerably increased by adding two layers of passwords. However, the two-layer passwords should not be the only measure in this respect, since new technologies can quickly outdate security measures that were very recently deemed appropriate and sufficient. For example, most banks in Denmark require two sets of passwords when a customer accesses his account from a computer, while access from a mobile phone only requires one password layer, which can potentially undermine the otherwise enhanced security on computers. • Transfer of sensitive personal data - the DPA recommends that the data controller use an end-to-end encryption where such data is transferred electronically. Use of a sufficiently complex encryption key is recommended, and the DPA suggests the use of password protection for the encryption key, which under these circumstances should have at least the same complexity as the encryption key itself. • Erasure of personal data - under the Data Protection Act, there is an obligation to erase personal data when there is no longer a legal reason for retaining the data. Such erasure must be effective and permanent, e.g., the data must be erased in a manner that excludes the possibility to restore the data through the use of reasonable means. Thus, erasure of data is not sufficient if the data is still retained but the user’s rights to access the data are limited or removed, where only the shortcuts to the data are removed or where the data is erased over time as it is being overridden by new data. • Transfer of personal data over the Internet - the data controller must ensure that the transfer meets the requirements of confidentiality, integrity and authenticity. Confidentiality can be ensured by eliminating potential 200 Baker & McKenzie risks of unauthorized persons accessing the data. Integrity can be ensured by eliminating potential risks of the data being altered during the transfer, and authenticity can be ensured by verifying that the sender and the receiver of the data are who they claim they are. In this respect, the DPA recommends use of encryption and digital signatures in order to fulfil the requirements. Additionally, the DPA has issued a number of statements in relation to security breaches. The DPA has since 2003 until today seen an increase in cases concerning security breaches from around 20 cases per year to more than 80 cases on a yearly basis. This development is closely related to the increased digitization of key functions in society and has had an effect on both the private and the public sector. The security breaches experienced often appear to be external hacker attacks, taking advantage of weak points in data centrals in order to gain access to personal information about other individuals, specially targeting individuals with a public profile. 3. Law Applicable As mentioned above, the primary legal source regarding data privacy and protection is the Data Protection Act, which entered into force in 2000. There have been many amendments to the Data Protection Act through the years, most recently in 2013. Additionally, as Denmark is part of the European Union and thus the Data Protection Act implements the Data Protection Directive, the decisions from the courts of Denmark as well as the European Court of Justice have relevance when interpreting the Data Protection Act. Interpretation of the Data Protection Act and the current practice is also partly based on the earlier practice in accordance with the Act no. 293 of 8 June 1978 on Private Registers, which was effective prior to the adoption of the Data Protection Directive. The Data Protection Act: http://www.datatilsynet.dk/english/the-act-onprocessing-of-personal-data/read-the-act-on-processing-of-personaldata/compiled-version-of-the-act-on-processing-of-personal-data/ The Data Protection Directive: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31995L0046 Collection and processing of data is to some extent also regulated by other legislation, for example, there are specific rules in the Financial Business Act and the Payment Services and Electronic Money Act as regards the financial sector. These separate set of rules are stricter than the Data Protection Act, thus, the Data Protection Act provides the minimum regulation and applies where other legislation does not provide a higher level of protection for the data subject. The responses below relate specifically to the Data Protection Act but references to other legislation will be provided where relevant. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Denmark Baker & McKenzie 201 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data Personal data is defined in the Data Protection Act as “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’)”. Hence, personal data must be considered as a broad concept, e.g., any information that in any way can be connected to a specific physical person, with the help of reasonable means, will constitute “personal data”, regardless of whether the data will be perceived as objective (facts) or subjective (opinions). This also includes encrypted information as long as the encryption key exists. Information related to legal entities is not regarded as personal data. However, this does not apply to data related to one-man businesses. Further, anonymous data is not regarded as personal data, which is based on the assumption that the anonymisation process is carried through effectively. The assessment in this respect is rather strict, for example, encrypted data will not be regarded as anonymous as long as the data controller or another party can make the data “readable” again and connect the data to a particular individual. Theoretically, only “one-way” encryption, e.g., when the encryption key is destroyed, will meet these requirements. However, the means of the anonymisation must be subject to a concrete assessment, as in practice it is impossible to prevent every attempt of decryption. b. Data Processing The Data Protection Act defines data processing as “any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means”. Thus, all actions, including but not limited to collection, selection, transfer, searching and deletion are considered as data processing. c. Processing by Data Controllers The Data Protection Act applies to entities that are data controllers, e.g., any “natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which alone or jointly with other determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data”. The entity processing data on behalf of the data controller is regarded as data processor. The data processor may only process data in accordance with the data controller’s instructions and such data processing must be governed by a written contract between the parties. The contract must stipulate that the data processor may only act on instructions from the data controller and that there must be implemented appropriate technical and organizational measures to protect data against accidental or unlawful destruction, loss or alteration, 202 Baker & McKenzie unauthorized disclosure, abuse or other processing in violation of the provisions laid down in the Data Protection Act. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The Data Protection Act applies to any data controller established in Denmark, when the activities relating to the processing of data take place within the EU/EEA. Further, the Data Protection Act applies to any data processing carried out on behalf of Danish diplomatic representations. The Data Protection Act will also apply if the data controller is situated outside the EU/EEA and the processing of data is carried out with the use of equipment situated in Denmark, unless such equipment is used only for the purpose of transmitting data through the territory of the EU/EEA. The Data Protection Act will moreover apply to the collection of data in Denmark for the purpose of processing outside the EU/EEA. e. Sensitive Personal Data Pursuant to the Data Protection Act, sensitive data is regarded as information revealing/concerning racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, health or sex life. As a starting point, such data may only be processed with the data subject’s explicit consent. Further, sensitive personal data may be processed if: • processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another person where the person in question is incapable of giving his consent, or • processing relates to data which have been made public by the data subject, or • processing is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims. There are also a number of exceptions specifically related to the different categories of sensitive data, for example, information on trade union membership may take place when necessary for compliance with the labor law obligations, or different areas of practice, such as the area of criminal law or health care services. Moreover, processing of data related to criminal offences, serious social problems or other purely private matters (such as divorce or death in the family) must be very limited, as these types of data are regarded as semisensitive under Danish law. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Denmark Baker & McKenzie 203 Processing of such data on behalf of a public administration may only take place, if it is necessary for the performance of the tasks of the administration and disclosure of the data to third parties must be very limited and may mainly be based on the data subject’s explicit consent. Private persons and entities may only process such data with the data subject’s explicit consent or if the processing is necessary for pursuing legitimate interests which clearly override the interests of the data subject. The same applies for disclosure of the data to third parties. f. Employee Personal Data Collection and processing of employee personal data is regulated by the Data Protection Act. Thus, the basic principles of data processing will apply (please see Section 7) and the employer must comply with principles of processing of sensitive data (please see Section 4(e), above), when relevant. The DPA must be notified of the employer’s processing of sensitive employee data prior to such processing actually taking place. The application for such processing can be submitted electronically and must be approved by the DPA. The approval triggers an administrative fee of DKK 2,000 (approximately EUR 270). Further, the DPA has issued guidelines regarding control of the employees’ use of the Internet and e-mail. Such monitoring may only take place if: • the employer has a legitimate interest in retaining copies of e-mails and logs of Internet use, • the employee has been made aware of the fact that the employer keeps copies of e-mails and logs of Internet use, • the employee is informed that the employer may review such copies and log-files, when suspicion of misuse arises, and finally, • the e-mails that are marked “private” or otherwise have clearly private content must be excluded from the review. 5. Consent a. General Pursuant to the Data Protection Act, the data subject’s consent must be freely given, specific and informed. The data subject must have been provided with adequate information regarding the processing of the data in order for the consent to be “informed”. Further, the consent must constitute a positive action by the data subject, meaning that a consent based on the silence or passivity of the data subject will not be regarded as sufficient. 204 Baker & McKenzie Processing of data may always be based on the data subject’s consent. However, the data subject has a right to withdraw his consent at any given time, hence, the practical reality is that the data mostly is processed in accordance with the general processing rules where processing under certain circumstances is be permitted without the data subject’s consent (please see Section 7 for further description). b. Sensitive Data The requirements for a legally valid consent regarding sensitive data are the same as mentioned above under Section 5(a). c. Minors Minors, who under Danish law are individuals under 18 years of age, are not able to give a binding expression of will and are therefore not able to give a valid consent. In order to obtain a valid consent from a minor, the consent must be obtained from a parent or a legal guardian. In relation to processing of data on behalf of a public administration, a minor’s expression of will shall be legally binding and effective in relation to particular actions or rights granted by the substantial law, for example, submission of certain applications or making certain decisions on his/her own behalf. d. Employee Consent The requirements for a legally valid employee consent are the same as mentioned above under Section 5(a). e. Online/Electronic Consent Online/electronic consent is permissible and will be equally binding as consent given in written or oral form, as long as the requirements mentioned under Section 5(a) are fulfilled. The burden of proof in this respect lies with the data controller. 6. Information/Notice Requirements Where the personal data have been collected from the data subject, the data controller must provide the data subject with the following information: 1. the identity of the controller and of his representative; 2. the purposes of the processing of the data; 3. any further information which is necessary, taking into account the specific circumstances of the collection of the data in order to enable the data subject to safeguard his interests. Such information may include: (a) the categories of recipients (but not the particular recipients); (b) whether the response to the questions is voluntary, including possible consequences of failure to reply; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Denmark Baker & McKenzie 205 (c) the rules on the right of access to and the right to rectify the data. Where the data have not been obtained directly from the data subject, the controller must provide the data subject with the following information: 1. the identity of the controller and of his representative; 2. the purposes of the processing of the data; 3. any further necessary information, such as (a) the categories of data; (b) the categories of recipients; (c) the rules on the right of access to and the right to rectify the data. This information must be provided no later than the time when the data are disclosed, which in practice means within 10 days. 7. Processing Rules There are a number of basic principles in relation to processing of data. Generally, the data controller must always comply with good practice for the processing of data, which means inter alia that the processing must be fair and reasonable. Further, following principles apply: 1. The data must be collected solely for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and further processing must not be incompatible with these purposes. 2. The processed data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to these purposes. 3. The data must be updated when relevant and there must be carried out necessary checks to ensure that no inaccurate or misleading data are processed or retained. Data, which turn out to be inaccurate or misleading must be erased or rectified without delay. 4. The collected data may not be retained for a longer period than it is necessary for the purposes for which the data are processed. As a general rule, personal data may only be processed if there is obtained an explicit consent from the data subject. The data may, however, also be processed without the data subject’s consent provided that processing is necessary: for the performance of a contract where the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract; or (a) for data controller’s compliance with a legal obligation; or 206 Baker & McKenzie (b) in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; or (c) for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest; or (d) for the performance of a task carried out in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller; or (e) for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the data controller where these interests are not overridden by the interests of the data subject (the rule of balancing of interests). Sections (e) and (f) apply equally to disclosure of data to third parties. 8. Rights of Individuals The data subject has a right to access the data related to him. If the data subject submits a request to that effect, the data controller must inform him whether or not data relating to him are being processed. If the data controller processes such data, the following information must be communicated to the data subject: 1. the data that are being processed; 2. the purposes of the processing; 3. the categories of recipients of the data; and 4. any available information about the source of such data. Such requests must be replied to without delay, e.g., soonest possible. If it is not possible to provide a reply within 4 weeks, the data controller must inform the data subject of the grounds for this and when the reply can be expected. The data subject has a right to receive the information mentioned above twice a year. Thus, the data subject is not entitled to a new communication in this regard until 6 months after the last communication, unless he can establish that he has a specific interest to that effect. The data subject may at any time object to the processing of data relating to him. Where this objection is justified, the processing may no longer involve the particular data. An objection will be considered justified if the processing is illegal, or the particular circumstances of the case justify the objection. This can for example be the case, where an employee wishes to have his contact information removed from the employer’s website due to harassment from a former spouse. In addition, the data controller must at the request of the data subject rectify, erase or block data, which turn out to be inaccurate or misleading or in any other way processed in violation of law or regulations. The data controller must also notify the third party to whom the data have been disclosed of any such rectification, erasure or blocking. However, this will not apply if such notification proves impossible or involves a disproportionate effort. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Denmark Baker & McKenzie 207 9. Registration/Notification Requirements In respect of processing operations carried out on behalf of a private data controller and the notification obligation of such processing, the theoretical main rule under the Data Protection Act is that the processing must be notified with the DPA before its commencement. However, the practical reality is that notification is only necessary when processing involves sensitive data, as many processing operations of data are, in fact, exempt from the notification obligation. The notification obligation is particularly relevant in relation to processing of employee data - please see Section 4(f). The exemption to the notification obligation can be found in both the Data Protection Act and in the Executive Orders No. 534 of 15 June 2000 and No. 410 of 9 May 2012 regarding exemptions to the notification obligation of certain processing operations carried out on behalf of a private controller. If a data controller is obliged to notify a processing of data, the data controller must notify the DPA prior to the commencement of the processing and such notification must include the following information: • the name and address of the data controllers and of their representatives, if any, and of the data processors, if any; • the category of processing and its purpose; • a general description of the processing; • a description of the categories of data subjects and of the categories of data relating to them; • the recipients or categories of recipients to whom the data may be disclosed; • intended transfers of data to third countries and statutory authority for such transfers (e.g., EU standard model clauses, Safe Harbor certifications, binding corporate rules etc.); • a general description of the measures taken to ensure security of processing; • the date of the commencement of the processing; and • the date of erasure of the data. Notification must be made for every separate processing, or alternatively for multiple processing for which one overall purpose applies. This could be the case with different data processing connected to one specific assignment. The notification form can be downloaded from the website of the DPA (www.datatilsynet.dk) and can be filed electronically, by e-mail or by ordinary mail. The notification must be filed in Danish. 208 Baker & McKenzie With respect to processing carried out on behalf of a public administration body, the theoretical main rule under the Data Protection Act is that the processing needs to be notified prior to its commencement. However, the practical reality is that notification is only necessary in certain situations, when processing so-called data of a confidential nature. Under Danish law, data can be ‘of a confidential nature’ either when defined confidential by law or when its secrecy is necessary to safeguard essential public or private interests. Consequently, ‘data of confidential nature’ covers a wider scope of data than sensitive data. The exemptions to the notification obligation can be found both in the Data Protection Act and in Executive Order No. 529 of 15 June 2000 on exception from the obligation to notify certain processing carried out on behalf of the public administration. 10. Data Protection Officers In Denmark, it is not a requirement to appoint or designate a data protection officer or other individual who will be accountable for the data protection practices of the legal entity or the public body. The current legal position in this respect is, however, expected to change when the Data Protection Regulation is adopted. 11. International Data Transfers Any transfer of personal data to a third country, e.g., outside EU/EEA, may only take place if the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection. The adequacy of the level of protection afforded by a third country must be assessed in light of all the circumstances in relation to the data transfer operation, in particular (i) the nature of the data, (ii) the purpose and duration of the processing operation, (iii) the country of origin and the country of final destination, (iv) the rules of law in force in the third country in question and (v) the professional rules and security measures which are complied with in that country. In addition, transfer of data to a third country may take place if: 1. the data subject has given his explicit consent; or 2. the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract between the data subject and the data controller or the implementation of precontractual measures taken in response to the data subject’s request; or 3. the transfer is necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract concluded in the interest of the data subject between the controller and a third party; or Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Denmark Baker & McKenzie 209 4. the transfer is necessary or legally required on important public interest grounds, or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims; or 5. the transfer is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; or 6. the transfer is made from a register which according to law or regulations is open to consultation either by the public in general or by any person who can demonstrate legitimate interests, to the extent that the conditions laid down in law for consultation are fulfilled in the particular case; or 7. the transfer is necessary for the prevention, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences and the execution of sentences or the protection of persons charged, witnesses or other persons in criminal proceedings; or 8. the transfer is necessary to safeguard public security, the defence of the realm, or national security. Outside the scope of the transfers referred to in nos. 1 - 8, the DPA may authorize a transfer of personal data to a third country which does not have an adequate level of protection, where the controller adduces adequate safeguards with respect to the protection of the rights of the data subject. Specific conditions may be laid down for the transfer. The DPA must inform the European Commission and the other Member States of the authorizations granted pursuant to this provision. The transfer of personal data to third countries may be carried out without authorization from the DPA on the basis of contracts in accordance with the standard contractual clauses approved by the European Commission (EU standard model contracts), provided that the wording of these contractual clauses is not amended. Further, transfer of data to the entities established in the USA may take place without authorization if the entity in question is Safe Harbor certified. However, this does not apply for transfers of sensitive data where such authorization still is necessary. Groups of companies where the entities are established in many different jurisdictions may with advantage choose to prepare a set of binding corporate rules (BCR) for data transfers within the group. The binding corporate rules must be approved by a supervisory authority in one of the EU Member States (including Denmark) which then will coordinate the approval process with the other involved local data protection supervisory authorities. When this approval is granted, no separate local approval of the BCR in Denmark is necessary. However, a separate approval for the transfer based on the BCR must be obtained from the DPA. Also, the BCR will be basis for transfer of data only (e.g., the receiving entity is a data processor) and not for disclosure of data where other grounds will be necessary. 210 Baker & McKenzie 12. Security Requirements The data controller must implement appropriate technical and organizational security measures to protect data against accidental or unlawful destruction, loss or alteration, unauthorized disclosure, abuse or other processing in violation of the provisions laid down in the Data Protection Act. The same applies to data processors. In practice, this means that the entities must ensure limited and only authorized access to the data, effective procedures in this respect, use of passwords, firewall or other antivirus programs, encryption, etc. Where personal data is transferred through the internet, it must be done through a secure connection. 13. Special Rules for the Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties The data controller may outsource the processing of data to a third party, under the assumption that the data processor acts in accordance with the instruction from the data controller, and that any action taken by the data processor will be considered as made by the data controller. The data controller must ensure the data processor’s compliance with the Data Protection Act. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions If the data controller breaches his obligations under the Data Protection Act, or does not act in accordance with a decision made by the DPA, the data controller may be liable for a fine or punished with imprisonment of up to four months (individuals only). However, imprisonment as a sanction is very unlikely. In Denmark, the level of fines is rather low - between DKK 3,000 and DKK 10,000 (EUR 403 - EUR 1,343). As mentioned in section 1, the highest fine until now amounted to DKK 25,000 (EUR 3,360). Selling access to a non-public protected information system, which contains personal or sensitive data, can be punished with imprisonment of up to six years in severe cases. This applies to individuals only. In addition, any breach of the obligations under the Data Protection Act may constitute grounds for liability to the extent the data subject suffers damages, should these be monetary or integrity related. 15. Data Security Breach Currently, there is no requirement to notify the data subjects or the DPA when a data security breach occurs. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Denmark Baker & McKenzie 211 However, the DPA requires that in situations where personal data have been leaked to the public against the rules of the Data Protection Act, the data controller must, depending on the situation and the particular circumstances, as soon as possible attempt to: • delete data from the Internet, search engines etc., • have the data returned from wrong receivers, • notify the relevant data subjects and, • implement long-term measures to ensure that such incidents will not take place in the future. 16. Accountability The data controller does not have any legal obligation to prepare documents like privacy policies, IT policies etc. or to generally document any data protection impact assessments. However, the reality is that such documents often provide the necessary or appropriate solutions for fulfilling the obligations under the Data Protection Act, such as providing the necessary information to the data subjects or ensuring the data processor’s compliance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act. 17. Whistle-Blower Hotline Whistle-blower hotlines are permissible in Denmark subject to a prior permission from the DPA. The DPA generally takes the view that such hotlines should be a voluntary alternative to the entity’s usual lines of communication. Thus, it should not be mandatory for the employees to raise their concerns through the whistle-blower hotline. Only reporting of serious offenses are permissible via the hotline, e.g., offences, which amount to serious misconduct or suspected serious misconduct which may affect the entity as a whole or which may have a decisive impact on the life and health of individuals. Such matters are undoubtedly serious economic crime, including bribery, fraud, forgery and similar offences as well as irregularities in the areas of accounting and auditing, internal controls or financial reporting, anti-competition and insider trading. Other examples of incidents that may be reported include cases of environmental pollution, serious violations of occupational safety rules and serious offences against an employee, for instance violence or sexual offences. Further, the DPA has accepted that incidents falling within the US SarbanesOxley Act may be reported, e.g., accounting, internal control and audit irregularities, and suspected corruption and banking crimes. 212 Baker & McKenzie However, less serious misconduct should not be capable of being reported, including for example cases of mental bullying, collegial difficulties, incompetence, absence, and breach of dress codes, smoking and alcohol policies and workplace rules on the use of e-mails/Internet, etc. In cases like this, the usual lines of communication should be used instead. Finally, the Data Protection Act requires the whistle-blower hotline to be designed only with a view to reporting persons who are related to the entity such as employees, members of the board of directors, auditors, lawyers, suppliers etc. The entity has the obligation to inform its employees of the existence and the functions of the whistle-blower hotline and must also have specific procedural rules on how to handle the given information, both concerning the person reporting the incident and the data subject. Anonymous reporting is permissible, if necessary; however, employees and board members should not be encouraged to report anonymously. Prior to implementation of the whistle-blower hotline, the entity must submit an application to the DPA), which will trigger an administrative fee of DKK 2,000 (approximately EUR 270) upon approval. The entity must also submit an application for processing of personal data in the HR department, unless such approval has already been granted by the DPA (the fee of DKK 2,000 (approximately EUR 270) applies here as well). As regards the whistle-blower hotlines in the financial sector, special rules apply - please see Section 1. 18. E-Discovery In Denmark, e-discovery is not used in civil litigation and will only be relevant in criminal cases. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering As anti-spam filter solutions involve monitoring, the employees must be informed of implementation of such measure. Please see Section 4(f). 20. Cookies The use of cookies is regulated by Executive Order no. 1148 of 9 December 2011 on Information and Consent Required in Case of Storing and Accessing Information in End-User Terminal Equipment (the Cookie Order), which is based on EC Directive no. 2002/58/EF of 12 July 2002. The Cookie Order requires collection of explicit and informed consent from the user prior to placing cookies on the user’s computer or other electronic device. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Denmark Baker & McKenzie 213 The user must be provided with comprehensive information about the storing of, or access to, the information collected via cookies. The information will be regarded as sufficiently comprehensive if: a) it appears in a clear, precise and easily understood language or similar picture writing; b) it contains details of the purpose of the storing of or access to information in the end-user’s terminal equipment; c) it contains details that identify any natural or legal person arranging the storing of, or access to, the information (e.g., also third parties); d) it contains accessible means by which the end-user can refuse consent or withdraw an already given consent; e) it contains clear, precise and easily understood guidance on how the enduser should make use thereof, and f) it is made immediately available to the end-user by being communicated fully and clearly to the end-user. The Danish Business Authority, which is the supervisory authority as regards the use of cookies, has issued guidelines on the Cookie Order. 21. Direct Marketing Use of personal data for the purposes of the data controller’s own direct marketing must comply with the general processing rules (please see Section 7). In addition, the Data Protection Act contains specific rules on disclosure of consumer-related personal data to third parties or use of such data on behalf of third parties for the purpose of marketing. The disclosure or use of such data for that purpose is subject to the consumer’s prior explicit consent. However, the disclosure or use of such data may take place without consent, if the disclosure/use relates to general customer data which form the basis for classification into customer categories, provided that (i) the rule of balancing of interests justifies such disclosure/use (please see Section 7(f)) and (ii) the data controller observes the objection procedure. Thus, the entity must - prior to any disclosure or use of data - check the Central National CPR Register for markings, e.g., whether the consumer in question has filed a statement to the effect that he does not wish to be contacted for the purpose of marketing activities. If the consumer has not given such information to the CPR Register, the entity must inform the consumer about the right to object to the intended disclosure/use in a clear and intelligible manner. The consumer must also be granted an opportunity to object to the disclosure/use in a simple manner within a period of 14 days. 214 Baker & McKenzie The data may not be disclosed/used until the time limit for objecting has expired. The entity may not demand any payment of fees in connection with objections. In Denmark, direct marketing is also regulated by other legislation. Pursuant to the Danish Marketing Practices Act, an entity may not contact anyone (e.g. consumers, other companies, public bodies etc.) by electronic means (e.g., e-mail, text messages, MMS etc.) for purposes of direct marketing without their prior, explicit consent. A very narrow exemption from this rule relates to situations where the person in question, through earlier contact to the entity, has given his contact information when purchasing good or services. Under these circumstances, the entity may communicate marketing messages, but only with regard to the same types/categories of products or services as those purchased by the person in question on earlier occasions. At the same time, the person in question must have a possibility to unsubscribe to such marketing messages, and such un-subscription actions must be without cost and must generally be carried through in an easy manner. Direct marketing via ordinary mail is allowed subject to prior check of markings in the CPR Register, cf. above. Moreover, direct marketing to consumers via phone is subject to the consumer’s prior consent, cf. the Danish Consumer Contracts Act. Particular areas are exempted from this requirement, for example insurance contracts and subscriptions for newspapers and magazines. Egypt Hatem Darweesh Cairo Tel: +2 02 2461 9301 hatem.darweesh@bakermckenzie.com Hazim Rizkana Cairo Tel: +2 02 2461 9301 hazim.rizkana@bakermckenzie.com 216 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments The Egyptian Constitution was passed in January 2014. Articles 57, 68 and 99 of the Constitution discuss the issue of privacy. Specifically, Article 57 states that “private life is inviolable, safeguarded and may not be infringed upon. Telegraph, postal and electronic correspondence, telephone calls, and other forms of communication are inviolable, their confidentiality is guaranteed and they may only be confiscated, examined or monitored by causal judicial order, for a limited period of time, and in cases specified by the law. The state shall protect the rights of citizens to use all forms of public means of communication, which may not be arbitrarily disrupted, stopped or withheld from citizens, as regulated by the law.” Furthermore, Article 68 provides that “information, data, statistics and official documents are owned by the people. Disclosure thereof from various sources is a right guaranteed by the state to all citizens. The state shall provide and make them available to citizens with transparency. The law shall organize rules for obtaining such, rules of availability and confidentiality, rules for depositing and preserving such, and lodging complaints against refusals to grant access thereto. The law shall specify penalties for withholding information or deliberately providing false information. State institutions shall deposit official documents with the National Library and Archives once they are no longer in use. They shall also protect them, secure them from loss or damage, and restore and digitize them using all modern means and instruments, as per the law.” Lastly, Article 99 stipulates that “any assault on the personal freedoms or sanctity of the life of citizens, along with other general rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the law, is a crime with no statute of limitations for both civil and criminal proceedings. The injured party may file a criminal suit directly. The state guarantees just compensation for those who have been assaulted. The National Council for Human Rights shall inform the prosecutor’s office any violation of these rights, and also possesses the right to enter into an ancillary civil lawsuit on the side of the injured party at its request. This is as specified within the law.” 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends There are no emerging privacy issues or trends. 3. Law Applicable In general, there are no data protection laws per se in Egypt. However, individual privacy is protected under the Egyptian Constitution in addition to miscellaneous provisions in different legislations such as: • the Egyptian Labor Law No. 12 of 2003 • the Penal Code Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Egypt Baker & McKenzie 217 • the Egyptian Civil Code • the Banking Law No. 88 of 2003 • Capital Market Law No. 95 of 1992 • the Communications Law No. 10 of 2003 • the Money Laundry Law No. 80 of 2002 4. Key Privacy Concepts The Egyptian Constitution provides that the law shall protect the inviolability of the private life of citizens. Correspondence, wires, telephone calls, electronic correspondence and other means of communication shall have their own sanctity, and confidentiality shall be guaranteed. They may not be confiscated or monitored except by a causal judicial warrant and, even then, only for a definite period and according to the provisions of the law. The Constitution also states that the rights and freedoms of individual citizens shall not be subject to disruption or distraction and that no law shall include a constraint on the practice of such rights and freedoms. Furthermore, the Constitution provides that any encroachment on the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution shall be considered a crime, for which criminal and civil lawsuits shall not be forfeited by prescription. Victims of such encroachment shall receive fair compensation from the State. Additionally, the Constitution stipulates that access to information, data, documents and statistics, and the disclosure thereof, is a right guaranteed by the State. However, such disclosure or circulation shall be done in a manner consistent with the protection of the private lives of citizens. The Egyptian Civil Code provides that a person, whose inherent personal rights have been unlawfully infringed, shall have the right to demand cessation of the infringement and compensation for any damage sustained thereby. Whereas, the Egyptian Labor Law states that only those authorized shall have access to review employees’ Personal Data. The Banking Law stipulates that all bank customers’ accounts, deposits, trusts and safes together with related dealings shall be kept confidential. They may not be reviewed nor may any details be given about them either directly or indirectly except upon written permission from the owner of the account, deposit trust or safe, his successors, anyone to whom all or some of such funds are bequeathed, a legal representative, authorized attorney, or pursuant to a judicial ruling or an arbitral award with such prohibition remaining even if the relationship between the customer and the bank is terminated for any reason. The Penal Code provides that whoever discloses or facilitates the disclosure of or uses, even privately, a recording or document obtained by any of the following methods – (i) recording or transmitting via private conversations or 218 Baker & McKenzie on the telephone by any method or (ii) shooting, taking or transmitting a picture of anyone in a private place by any means – without the consent of the concerned party the violator shall be subject to imprisonment. Furthermore, the Penal Code stipulates that any physician, surgeon, pharmacist, nurse or else, who while practicing his profession becomes in the possession of personal secrets and intentionally discloses them without being required to do so by law, shall be punished with imprisonment or a fine. The Capital Market Law requires brokerage companies to maintain absolute confidentiality of client data and not to divulge any information about them or their dealings to third parties without the prior written approval of the concerned party, and only then within the limits of this approval, with the exception of those cases in which specific information shall be submitted to the Stock Exchange, or regulatory or juridical authorities, as prescribed in the laws. The company shall put procedures in place to ensure that its directors and personnel abide by the obligation to maintain the confidentiality of all data and information. In all cases, the company may not use any data or information for realizing any kind of special gain for itself or any of its other clients without first obtaining the prior written approval from the party to whom the data or information belongs. In addition, the Capital Market Law stipulates that brokerage company employees are prohibited from exploiting insider information gained by virtue of their position or through the nature of their work for their own account or that of a third party, either directly or indirectly. Further, the law states that brokerage company employees are also prohibited from divulging confidential information from client’s accounts and dealings, or carrying out any work liable to prejudice the interest of the dealer or third parties. The dealer shall be banned from dealing in a security if he or she is directly or indirectly cognizant of substantial information related thereto and that such information has not been announced. In such case, the dealer shall be prohibited from giving any other person access to the insider information unless s/he is legally empowered to do so. Finally, the law stipulates that the dealer in the security shall not be considered a user or beneficiary of the insider information if it is established that he dealt with same for reasons other than to gain access, directly or indirectly, to the insider information. The Communications Law stipulates that the license issued for any entity providing communication services should include details of the licensee’s obligations of ensuring the confidentiality of communications and the clients of the licensee’s private calls, in addition to formulating the necessary rules to ensure same. The Money Laundering Law stipulates that disclosing any notification, investigation or examination procedures undertaken with respect to financial dealings suspected of involving money laundry or related data to clients, the beneficiary, or non-competent authorities under this Law is forbidden. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Egypt Baker & McKenzie 219 a. Personal Data There are no laws specifically addressing the protection of Personal Data in Egypt other than the legislations cited above. b. Data Processing There are no laws that specifically address and cover the protection of Personal Data with regard to manual and automatic processing. c. Processing by Data Controllers There are no laws that specifically address processing by data controllers however it is believed that in light of the legal provisions cited above: • the Labor Law considers an employer a data controller. • the Banking Law Bank considers officers data controllers. • the Capital Market Law considers a brokerage company and associated employees data controllers. The Penal Code considers any physician, surgeon, pharmacist, nurse or other person who while practicing his business or position becomes in the possession of personal secrets as a data controller. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The above cited legislations apply to any person or legal entity having a legal domicile, or local offices or branches in Egypt. e. Sensitive Personal Data There is no law that specifically addresses sensitive Personal Data other than Article 310 of the Penal Code cited in Section 4 above. f. Employee Personal Data Employees’ Personal Data addressed under Article 77 of the Labor Law (see Section 4 above) is likely to include Sensitive Personal Data (e.g., healthrelated information) and non-sensitive Personal Data. 5. Consent a. General There are no laws that specifically address general consent requirements prior to the processing of Personal Data. However, it is recommended that the express consent of any Data Subject be secured in writing. b. Sensitive Data There are no laws that specifically address Sensitive Data in Egypt. However, it is recommended that the express consent of any Data Subject be secured in writing. 220 Baker & McKenzie c. Minors There is no law that specifically addresses consent requirements for minors. However, in our view the consent of the guardian of the minor will need to be obtained prior to processing or disclosing data to a third party. d. Employee Consent There is no law that specifically addresses consent requirements for employees but it is recommended that the employer should obtain their written consent prior to processing or disclosing data to a third party. e. Online/Electronic Consent Though there is no law that specifically governs online/electronic consent in Egypt, it is believed that electronic consent may be permissible and effective provided that it is properly structured and evidenced. 6. Information/Notice Requirements There is no law that requires an organization to provide Data Subjects with information requirements. 7. Processing Rules There are no specific processing rules in Egypt. 8. Rights of Individuals There are no specific rules regulating the rights of individuals. See Section 4(a). 9. Registration/Notification Requirements There are no requirements for organizations that collect and process Personal Data to register, file or notify the local data authority. 10. Data Protection Officers In Egypt, organizations are not required to designate a privacy officer or other individual who will be accountable for the privacy practices of the organization. 11. International Data Transfers There are no laws/rules in Egypt that regulate international data transfers. 12. Security Requirements There are no laws/rules that address security requirements. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties While there are no laws that specifically address special rules for outsourcing data processing to third parties, it is generally recommended that employers Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Egypt Baker & McKenzie 221 notify and obtain prior written consent from their employees before implementing any system for collecting and transferring their employees’ Personal Data to third parties. Furthermore, the Capital Market Law requires brokerage companies to maintain client confidentiality, and such requirements can be used as guidelines for other securities companies. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in civil and criminal penalties. 15. Data Security Breach There is no rule on mandatory breach notification in Egypt. 16. Accountability Organizations are not required to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. 17. Whistle-Blower Hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Egypt provided that they are in compliance with local laws. 18. E-Discovery The implementation of an e-discovery system within an organization will not raise privacy issues, provided that, such detection does not disclose personal information. However, if the detection involves disclosure of personal information, then it is recommended that notice be given to all employees that a detection process is in place, an explanation of the purpose for detecting data, and how such detection may have an impact on the employees. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering There are no laws specifically addressing spam-filtering. But, it is believed that there is no legal obligation for obtaining the consent of individual employees and/or worker representatives before issuing or installing spam-filtering software. However, it is advisable that, as a precautionary measure, the prior consent of employees should be obtained with respect to an employer accessing employees’ emails or other private information. 20. Cookies There are no laws/rules that regulate the use and deployment of cookies in Egypt. 21. Direct Marketing There are no laws/rules in Egypt that govern direct marketing. Finland Hannu Järvinen Helsinki Tel: +358 9 6153 3466 hannu.jarvinen@borenius.com Lauri Leppänen Helsinki Tel: + 358 9 6153 3423 lauri.leppanen@borenius.com 224 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments New Finnish Information Society Code The new Information Society Code (917/2014) (“ISC”) became applicable from the beginning of 2015. The ISC codifies legislation in the telecommunication and information technology sectors that previously existed in separate acts, in particular the Communications Market Act (393/2003), the Act on the Protection of Privacy in Electronic Communications (516/2004), the Act on Radio Frequencies and Telecommunications Equipment (1015/2001), the Act on Television and Radio Operations (744/1998) and the Domain Name Act (228/2003). The ISC brought along some significant changes, including entirely new concepts, such as “communications providers” and new terminology, such as “traffic data”. The definition of “communications provider” extends the protection of privacy to cover all operators that convey communication as referred to in the ISC. According to the preparatory works for the ISC (HE 221/2013), this would also include confidential messages sent within a service, for example Facebook messaging. The term “traffic data” in the ISC has replaced “identification data”, yet the term still refers to information associated with a legal or natural person used to transmit a message. Also, contrary to the now repealed Act on the Protection of Privacy in Electronic Communications, the ISC contains an explicit extraterritorial applicability provision in Section 2, under which provisions related to the protection of confidential communication shall apply, if the operator: 1. is established in Finland; 2. is not based in the EU, but the communication network and other equipment to be used in the business operation are located or maintained in Finland; or 3. is not based in the EU, but the services are offered in Finnish or are otherwise targeted at Finland or Finns. It follows that the applicability of the ISC is not limited to Finnish-based entities, but also sets requirements towards foreign operators. New Act on Background Checks A new Act on Background Checks entered into force on 1 January 2015. The new Act implies certain extensions to employers’ right to carry out background checks on their employees, contractors, and job candidates in order to protect important public interests. Employers may carry out background checks if their employees, contractors or job candidates work in tasks specifically defined in the Act. Like before, the new Act enables carrying out background checks if the employee gains Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Finland Baker & McKenzie 225 important knowledge relating to national safety and defence or international relations. However, under this new Act, background checks may also be carried out if the employee has access to information that, if revealed, could seriously damage the economy, the functioning of financial and insurance systems or any business essential for the public. In addition, the new Act entitles employers to carry out background checks if the employee handles tasks relating to an essential infrastructure or production, for instance in water, energy, food or telecommunications sectors. In practice, companies will be entitled to carry out background checks on employees who are responsible for essential logistical tasks. The new Act also introduces a register for background checks that will be maintained by the Finnish Security Intelligence Service. The aim of the register is to avoid carrying out unnecessary double checks on persons working short-term in different tasks listed in the Act. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends • Prying cases continue to be common in Finland. In the recent years there have been several cases where both patient data and data in the police register have been pried and accessed without authorization. It is common that these cases also gain extensive publicity. In addition to fines, compensations for damages in such data protection offences have been somewhat low, usually in line with the recommendation of EUR 300- 800. • The Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman has released statements on the following areas: ο The Office of the Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman took part in December 2014 in the open letter addressed to the operators of seven app marketplaces urging them to provide links to privacy policies mandatory for apps that collect personal information. Pursuant to the Data Protection Ombudsman’s guidance, it is already an established rule in Finland that the description of file must be made available to the data subjects prior to the collection of personal data. If personal data is collected in the Internet, the description of file needs to be available also in the Internet. ο The Data Protection Ombudsman has actively informed Finnish users of the implications of the Costeja case (C- 131/12) and how data subjects may request the removal of search results. ο The Data Protection Ombudsman has given various statements concerning personal data processing in loyalty programmes. Based on these statements it is possible to argue that data processing in loyalty programmes require consent as the legal basis. 226 Baker & McKenzie 3. Applicable Law The general data protection law in Finland is the Personal Data Act (523/1999) (“PDA”), by which the EU Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) was implemented in Finland. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1999/19990523 http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990523.pdf (English/not up-to-date) The Act on the Protection of Privacy in Working Life (759/2004) (“APPWL”) governs data protection in working life, by laying down provisions on such matters as the processing of employees’ personal data, the processing of information on drug use, camera surveillance in the workplace and retrieving email messages that belong to the employer. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2004/20040759 http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2004/en20040759.pdf (English/not up-to-date) Under the new Information Society Code (917/2014) (“ISC”) relevant provisions on electronic communications and providing information society services are drawn together in one act, repealing many of the previously effective acts on electronic communications. In practice, provisions in relation to several important areas, such as telecommunications, protection of privacy and confidentiality of messages, domain names, electronic marketing and cookies are under this new act. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2014/20140917 https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2014/en20140917.pdf There are numerous sector-specific regulations, which include data protection related provisions. In particular, the processing of personal data in health care and social welfare is closely regulated. The status and rights of medical patients and clients of social services are protected by the Act on the Status and Rights of Patients 785/1992 and the Act on the Status and Rights of Social Welfare Clients (812/2000). 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data The PDA defines “personal data” as any information on a private individual and any information on his/her personal characteristics or personal circumstances, where these are identifiable as concerning him/her or the members of his/her family or household. Under the Finnish Data Protection Board’s praxis, the PDA also applies to deceased individuals. b. Data Processing The PDA includes an extensive definition stipulating that the processing of personal data shall pertain to the collection, recording, organisation, use, transfer, disclosure, storage, manipulation, combination, protection, deletion Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Finland Baker & McKenzie 227 and erasure of personal data, as well as other measures directed at personal data. In practice, all measures directed at personal data are deemed as processing of personal data under the PDA. The PDA does not apply to the processing of personal data by a private individual for purely personal purposes or for comparable ordinary and private purposes. c. Processing by Data Controllers Within the meaning of the PDA, a “controller” conceptually refers to one or several persons, corporations, institutions or foundations, for the use of whom a personal data file is set up and who are entitled to determine the use of the file, or who have been designated as controllers by law. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The PDA applies to the processing of personal data carried out by controllers who are established in Finland or are otherwise subject to Finnish law. Furthermore, the PDA is applied if a controller is not established within the EU but uses equipment located in Finland in the processing of personal data. In such case, the controller shall designate a representative established in Finland. An exemption has been provided should the equipment be used solely for the transfer of data through the territory of Finland. Based on the preparatory works for the PDA, the mere transfer of data through servers placed in Finland constitutes the use of equipment solely for the transfer of data. e. Sensitive Personal Data As a primary rule, the processing of sensitive data is prohibited unless a specific derogation is at hand. Within the meaning of the PDA, sensitive data refers to personal data relating or intended to relate to: • race or ethnic origin; • social, political or religious affiliation or trade-union membership of a person; • a criminal act, punishment or other criminal sanction; • the state of health, illness or handicap of a person or the treatment or other comparable measures directed at the person; • sexual preferences or sex life of a person; or • social welfare needs of a person or the benefits, support or other social welfare assistance received by the person. 228 Baker & McKenzie The PDA includes a detailed list of exemptions from the prohibition to process sensitive data. The prohibition does not apply: • if the data subject has given an express consent, • to the processing of data on the social, political or religious affiliation or trade-union membership of a person, where the person has, by own initiative, brought the data into the public domain, • if the processing is necessary for safeguarding a vital interest of the data subject or someone else, should the data subject be incapable of giving consent, • to the processing of personal data necessary for drafting or filing a lawsuit or for responding to or deciding of such lawsuit, • to the processing of data, which is based on the provisions of an act, or • when it is needed for purposes of historical, scientific or statistical research. In addition, the PDA includes specific conditions for the processing of data collected for example in the course of operations of a health care unit, an insurance company or a social welfare authority. Data processing is limited also with respect to personal identity numbers. In principle, save for limited conditions and exceptions, ID numbers may be processed only on the data subject’s unambiguous consent or by virtue of an act. Also, personal identity numbers should not be unnecessarily included in hard copies printed or drawn up from a personal data file. f. Employee Personal Data In Finland, the processing of employee personal data is regulated by the Act on the Protection of Privacy in Working Life (“APPWL”), a special statute applied to employment-related personal data processing which is not covered by the PDA. Under the APPWL, employers may process employee personal data only in accordance with specific conditions. The processing is permitted only insofar as the data is directly necessary for the employee’s employment relationship (necessity requirement). It is specifically stipulated in the APPWL that no exceptions can be made to the aforementioned requirement of necessity, not even with the employee’s consent. When collecting employee personal data, the employer shall, as a primary rule, collect the data from the employees themselves. If data is collected from elsewhere, the consent of the employees concerned is required. Exceptions to obtaining this consent are limited only to situations where an authority Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Finland Baker & McKenzie 229 discloses information to the employer to enable it to fulfill a statutory duty or when the employer acquires personal credit data or information from the criminal record in order to establish the employee’s reliability. When data is to be or has been collected from a source other than the employee him/herself, such as when establishing employee reliability, the employer is obliged to notify the employee about the processing and use of the data. The employer must notify the employee of this information before it is used in making decisions concerning the employee. In addition, the APPWL contains provisions on the processing of employees’ health information. In principle, information concerning an employee’s state of health may be processed only if the information has been collected from the employees themselves or from elsewhere with a written consent from the employees, and if the information needs to be processed in order to pay sick pay or health-related benefits, establish justifiable reasons for absence, assess an employee’s working capacity upon his/her express wish, or if provided elsewhere in the law. Health information may be processed only by those persons who prepare, make or implement decisions concerning employment relationships on the basis of such information. The collection of personal data during recruitment and during an employment relationship is governed by the cooperative procedure referred to in the Act on Cooperation within Undertakings (334/2007), under which employees or employee representatives need to be consulted prior to initiating data processing activities. The Act on Cooperation within Undertakings is applicable if the company concerned regularly employs at least 20 employees. 5. Consent a. General Consent is defined in the PDA as any voluntary, detailed and conscious expression of will, whereby the data subject approves the processing of his/her personal data. The requirement of ‘unambiguity’ underlines the importance of the clarity of the data subject’s expression of will. Consent does not necessarily have to be in writing and can be given orally provided that the above mentioned requirements are fulfilled. According to the preparatory works for the PDA, even an implied consent could, in certain cases, be sufficient to satisfy the set requirements. The data subject has the right to withdraw his/her consent anytime. The requirements that a given consent must satisfy shall, in the last resort, be determinable on a case-by-case basis. In case of dispute, the data controller is required to prove that consent exists. 230 Baker & McKenzie Consent does not supersede the requirement of necessity (see chapter 7 below), meaning that the processing of such data which cannot generally and objectively be considered necessary for the purpose of processing is not justified even if the data subject has given his/her consent. b. Sensitive Data A data subject’s express consent constitutes one of the exceptions to the general prohibition to process sensitive data, as stipulated in the PDA. The requirement of ‘express’ consent highlights that the data subject’s consent must be expressed in a precise and active manner. An express consent usually has to be given in writing and must indicate the purpose of the processing of personal data for which the permission has been granted. c. Minors The PDA does not include any specific provisions concerning the consent of minors. d. Employee Consent The general requirements concerning consent are applicable to employee consent as well. Under the APPWL, employee consent shall not provide an exception to the requirement of necessity, meaning that the employer is only allowed to process personal data directly necessary for the employee’s employment relationship. Furthermore, the collection of personal data during an employment relationship is subject to cooperative procedures under the Act on Cooperation within Undertakings (334/2007). Thus consent given by employees separately from these procedures can be insufficient. e. Online/Electronic Consent A data subject can give his/her lawful consent in the electronic environment. If personal data is collected and processed online, information on the collection and processing must be made available in connection with the online service (e.g., inclusion of a hyperlink to a description of file/privacy notice). If the data subject’s consent constitutes the basis for personal data processing, all necessary information must be made available to the data subject upon giving the consent. The controller must be able to prove that consent has been given. 6. Information/Notice Requirements When collecting personal data, the controller shall see to it that the data subject can have information on the controller and, where necessary, the representative of the controller, on the purpose of the processing of personal data, on the regular destinations of disclosed data, as well as on how to proceed in order to make use of the rights of the data subject in respect to the processing operation in question. The aforementioned information shall be Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Finland Baker & McKenzie 231 provided at the time of the collection and recording of data or, if data is obtained from elsewhere than the data subject and intended for disclosure, at the time of the first disclosure of data at the latest. The abovementioned required information can, in practice, be provided to the data subject in a description of file, constituting another necessary requirement for the controller. Under the general rules provided in the PDA, the controller shall draw up a description of the created personal data file. The file must indicate the following information: 1. the name and address of the controller and, where necessary, those of the representative of the controller; 2. the purpose of the processing of personal data; 3. a description of the group or groups of data subjects and data or data groups relating to them; 4. the regular destinations of disclosed data and whether data is transferred to countries outside the EU or the EEA; and 5. a description of the principles in accordance to which the data has been secured. The controller shall keep the description of the file available to anyone. This obligation may be derogated from, if necessary for the protection of national security, defence or public order and security, for the prevention or investigation of crime, or for a supervision task relating to taxation or public finances. 7. Processing Rules The PDA provides a list of general rules, i.e., principles applying to the processing of personal data. The rules are and concern the following: duty of care, defined purpose of processing, exclusivity of purpose, general prerequisites for processing, data quality, and the drawing of a description of file (discussed in chapter 6 above). Duty of care Controllers shall process personal data lawfully and carefully, in compliance with good processing practice, and also otherwise so that the protection of the data subject’s private life and the other basic rights which safeguard his/her right to privacy are not restricted without a basis provided by an act. Anyone operating on behalf of a controller, in the form of an independent trader or business, is subject to the same duty of care. 232 Baker & McKenzie Defined purpose of processing The processing of personal data by the controller must be appropriate and justified. The purpose of the processing of personal data, the regular sources of personal data and the regular recipients of recorded personal data shall be defined before the collection of personal data. The purpose of the processing shall be defined so that the operations of the controller in which personal data is processed are made clear. Exclusivity of purpose Personal data must not be used or otherwise processed in a manner incompatible with the defined purpose of processing. Later processing for purposes of historical, scientific or statistical research is not deemed incompatible with the original purposes. General prerequisites for processing The consent of a data subject constitutes the primary justification to process personal data. Should no consent be given, the PDA also enables personal data to be processed, if: • the data subject has given as assignment for the same, or the processing is necessary in order to perform a contract to which the data subject is a party; • it is necessary, in an individual case, in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; • the processing is based on law; • there is a relevant connection between the data subject and the operations of the controller, which is based on the data subject being a client or member of, or in the service of the controller or on a comparable relationship between the two (connection requirement); • the data relates to the clients or employees of a group of companies and it is processed within the said group; • the processing is necessary for purposes of payment traffic, computing or other comparable tasks undertaken on the assignment of the controller; • the matter concerns generally available data on the status, duties or performance of a person in a public corporation or business; • the Data Protection Board has issued a permission. Personal data may be disclosed on the basis of the above mentioned connection requirement only if such disclosure is a regular feature of the operations concerned and if the purpose for which the data is disclosed is not Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Finland Baker & McKenzie 233 incompatible with the purposes of the processing and if it can be assumed that the data subject is aware of such disclosure. Principles relating to data quality Personal data processed must be necessary for the defined purpose of processing (necessity requirement). The controller shall additionally see that no erroneous, incomplete or obsolete data is processed (accuracy requirement). This duty of the controller shall be assessed in the light of the purpose of the personal data and the effect of the processing on the protection of the data subject’s privacy. 8. Rights of Individuals The PDA provides data subjects with three fundamental rights, namely the rights of access, data rectification, and the prohibition of processing. Under the PDA, everyone shall have the right to access data on him/her in a personal data file or to a notion that a file contains no such data, unless this right has been specifically restricted, e.g., on the basis of a compromise to national security, public order or danger caused to the health of someone. By the request of the data subject, or on its own initiative, a controller shall rectify, erase or supplement erroneous, unnecessary, incomplete or obsolete data from its personal data file. The controller shall furthermore prevent the dissemination of such data. If the controller refuses this request, he must, to this effect, provide a written certificate with which the data subject may bring the matter to the attention of the Data Protection Ombudsman. A data subject has the right to prohibit a controller from processing personal data for the purposes of direct advertising, distance selling, other direct marketing, market research, opinion polls, public registers or genealogical research. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements The PDA includes three types of notification requirements. First, the Data Protection Ombudsman shall be notified of all automatic data processing. There are several exceptions to this rule and, in practice, most data processing does not require notification. General notification applies to, for example, data processing for direct marketing purposes and when outsourcing the processing of personal data. Second, data controllers shall notify the Data Protection Ombudsman regarding personal data transfers outside the EU/EEA. There are several exceptions to this rule and, in practice, most international data transfers do not require notification, as there is no obligation to notify the Data Protection Ombudsman e.g., when using the European Commission’s standard contractual clauses or when the company is Safe Harbour certified. 234 Baker & McKenzie Third, the PDA stipulates that anyone engaged in credit data activity or carrying out debt collection or market or opinion research as a business, or operating in recruitment, personnel assessment or computing on behalf of another, or using or processing files or personal data in this activity, shall notify the same to the Data Protection Ombudsman. The notification process is not an authorisation process. Therefore the data controller is always responsible for the lawfulness of its data processing regardless of the notification. 10. Data Protection Officer Finnish data protection laws do not include a general obligation as regards the appointment of Data Protection Officers. There are, however, certain specific requirements in the health care sector. The Act on the Electronic Processing of Information of Social Welfare and Health Care Clients (159/2007) and the Act on Electronic Prescription (61/2007) require that, inter alia, providers of social welfare or health care services must appoint a Data Protection Officer for monitoring and supervision duties. 11. International Data Transfers The PDA does not include any special restrictions with respect to the transfer of data within the EU/EEA. Personal data may be transferred outside the EU/EEA only if the country in question guarantees an adequate level of data protection, determined on the basis of the PDA or the findings of the European Commission. The PDA provides a list of eight derogations enabling the transfer of data outside the EU/EEA. The abovementioned requirements shall not prevent such data transfer if: 1. the data subject has unambiguously consented to the transfer; 2. the data subject has given an assignment for the transfer, or this is necessary in order to perform a contract to which the data subject is a party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject before entering into a contract; 3. the transfer is necessary in order to make or perform an agreement between the controller and a third party and in the interest of the data subject; 4. the transfer is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; 5. the transfer is necessary or called for by law for securing an important public interest or for purposes of drafting or filing a lawsuit or for responding to or deciding such a lawsuit; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Finland Baker & McKenzie 235 6. the transfer is made from a file from which the disclosure of data, either generally or for special reasons, has been specifically provided in an act; 7. the controller gives adequate guarantees of the protection of the privacy and the rights of individuals by means of contractual terms or otherwise, and the Commission has not found, pursuant to relevant articles of the Data Protection Directive, that the guarantees are inadequate; or 8. the transfer is made by using standard contractual clauses as adopted by the Commission in accordance with the Data Protection Directive. 12. Security Requirements The PDA requires the controller to carry out the technical and organisational measures necessary for securing personal data against unauthorised access, accidental or unlawful destruction, manipulation, disclosure, transfer, and other unlawful processing. The available techniques, the associated costs, the quality, quantity and age of the data, as well as the significance of the processing to the protection of privacy shall be taken into account when carrying out these measures. In addition, the PDA includes a secrecy obligation. Anyone who has gained knowledge of characteristics, personal circumstances or economic situation of another person while carrying out measures relating to data processing shall not disclose such data to a third person against the provisions of the PDA. 13. Special Rules for the Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties The duty of care, i.e., the general processing rule applying to the controller, applies also to any third party who, in the form of an independent trader or business, operates on behalf of the controller. Thus, the third party shall process personal data in accordance with the same principles as the controller (see chapter 7). Before starting the processing of data, the third party shall provide the controller with appropriate commitments and other adequate guarantees of the security of data. In practice, compliance with these requirements is ensured contractually between the controller and the third party to whom data processing activities are outsourced. Furthermore, the outsourcing of data processing requires a notification to the Data Protection Ombudsman, should the third party process personal data on behalf of the data controller. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions The Finnish Penal Code (39/1889) provides criminal sanctions for personal data offence and breaking into a personal data file. 236 Baker & McKenzie A person who intentionally or with gross negligence fails to comply with the provisions of the PDA shall be sentenced to a fine for a personal data violation, provided that a more severe penalty is not provided in another act. A controller is liable to compensate for the economic and other loss suffered by the data subject or another person as a result of the processing of personal data in violation of the PDA. The Data Protection Ombudsman may order the controller to enforce the data subject’s right of access or to rectify an error. The Data Protection Board may, at the request of the Ombudsman, give an order prohibiting the processing of personal data in violation of the PDA, compelling a person to remedy an instance of unlawful conduct or neglect, ordering the operations pertaining to a file to be ceased or revoking its permission for processing granted earlier. 15. Data Security Breach Finnish data protection laws do not impose a general obligation to report data security breaches to a governmental body. However, in relation to specific industries and entities, special regulation exists. First, telecommunication operators are required by law to notify the Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority (“FICORA”) of violations of information security and information security threats. Also, identification service providers are required by law to report severe risks and threats to their data security to FICORA and to the Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman, when the risk or threat concerns personal data. Finally, financial service institutions, e.g., credit institutions and fund management companies, are required to notify the Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority (“FSA”) under FSA’s standards. 16. Accountability There is currently no law/regulation/guidance in Finland that mandates data controllers to conduct privacy impact assessments or furnish evidence relating to the effectiveness of their data protection management. Pursuant to the PDA, data controllers are merely obligated to plan their personal data processing activities prior to the collection of the personal data. 17. Whistle-Blower Hotline The Data Protection Ombudsman has published a guide on the implementation of whistle-blower hotlines in Finland-based companies that must comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley-Act of the United States. No other official guidance has been given addressing other than SOX-based whistleblowing schemes. The Data Protection Ombudsman’s guideline can, however, be used as an interpretative tool when assessing other similar whistleblowing schemes. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Finland Baker & McKenzie 237 In general, whistle-blower hotlines at workplaces are not in conflict with Finnish data protection laws, provided that these systems are designed to comply with the data processing requirements imposed by law, fundamentally the PDA and the APPWL (see Section 4(f)). Upon establishing whistle-blower hotlines, companies should, inter alia, define clearly what types of information may be processed and disclosed therein and limit the data to cover accounting, internal auditing, white-collar crime, and prevention of corruption. The data must be correct and directly related to the employment relationship, and comply e.g., with the requirements for data security, description of file, informing of data subjects, right of access, right of rectification, and so forth. 18. E-Discovery The ISC allows the employer to access the traffic data of messages (such as the size, aggregate size, type, number, connection mode or target addresses of the messages) if the employer complies with certain detailed requirements. Under ISC, collection of traffic data is allowed for the purposes of preventing and investigating potential misuses of the employer’s IT systems or unauthorized disclosure of the employer’s business secrets. As a general rule, data may only be processed with the help of an automatic search function that may be based on the size, aggregate size, type, number, connection mode or target addresses of the messages. The employer must inform employees beforehand about such monitoring through a cooperative procedure. A prior notification must also be submitted to the Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman. Finally, the employer must draw up a report of the manual processing of traffic data including detailed information on the processing. Companies must also annually notify the Data Protection Ombudsman of any manual processing of traffic data. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering Messages and identification data may be processed to the extent necessary for the purpose of ensuring information security as provided by the ISC. Such allowed measures include automatic analysis of message content, automatic prevention or limitation of message conveyance or reception and automatic removal of malicious software posing a threat to information security from messages. 20. Cookies Under the ISC, a service provider may save cookies or other data concerning the use of a service in the user’s terminal device, and use such data if the user has given his/her consent thereto and the service provider gives the user comprehensible and complete information on the purposes of saving or using such data. Implied consent through the use of browser settings is compliant under the ISC and under the Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority’s (“FICORA”) guidance. 238 Baker & McKenzie The provision above does not apply to any storage or use of data intended solely for the purpose of enabling the transmission of messages in communications networks or which is necessary for the service provider to provide a service that the subscriber or user has specifically requested. The aforementioned storage and use of data is allowed only to the extent required for the service, and it may not limit the protection of privacy any more than is necessary. 21. Direct Marketing Pursuant to the PDA, a data subject has the right to prohibit the controller from processing personal data for the purposes of direct marketing. A natural person must be able to prohibit such forms of direct marketing easily and free of charge. Under the ISC, direct marketing by means of automated calling systems, fax, or email, or text, voice, sound or image messages may only be directed at natural persons who have given their prior consent. A service provider or a product seller may use natural person’s customer contact information that it has obtained in the context of an earlier sale in direct marketing of its own products of the same product group and of other similar products. The customer shall be clearly and extensively notified of the possibility to prohibit such use of contact information at the time when it is collected and in connection with any marketing message. Direct marketing to legal persons is allowed if the recipient has not specifically prohibited it. Any legal person shall be allowed the opportunity to prohibit the use of its contact information in direct marketing easily and with no separate charge and be given clear notification of this possibility. France Magalie Dansac Paris Tel: +33 1 44 17 59 82 magalie.dansac@bakermckenzie.com Idriss Kechida Paris Tel: +33 1 44 17 59 08 idriss.kechida@bakermckenzie.com Denise Lebeau-Marianna Paris Tel: +33 1 44 17 53 33 denise.lebeaumarianna@bakermckenzie.com 240 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent privacy developments a. New regulations Implementation decree of the French Military Program Act On 24 June 2015, the new French Intelligence Law was adopted amid fierce debates on the balance between these new provisions and individual’s fundamental democratic rights. In essence, the Intelligence Law provides French Intelligence Services (as well as other services from the Defense, Home Office, Economy, Budget and Customs ministries, as identified in a forthcoming Decree) with increased powers, including tapping phones, reading emails, setting up hidden cameras or microphones in people’s home, cars or other private areas, bugging electronic devices and using IMSI catchers. In addition, telecom operators, internet access services providers as well as hosting providers may be required (i) to allow the authorities to access, in realtime, connection data relating to individuals who have been identified by the intelligence services as posing a threat, and (ii) install on their network, automatic processing equipment (so-called “black boxes”) aimed at, through the use of algorithms processing connection data, at searching for patterns that may reveal terrorist threats. Failure to allow the collection of such connection data or to communicate the information may be sanctioned for up to two years of imprisonment and a fine of up to 150,000 Euros (multiplied by 5 for legal entities). In addition, disclosing the existence and implementation of the above mentioned operations may result in one year of imprisonment and a fine of 15,000 Euros (multiplied by five for legal entities). The Intelligence Law also doubles up the fines for various hacking operations. The actual implementation of many of these new provisions will require that a number of decrees be issued, which is likely to occur by the end of this year for most of them. Until such decrees are issued, the existing intelligence framework will continue to apply (until 31 March 2016 at the latest). Draft bill on digital technology In October 2014, the French government launched a national consultation on digital technology, which will be implemented under the aegis of the French Digital Council (Conseil National du Numérique). This consultation aims to help in the drafting of a bill regarding digital issues. Eventually, two different draft bills should be published within the upcoming weeks: the first would focus on individuals’ rights (including data privacy) issues while the second would emphasize the economic aspects of innovation and digital technology. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – France Baker & McKenzie 241 These bills are not yet accessible to the public. Based on press articles, the privacy-related draft bill would provide the following: 1. The powers of the CNIL will be extended, as it would have to be consulted for every draft bill or decree related to data protection and processing. In addition the CNIL would be entitled to impose fines of up to 3 millions Euros or 5% of the global annual turnover for companies (instead of 300,000 Euros), as well as to require compliance with the French Data Protection Act 1978 within 24 hours (instead of 5 days) 2. Collective action in order to impede an infringement to the French Data Protection Act would be allowed. 3. The fact that collected data concerns a person under 18 would be considered a legitimate reason to stop the data processing. 4. Internet users would be entitled to give instructions as to their data in case they pass away and to designate a person who may require the deletion of the deceased person’s personal data from websites and social networks. b. News from Authorities Adoption of Simplified Standard n°57 by CNIL The CNIL has adopted simplified standard n°57 (deliberation n° 2014-474) on processing of personal data in connection with monitoring and recording employee telephone calls in the workplace. Simplified standards allow for a streamlined and simplified self-declaration of compliance, as long as the data processing complies with the conditions set forth in said standard. To benefit from this simplified declaration n°57, recordings can only be undertaken if they follow one of these purposes: employee training, employee performance reviews and improvement of service quality. Simplified standard n°57 applies to both public and private institutions, and only allows data processing operations that involve monitoring and recording of employee telephone calls on a periodic basis, to the exclusion of any recording on a permanent or systematic basis. Also excluded are any recordings with the purpose of collecting sensitive data, any audiovisual recording, or any record linkage with data capture on employees’ computers. Data from the recording must be deleted no later than 6 months after such recording, while data from the analysis of the recording must not be kept for a period exceeding one year. Access to recorded data and related analysis must be secured through appropriate technical and organizational measures. Transfers may occur subject to appropriate EU Commission contractual clauses or Safe Harbor Certification or BCRs. 242 Baker & McKenzie CNIL’s annual activity report for 2014 On 16 April 2015, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published its Annual Activity Report for 2014 summarizing its various accomplishments in 2014, as well as the major challenges and topics that the CNIL will consider in 2015. The Report notably provides figures on the numbers of complaints, investigations and sanction processes conducted in 2014: • Of the 5,825 complaints received, 39% relate to e-reputation issues (e.g., deleting online content, fake online profiles, etc.), 16% relate to marketing issues (e.g., marketing email opt-out, retention of banking data, etc.), 14% to labor-related issues (e.g., video surveillance), and 12% to bank/credit issues (e.g., registration on the incidents payment file). • Of the 421 inspections which were conducted in 2014, 88 of those were targeted at video surveillance and 58 were operated online, in accordance with the new powers granted to the CNIL by the Hamon law of 17 March 2014. 62 notices (warning) have been addressed, but only 18 sanctions were pronounced and among these sanctions, 11 have been published. CNIL’s new program of control for 2015 On 25 May 2015, the CNIL revealed its intention to remain very active in exercising its controls by planning to conduct 550 controls in 2015 (whereas last year, the number of controls was at 421). CNIL’s controls are generally carried out as follows (i) 40% stem from its own initiatives based on news released in the press (ii) 28% from its annual program of control (iii) 24% from complaints and (iv) 8% from other items. Of the 550 controls planned for 2015, the CNIL will proceed to conduct 200 online controls on site and 350 controls on site, in particular 25% of them will be conducted on video protection and video surveillance systems. The focus of CNIL controls will be on newly implemented technologies which form part of a French consumer’s day-to-day life, including: (i) payment that use NFC technologies, (ii) connected objects used for personal purposes, (iii) national file containing driver’s licenses, (iv) data processing implemented by companies to manage psychological risks and (iv) review of how Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs) are effectively implemented, which calls on companies to be prepared to demonstrate that BCRs are effectively being implemented. Websites that target the youth are also under CNIL scrutiny which will particularly review the conditions of information and age control mechanisms. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – France Baker & McKenzie 243 French administrative court confirms CNIL decision sanctioning violation of “right to be forgotten” by online case law database On 23 March 2015, the Conseil d’Etat, the highest administrative court in France and the court of appeal for CNIL’s decisions, confirmed a CNIL decision sanctioning a violation of the right to oppose the processing of personal data by an online case law website, lexeek.com, grounded on article 38 of the French Data Protection Act (“FDPA”) which allows relief for failure to delete or anonymize data within two months upon request by an aggrieved individual. The website had posted legal decisions containing the names of four plaintiffs contrary to the CNIL’s 2001 recommendation that case law made available on legal databases should be anonymized. In addition, the website had further failed to delete or anonymize the decisions in question despite the individuals’ request to do so. The CNIL imposed an administrative fine amounting to EUR 10,000 after having served a formal notice on the website to comply with the individuals’ request of opposition. The decision also comes as a confirmation that a website publisher that organizes, references and makes available legal decisions online is deemed to act as data controller over any personal data contained in such decisions, despite not being the original author of such decisions. Finally, though the argument was not raised in the Conseil d’Etat proceedings, the decision shows that the balance is ever-more tipped in favour of the “right to be forgotten” when balanced against the “right to information,” which might have justified publishing named decisions on the Internet for public information purposes. CNIL’s investigative powers strengthened by online control The powers of the CNIL have been strengthened by the new French consumer law published on March 18, 2014. Whereas its investigative powers were limited to three main procedures, namely onsite inspections that allow the CNIL to inspect hardware and software storing personal data, offsite controls that allow the CNIL to verify that data processing practices are compliant by sending injunctions in which it asks for specific documents and hearing procedures that allow the CNIL to summon people involved in data processing to a hearing so it can obtain any relevant information related to the processing above-mentioned, the CNIL has now the power to conduct online controls to prevent and detect any infringements of the French Data Protection Act. However, the CNIL emphasized that the new online investigations are limited to freely accessible online data and cannot be used to bypass security measures implemented to protect websites. 244 Baker & McKenzie SPAM activities now sanctioned by the French Consumer Protection Agency The new French consumer law published on March 18, 2014 replaced criminal sanctions that were theoretically applicable for breaches to French anti-spam provisions (Art. L. 34-5 of the French Postal and Electronic Communications Code) but which were very rarely applied (fine of 750 € per breach and/or application of sanctions as set forth in the French Data Protection Act of 1978, as amended) with a new administrative sanction of 15.000 EUR for legal entities, that will now be enforced directly by the French Consumer Protection Agency. CNIL’s report following its controls on Internet and free Wi-Fi access The CNIL recently performed a number of investigations aimed at examining data controllers’ (such as in shops, restaurants, hotels, libraries, etc.) compliance with the various French provisions regarding free and public Internet access services. Following these investigations, the CNIL issued in December 2014 its findings on its website which revealed the existence of several breaches. Based on these findings, the CNIL reminded companies providing such internet access to comply with the various requirements set forth in the French Data Protection Act of 1978, as amended, and in Article L34-1 of the French Postal and Electronic Communications Code. In particular, any free and public Internet access provider must: 1. retain traffic data only which meet the “needs of research, recognition and prosecution of crime” (Article L34-1 of the Code of postal and electronic communications); other data such as the content of exchanged correspondence or information consulted by the users cannot be collected; 2. retain this traffic data for a period of one year only from the date of registration (Article R10-13 Code Post and Electronic Communications) and other data must be regularly removed when no longer needed; 3. provide comprehensive information to service users, given that the control carried out showed that the information provided was largely inadequate or non-existent; 4. refrain from using monitoring tools (e.g., used to ensure the safety of computers, management of invoices, prints, etc.) or parameterize them so as to limit the risk for users’ privacy; 5. include a data protection security and confidentiality clause in their contracts with networks providers, as well as define and implement security measures such as securing access to connection logs, more robust passwords, etc. to ensure data confidentiality; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – France Baker & McKenzie 245 6. file a normal notification with the CNIL.1 French Data Protection Authority’s instructions regarding NFC payment cards. On 19 May 2015, the French Data Protection Authority (“the CNIL”) published straightforward guidelines (“fiche pratique”) on near field communication (“NFC”) payment cards. In the guidelines, the CNIL reaffirms some principles governing NFC payment cards. The guidelines state that NFC payment cards can only be used for payments of a sum lower than EUR 20. For any amount greater than EUR 20, the card holder will have to enter a confidential code. Furthermore, the code will also be necessary when the aggregated amount of payments exceed a certain fixed amount. The guidelines also state that banks must clearly and precisely inform card holders of the NFC functionality and must provide them with an efficient, userfriendly means to oppose it. To respond to clients’ request not to have an NFC card, some banks have, for instance, offered an NFC-disable function on their website which will be taken into account at the next use of the card in an ATM machine. The CNIL expressly specifies that if a bank does not accept to disable free of charge and with no condition an NFC function upon a card holder’s request, then the card holder can submit a complaint to the CNIL, which will contact the bank if it has sufficient elements grounding the complaint. The CNIL also emphasizes the importance of NFC card security in these guidelines. The names of the card holders is not anymore readable through the NFC interface for all cards issued from September 2012. Furthermore, from June 2013, the transaction history is also not readable. Banks must constantly adapt their security measures to guarantee that data in cards are not collected and reused by third parties. The CNIL recommends the application of the recommendations issued by the payment cards security observatory in 2007 and 2009 and to encrypt all the data exchanges in order to prevent any access to the data. 1 http://www.cnil.fr/linstitution/actualite/article/article/internet-et-wi-fi-en-libre-acces-bilandes-controles-de-lacnil/?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=91&cHash=75163b5edae940123ca93e86d97daebf 246 Baker & McKenzie 2. Emerging privacy issues and trends a. Social media French consumer protection agency’s opinion on unfair clauses in social media On December 2014, the French Unfair Terms Commission issued an opinion identifying 46 unfair terms in social media Terms & Conditions. In addition to consumer law issues, the Commission addresses under this opinion a number of privacy and data protection related provisions, which is rather unusual. The Commission’s opinion is not binding but has persuasive authority, creating a presumption that the clauses identified in the opinion are unfair under French consumer protection laws. Contentious clauses in terms of data protection notably include the following: • it is misleading to advertise social media platform as a free service, while consumers’ personal data are in fact sold to advertisers. • Privacy policies that state that IP addresses and browsing habits are not personal data as they diverge from the French legal definition of personal data. • numerous privacy policies do not define specific purposes for which personal data may be used while French law obliges platform to inform users on the specific purposes for use • provisions that do not impose a strict duration on the platform’s retention of personal data • clauses that provide for the transfer of personal data outside the EU but do not give the individual the possibility to provide a specific consent to the transfer or consider the consent as being implicitly provided. • any provisions allowing the service provider to unilaterally modify its privacy policy without notifying the consumer in advance and giving the consumer an opportunity to terminate the service2 . b. Internet Sweep Days In May 2014, the CNIL, together with 26 of its counterparts in the world, conducted an online audit of more than 1,200 mobile apps. A summary of CNIL’s findings was published on its website on September 16, 2014 2 http://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/dgccrf/boccrf/2014/14_10/re commandation_CAA_2014_02.pdf Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – France Baker & McKenzie 247 emphasizing the fact that the data protection information provided to applications’ users is usually insufficient3 . c. Cookies Sweep Days From 15 to 19 September 2014, the CNIL and its European counterparts carried out an audit of the main European websites in order to assess their practices with regard to cookies and, in particular, their compliance with (i) the requirements set forth in the “Telecom Package”, whereby internet users must be informed and provide their consent to the storage of cookies on their computer prior to accessing the website, and (ii) the December 2013 deliberation issued by the CNIL on this subject4 . In practice, the CNIL checked the number and type of cookies stored n the Internet user’s computer, the way the information on cookies is conveyed to Internet users, the visibility and quality of the information, the process of obtaining the Internet user’s consent and the consequences for a user refusing cookies. On 30 June 2015, CNIL eventually issued a statement on its website revealing some figures in this regard: • 24 on-site controls, 27 online controls and 2 hearings were conducted; • Generally speaking, CNIL noted that internet users are not sufficiently informed and are not in a position to provide their consent prior to cookies being installed on their equipment; and • 20 websites were eventually ordered by CNIL to comply with their legal requirements. 3. Law Applicable Data Processing, Data Files and Individual Liberties Act of 6 January 1978 (Loi informatique et libertés, or “LIL”), Decree no. 2005-1309 of 20 October 2005. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data LIL applies to the processing of any information (“Personal Data”) which directly or indirectly allows for the identification of an individual (“Data Subject”). 3 http://www.cnil.fr/linstitution/actualite/article/article/internet-sweep-day-desapplications-mobiles-peu-transparentes-sur-le-traitement-de-vos-donnees/ 4 http://www.cnil.fr/documentation/deliberations/deliberation/delib/300/. 248 Baker & McKenzie b. Data Processing “Processing” is extremely widely defined and covers any operation or set of operations performed on Personal Data including collection, recording, organization, storage, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission and deletion. LIL applies to both manual and automated data processing. c. Processing by Data Controllers LIL applies to persons who determine the purposes for which and the manner in which any Personal Data are, or are to be, processed (“Data Controller”). d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality LIL applies to: • data processing activities carried out by Data Controllers established in France; and/or • data processing activities carried out by Data Controllers established outside the EU that make use of equipment located in France (other than merely for the purposes of transit). e. Sensitive Personal Data LIL prohibits the processing of sensitive Personal Data – that is, Personal Data directly or indirectly relating to racial or ethnic origins, political opinions, trade union membership, religious or philosophical beliefs, health or sexual life. However, sensitive Personal Data can be processed if the purpose of the processing justifies it, and provided one of the following conditions is met: • the Data Subject has given his or her express (i.e., written) consent subject to certain restrictions; • the processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of an individual, and the Data Subject is unable to express his or her consent (where the Data Subject is physically or legally incapable of giving consent); • the processing is carried out by churches or religious, philosophical, political or union organizations, for the purpose of keeping records of their members or correspondents; • the Personal Data in question has been made public as a result of steps deliberately taken by the Data Subject; • the processing is necessary for the management of legal claims; • the processing is carried out by a health organization, subject to a duty of confidentiality, and is only undertaken for specific purposes; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – France Baker & McKenzie 249 • the processing is carried out by the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (“INSEE”) or the Ministry’s services, subject to specific requirements; • the processing is carried out in the context of medical research; • the Personal Data has been subject to an anonymization process which has been approved by the CNIL, and the processing is carried out under specific conditions; or • the processing is carried out in the “public interest” and has been authorized by the CNIL. Certain Personal Data is subject to specific restrictions or prohibitions: • the processing/use of social security numbers is restricted to the payment by employers of applicable fees to social security, health and retirement organizations; • Personal Data relating to criminal records can be collected or processed, but only by judicial authorities in the exercise of their functions; and • the processing of Personal Data relating to health is subject to specific requirements if carried out in the field of research. f. Employee Personal Data LIL does not provide for specific rules with respect to employees’ Personal Data. However, the CNIL has published several recommendations and opinions which apply specifically in the employment context and in particular, in respect of the following matters: • data collection in the recruitment process; • monitoring of employees’ activity; • video surveillance; • badges; • use of the National Security Number; • PABX; • ethics lines; • global positioning determination (“geolocalization”); and • discrimination. In addition, the CNIL participates in and usually follows the opinions of the Article 29 Working Party (see in particular Section 5(d) below). 250 Baker & McKenzie 5. Consent a. General Pursuant to LIL, consent of the Data Subject is one of the requirements for processing Personal Data. When consent is used as a justification for processing, consent must be informed, specific and unambiguous. The consent must be drafted in French. However, consent is not necessary if the purpose is legitimate, provided that the Data Subject has been informed of the data collection and processing as soon as such operations are made. b. Sensitive Data Sensitive Personal Data cannot be processed without the specific and express consent of the Data Subject (see Section 4(e) above for exceptions). Express consent is satisfied by either written consent or by a double-click process, if consent is given over the Internet. c. Minors The consent of a parent or guardian is required for individuals under the age of 18 (otherwise, collection would be considered unfair). Further, no information on family or way of life should be collected from a minor as this would be considered excessive vis-à-vis the purpose of collection. d. Employee Consent The French Authority does not recognize employee consent in light of the Article 29 Working Party’s opinion on the processing of Personal Data in the employment context, which states that it is misleading for an employer to try to rely on an employee’s consent as it is unlikely to be freely given. e. Online/Electronic Consent Electronic consent is permissible and can be effective in France provided that it is properly structured and evidenced. It is advisable that: • users are clearly informed in French of the required information without having to use links; and • users should not be able to access website content without having read and accepted a website privacy policy. 6. Information/Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about: the organization’s identity; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; its privacy practices (which must be given in a clear and transparent way); third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; the consequences of not providing consent; the rights of the Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – France Baker & McKenzie 251 Data Subject; how the Personal Data is to be retained; where the Personal Data is to be transferred; how to contact the privacy officer or other person accountable for the organization’s policies and practices; how to access and/or correct the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and the duration of the proposed processing. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected, and anonymize the Personal Data whenever possible. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and how the Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and exercise the writ of habeas data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements Organizations that collect and process Personal Data are required to file with the local data authority. 10. Data Protection Officers There is no requirement for organizations to designate a privacy officer or other individual who will be accountable for the privacy practices of the organization. 11. International Data Transfers Transfers of Personal Data from France are permitted to: • another country within the EU or the EEA; • Canada (under certain circumstances); • Switzerland; • Argentina; • Guernsey; • the Isle of Man; • Jersey; • Faeroe Islands; 252 Baker & McKenzie • Andorra; • Israel; • Uruguay; • New Zealand; and • recipients established in the US to the extent that they have chosen to sign up to the Safe Harbor arrangement are generally permitted without the need for formal approval. Transfers to other countries, or to recipients in the US who have not chosen to sign up to the Safe Harbor arrangement, are prohibited unless: • the data exporter and the data importer enter into a data transfer agreement providing for adequate protection of the data transferred; or • the Data Subject is not an employee (and the transfer does not relate to employee data), and has previously given his or her unambiguous, informed and express consent. When the transfer is authorized through the execution of a data transfer agreement based on unmodified EC model clauses, since 2010, the CNIL does not require the submission of the agreement for validation. The CNIL recommends the use of data transfer agreements based on unmodified versions of the model contractual clauses approved by the European Commission (either 2001 model or 2004 model) for transfers from a Data Controller to a Data Controller or from a Data Controller to a Data Processor (new model 2010). BCRs may also be accepted, and the CNIL encourages large multinational companies to implement BCRs to secure transfers of data outside the EU as an alternative to the execution of data transfer agreements. In 2008, the Article 29 Working Party issued three guidelines in order to help Data Controllers draft their own BCRs. BCR clubs have been formed to inform the companies in specific sectors on how to implement BCRs, and the CNIL offers assistance with their implementation. To facilitate the process, there is a mutual recognition system whereby the Data Controller chooses a leading data privacy authority (“DPA”) in Europe that will notify all other concerned DPAs of the BCR project and obtain automatic validation of the project. The CNIL has made available on its website a report on the protection and transfer of Personal Data in the context of outsourcing projects. CNIL offers pragmatic solutions to assist companies with the transfers of Personal Data made outside the EU. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – France Baker & McKenzie 253 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to: ensure that Personal Data in their possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organization security safeguards to protect Personal Data; and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Organizations that disclose Personal Data to third parties are required to use contractual or other means to protect Personal Data, and are required to comply with sector specific requirements. Organizations may be held liable together with third party providers in case of breach by the latter. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, seizure of equipment or data, civil actions, criminal proceedings, and/or private rights of action. 15. Data Security Breach On 24 August 2011, the French Government adopted an Ordinance (articles 38 and 39 of Ordinance n°2011-1012) which implemented a new security breach notification procedure under the French Data Protection Act. At this time, only providers of public electronic communications services were covered, i.e. telecommunications providers (e.g., mobile or land communications providers), Internet access providers and voice over IP service providers (“Provider”). A data security breach is defined broadly as “any security breach that results accidentally or in an illicit manner in the destruction, loss, alteration, disclosure or unauthorized access to personal data which are processed in the context of the supply to the public of electronic communications services”. The Provider must immediately report the data breach to the CNIL. If the data breach may affect the privacy or the personal data of individuals, the Provider must also inform the affected individuals. The Provider should also maintain an inventory of security breaches including the facts surrounding the breach, its effects and the remedial action taken. This inventory should be at the disposal of the CNIL. There is an exemption to the notification of individuals affected by the breach if the CNIL acknowledges that appropriate protective measures have been implemented to “scramble” the data so that unauthorized persons having accessed the data may not - in fact - read the data. If the Provider does not 254 Baker & McKenzie demonstrate that such measures have been implemented, the CNIL, having considered the likely adverse effects of the breach, may require the Provider to notify the relevant individuals. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to an administrative fine, penalty or sanction, civil actions and/or class actions, or a criminal prosecution. 16. Accountability Organizations are required to furnish evidence relating to the effectiveness of the organization’s privacy management program to privacy regulators upon request. 17. Whistle-Blower Hotline The Data Controller must obtain the CNIL’s authorization prior to implementing a whistle-blower hotline. To simplify formalities, companies may use a fast-track procedure known as Single Authorization AU-004, provided that the system complies with the requirements of the CNIL’s decision “AU-004”. On 14 October, 2010, the CNIL adopted decision no. 2010-369 that modifies its single authorization AU-004, by reducing the scope. As such, a whistleblowing hotline may be used only to comply with: (i) a statutory or regulatory obligation under French law; (ii) section 301(4) of the US Sarbanes-Oxley law, or (iii) the Japanese “Financial Instrument and Exchange Act” of 6 June 2006, also called “Japanese SOX”. Only facts relating to serious risks to the company in the areas of accounting, financial audit, bribery, banking and the fight against anti-competitive practices within the concerned organization can be collected and filed by the organization in charge of handling the reports. Finally, a Data Controller may not benefit from the fast track Single Authorization AU-004 if the hotline is used to report any other matters including where the vital interests of the company or its employees’ physical or mental integrity are at stake. 18. E-Discovery When implementing an e-discovery system, an organization may be required to obtain the consent of employees if the collection of Personal Data is involved. The organization will be required to advise employees of the implementation of such system, the monitoring of work tools and the storage of information. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – France Baker & McKenzie 255 19. Anti-Spam Filtering When implementing an anti-spam filter solution into its operations, an organization is required to: inform employees of monitoring policies being implemented in the workplace; give employees the opportunity to opt out from the spam-filtering solution; and give employees the opportunity to review the isolated emails designated as spam. 20. Cookies The use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. As such, consent of Data Subjects may have to be obtained before cookies can be used and deployed. Some types of cookies that track or monitor the user may not be permitted. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject is required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. Consent of the Data Subject must be obtained for a specific activity. Bundled consent is not considered valid consent. Germany Julia Fitzner Munich Tel: +49 89 55238 135 julia.fitzner@bakermckenzie.com Michael Schmidl Munich Tel: +49 89 55238 211 michael.schmidl@bakermckenzie.com Wolfgang Fritzemeyer Munich Tel: +49 89 55238 154 wolfgang.fritzemeyer@bakermckenzie.com Matthias Scholz Frankfurt Tel: +49 69 29908 203 matthias.scholz@bakermckenzie.com Daniel Krone Munich Tel: +49 89 55238 135 daniel.krone@bakermckenzie.com Matthias Scheck Munich +49 89 55 238 135 matthias.scheck@bakermckenzie.com Benjamin Lotz Munich Tel: +49 89 55238 261 benjamin.lotz@bakermckenzie.com Michaela Weigl Frankfurt Tel: +49 69 29908 508 michaela.weigl@bakermckenzie.com Holger Lutz Frankfurt Tel: +49 69 29908 508 holger.lutz@bakermckenzie.com Julia Wendler Munich Tel: +49 89 55238 261 julia.wendler@bakermckenzie.com 258 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments Law on IT-Security In July 2015 the IT Security Act came into effect. The IT Security Act shall improve the security of information technology systems. The IT Security Act strengthens the authority of the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) as the central agency for IT security and expands the investigative authority of the Federal Criminal Police Office in the field of cyber crime. It also defines requirements for the IT security of critical infrastructure, which includes systems that provide vital services related to information technology, telecommunication, energy, traffic regulation, transport, health, water, food supply, finance and insurance. Operators of critical infrastructural systems will be required to meet minimum standards for IT security and to report significant IT security incidents to the BSI. Furthermore, the IT Security Act contains stricter requirements for providers of telecommunication and telemedia services, which will have to offer state-ofthe-art security. Telecommunication companies will also have an obligation to notify their customers if a security breach occurs. Guidance of the “Düsseldorfer Kreis” on video surveillance/CCTV In February 2014, the Düsseldorfer Kreis, an association comprising of the 16 Data Protection Authorities in Germany, issued guidance on video surveillance affecting both publicly accessible and non-publicly accessible areas. In order to monitor an area by implementing CCTV one has to meet the requirements of Sec. 6b FDPA, Sec. 28 FDPA and, in case employees are subject to video surveillance, Sec 32 FDPA. By elaborating on these provisions the Düsseldorfer Kreis establishes the following key requirements for conducting legally permissible video surveillance: • Video surveillance of a publicly accessible area is only permitted in so far as it is necessary, (1) to exercise the right to determine who shall be allowed or denied access or (2) to pursue legitimate interest for precisely defined purposes, and if there are no indications that the data subject’s legitimate interests prevail; • Video surveillance must be strictly necessary, this necessity should be documented in writing by the data controller; • Video surveillance must not monitor an individual permanently; • Sensitive areas have to be exempt from video surveillance; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Germany Baker & McKenzie 259 • Data subjects must be clearly informed about the monitoring, whereas employees should be informed accordingly in a separate data protection notice. • Video surveillance footage shall be deleted within the maximum retention period of 48 hours; • Spoken word must not be recorded, and • If employees are subject to video surveillance, certain areas accessible to employees must be exempt. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends Enforcement actions In 2014, a German data protection authority held a German health insurance provider and its members of the board responsible for violating German data protection law. The insurance company admitted that its employees have used personal data of potential customers which were illegally obtained from third party resources in order to approach those potential customers and sell their insurance products. The insurance company had already received a warning letter by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) in May 2014 for various breaches of data protection provisions, but no fines have been imposed. The insurance company settled out of court with the data protection authority and agreed on a fine of EUR 1.3 Mio. and undertook to implementing various data protection measures (e.g. appointing 26 staff members exclusively for compliance and data protection tasks); furthermore, on a voluntary basis, the insurance company declared that it will endorse a professorship for research on data protection by providing funds in the amount of EUR 600.000. 3. Law Applicable The German Federal Data Protection Act (“FDPA”) outlines the general requirements and obligations relating to the collection, processing and use of Personal Data by private bodies and by federal authorities and bodies. For state authorities and bodies, each German state (Bundesland) has its own state data protection act. If there are specific data privacy provisions, in particular sector-specific laws, then the FDPA is generally superseded by such specific provisions and applies only in cases where there are gaps in the law; e.g. the German Telecommunication Act (“TMA”), the Social Act No. 10 for pharmaceutical companies, or the Postal Act for postal services. With respect to private bodies, the FDPA applies if the private body collects, processes or uses information relating to an individual in data processing systems or in or from non-automated filing systems, unless the information is collected, processed or used solely for personal or domestic activities. From a territorial perspective, the FDPA applies to private bodies located in Germany. 260 Baker & McKenzie The FDPA is not applicable in so far as a private body is located in another Member State of the EU/EEA, except where the relevant data collection, processing and use is carried out by an establishment in Germany. The FDPA does apply to data collected, processed or used in Germany by a private entity located outside the EU/EEA using, for purposes of processing Personal Data, equipment, automated or otherwise, situated in Germany. In a recent decision of the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) against a global internet search engine provider located in the US the ECJ held that EU Member State data protection law applies if a legal entity located in the US processes personal data of EU citizens and if a subsidiary of this US legal entity that is located in the EU is involved in the business operations of the US legal entity by providing marketing support, even though this subsidiary was not involved in the actual data processing activates. In the aftermath of this decision, there is a risk that German data protection authorities and German courts apply the FDPA even broader, even if the black-letter law requirements for its application are not fulfilled. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data The FDPA applies to the “collection”, “processing” and/or “use” of “Personal Data,” i.e., any information relating to personal or material circumstances of an identified or identifiable individual (“Data Subject”). b. Data Processing “Collection” means the acquisition of Personal Data about the Data Subject. “Processing” is extremely widely defined and covers the recording, alteration, transfer, blocking, and erasure of Personal Data. “Use” describes any utilization of Personal Data other than Processing. c. Processing by Data Controllers The FDPA applies to any person or body which collects, processes or uses Personal Data on his, her or its own behalf, or which commissions others to do the same (“Data Controller”). d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The FDPA applies to: • Data Controllers established in Germany that collect, process and/or use Personal Data in Germany; • Data Controllers established outside Germany but within an EEA Member State that collect, process and/or use Personal Data in Germany through the Data Controller’s German branch; and Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Germany Baker & McKenzie 261 • Data Controllers established outside the EEA that collect, process and/or use Personal Data by using equipment located within Germany for such purposes (other than merely for the purpose of transit). Data Controllers established outside the EEA that collect, process and/or use Personal Data within Germany generally have to appoint a representative in Germany. e. Sensitive Personal Data The FDPA imposes additional requirements for the collection, processing and/or use of special categories of Personal Data (“Sensitive Personal Data”) - that is, Personal Data relating to racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, or health or sexual life. Specifically, the collection, processing and/or use of Sensitive Personal Data is prohibited unless certain conditions are met, including: • the Data Controller obtains the explicit consent of the Data Subject (see Section 5(b) below); • the collection, processing and/or use is necessary to protect the vital interests of the Data Subject or of a third party where the Data Subject is physically or legally incapable of giving consent; • the data has evidently been made public by the Data Subject; • the collection, processing and/or use is necessary in order to assert, exercise, or defend legal claims, and there is no reason to assume that the Data Subject has an overriding legitimate interest in excluding the collection, processing and/or use; • the collection, processing and/or use is necessary for the purposes of scientific research, and the scientific interest in carrying out the research project substantially outweighs the Data Subject’s interest in excluding collection, processing and/or use, and the purpose of the research cannot be achieved in any other way or would otherwise necessitate disproportionate effort; • the collection is required for the purposes of preventive medicine, medical diagnosis, the provision of care or treatment or the management of health-care services and the processing is undertaken by a health professional or person with the equivalent duty of confidentiality as a health professional; or • the collection, processing and/or use is necessary for the activities of non-profit-seeking trade unions or organizations of a political, philosophical, or religious nature and where the data concerned only belongs to the organizations’ members or persons who maintain regular contact with the organizations in connection with the purposes of their activities. 262 Baker & McKenzie f. Employee Personal Data Employee Personal Data is likely to include Sensitive Personal Data (e.g., health-related information, religious denomination) and Personal Data. An employee’s Sensitive Personal Data may generally only be processed with the employee’s explicit consent (as the other conditions that allow for the processing of such data mentioned in Section 4(e) above will usually be irrelevant in a standard employment relationship). Exceptions apply if the collection, processing or use of such data is allowed or required by law. For example, information regarding religious denomination must be processed for church tax deduction (pursuant to relevant tax provisions). An employee’s Personal Data may be processed by a Data Controller in certain circumstances, including if (i) the processing activities are necessary for the performance of the employment contract (i.e., if they are required for the fulfillment of primary or collateral contractual or pre-contractual duties), or - arguably - (ii) they are necessary to safeguard justified interests of the Data Controller and there is no reason to assume that the employee has an overriding legitimate interest in his Personal Data being excluded from processing or use. A fallback justification for processing both Sensitive Personal Data and Personal Data in the employment context is the provision of consent by the Data Subject. However, it is debatable whether an employee can validly give his or her consent in an employment relationship (see Section 5(d) below). 5. Consent a. General Consent of the Data Subject is generally not mandatory for the collection, processing and disclosure of Personal Data. Consent by the Data Subject must always be voluntary, informed, explicit and unambiguous, though it is not required in certain prescribed circumstances. Consent is contemplated as a justification or legal grounds for the collection, processing, and/or use of Personal Data. Consent can be express or implied, but the appropriate form of consent will depend on the circumstances, expectations of the Data Subject, and sensitivity of the Personal Data. When the Data Subject gives consent, it is understood to only cover the previously identified purpose(s). Fresh consent is required for purposes that have not been previously identified and consented to. Although the FDPA does not contain any express language requirement, the concept of informed consent generally requires the information as well as the consent language itself to be in the German language in order to enable the German Data Subject to understand without doubt what they consent to. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Germany Baker & McKenzie 263 Where Data Subjects are sufficiently proficient in English (or in any other language) consent may also be sought in English (or the other relevant language). If consent is to be given in writing simultaneously with other declarations, special prominence must be given to the declaration of consent. There is a risk, that German courts regard consent given in a standard form agreement as invalid unless there is a separate clause and signature line. b. Sensitive Data German law recognizes Sensitive Data as a special category of Personal Data. It is subject to additional and special consent requirements. While Sensitive Data may only be collected and processed with the express consent of the Data Subject, Sensitive Data may be processed without obtaining consent in certain prescribed circumstances. c. Minors It is debatable whether the ability to consent depends on the ability to understand – i.e., the capacity to understand the consequences of giving consent (prevailing opinion of the German DPAs) or legal capacity. According to the DPAs, depending on the manner, extent, and purposes of the data processing concerned, an ability to understand can be assumed for minors of around 16 years old. Thus, following the DPAs’ opinion, for minors under the age of 16, consent should be obtained from a parent or legal guardian. According to a recent decision of the German Federal Supreme Court the consent of minors regarding the collection of personal data for marketing purposes in connection with a sweepstake is invalid. The Federal Supreme Court ruled that a public health insurance company illegally exploits the inexperience of minors if it collects a significant amount of personal data for marketing purposes in connection with a sweepstake. According to the Federal Supreme Court, minors are less capable of foreseeing the consequences and disadvantages of their consent to the collection of their personal data. d. Employee Consent German DPAs have raised doubts as to whether consent given in the context of an employment relationship can be considered valid. First, DPAs question whether the consent would qualify as voluntary given that the employee may feel forced to consent due to the subordinate nature of his/her relationship with his/her employer. Second, some DPAs argue that consent would be misleading where statutory permission to collect, process, and use Personal Data is available. e. Online/Electronic Consent In Germany, electronic consent is permissible and can be effective if properly structured and evidenced. A simple digital signature and/or a simple mouseclick will generally suffice in the context of advertising, “telemedia services” or 264 Baker & McKenzie if telecommunication services are at issue. Consent given by way of a simple mouse-click is sufficient only if the following conditions are met: • the Data Subject is given the necessary information relating to the consent (e.g., on the scope of use of the relevant Personal Data); • there is an unambiguous and deliberate act by the Data Subject expressing consent to the collection, processing or use; • the consent is logged; • the text of the consent is accessible at any time by the Data Subject; and • the Data Subject is enabled to revoke his or her consent for the future at any time. German DPAs have issued opinions in individual cases where the DPAs have allowed the use of electronic consent outside of the above mentioned areas of law. This more liberal view is in line with the requirements of the FDPA, which only requires written consent unless the circumstances of the individual case warrant a different form (e.g., in an online context where there is a large number of users, obtaining written consent would be regarded as too burdensome). 6. Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about: the organization’s identity; the types of Personal Data being collected; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; its privacy practices (which must be given in a clear and transparent way); third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; the consequences of not providing consent; and where the Personal Data is to be transferred. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected; Personal Data should be anonymized or pseudonymized whenever possible; Data Subjects should be provided with the option to use a pseudonym or remain anonymous whenever possible; Personal Data should be deleted/ anonymized once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations have been met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and how the Data Subject’s Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Germany Baker & McKenzie 265 correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements Though not mandatory, an organization that collects and processes Personal Data may be required to register, with the competent data protection authority. When an organization appoints a data protection officer, it is no longer required to register with the data protection authority. Registration requirements with the data protection authority can therefore be avoided by appointing a data protection officer even if such an appointment is not legally required. 10. Data Protection Officers In Germany, an organization must appoint a data protection officer if (i) it employs more than 9 persons with automated processing of Personal Data, (ii) 20 or more persons with any other types of Personal Data processing activities, or (iii) it is subject to the prior checking procedure which is required if (a) sensitive data is processed or (b) the processing of personal data is intended to evaluate the data subject’s personality, including his abilities, performance or conduct, unless such data processing activities are covered by a statutory obligation or the data subject’s consent or are necessary to perform a contract with the data subject. 11. International Data Transfers Transfers of Personal Data from Germany to other EEA countries are generally permitted without the need for further approval provided such transfers would be legal within Germany. The same applies with respect to transfers to Andorra, Argentina, Canada, Faeroe Islands, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Israel, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland and Uruguay which are subject to European Commission findings of adequacy in relation to their data protection laws (subject to the fulfillment of certain pre-conditions). Transfers to the US are permitted where the recipient has registered under the Safe Harbor arrangement, provided the transfers would be legal within Germany and provided that the recipient actually adheres to the Safe Harbor rules. Transfers to the US or any other countries outside the EEA that do not provide an adequate level of data protection are legal if based on unmodified versions of the relevant EU Model Clauses, always provided that the transfer would be legal within Germany. In the above mentioned cases, no DPA notification or approval is required by law. Any data transfers based on modified versions of the relevant EU Model Clauses or, on a data transfer agreement entirely different from the relevant EU Model Clauses, must be submitted to the competent DPA for approval. The same is true for data transfers based on Binding Corporate Rules from 266 Baker & McKenzie the following German states: Berlin, Schleswig-Holstein, and North Rhine Westphalia. Transfers of Personal Data to countries outside the EEA may further take place without additional measures to ensure an adequate level of data protection at the recipient’s end where: • the Data Subject has validly consented to the transfer; • the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract between the Data Subject and the Data Controller, or to take steps at the Data Subject’s request with a view to entering into a contract with the Data Subject; • the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract between the Data Controller and a third party in the interest of the Data Subject; • the transfer is necessary due to important public interest grounds; • the transfer is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims; or • the Personal Data is available from a public register (if certain requirements are met). 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to: ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organization security safeguards to protect Personal Data, and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Organizations that disclose Personal Data to third parties are required to use contractual or other means to protect the Personal Data, and to comply with sector specific requirements. In case of an occurrence of data breach (see Section 15 of this chapter), the outsourcing organization shall be held liable together with the third party provider. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, data authority orders, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, seizure of equipment or data, civil actions, criminal proceedings and/or private rights of action. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Germany Baker & McKenzie 267 15. Data Security Breach With effect as of 1 September 2009 a statutory security breach notification was introduced in Section 42a FDPA, which resembles a US-type “Security Breach Notification.” The same security breach notification was implemented in Section 15a Telemedia Act. Pursuant to these rules, companies are now required to report any illegal transfer of or illegal access to the following types of data, or any knowledge thereof obtained by third parties, always provided that such access or transfer would lead to severe adverse effects on the rights or legitimate interests of the relevant Data Subject’s: • Sensitive Personal Data; • Personal Data which are subject to professional confidentiality obligations (e.g., confidentiality obligations applicable under statutory law to attorneys, doctors, etc.); • Personal Data concerning criminal acts or administrative offenses or suspicion regarding the same; or • Personal Data relating to bank accounts or credit card accounts. In cases involving a large number of Data Subjects, other public-oriented measures (such as announcements in two nationwide newspapers) may replace the information of the concerned Data Subjects. The notification obligation does not require that the security breach is committed intentionally or maliciously. It also does not matter if the Data Controller itself, one of its data processors (if any) or a third party causes the security breach. Scenarios for potential security breaches are thus manifold, for example: a hacker breaks into the company’s database; a fraudster gains access to the company’s data processing systems by phishing user passwords; laptops or storage media are lost or stolen; or an e-mail with Personal Data is sent to the wrong recipient. The security breach notification generally needs to be provided to the competent DPA and all affected Data Subjects. While the notification to the competent DPA has to be made even if the data leakage is not eliminated or in cases of pending criminal prosecution, the notification to the Data Subjects may be withheld until appropriate measures to safeguard the data have been taken and the notification would no longer endanger criminal prosecution. The notification of the Data Subject should contain a description of the nature of the unlawful disclosure as well as recommendations for measures to mitigate any possible negative effects. The notification to the competent DPA must, in addition, describe any detrimental consequences of the unlawful disclosure as well as the preventive measures to mitigate the negative consequences of the security breach. 268 Baker & McKenzie If notifying all Data Subjects requires disproportionate efforts, the notification may be replaced by a notification to the general public, e.g., by means of half-page announcements in at least two nationwide newspapers or other measures having a similar effect. The notification needs to be provided “without undue delay”. This does not necessarily mean that the notification must be provided immediately. Rather, the Data Controller is given some time to examine the facts and to seek legal advice. A similar security breach notification obligation was implemented in Section 93 para. 3 in connection with Section 109a of the Telecommunications Act with effect as of 3 May 2012. Therefore, all service providers within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act must inform the Data Subject without undue delay of the violation of the protection of Personal Data if it can be assumed that the violation constitutes a serious harm to the rights or legitimate interests. The notification must include at the very least the following information: • the type of violation of the protection of Personal Data; • details of contacts points, where further information is available; and • recommendations regarding measures that limit the adverse consequences of the violation of the protection of personal data. Companies that render publicly available telephony services must, in addition to notifying the Data Subject, inform the Federal Network Agency and the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information without undue delay in case of a violation of the protection of Personal Data. Furthermore, those companies must comply with additional requirements. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to a suspension of business operations, closure or cancellation of the file, register or database, an administrative fine, penalty or sanction, civil actions and/or class actions. or a criminal prosecution. 16. Accountability Organizations in Germany are required to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data; furnish the results of the privacy impact assessments to privacy regulators upon request; and furnish evidence relating to the effectiveness of the organization’s privacy management program to privacy regulators upon request. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Germany Baker & McKenzie 269 17. Whistle-blower hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Germany provided they are in compliance with local laws. In particular, the Data Protection Officer must be involved early on and, if a works council exists, the works council has a co-determination right.. 18. E-discovery When implementing an e-discovery system, an organization may be required to obtain the consent of employees if the collection of Personal Data is involved. In addition, an organization is required to advise employees of the implementation of an e-discovery system, the monitoring of work tools, and the storage of information. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering When implementing an anti-spam filter solution into its operations, an organization is required to inform employees of monitoring policies being implemented in the workplace and give employees the opportunity to review the isolated emails designated as spam. While not mandatory, an organization may be required to give employees the opportunity to opt-out from the spam-filtering solution. 20. Cookies There are no specific laws/rules that regulate the deployment of cookies but the general laws (especially the German Telemedia Act) apply. Depending on the type of cookie, consent of Data Subjects by active indication may be required before cookies can be used. Please note that some types of cookies that track or monitor the user may not be permitted. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject may be required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior express (opt-in) consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond or opt-out. An organization may be required to obtain consent for a specific activity. Consent bundled and hidden in T&Cs is not considered valid opt-in consent neither for direct marketing purposes nor in general. Greece Vassilis Constantes Athens Tel: +30 210 7206900 v.constantes@vplaw.gr 272 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments The Hellenic Data Protection Authority (“HDPA”) and the Hellenic Authority for the Safeguard of Privacy in Communications have issued Joint Act no. 1/2013 whereby providers of public communication services (services of electronic communication or public communication networks) have to comply with the following safety principles: (a) The data kept by a provider should be of equal quality and should be equally protected and secured as the data included in the network; (b) Implementation of appropriate organizational and technical measures to secure data and protect them against accidental or unlawful destruction, accidental loss, alteration, unauthorized disclosure or access as well as any other form of unlawful processing; (c) Implementation of appropriate organizational and technical measures to ensure that access to such data is granted only to specifically authorized personnel. In 2014, HDPA issued the following, among other decisions: (i) ordering private legal entities in several occasions to delete from their files e-mail addresses that have been used for sending spam without the consent of the recipients; (ii) ordering a private legal entity to stop operating a system of geographical tracking down of the company’s cars used by employees; (iii) ordering a hospital to pay a fine of EUR 30,000 and to destroy files and data collected from the CCTV system that was installed and operated contrary to the relevant provisions of the HDPA’s Directive no. 1/2011; (iv) ordering a bank to pay a fine of EUR 75,000 for buying and processing files containing personal data illegally collected for marketing purposes. Numerous questions have been raised by public institutions regarding the lawfulness of the installation of biometric systems (fingerprints) for the purpose of controlling and monitoring personnel. In response, the HDPA explained that the use of such biometric systems was burdensome and that the processing was disproportionate to the intended purpose since any control over personnel could be effected efficiently and adequately by other alternative means. To this end, the HDPA ruled that the use of such biometric systems for such purpose should be prohibited. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends According to HDPA’s press releases in 2014, several lectures have taken place with respect to data protection issues. The basic issues raised in such lectures were the following: (i) “Biometric systems and protection of personal data” discussing the question whether biometric systems are compatible with the protection of Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Greece Baker & McKenzie 273 personal data and what measures are necessary to ensure that the use of biometric technology does not violate the right of privacy. (ii) “Use of smart devises – security and personal data” discussing the safety and privacy issues that could arise when employees use their private devices for the purpose of having access to corporate applications for the establishment of files, storage and processing of corporate data (Bring Your Own Device, or “BYOD”). (iii) “Sensitive data and Cloud computing” discussing legal issues arising from the use of Cloud computing for the protection of privacy with emphasis on the relevant EU Regulation under discussion. (iv) “Transfer of personal data outside the EU on the basis of contractual clauses” discussing the principal characteristics of the contents of such contractual clauses in respect to the process of approving them. 3. Law Applicable Law 2472/1997 on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data (“PIPPD”), as amended and in force today, implementing the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC). Law 3471/2006 on the Protection of personal data and privacy in the electronic communications sector and amendment of PIPPD, as amended and in force today, implementing the E-Privacy Directive (2002/58/EC). 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data Pursuant to the definitions provided by PIPPD, “Personal Data” means any information relating to a Data Subject. A “Data Subject” means any natural person, to whom the data refer and whose identity is identified or may be identifiable, i.e., his/her identity may be determined directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identity card number or to one or more factors specific to his/her physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural, political or social identity. b. Data Processing Pursuant to the definition provided by PIPPD, “Processing of Personal Data” means any operation or set of operations which is performed upon Personal Data by public administration or by a public law entity or private law entity or an association or a natural person, whether or not by automatic means, such as collection, recording, organization, preservation or storage, alteration, retrieval, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, interconnection, blocking (locking), erasure or destruction. 274 Baker & McKenzie c. Processing by Data Controllers PIPPD applies to any person (public administration or by a public law entity or private law entity or an association or a natural person) who determines the purposes and means of the Processing of Personal Data (“Data Controller”). PIPPD also applies to those persons who process Personal Data on behalf of the Data Controller, such as natural or legal persons, public authorities or agencies or any other organizations (“Data Processor”). d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality PIPPD applies to any Processing of Personal Data provided that such processing is carried out: • By a Data Controller or a Data Processor established in Greek territory or in a place where Greek law applies by virtue of public international law; or • By a Data Controller who is not established in the territory of a memberstate of the European Union or of a member of the European Economic Area (“EEA”) but in a third country and who, for the purposes of Processing Personal Data, makes use of equipment, automated or otherwise, situated on Greek territory, unless such equipment is used only for the purposes of transit through such territory. e. Sensitive Personal Data Pursuant to the definition provided by PIPPD, “Sensitive Data” means data referring to racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, health, social welfare and sexual life, criminal charges or convictions as well as membership to societies dealing with the aforementioned areas. Pursuant to PIPPD the collection and Processing of Sensitive Data is prohibited. Exceptionally, the collection and Processing of Sensitive Data as well as the establishment and operation of the relevant file, is permitted by the HDPA which is granted only if one of the following conditions occur: • the Data Subject has given his/her written consent, unless such consent was extracted in a way contrary to the law or morality, or if law provides that any consent given may not lift the relevant prohibition; • Processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the Data Subject or the interests provided for by the law or by a third party, if the Data Subject is physically or legally incapable of giving his/her consent; • Processing relates to Personal Data made public by the Data Subject or is necessary for the recognition, exercise or defence of rights in a court of justice or before a disciplinary body; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Greece Baker & McKenzie 275 • Processing relates to health matters and is carried out by a health professional subject to the obligation of professional secrecy or relevant codes of conduct, provided that such Processing is necessary for the purposes of preventive medicine, medical diagnosis, the provision of care or treatment or the management of health-care services; • Processing is carried out by a public authority and is necessary for the purposes of (a) national security, (b) criminal or correctional policy and pertains to the detection of offenses, criminal convictions or security measures, (c) protection of public health or (d) the exercise of public control on fiscal or social services; • Processing is carried out exclusively for research and scientific purposes provided that anonymity is maintained and all necessary measures for the protection of the persons involved are taken; • Processing concerns data pertaining to public figures, provided that such data are in connection with the holding of public office or the management of third parties’ interests and is carried out solely for journalistic purposes. HDPA may grant a permit only if such Processing is absolutely necessary to ensure the right to information on matters of public interest as well as in the framework of literary expression and provided that the right to protection of private and family life is not violated in any way whatsoever. Pursuant to PIPPD, the Data Controller is released from the obligation to obtain from the HDPA prior approval for the collection and processing of Sensitive Data, in case: (a) Processing is carried out exclusively for purposes relating directly to an employment contract or a contract for work or to the provision of services to the public sector and such processing is necessary for the fulfilment of an obligation imposed by law or for the accomplishment of obligations arising from the above mentioned contractual relationships and the Data Subject has been previously informed. (b) Processing involves clients’ or suppliers’ data provided that such data are neither transferred nor disclosed to third parties. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, credit or financial institutions are not exempted from the obligation of notification. Courts of justice and public authorities are not considered third parties provided that such a transfer or disclosure is imposed by law or a judicial decision. (c) Processing is carried out by societies, enterprises, associations and political parties and relates to Personal Data of their members or companies, provided that the latter have given their consent and that such data are neither transferred nor disclosed to third parties. Courts of 276 Baker & McKenzie justice and public authorities are not considered third parties provided that such a transfer or disclosure is imposed by law or a judicial decision. (d) Processing involves medical data and is carried out by doctors or other persons rendering medical services, provided that the Data Controller is bound by medical confidentiality or other obligation of professional secrecy provided for in the law or code of practice and data are neither transferred nor disclosed to third parties. Courts of justice and public authorities are not considered third parties provided that such a transfer or disclosure is imposed by law or a judicial decision. (e) Processing is carried out by lawyers, notaries, land registrars and bailiffs or companies formed by the aforementioned and involves the provision of legal services to their clients, provided that the Data Controller is bound by an obligation of confidentiality imposed by law and that data are neither transferred nor disclosed to third parties, except for those cases where it is necessary and it is directly related to the fulfillment of a client’s mandate. (f) Processing is carried out by judicial authorities or services with the exception of the judicial – public prosecution authorities and authorities which act under their supervision in the framework of attributing justice or for their proper operation needs. f. Employee Personal Data According to PIPPD, if Processing is carried out exclusively for purposes relating directly to an employment or project relationship or to the provision of services to the public sector and is necessary for the fulfilment of an obligation imposed by law or for the accomplishment of obligations arising from the aforementioned relationships and the Data Subject has been notified in advance, the Data Controller is discharged from the obligation to file a notification with the HDPA and also from the obligation to obtain HPDA’s permission for the processing of its employees’ Sensitive Data. Apart from the above exception, all other requirements set by PIPPD must be satisfied also for the Processing of both employees’ Sensitive and nonsensitive Personal Data. HDPA, having taken into consideration the various issues arising from the Processing of Personal Data in the employment context and among others, the opinion of the Article 29 Working Party, has issued its Decision No. 115/2001 whereby, HDPA interprets the existing regulatory framework and indicates how the various issues are likely to be considered in future cases that might be brought before it. Decision 115/2001 among others, sets out the principles for the protection of employees’ Personal Data (including those of former employees or candidate employees) as follows: Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Greece Baker & McKenzie 277 • the collection and processing of employees’ Personal Data must be carried out with lawful means and in a way that ensures the respect of employees’ privacy, personality and dignity in the working environment; • the collection and processing of employees’ Personal Data is allowed exclusively for purposes directly connected to the employment relationship and provided that such processing is necessary for the fulfilment of both sides’ obligations arising either from the law or from the employment contract. The purposes for which the processing of employees’ Personal Data is carried out must be clear and definite. Processing of employees’ Personal Data for reasons that do not involve the employment relationship directly or indirectly is prohibited. Employees should be notified in advance of the above purposes of processing and should be able to understand them. Moreover, the giving of consent by the employee cannot legitimise the processing for purposes other than the ones described above; • Decision 115/2001 specifically mentions that due to the inherent inequality of the parties in an employment contract and to the position of the employee, the requirement of a consent being given freely by the employee, which is a necessary element of permissible processing, can be questioned in the employment context; • the employees’ Personal Data that are processed should be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and processed, should not be kept for longer than is necessary for such purposes and should be kept up to date; • the employees may not waive the rights granted to them under PIPPD and any such waiver is null; • the exercise of rights provided for by PIPPD can in no way have negative consequences for the employees (such as negative evaluation of the employee or termination of the employment contract); • decisions by the employer in relation to the conduct or the efficiency of the employees should not be taken exclusively on the basis of an automated processing of Personal Data; and • Personal Data collected and processed in order to monitor the safe operation of systems in the working environment may not be used for the control of the employees’ conduct. 278 Baker & McKenzie 5. Consent a. General “The Data Subject’s Consent” (“Consent”) constitutes any free, explicit and specific declaration of will, which is given in a clear way and in full awareness. By such Consent the Data Subject, having been previously informed, agrees that Personal Data relating to him/her may be processed. The giving of Consent by the Data Subject is required in order for the Processing of Personal Data to be permissible according to the law. In exceptional circumstances however, the Processing of Personal Data may be carried out, even if no Consent has been given by the Data Subject, if the other requirements provided for by PIPPD are met. Written Consent for the Processing of non-sensitive Personal Data is not required, although Consent in writing is the most practical and safest way to secure compliance with the requirements of the law. Although PIPPD does not expressly set any language requirements for Consent, on the basis of the above definition of Consent, such Consent must be given in a language that the Data Subject fully understands. Also, as the giving of Consent presupposes that the Data Subject has been informed about the Processing in advance, in a proper and clear way and is fully aware of the conditions under which he/she gives his/her Consent, it follows that the relevant information should be given to the Data Subject in his/her language or at least in a language that he /she fully understands b. Sensitive Data Where Consent is relied upon to justify the Processing of Sensitive Data, it must be obtained in writing prior to the Processing. c. Minors There is no specific regulatory prohibition or any guidance from the HDPA on collection of Personal Data from children. Processing of Personal Data related to minors has to be made under the requirements of the PIPPD. Notification and Consent requirements have to be obtained from the parents exercising the parental care and representing their child in every affair or legal action. d. Employee Consent All the requirements set by PIPPD for the giving of Consent by any Data Subject shall equally apply to Consent given by employees. As in all other cases, in the employment context the giving of Consent constitutes the rule for a legitimate Processing of Personal Data. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, HDPA has acknowledged the possible invalidity of a Consent given in the employment context, due to the fact that the position of the employee may not allow the free giving of such Consent. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Greece Baker & McKenzie 279 However, HDPA has not provided any specific guidelines as to when a Consent may be considered to have been freely given. HDPA in Decision No 115/2001, has stressed however that the giving of a Consent by an employee cannot provide a remedy for non-compliance with the principles of a legitimate Processing (e.g., consent in relation to Processing for purposes not connected with the employment contract) and therefore it generally follows from Decision No 115/2001 that the Consent is valid when it refers to a Processing of Personal Data for which all the other requirements of the law are met. e. Online/Electronic Consent HPDA issued Directive 2/2011 whereby the requirements are set for the legitimate granting of Consent by electronic means (“Electronic Consent”) for the Processing of Personal Data of a subscriber or user by a Data Controller within the framework of article 11 of Law 3471/2006 on the Protection of personal data and privacy in the electronic communications sector, i.e., for effecting communications for the purpose of direct marketing or other advertising purposes by using communication systems without human intervention (e-mails, SMS, MMS etc). 6. Information/Notice Requirements The Data Controller must inform the Data Subject of the following when Personal Data are collected: • the identity (name, precise address and telephone number) of the Data Controller and of its representative in Greece; • the purposes of the processing, in a manner that is unambiguous and easy to understand; • the Personal Data or categories of Personal Data being processed by the Data Controller; • the recipients or categories of recipients of the Personal Data; and • the Data Subject’s right of access to the Personal Data and the right to object to the processing of Personal Data relating to the Data Subject. The Data Subject must be informed of any change in the above information promptly and in any event prior to any further use or processing of the changed Personal Data. If Personal Data are disclosed to a third party, the Data Subject must be informed in writing prior to such disclosure. When Personal Data are collected directly from the Data Subject, the Data Controller must provide the information at the time of collection. If Personal Data are collected from other sources, the Data Subject should be informed 280 Baker & McKenzie promptly and in any case prior to any further use or processing of the Personal Data. If the Data Subject gives his /her required Consent or assistance to the Data Controller for the collection of Personal Data, then the Data Subject must receive the above information in writing. If the Data Subject’s Consent is not required for the collection and Processing of Personal Data, the Data Subject must be informed about the Processing in the most appropriate and unambiguous way, so that the Data Subject is freely and adequately informed, e.g., by hanging a notice in the place of business or, by delivering printed material. The above obligation of the Data Controller to provide information to the Data Subject may be lifted by a decision of the HDPA if the processing of the Personal Data is carried out for purposes of national security or for the investigation of particularly serious crimes or if the registration, purpose of the processing, the recipients and the right of access constitute common knowledge of any diligent citizen. Without prejudice to the right of access and to the right to object to the Processing of Personal Data, the above obligation to inform the Data Subject does not exist if the Processing takes place exclusively for journalistic purposes and refers to public figures. No language requirements are stipulated in the PIPPD, however, the relevant information should be given to the Data Subject in the language spoken or at least clearly understood by the Data Subject. 7. Processing Rules According to PIPPD, the Processing of Personal Data is allowed only if the Data Subject has given his/her Consent. In the specific exceptional cases listed below, Processing is allowed without the giving of Consent: • if Processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the Data Subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the Data Subject prior to entering into a contract; or • if Processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the Data Controller is subject; or • if Processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the Data Subject, where the latter is physically or legally incapable of giving consent; or • if Processing is necessary for the performance of a task of public interest or of a task falling within the scope of exercise of public power and performed by a public authority or assigned by the latter either to the Data Controller or to a third party to whom the Personal Data are disclosed; or Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Greece Baker & McKenzie 281 • if Processing is absolutely necessary for the purposes of satisfaction of the legitimate interest pursued by the Data Controller, or by the third party or parties to whom the Personal Data are disclosed, provided that such interest obviously overrides the interests and rights of the Data Subjects and the fundamental freedoms of the Data Subjects are not offended. The Data Controller must also ensure that: • Personal Data are collected in a fair and legitimate way, for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and further processed fairly and legitimately in view of those purposes; • Personal Data are adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are processed; • Personal Data are accurate and up-to-date; and • Personal Data are kept in a form that allows the identification of the Data Subjects to whom such Personal Data refer only as long as it is necessary for the purpose for which they were collected and processed. Processing of Personal Data must be confidential and must be carried out exclusively by persons supervised and acting only on the basis of instructions from the Data Controller or the Data Processor. The Data Controller must select persons with relevant professional skills, who provide sufficient guarantees in respect of technical expertise and personal integrity ensuring compliance with confidentiality requirements. The Data Controller must implement appropriate organisational and technical measures to secure data and protect them against accidental or unlawful destruction, accidental loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure or access as well as any other form of unlawful processing. Such measures must ensure a level of security appropriate to the risks presented by processing and the nature of the data processed. In addition to the above, the other requirements set by PIPPD for the Processing of Personal Data must be complied with. 8. Rights of Individuals Right of access: A Data Subject has the right to be provided, on request and without any delay, with information on his/her Personal Data that are processed by the Data Controller. The information provided by the Data Controller must be in an intelligible form and include: • all the Personal Data related to the Data Subject making the request as well as their source(s); • the purposes for which Personal Data are processed; • the recipients or categories of recipients of the Personal Data; 282 Baker & McKenzie • the development of the processing during the period from the last notification or information to the Data Subject; and • the logic involved in an automated processing. If the Data Controller fails to reply within 15 days or his reply is not satisfactory, the Data Subject may appeal before the HDPA. If the Data Controller refuses to satisfy the Data Subject’s request, the Data Controller must notify his reply to the HDPA and inform the interested party who can then appeal before the HDPA. A Data Subject has the right to: • be informed by the Data Controller prior to the processing of his/her Personal Data; • object in writing to the Processing of his/her Personal Data and receive a response from the Data Controller within 15 days and to have Personal Data rectified, non-transferred, blocked or erased where the Processing of that Personal Data has not been conducted in accordance with the law; • apply to any competent court for the suspension or non-application of an act or decision affecting him, based solely on automated processing of Personal Data intended to evaluate his/her personality and especially his/her effectiveness at work, creditworthiness, reliability and general conduct; • to claim full compensation for any material damage suffered as well as for moral damages suffered as a result of a violation of the provisions of PIPPD by any natural person or legal entity; and • to prevent the Data Controller from using his/her Personal Data for the purposes of direct marketing. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements The Data Controller is required to file a notification with the HDPA before commencing any manual or automated data processing. The notification requires detailed information including the following: • the name, or the trade name or distinctive title of the Data Controller as well as his address. If the Data Controller is not established in Greece, or in a place where Greek law applies, the name, or the trade name, or the distinctive title and address of his representative in Greece must also be notified; • the address where the file or the main equipment supporting the processing is situated; • a description of the purpose for which the Personal Data included in the file or to be included in the file are processed; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Greece Baker & McKenzie 283 • the kind of Personal Data that are processed or intended to be processed or included or intended to be included in the file; • the time period during which the processing of the Personal Data is expected to be carried out or the file is expected to be maintained; • the recipients or categories of recipients to whom the Personal Data are or might be disclosed; • any eventual transfer of Personal Data to other countries and the purpose of such transfer; • the basic characteristics of the system and of the safety measures of the file or of the processing; and, • if the processing falls within the scope of special categories for which the HDPA has determined special processing rules, a declaration that the processing is going to be carried out in accordance with those rules. The above information is registered in a Register of Files kept by the HDPA. Any modification of the information referred to above must be communicated, in writing and without any delay, to the HDPA. Pursuant to PIPPD, the Data Controller is released from the obligation to make a notification to the HDPA in case: • Processing is carried out exclusively for purposes relating directly to an employment contract or a contract for work or to the provision of services to the public sector and such processing is necessary for the fulfilment of an obligation imposed by law or for the accomplishment of obligations arising from the above mentioned contractual relationships and the Data Subject has been previously informed. • Processing involves clients’ or suppliers’ data provided that such data are neither transferred nor disclosed to third parties. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, credit or financial institutions are not exempted from the obligation of notification. Courts of justice and public authorities are not considered third parties provided that such a transfer or disclosure is imposed by law or a judicial decision. • Processing is carried out by societies, enterprises, associations and political parties and relates to Personal data of their members or companies, provided that the latter have given their consent and that such data are neither transferred nor disclosed to third parties. Courts of justice and public authorities are not considered third parties provided that such a transfer or disclosure is imposed by law or a judicial decision. 284 Baker & McKenzie • Processing involves medical data and is carried out by doctors or other persons rendering medical services, provided that the data Controller is bound by medical confidentiality or other obligation of professional secrecy provided for in the law or code of practice and data are neither transferred nor disclosed to third parties. Courts of justice and public authorities are not considered third parties provided that such a transfer or disclosure is imposed by law or a judicial decision. • Processing is carried out by lawyers, notaries, land registrars and bailiffs or companies formed by the aforementioned and involves the provision of legal services to their clients, provided that the Controller is bound by an obligation of confidentiality imposed by law and that data are neither transferred nor disclosed to third parties, except for those cases where is necessary and is directly related to the fulfillment of a client’s mandate. • Processing is carried out by judicial authorities or services with the exception of the judicial – public prosecution authorities and authorities which act under their supervision in the framework of attributing justice or for their proper operation needs. 10. Data Protection Officers PIPPD provides that the processing of Personal Data is carried out exclusively by persons supervised by and acting on the basis of instructions from the Data Controller or the Data Processor. Indirectly, it can be inferred from this requirement that the Data Controller or the Data Processor must appoint specific persons who will undertake the task of Processing Personal Data. There is no provision indicating that the above persons appointed by the Data Controller or the Data Processor should also be notified to the HDPA, although the standard registration/notification form (prepared by the HDPA) requires that the contact details of a natural person nominated by the Data Controller be included therein, for the purpose of providing additional information that may be required by the HDPA. 11. International Data Transfers Pursuant to PIPPD, transfer of Personal Data is permitted: (a) for member states of the European Union and (b) for a non-member of the European Union following a permit granted by the HDPA if it deems that the country in question guarantees an adequate level of protection. A permit by the HDPA is not required if the European Commission has decided on the basis of the process of article 31, paragraph 2 of Directive 95/46/EC of the parliament and the Council of 24 October 1995 that the country in question guarantees an adequate level of protection in the sense of article 25 of the aforementioned Directive. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Greece Baker & McKenzie 285 The transfer of personal data to a non-member state of the EU which does not ensure an adequate level of protection is exceptionally allowed only following a permit by the HDPA, provided that one or more of the following conditions occur: • the Data Subject gives his/her consent for the transfer, unless such consent has been extracted contrary to law or morality; • the transfer is necessary: (a) for the protection of the vital interests of the Data Subject, provided he/she is physically or legally incapable of giving consent; or (b) for the conclusion and performance of a contract between the Data Subject and the Data Controller or between the Data Controller and a third party in the interests of the Data Subject, provided the Data Subject is physically or legally incapable of giving consent; or (c) for the implementation of pre-contractual measures taken in response to the Data Subject’s request; • the transfer is necessary in order to address an exceptional need and safeguard a superior public interest, especially for the performance of a co-operation agreement with the public authorities of the other country, provided the Data Controller adduces sufficient safeguards with respect to the protection of the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and as regards the exercise of corresponding rights; • the transfer is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of a right before the Court; or • the transfer is made from a public register which according to the law, is intended to provide information to the public and which is open to consultation either by the public or by any person who can demonstrate a legitimate interest, to the extent that the conditions laid down in the law for consultation are fulfilled in the particular case. • The Data Controller shall provide adequate safeguards with respect to the protection of the Data Subjects’ personal data and the exercise of their rights, when the safeguards arise from conventional clauses which are in accordance with the regulations of PIPPD. A permit is not required if the European Commission has decided, on the basis of article 26, paragraph 4 of Directive 95/46/EC that certain clauses offer adequate safeguards for the protection of personal data. 12. Security Requirements The Data Controller must implement appropriate technical and organisational measures for the safety of the Personal Data and also to protect Personal Data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss or unauthorised alteration, disclosure or access, as well as any other form of unlawful processing. Such measures must ensure a level of security appropriate to the risks represented by the processing and the nature of the 286 Baker & McKenzie Personal Data. HDPA proposes that Data Controllers adopt security plans, security policies, disaster, recovery and contingency plans. 13. Special Rules for the Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Where the Data Controller outsources the Processing to a Data Processor who is not dependent on the Data Controller, the processing must be carried out under a contract which: • is made in writing; • requires the Data Processor to act only on the basis of the instructions of the Data Controller and comply with the security and confidentiality obligations of the law equivalent to those imposed on the Data Controller. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Sanctions for breach of the Data Controllers’ duties arising from PIPPD: Administrative sanctions The following administrative sanctions may be imposed: (a) a warning with an order for the violation to cease within a specified time limit; (b) a fine ranging from EUR 880.41 to EUR 14,673.51; (c) a temporary revocation of the permit; (d) a definitive revocation of the permit; or (e) the destruction of the file or a discontinuance of the processing and the destruction of the relevant Personal Data. The sanctions in b, c, d, and e above will only be imposed following an administrative hearing before the HDPA. The sanctions in c, d, and e will be imposed in the case of serious or repeated violation. A fine may be imposed in conjunction with the sanctions in c, d and e above. Penal sanctions There are various penal sanctions provided for in PIPPD depending on the breach of its provisions. The relevant punishment may be imprisonment from ten days to five years and fines ranging from EUR 2,934.70 to EUR 29,347.03. The penalties are as follows: (i) any person (or in the case of a legal entity the legal representative(s)) processing Personal Data without a notification to the HDPA (where such notification is required) is punishable with imprisonment of up to three (3) years and a penalty from EUR 2,934.70 to EUR 14,673.51; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Greece Baker & McKenzie 287 (ii) any person (or in the case of a legal entity the legal representative(s)) processing sensitive Personal Data without permission by the HDPA or in violation of the terms and conditions of the HDPA’s permission is punishable with imprisonment of at least one (1) year and a penalty from EUR 2,934.70 to EUR 14,673.57; (iii) any person (or in case of a legal entity the legal representative(s)) interconnecting files without notification to the HDPA, is punishable with imprisonment of up to three (3) years and a penalty from EUR 2,934.70 to EUR 14,673.57. Any person interconnecting files without the permission of the HDPA (where such permission is required) or in violation of the permission granted, is punishable with imprisonment of at least one (1) year and a penalty from EUR 2,934.70 to EUR 14,673.51; (iv) any person (or in case of a legal entity the legal representative(s)) that interferes with Personal Data files or takes knowledge of such Personal Data or alters, damages, destroys, processes, transfers, communicates or gives access to such Personal Data to third parties or exploits the Personal Data in any way, is punishable with imprisonment and a fine; or (v) a Data Controller who fails to comply with the requirements of PIPPD with regard to transfers of Personal Data, is punishable with imprisonment of at least two (2) years and pecuniary penalty ranging from EUR 2,934.70 to EUR 14,673.51. Where violations under (i) and (v) are due to negligence, the liable person is punishable with imprisonment of up to three (3) years and pecuniary penalty. Furthermore, if such violations were committed in order for the liable person to obtain, for himself or for any other party, an illegal financial benefit or in order to damage a third person, then the liable person is punishable with imprisonment from five (5) to ten (10) years and a pecuniary penalty from EUR 5,869.40 to EUR 29,347.03. If the breach of certain provisions of PIPPD has created a risk to the democratic constitution or to national security, the punishment may include imprisonment of up to twenty years and a fine ranging between EUR 14,673.51 and EUR 29,347.03. Civil liability Any natural person or legal entity who in breach of PIPPD, causes material damage will be liable for damages in full. If damages are non-pecuniary, (e.g., moral damages) compensation may be payable. In the case of moral damages, minimum compensation is set at EUR 5,869.40, unless the plaintiff claims a lesser amount or the breach was due to negligence. Such compensation is awarded irrespective of the claim for damages. 288 Baker & McKenzie Recent penalties imposed by HDPA for non compliance with PIPPD: • EUR 50,000 fine imposed on a financial institution due to a failure to safely destruct data files and for violation of data subjects’ right to access their data; • EUR 30,000 fine imposed on a private company for violation of the data subjects’ right to object; • EUR 30,000 fine imposed on a financial institution for violation of the obligation to ensure lawful processing of data (processing of nonaccurate and not updated data) and data subjects’ right to object; • EUR 30,000 fine imposed on a company providing telecommunication services for violation of data subjects’ right to object and unlawful interconnection of files; • EUR 15,000 fine imposed on a private company for violation of data subjects’ right to access their data; • EUR 10,000 fine imposed for unlawful publication of sensitive data; • EUR 4,000 fine imposed for violation of data subject’s right to information and, • Decisions of Greek Civil Courts granting Data Subjects monetary awards ranging from EUR 3,000 up to EUR 15,000 for moral damages caused by the violation of the PIPPD. 15. Data Security Breach Apart from the principles of confidentiality and security of any Processing set by PIPPD and apart from HDPA’s guidance on security measures, there has been no specific decision or guidance issued by HDPA in relation to specific notification requirements in cases of security breaches. 16. Accountability We have not been able to trace any law or decision of the HDPA requiring the conduct of privacy impact assessment prior to implementing new information systems for the Processing of Personal Data. 17. Whistle-Blower Hotline We have not been able to trace any law or decision of the HDPA setting principles or specific requirements for the implementation of whistleblowing schemes in Greece. Therefore, for a whistleblowing scheme to be lawful, it should be in compliance with all the principles and requirements set forth by PIPPD. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Greece Baker & McKenzie 289 18. E-Discovery When implementing an e-discovery system, a Data Controller is required to inform the users (e.g., employees) and comply with the principles of lawful Processing of Personal Data set by PIPPD. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering When implementing an anti-spam filter solution a Data Controller is required to inform employees of monitoring policies being implemented and comply with the principles of lawful processing of personal data set by PIPPD. 20. Cookies The use of cookies must comply with the principles set by PIPPD. 21. Direct Marketing Pursuant to article 11 of Law 3471/2006 on the Protection of Personal Data and Privacy in the electronic communications sector, “the use of automated calling systems without human intervention, facsimile machines or e-mail for the purposes of direct marketing of goods or services or any advertising purposes may only be allowed in respect of subscribers who have given their prior consent. So a spam which is sent without the prior consent of the recipient is illegal. Exceptionally where a natural or legal person obtains from its customers their electronic contact details for electronic mail, in the context of the sale of a product or service, the same natural or legal person may use these electronic contact details for direct marketing of its own similar products or services provided that customers clearly and distinctly are given the opportunity to object, free of charge and in an easy manner to such collection and use of electronic contact details when they are collected and on the occasion of each message in case the customer has not initially refused such use. Moreover, the practice of sending e-mail for purposes of direct marketing of goods and services disguising or concealing the identity of the sender on whose behalf the communication is made, or without a valid address to which the recipient may send a request that such communications cease shall be prohibited. In addition, the decision of the HDPA dated 20 January 2000, on the conditions under which the processing of Personal Data for the purposes of direct marketing or advertising is permissible, provides that a free, explicit and specific consent is required, by which the Data Subject, after having been properly informed, agrees in advance to the processing of his/her Personal Data for direct marketing purposes (i.e., an opt in). In exceptional cases, processing Personal Data for direct marketing purposes is lawful, even if no consent is given by the Data Subject, provided that; (a) such processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the Data Controller; (b) such legitimate interests of the Data 290 Baker & McKenzie Controller clearly override the interests of the Data Subject; and (c) the fundamental rights and freedoms of the Data Subject are not offended. In its above decision, the HDPA sets the following conditions under which the above exception (i.e., processing without consent) shall apply: • the Personal Data comes from directories intended for public access and it is certain that the Data Subjects included therein have given their consent for inclusion in such directories, or comes from publicly accessible sources intended to provide information to the public, provided that the legal requirements for access to such sources have been observed or the Data Subject himself has published his details for marketing or similar purposes; • the Data Controller has received information from the Registry kept by the HDPA concerning the persons that do not wish for their Personal Data to be included in files of data that are processed for the purposes of promotion of sales of goods or services from a distance and has excluded such persons from his files; • the Data Controller only keeps the Personal Data that are absolutely necessary for the specific purposes and such Personal Data are solely the name, address and profession of the Data Subjects; • the purpose of the processing is restricted to advertising or promotion of sale of goods or the provision of services from a distance and is not contrary to good morals. Further, the above decision of the HDPA provides, among other requirements, that the Data Controller must provide information to the Data Subject at the time of collection and during the first transmission of the Personal Data in accordance with the relevant provisions of PIPPD and the decisions of the HDPA on provision of information to Data Subjects. Hong Kong Anna Gamvros Hong Kong Tel: +852 2846 2137 anna.gamvros@bakermckenzie.com Susan Kendall Hong Kong Tel: +852 2846 2411 susan.kendall@bakermckenzie.com 292 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments New Guidance for the Responsible Collection and Use of Biometric Data In July 2015 the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (“Commissioner”) issued Guidance on Collection and Use of Biometric Data (“BD Guidance”). It was released the day before publication of an investigation report by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (“PCO”) into the collection of fingerprint data by Queenix (Asia) Limited, in which the Commissioner served an Enforcement Notice on Queenix for excessive collection of fingerprint data. The non-binding guidance recognises both physiological (such as fingerprint data, DNA, facial image) and behavioural data (such as handwriting, gait) as biometric data. While it may not be reasonably practical to ascertain the identity of an individual from such data alone, when linked with personal data in another database, an individual/data subject can be identified from such biometric data. Therefore this data is considered “personal data”. The BD Guidance cautioned that the appropriateness of collection varies with the level of sensitivity of the biometric data concerned. Meanwhile, the report made it clear that the PCO considers the collection of biometric data to be a serious issue and unnecessary or excessive collection of such data will not be tolerated. Both the report and the guidance stressed the importance of carrying out a Privacy Impact Assessment before deciding to collect biometric data. In particular, clients should: • have strong justification for collecting biometric data; • ensure that free and informed consent is obtained prior to collection; • adopt risk minimisation techniques and implement strong controls to protect the data once collected; and • where possible, use less privacy intrusive alternatives than collecting biometric data. If such data is collected, the BD Guidance outlined considerations, such as keeping the data in “template” form, only collecting for a lawful purpose and not to be excessive. A number of risk minimisation strategies were also outlined. Further, data subjects should be provided with a free and informed choice to allow the collection of their biometric data, together with a full explanation of the personal data privacy impact of the collection of such data. The PCO offered guidance on the type of information to be provided, which is similar to the other information requirements for personal data. It includes whether the provision of the biometric data is voluntary or obligatory, consequences of not providing the data, purpose of use, who has access, classes of transfers, Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hong Kong Baker & McKenzie 293 whether the biometric data could be relied upon to take adverse actions against the individual concerned and their rights to request access and correction. Finally, where data is collected, the BD Guidance sets out a number of requirements in handling such data, including: • Establishing strong controls for access to, use and transfer of biometric data, including written policy and clear guidance to prevent unnecessary linkage between biometric databases with other systems, transfer or change of the data; • Regularly and frequently purging biometric data no longer required for the purpose for which it is collected; • Taking all reasonably practicable steps to ensure data is accurate; • Not using personal data for a new purpose except with consent; • Taking all reasonably practicable steps to ensure the biometric data is protected against unauthorised or accidental access, processing, erasure, loss or use having regard to the kind of data and harm that could result; • Devising policies and procedures setting out clearly the rules and practices in collection, holding, processing and use of biometric data and make them available to data subjects; • Regular compliance assessments and reviews, as well as proper training, guidance and supervision; and • If contractors are engaged, adopting contractual or other means to prevent the contractor keeping the data longer than necessary and protection from unauthorised or accidental access, processing, erasure, loss or use. New Guidance on the responsible use of Drones In March 2015 the Commissioner updated and expanded its existing guidance on CCTVs to encompass the use of drones, titled Guidance on CCTV Surveillance and use of Drones (“Drones Guidance”). The Drones Guidance outlined the particular concerns of drones, namely that they are small, portable and mobile, enabling them to track an individual’s activities more persistently over time and in a wider area; their surveillance is covert and their technological sophistication which means they can capture objects – and, of concern, people – in detail. Users are urged to be mindful of individual’s privacy during usage of drones given these concerns. The Drones Guidance reminds drone operators that intrusion on privacy can only be justified “if it is proportional to the benefit to 294 Baker & McKenzie be derived”, or else it could be considered an unfair collection of data under Hong Kong’s privacy laws. The non-binding guidance offers four tips for the use of drones: (i) careful planning of a drone’s flight path to avoid flying close to people or properties; (ii) pre-defining recording criteria to avoid over-collection of data and a policy on erasing irrelevant recordings; (iii) ensuring any wireless transmission of data is encrypted; and (iv) providing notice of use of drones by using flashing lights to indicate recording, pre-announcing drone operations, branding the drone to identify drone operators and erecting privacy notices at launch sites. The guidance also acknowledges certain types of drones may be subject to additional civil aviation regulations or regulation by the Office of the Communications Authority in Hong Kong. The Drones Guidance also revises the guidance on CCTV previously published in 2010. The guidance has been updated to reflect enhancements in technology and the PCO’s other guidance relevant to CCTV, for example, it expects data users to carry out a privacy impact assessment, warns against use of HD recording, facial recognition and covert surveillance without strong/overriding justification and it specifies that CCTV operators are required to use contractual or other controls to engage third party contractors who provide or maintain CCTV. Privacy Management Programme –A Best Practice Guide In January 2014, the Commissioner launched the “Privacy Management Programme – A Best Practice Guide” (“Guide”). The Guide shifts the focus from compliance to accountability as companies are being urged not just to ensure that they comply with mandatory legal obligations but to also manage, handle and be accountable for, customer and employee personal data in accordance with good corporate governance principles. A Privacy Management Programme (“PMP”) is not a legal requirement under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (“PDPO”), but the Commissioner advocates that data users should embrace personal data privacy protection at the highest levels of management and apply it as a business imperative throughout the organisation. The Guide is not legally binding, but failure to comply with the provisions may be taken into account by the Commissioner when investigating whether there has been a breach of the PDPO. As a result, it is important for organisations to be familiar with and embrace the new guidance. The Guide is divided into 2 parts. • Part A outlines the baseline fundamentals of a PMP. The key components of a PMP are organisational commitment to a privacy respectful culture (including appointing a data protection officer and establishing an internal reporting mechanism) and programme controls to Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hong Kong Baker & McKenzie 295 ensure compliance with the PDPO (e.g., maintaining a personal data inventory, conducting periodic risk assessments, organising training sessions for employees and devising a data breach handling procedure). • Part B discusses how to maintain and improve a PMP to ensure ongoing effectiveness, compliance and accountability. For example, the organisation should develop an oversight and review plan to keep the PMP on track and up to date, and periodically monitor its programme controls and revise where necessary. Guidance on Cross Border Data Transfer In December 2014, the PCO issued the Guidance on Personal Data Protection in Cross Border Transfer (“Guidance”). The publication of the guidance has raised many questions about restrictions on cross border data transfer in Hong Kong. Section 33 of the PDPO was passed into law in 1995 at the time the PDPO was first introduced. However, the section has never been brought into operation. This has not changed. The guidance is voluntary as the Government has not set a firm date for the implementation of Section 33. Nonetheless, organisations are “encouraged” to adopt the practices described in the guidance. To recap, Section 33 of the PDPO prohibits the transfer of personal data to places outside Hong Kong unless one of the following conditions (“Conditions”) has been met: 1. the destination for the data has been identified by the Commissioner as having laws substantially similar to, or serving the same purpose as, the PDPO (the so-called “White List Jurisdictions”); 2. the data user (sender) reasonably believes that the destination has a law in place that is substantially similar to, or serves the same purposes as, the PDPO; 3. the data subject has given written consent; 4. the data user reasonably believes that the transfer is to avoid or mitigate adverse action against the data subject, that it is not practicable to obtain written consent from the data subject, and such consent would be given if it was practicable; 5. the data falls within one of the exemptions in Part VIII Data Protection Principle 3 (use of personal data) under the PDPO; OR 6. the data user has taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the data is given equivalent protection to that provided under the PDPO (“Due Diligence Requirement”). 296 Baker & McKenzie The Commissioner has recommended for the Government to have a “renewed focus” on implementing Section 33. The PCO has stated that it issued the Guidance to assist organisations to prepare for the “eventual implementation” of Section 33 and to provide practical guidance on the expected compliance obligations once Section 33 has been implemented. The Guidance sets out the Commissioner’s views on practical compliance with Section 33. Examples of what is considered to be a transfer: The Guidance clarifies that transfers of data for the purpose of Section 33 would include: • the use of a service provider to process personal data outside Hong Kong on behalf of the data user (regardless of the physical location of data storage) - that would include many types of off-shore outsourcing arrangements; • access to personal data stored in a centralised database in Hong Kong by group companies around the world; and • access to personal data in a cloud and the cloud server is accessible from outside Hong Kong. Conversely, the Guidance clarifies that even where data is routed outside of Hong Kong, it is not considered to be a transfer where the sender and recipient of the data are both in Hong Kong. This is broadly consistent with the approach with respect to transfers in other countries with data protection laws in Asia and in the EU. Explanation of the exceptions to Section 33 (the Conditions): The Guidance explains all six Conditions. Notably: • for Condition 3 (Written Consent), the example in the Guidance requires that each of the destination jurisdictions be listed in the consent statement and a separate tick box is provided to signify consent to the cross-border transfer; and • for Condition 6 (Due Diligence Requirement), the Guidance recommends use of the recommended model data transfer clauses included in the Guidance and/or non-contractual means such as auditing and oversight measures. The “Recommended Model Clauses”: The Guidance sets out the recommended model clauses for data transfer agreements but “does not require strict adoption” of these clauses. However, the preamble to Schedule 1 (which contains the model clauses) states that the core clauses are “required” to be included in the data transfer agreement, raising the Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hong Kong Baker & McKenzie 297 question of whether the Commissioner will consider the use of clauses as mandatory once Section 33 has been implemented. We believe that this is the intention. The core clauses include obligations on both the transferor and transferee, provisions on liability, settlement of disputes and termination. The additional clauses (non-mandatory) include a clause giving third party rights to data subjects under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Ordinance. (The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Ordinance was passed into law in December 2014 but is not yet in effect and no effective date has been proposed), and a clause with respect to organisation procedures and data handling. Compliance tips for data users: These include: • reviewing existing data transfer arrangements; • limiting unnecessary and unintended data flow; • checking the White List and understanding how other exemptions apply; and • maintaining an inventory of data which has been transferred and being transparent about policies and practices. We consider there are practical issues with the Guidance such as: • the prescriptive nature of the written consent example - the example requires a list of the jurisdictions to which transfers may be made and a separate tick box relating to the cross border transfer which will be impractical for many organisations. • the White List has not been published - it is very difficult for organisations to understand the scope of the White List without being able to assess the list itself. • the present form of the model clauses will present practical and commercial difficulties - for example, the joint liability clause is quite vague in its terms and the termination right enables termination on notice regardless of the materiality of the breach. As well as stating that compliance with the Guidance is voluntary, the Commissioner has also called for feedback on the value of the Guidance and problems that may be faced in following the Guidance. We believe that submissions from data users in Hong Kong regarding the Guidance will assist in creating a more practical document in future iterations of the Guidance and, at the time of writing, are formulating a response to the Commissioner. 298 Baker & McKenzie Data Protection Enforcement In 2014, there were a number of important cases and enforcement actions, including: • Mobile Apps: In December 2014, the Commissioner issued a “Best Practice” guide for mobile app developers. Prior to the release of the guide, a survey of 60 popular mobile apps by the PCO found inadequate transparency in the terms of their privacy policies. In 2014, the Commissioner also found two mobile app developers in contravention of privacy laws - one was excessively collecting personal data and failed to have a privacy policy; the other mobile app developer was in breach for data leakage by the app and failing to take adequate steps to protect the data. • Blind Recruitment Advertising: Employers in Hong Kong need to reveal their identities in job advertisements following the issue of enforcement notices to 48 local employers who had improperly used anonymous “Blind Ads” to collect the personal data of job applicants. The Commissioner said that Blind Ads were an unfair means of collecting personal data and could be exploited as an unscrupulous means to acquire personal data for direct marketing and even for fraudulent purposes. The Commissioner stressed that employers should refrain from placing Blind Ads for recruitment purposes - the content of advertisements must be carefully considered to avoid unfair collection. • Misleading the Commissioner: A former insurance agent was imprisoned for 4 weeks for making a false statement to the Commissioner during the course of an investigation. This is the first ever conviction under the PDPO for misleading the Commissioner when discharging his statutory functions. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends Bring Your Own Device (“BYOD”) The Commissioner updated the Guidance on Personal Data Erasure and Anonymisation and Guidance for Data Users on Collection and Use of Personal Data through the Internet, to recommend that employers update their policies to include formal “mobile device use” and “BYOD” policies, where employees use their own devices, as well as policies limiting the display of personal data on the Internet by employees. In addition, data privacy/BYOD is a focus in the banking industry: the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (“HKMA”) issued an updated Circular on Customer Data Protection stating that if banks choose to implement BYOD, they are expected to comply with stringent minimum controls. In October 2014, the Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hong Kong Baker & McKenzie 299 Commissioner also issued the Guidance on the Proper Handling of Customer’s Personal Data in the Banking Industry which aims to assist the banking industry to better understand and comply with the relevant requirements under the PDPO in the handling of customer data. Social Media: “Privacy Implications for Organisational Use of Social Network” Information Leaflet In April 2014, the Commissioner published an information leaflet on “Privacy Implications for Organisational Use of Social Network”. The information leaflet is not binding but sets out useful examples as to what the Commissioner sees as best practice when organisations use social networks for business purposes. Key takeaways from the leaflet include: • aggregated information collected from social networks may identify an individual and therefore will constitute personal data and the PDPO may apply. • organisations should be transparent with their privacy policies and practices, particularly if data is to be used for marketing or to monitor employees. • organisations using social networks for recruitment or candidate screening should consider whether the information obtained from the social network is reliable, and can legitimately be taken into account in hiring decisions. Do Not Call Registry: In August 2014, the Commissioner urged the Hong Kong Government to take steps to combat the increasing prevalence of person-to-person (“P2P”) direct marketing calls by adding them to Hong Kong “Do-not-call” registers. The Government has not taken any further action in response. 3. Law Applicable The PDPO was enacted on 20 December 1996, and was amended by the Personal Data (Privacy) (Amendment) Ordinance in 2012. The amendments dramatically increased penalties, introduced new offenses particularly focused on direct marketing and unauthorised disclosure of personal data and introduced other changes to strengthen the law. The PDPO is a principle-based law. Schedule 1 of the PDPO set out the six data protection principles, which govern the collection, use, processing, security, retention/destruction and access to Personal Data. The requirements under the PDPO also apply in the employment context. 300 Baker & McKenzie The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data is the regulatory body that oversees the enforcement of the PDPO. Contraventions of the PDPO may lead to criminal sanctions (fines and/or imprisonment. The maximum penalty for failure to comply with enforcement notice is up to HK$100,000 (approximately US$12,900) and 2 years’ imprisonment. Penalties for direct marketing offenses may be up to HK$1,000,000 (approximately US$129,000) and 5 years’ imprisonment. Hong Kong also has an anti-spam law, the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance (“UEMO”), which came into effect on 22 December 2007. The UEMO regulates the sending of unsolicited commercial electronic messages in Hong Kong. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data The Ordinance defines “Personal Data” as any data relating directly or indirectly to a living individual and from which it is practicable to ascertain the identity of the individual and which is in a form in which access to or processing of the data is practicable. “Data”, which the definition of Personal Data encompasses, is defined as any representation of information (including an expression of an opinion) in any document. Personal Data must therefore be in a documented form for it to fall within the scope of the Ordinance. b. Data Processing The Ordinance defines “processing” to mean and include amending, augmenting, deleting or rearranging the Personal Data, whether by automated means or otherwise. The Ordinance also has a concept of data “use” which includes the disclosure or transfer of Personal Data. The Ordinance specifies that data users are liable for the actions of its data processors (e.g., service providers that process data on behalf of a data user). Further, it requires data users to adopt contractual or other means to prevent: (i) Personal Data transferred to a Data Processor from being kept longer than is necessary for the processing; and (ii) unauthorized or accidental access, processing, erasure, loss or use of the data transferred to the Data Processor for processing. c. Processing by Data Controllers The Ordinance applies to “data users”, that is persons who, either alone or jointly or in common with other persons, control the collection, holding, processing or use of the Personal Data. However, a person is not a data user if he or she holds, processes or uses Personal Data solely on behalf of another person and he or she does not hold, process or use the Personal Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hong Kong Baker & McKenzie 301 Data for any of his or her own purposes. Data processors are not directly regulated in Hong Kong, therefore, the data user is liable for the actions of its data processors. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The Ordinance applies to any collection, holding, processing or use of the Personal Data in Hong Kong. It also applies to all such data users who either have their principal place of business or registered address in Hong Kong. e. Sensitive Personal Data The Ordinance does not specifically define sensitive Personal Data. All types of Personal Data are subject to the same rules. Note, however, that the PCO issued non-binding guidance in July 2015 on the collection and use of “biometric data”, which it appears to treat as a more sensitive category of data. f. Employee Personal Data The Code of Practice on Human Resource Management, issued by the Commissioner and effective as of 22 September 2000, applies to employeerelated Personal Data. The Commissioner also issued “Privacy Guidelines: Monitoring and Personal Data Privacy at Work” that deals with privacy issues where employees are subject to monitoring. In relation to recruitment, employers cannot seek Personal Data from job applicants, unless there is a position which is or may become vacant. 5. Consent Requirements a. General Except with respect to direct marketing, consent of a Data Subject is not required so long as the data user informs the Data Subject at the time of or before collection of the purpose for which the Personal Data are to be used and the classes of persons to whom the data may be transferred. The Personal Data must be used only for that purpose or a directly related purpose for which it was collected and transferred only to those classes of persons notified as possible transferees on or before collection of the Personal Data. If the Personal Data are to be used in any other way, express consent of the Data Subject is required. A data user is exempted from obtaining such express consent in certain situations prescribed in the Ordinance. Consent must be given for use of Personal Data for direct marketing or transfer of the Personal Data to a third party for that third party’s direct marketing purpose. Further, if Personal Data is used for direct marketing purposes, the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance may apply to the sending and the format of commercial electronic messages. 302 Baker & McKenzie b. Sensitive Data There are no specific rules that govern Sensitive Data. As such, Sensitive Data is subject to the same consent requirements as other Personal Data. c. Minors Consent of minors is not specifically addressed in any laws in Hong Kong. d. Employee Consent The general consent requirements also apply in the employment context. e. Online/Electronic Consent Electronic consent is permissible and can be effective in Hong Kong if it is properly structured and evidenced. 6. Information/Notice Requirements Specific requirements apply. A data user must take “all practicable steps” to give the notice on or before the first collection of Personal Data if the data user or its agent collects data from the Data Subject. It is customary to do so in Hong Kong by way of a “Personal Information Collection Statement” or “PICS”. Data users should include the following information in a Personal Information Collection Statement: • whether or not it is voluntary or obligatory to provide the data and the consequences of not providing the data; • the purposes for which the data is collected; • the categories of persons to whom the data may be transferred; • that the Data Subject has rights of access and correction; and • to whom access and correction requests and inquiries in relation to the data user’s data protection policies and procedures should be directed. Specific information requirements also apply where the data is to be provided for direct marketing purposes. These are detailed in Section 21. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfil the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected; and delete anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. (See Section 2 on Excessive Collection of Identity Card Numbers.) Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hong Kong Baker & McKenzie 303 8. Rights of Individuals Under DPP 6 of the Ordinance, a person whose data is held by a data user is entitled to: (i) ascertain whether the data user holds data about them; and (ii) request a copy of and corrections to that data. The above applies to all Personal Data held by the data user. Exemptions, such as legal professional privilege, apply. A data user is required to comply with a data access request within 40 days after receiving the request. If it is unable to comply within that time, it must inform the employee in writing that it is unable to do so and give the reasons. Such explanation must be provided before the 40 days expires, and the data user must also fully comply with the request as soon as reasonably practicable after the expiry of the 40 day reply period. The copy of Personal Data supplied must be such Personal Data as is held at the time when the request is made. Any processing of the data between the time the data access request is received and before the copy is supplied that would have been undertaken irrespective of the receipt of the request is not affected by this requirement. In other words, there is no requirement to stop normal data processing activities because a data access request has been received. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements Data processors (e.g., service providers that process data on behalf of a data user) are not directly regulated under the PDPO and a data user is fully responsible for the actions of its data processors. Currently, an organization that collects and processes Personal data is not required to file with the appropriate data authority. 10. Data Protection Officers In Hong Kong, an organization is not required to designate a data privacy officer or other individual who will be accountable for the privacy practices of the organization. 11. International Data Transfers Under Section 33 of the Ordinance, the data user cannot transfer Personal Data, except in certain circumstances, including the following: • the data user has reasonable grounds for believing that the destination jurisdiction has substantially similar provisions to the Ordinance; • the data subject consents in writing to the transfer; or 304 Baker & McKenzie • the data user has exercised due diligence to ensure that the Personal Data will not be treated in a manner which will contravene the Ordinance. The above requirements are not yet effective and do not currently form part of the law in Hong Kong. However, in December 2014, the Privacy Commissioner issued voluntary Guidance on Personal Data Protection in Cross Border Transfer (“Guidance”). In the Guidance, the Commissioner has recommended for the Hong Kong Government to have a renewed focus on implementing Section 33. However, no timeline has been set by the Government for implementation of the section. The Guidance sets out the Privacy Commissioner’s views on compliance to prepare for the eventual implementation of Section 33. 12. Security Requirements DPP 4 of the Ordinance requires that all practical steps be taken by a data user to ensure that personal data it holds is protected against unauthorized or accidental access, processing, erasure, loss or use. If a data user engages a data processor to process Personal Data on its behalf, the data user must adopt contractual or other means to prevent the unauthorized or accidental access, processing, erasure, loss or use of the transferred data. 13. Special Rules for the Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Specific rules apply. For further details on data processing, refer to Section 1 of this chapter and the Commissioner’s information leaflet on Outsourcing the Processing of Personal Data to Data Processors. The Guidance on Personal Data Erasure and Anonymization contains tips on outsourcing to third parties. Industry specific guidance applying to the insurance and finance industries has been issued by the regulators of those sectors. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Potential civil and criminal penalties, as well as private rights of action may apply. 15. Data Security Breach The Commissioner published a Guidance Note on the Data Breach Handling and the Giving of Data Breach Notifications (“Breach Guidance Note”) on 21 June 2010. The Breach Guidance Note provides data users with practical steps to be taken in the event that the security of Personal Data is subject to, or is at the risk of, loss, unauthorized or accidental access, processing, erasure or use (“Data Breach”). The Breach Guidance Note confirms that Data Breach Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hong Kong Baker & McKenzie 305 notification is voluntary; however, it suggests that data users should have a Data Breach handling policy in place as a matter of good practice. In the event of a Data Breach, the Breach Guidance Note sets out four steps to be taken by the data user: • immediately gather essential information relating to the breach (i.e., when, where and how the breach occurred, what was the cause of the breach and the extent of Personal Data involved); • adopt appropriate measures to contain the breach (i.e., changing passwords, modifying access rights, and notification of law enforcement agencies); • assess the risk of harm to the data subject (i.e., risk to personal safety, identify theft, financial loss, risk of humiliation, damage to reputation or loss of business or other opportunity); and • consider giving a Data Breach notification (particularly where the assessment has shown a risk of personal safety). In the event of notification, the Breach Guidance Note also provides guidance on who the notification should be given to, what should be included in the notification, when to issue the notification and how to notify the Data Breach. In the event that the Commissioner is notified, the Breach Guidance Note also provides a Data Breach Notification Form that can be used to give the Commissioner notice of a Data Breach. 16. Accountability An organization has no legal obligation to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. However, there is a noticeable trend in non-binding guidance recently issued by the PCO to recommend conducting privacy impact assessments before collecting certain sensitive data, such as biometric data, or in circumstances where there is a possibility for excessive collection of personal data, such as when using drones. 17. Whistle-blower hotline There are no laws/rules that govern whistle-blower hotlines in Hong Kong. 18. E-discovery system To the extent that the e-discovery system involves the collection, holding, processing or use of Personal Data, privacy issues may arise. The data privacy issues are not, however, confined to e-discovery and will apply in ordinary discovery as well. 306 Baker & McKenzie 19. Anti-spam filter solution The introduction of a spam-filtering solution is permitted in Hong Kong but would be subject to the guidelines on Monitoring and Personal Data Privacy at Work. Employers should inform employees of their monitoring policy or policies. 20. Cookies There is no specific law/rule that governs the use and deployment of cookies in Hong Kong. 21. Direct Marketing Information and Consent Requirements If a data user intends to use, or provide to a third party (i.e., transfer), Personal Data for direct marketing purposes, the data user must notify the Data Subject of the following and obtain his/her consent before using the data: (i) that the data user intends to use or transfer the data for direct marketing purposes; (ii) that the Data Subject’s consent is required before the data user does so; (iii) the kind of Personal Data to be used or transferred (e.g., name and email address); (iv) the classes of marketing subjects to which the direct marketing will relate (e.g., specific categories such as travel and telecommunications); and (v) in the case of transfer, of the classes of persons to whom the data will be provided (e.g., specific categories such as financial services institutions, telecommunications providers). (vi) in the case of transfer and if the data is to be provided “for gain”, that the data is to be so provided (“For gain” is defined in the PDPO as the provision of personal data in return “for money or other property” e.g., commissions and fees). For use of data for direct marketing, this information may be provided orally or in writing, and the Data Subject’s consent may be written or oral (although if consent is given orally the data user must send a written confirmation to the data subject within 14 days). For transfer of data, this information must be provided in writing and written consent must be obtained. The duty to inform the Data Subject of the above information is “absolute” and irrespective of whether the Personal Data is collected from Data Subjects directly or from other sources (e.g., from public registers or third parties). Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hong Kong Baker & McKenzie 307 It is important to note also that if the Personal Data is transferred to a third party for that third party to carry out direct marketing on behalf of the data user, then consent to the transfer is not required. Transitional Provisions The new requirements to notify the Data Subject and obtain consent to use of data do not apply if the data user satisfied the following transitional requirements prior to 1 April 2013: (i) it had explicitly informed a Data Subject that it intended to use the Data Subject’s data for direct marketing for a class of marketing subjects (e.g., specific categories such as travel and telecommunications - generic description is not sufficient); (ii) it had been using the Personal Data for that purpose; (iii) it had not been requested by the Data Subject to cease using the data for that purpose; and (iv) it had not otherwise contravened the PDPO in relation to that use. The transitional provisions apply only to use of data, not to provision of data to a third party, for direct marketing purposes. Therefore, from 1 April 2013 consent will be required for providing (i.e., transferring) Personal Data to third parties for direct marketing. First Use of Data A data user is required, when using Personal Data for direct marketing purposes for the first time, to notify the Data Subject that the data user is obliged to cease using their Personal Data on request and provide a means for the Data Subject to object. If the Data Subject, at any time after collection of their Personal Data, requests that a data user stop using or transferring its Personal Data for marketing purposes, then the data user must cease such activities. The maximum penalty for violations of this requirement have been increased from HK$10,000 (approximately US$1,290) to HK$500,000 (approximately US$64,000) and up to 3 years’ imprisonment. Penalties Non-compliance with any of the information or consent requirements, using Personal Data without consent, or failing to cease use after an objection has been received, all carry penalties. The penalties for offenses with respect to use of Personal Data for direct marketing is punishable by a fine of up to HK$500,000 (approximately US$64,000) and 3 years’ imprisonment. The penalties for offenses with respect to provision of Personal Data for direct marketing are also punishable by a fine of up to HK$500,000 (approximately US$64,000) and 3 years’ imprisonment, however if the transfer is for gain (i.e., payment), the maximum fine is HK$1 million (approximately 308 Baker & McKenzie US$129,000) and 5 years’ imprisonment. It is a defense for the data user to show that it took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid commission of the offense. Guidance on Direct Marketing On 15 January 2013, the Commissioner published the New Guidance on Direct Marketing (“New Guidance”), which provides some practical guidance on compliance with the new direct marketing regime. Consent Under the PDPO, “consent” is defined to include “an indication of no objection”. The New Guidance provides that there must be “explicit” action taken on the part of the Data Subject to qualify as “an indication of no objection”. In other words, silence will not constitute consent. For example, consent can be in the form of an opt-in (e.g., by asking a customer to check a tick box when signing a form) or an opt-out (e.g., by providing a customer with the opportunity to opt-out of receiving marketing and confirming that he/she agrees to the use of data in direct marketing). An opt-out is only valid where an active step is taken by the Data Subject to submit their data such as signing a form or clicking “I accept”. The “opt-out later” or “deemed consent” approach that was acceptable in the past is no longer sufficient. For example, where a company informs a customer in writing of the use or provision of Personal Data for direct marketing and states that “any objection has to be made by sending back the objection slip”, such a non-response from the Data Subject would not amount to valid consent. The New Guidance also provides that “bundled consent” should be avoided. “Bundled consent” is where direct marketing consent language is inseparable from other provisions in an application form or contract terms and there is no option for the customer to object to the direct marketing use and still obtain the other services applied for. Data users should not design application forms and contracts in a way which makes it impracticable for a customer to refuse the use of their personal data for direct marketing purposes (for example, by providing only one space to sign on an application form for a product/service). Classes of Marketing Subjects The examples provided in the New Guidance suggest that the description must be very specific. Companies should make reference to the distinctive features of the goods, facilities or services so that customers may ascertain the types of goods, facilities or services about which they may receive direct marketing with a “reasonable degree of certainty”. For example, “telecommunications network services offered by ABC Company” would be acceptable, but “retail services and products provided by ABC Company” would not be acceptable as it is too broad for customers to comprehend the Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hong Kong Baker & McKenzie 309 actual classes of goods, facilities or services. The information must be provided in an easily readable and easily understandable manner. Individuals in a Business Capacity The New Guidance draws a distinction between marketing targeted at individuals or their employing corporations. This is significant as it goes beyond the strict interpretation of the Amendments. Where Personal Data is collected from individuals in their “official capacity” (for example, as in-house legal counsel) and the product or service is clearly meant for the exclusive use of the corporation by whom the individual is employed, the Commissioner takes the view that the requirements of the new direct marketing regime will not apply. However, if that same individual is sent details of products or services targeted to them as an individual, the direct marketing requirements will apply. Transfer to Affiliates The New Guidance clarifies that it is a misconception that a data user may freely transfer Personal Data to its parent company and subsidiaries/associated companies for direct marketing purposes. Now that the new direct marketing regime is in effect, a data user is required to obtain written consent from a Data Subject prior to providing personal data to any other person or entity for the purposes of direct marketing, including affiliates. There are no transitional provisions applicable to transfer of data for a third party’s direct marketing purposes. Hungary Adam Liber Budapest Tel: +36 1 302 3330 adam.liber@bakermckenzie.com Ines Radmilovic Budapest Tel: +36 1 302 3330 ines.radmilovic@bakermckenzie.com 312 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments Authorization of BCRs and Data Breaches Registry On 6 July 2015 the Hungarian Parliament adopted an amendment (the “Amendment”) of Act No CXII of 2011 on Informational Self-Determination and Freedom of Information (the “Data Protection Act”), containing two important developments. The Amendment provides that the Hungarian National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (“Authority”) may approve the implementation of Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) as an adequacy instrument for data transfers from 1 October 2015. (Previously, the Hungarian data protection laws previously omitted BCRs from the list of recognized “adequacy” instruments). The Amendment contains no transitional provisions regarding BCRs already approved by the data protection authority of another EU Member State, however. It is therefore currently unclear - and further guidance from the Authority will be needed concerning - how the Authority will treat such BCRs. Depending on the Authority’s future guidance, companies whose EU BCR cooperation procedure is already closed might be required to make a formal filing with the Authority to enable the use of BCRs in Hungary. The Amendment also contains provisions regarding the treatment of data breaches by Data Controllers under Hungarian data protection laws. Data breach notification will continue to apply only with regard to telecom providers. However, the Amendment will impose an obligation on Data Controllers to keep a register of data breaches, including any measures introduced by the Data Controller to remedy such breaches. This new provision only applies to Data Controllers. But existing data processing agreements will need to be amended because Data Processors will also be required to register data breaches on behalf of the Data Controller. Thus, the processing agreement should contain detailed provisions regulating how the Data Processor should comply with such obligations relating to the recordal of data breaches. Finally, the Amendment will introduce higher fines; the Authority will be able to impose a data protection fine of up to HUF 20 Million – twice the current maximum fine amount of HUF 10 Million. The Amendments enter into force on 1 October 2015. Single registration of data processing for marketing promotions organized at different times In 2014, the Authority issued an opinion confirming that data processing activities relative to marketing promotions organized at different times by the same Data Controller may be registered with the Authority through one single registration, provided that the circumstances of the various data processings (i.e., the purpose of data processing, the legal basis of data processing, scope of data subjects, categories of personal data to be processed, the source of Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hungary Baker & McKenzie 313 the data, the duration of processing, the categories of data transferred, the recipients and the grounds for data transfers) are the same with respect to each of the different promotions. According to the Authority, in such cases, the Data Controller should notify the Authority, for example in an e-mail sent together with the initial data processing registration request, that the registration covers various future data processing activities; then, no notification to the Authority will be required in the subsequent cases. Recommendation on privacy requirements applicable to the various techniques used in the course of claim enforcement, debt recovery and factoring The Authority issued a recommendation on the privacy requirements in respect of various techniques used in claim enforcement, debt recovery and factoring, on the basis of several cases in which the Authority established the infringement of the Data Protection Act by entities engaged in those activities. The recommendation distinguishes between businesses engaging in those activities based on (i) the assignment of the underlying creditor’s claim, or (ii) a mandate from the creditor. The Authority stated that, in the first case, credit management companies may process the personal data of debtors purely on the basis of the assignment because, as a matter of Hungarian civil law, that assignment does not require the consent of the debtor and so personal data automatically transfers with the assignment. On the other hand, in case debt recovery is conducted upon a mandate from the creditor, the legal grounds of the processing the debtors’ personal data may be either (i) the consent of the debtor, (ii) the specific authorization of a law or (iii) the debt recovery activity conducted by an attorney-at-law. The Authority also emphasized the importance of the Data Subject receiving proper advance notification about whether or not his/her consent is required for data processing relative to the debt claim enforcement. Also, the Authority gave a detailed recommendation about the requirement of necessity, proportionality and fairness of the data processing during said activities and concluded that, among others, the collection or processing during such activities of third persons’ (relatives, neighbors) personal data is excluded. Recommendation on the use of drones The Authority issued an extensive recommendation on the use of drones for business and private purposes and also organized a conference on this subject. The Authority stated in its recommendation that, whereas the use of drones by the state or by business for commercial purpose falls within the Data Protection Act, the use of drones by individuals for private purposes is currently excluded from the scope thereof. The recommendation deals, among others, with the purpose, scope, legal basis, necessity, proportionality, data security of the data processing relative to the use of drones as well as with the obligation to provide information. In its recommendation, the Authority 314 Baker & McKenzie urged the Hungarian legislators to adopt a specific law regulating the use of drones and containing provisions on data protection issues. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends Practice of the Authority While the Authority continues to interpret the Data Protection Act in a conservative manner, in some instances, the Authority is becoming more business friendly, and consequently, it has shown a willingness to accept reasonable business arguments raised by Data Controllers. The Authority places an emphasis on the enforcement of the restrictive Data Protection Act as prescribed by the Data Protection Directive and as interpreted by the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. The Authority is entitled to impose sanctions for the violation of the Hungarian data protection rules. In the past years, the Authority examined the lawfulness of data processing in connection with, among others, manpower-leasing, online dating services, real estate agency services, organization of promotions, and claim enforcement. In 2014, the Authority focused on claim enforcements and debt-recovery services, the organization of product presentation events and on online direct marketing services. The Authority publishes most of its resolutions on its website. In 2014, the Authority initiated 30 administrative proceedings and imposed fines of HUF 78 million in the aggregate. In 2015, the enforcement priorities of the Authority are investigations relating to the data processing activities of debt collection agencies, data processing for product presentation events (“roadshows”), as well as data processing for telemarketing purposes. Cooperation between Hungarian authorities In the spring of 2014, the Authority concluded cooperation agreements with the Hungarian Competition Office and the Hungarian National Bank in order to help each other’s activities and to cooperate in issues regulated by the Data Protection Act. In that framework, the Authority will assist the two other authorities in interpreting the privacy related questions they encounter. Request for a preliminary ruling from the CJEU − Weltimmo s.r.o. v the Authority (Case C-230/14) The highest court of Hungary requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU in the so-called Weltimmo case which was initiated by the Authority relative to the infringement of the Data Protection Act by a Slovakian company operating a website advertising Hungarian properties for sale. One of the court’s questions submitted to the CJEU is: ‘whether Article 28(1) of the Data Protection Directive could be interpreted in a way that the provisions of national law of a Member State are applicable in its territory to a situation in which a data controller runs a property-dealing website established only in Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hungary Baker & McKenzie 315 another Member State and also advertises properties situated in the territory of that first Member State and the property owners have forwarded their personal data to a facility (server) for data storage and data processing belonging to the operator of the website in that other Member State’. The CJEU is currently reviewing the case; it is unclear when the CJEU’s ruling will be delivered. The Advocate General’s opinion on this case was published on 25 June 2015. Authority’s Guidance impacting M&A transactions involving web shop assets The Authority recently released guidance on issues arising in the context of the sale of the assets of an online shop. This is the Authority’s first guidance on the practical application of the “legitimate interest” test under Hungarian data protection laws and is relevant to M&A transactions involving online shops. The sale of the assets of an online shop involves situations where domains, goods, trademarks and client databases as a whole are sold by one online shop operator to another, without the purchase/transfer of shares. The transfer of client databases (including Personal Data) is ancillary that asset sale transaction. The Authority has taken the position that the transfer of the client database in such a transaction constitutes a Personal Data transfer under the Data Protection Act and must be legitimized by an appropriate legal basis for the data processing. However, the Authority underlined that the parties to the transaction do not necessarily need to rely upon the freely given, express advance consent of the Data Subject provided that such transfer may be justified by other legal reasons - such as by the legitimate interest clause contained in the Data Protection Act or in Article 7(f) of the EU Directive (which is directly effective in Hungary) (see joined cases C-468/10. and C-469/10. of the CJEU). The Authority described the “legitimate interest” (or balance of interests) test as having three prongs: (i) the identification of the legitimate interest of the Data Controller; (ii) the identification of the legitimate interest or fundamental right of the Data Subject; and (iii) the requirement that those two weights be balanced against each other in order to determine if the “legitimate interest” may be relied on as the legal basis for data processing in the given situation. In that context, the Authority suggested considering the following key factors when applying the test: • The seller must provide clear and comprehensive information to the Data Subjects (i.e., the online shop’s customers) on the outcome of the test performed by the seller, explaining why it considers that its interests outweigh the restriction on the interests and rights of the Data Subjects. The seller’s notice to the Data Subjects must include the details of the transfer, such as its date, the identity of the recipient of data, and the main details of the asset sale transaction; 316 Baker & McKenzie • Before the data is transferred to the new online shop operator, the seller (i.e., the Data Controller) must provide to the Data Subjects the effective possibility to object to the transfer of their Personal Data to the buyer; • The buyer must remain bound by the conditions under which the seller processed the Personal Data of the Data Subjects. The data processing conditions may not change as a result of the data transfer to the new Data Controller. However, this does not impact the right of the new Data Controller to engage a new Data Processor (which, in any case, does not require the data subject’s consent). The Authority also noted that certain processing activities (such as the retention of invoices) are based on the provisions of the accounting laws. If the seller and the buyer have agreed that the seller will retain the accounting documents, said data transfer is considered to be based on a legal provision. However, the Authority underlined that the notice to the Data Subjects also must include information about transfers of Personal Data the processing of which is based on a legal provision. 3. Law Applicable *Act No. CXII of 2011 on Information Rights and the Freedom of Information (“Data Protection Act”), implementing the Data Protection Directive *Act No. I of 2012 on the Labor Code (“Labor Code”), which applies to employee related data processing *Act C of 2003 on Electronic Communications (“Electronic Communications Act”) *Act CXXXIII of 2005 on Security Services and the Activities of Private Investigators *Act CVIII of 2001 on Electronic Commerce and on Information Society Services (“E-Commerce Act”) *Act No. C of 2012 on the Criminal Code (“Criminal Code”) *Act No. CXIX of 1995 on the Handling of Names and Addresses for the Purposes of Scientific Research and Direct Marketing *Act XLVIII of 2008 on the Basic Requirements and Certain Restrictions of Commercial Advertising Activities *Act No. XLVII of 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data Regarding Healthcare and Related Issues (“Healthcare Data Protection Act”) *Act No. XXXV of 2001 on Electronic Signatures (“Electronic Signature Act”) *Act No. CLXV of 2013 on Complaints and Public Interest Disclosure (“Whistleblowing Act”) Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hungary Baker & McKenzie 317 Further, sector-specific legislation, such as banking laws, social security laws, tax laws etc., contain additional data protection rules, particularly relating to the legality of data processing and the data retention obligation of Data Controllers. Although the recommendations of the previous Data Commissioners and those of the new Authority do not qualify as law, they are generally followed in practice. Further, the Authority tends to consider and follow the recommendations of the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, established under the Data Protection Directive. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data The Data Protection Act applies to the processing of any information relating to or otherwise connected to an identified or identifiable natural person (“Data Subject”). An identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his/her physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural, or social identity. Any conclusion concerning the natural person that can be drawn from the processed information also qualifies as protected Personal Data (“Personal Data”). In the course of data processing, such information is treated as Personal Data as long as the Data Subject remains identifiable. Thus, the term Personal Data is widely defined. b. Data Processing The Data Protection Act defines data processing similar to the way it has been defined under the Data Protection Directive. However, the Data Protection Act uses the term “data controlling” for that activity. The term “data processing” means limited, rather technical data processing activities performed by Data Processors, as described below. For the purpose of this summary, we use the term, “Data Processing” within the meaning of the Data Protection Directive. “Data Processing” is widely defined and includes collecting, recording and storing, processing, utilizing (including forwarding and publishing), data altering, and preventing further use of the Personal Data. Photographing, sound and video recording and the recording of physical attributes for identification purposes (such as fingerprints and palm prints, DNA samples, and retinal images) would also qualify as processing. The Data Protection Act applies to manual, partially automated and automated Data Processing. c. Processing by Data Controllers The Data Protection Act applies to those persons, including any natural or legal person or organization which alone or jointly with others determines the purpose for which and the manner (including the means used) in which any Personal Data is or will be processed and who execute the Data Processing, or who appoints someone to process Personal Data (“Data Controller”). A 318 Baker & McKenzie Data Controller is responsible for the Data Processing, including for the activities of its Data Processors. When deciding whether a person qualifies as a Data Controller or a Data Processor, the Authority tends to classify a person who has even a minor decision-making right in respect of Data Processing as a Data Controller and not as a Data Processor. The Data Protection Act also applies to “Data Processors”. According to the Data Protection Act, a Data Processor performs technical data processing activities at the instruction of the Data Controller. Processing by a Data Processor is defined by the Data Protection Act as the performance of technical tasks related to Data Processing operations, regardless of the methods or means used or of the place of the location of the application. Data Processors are not entitled to make decisions on the merits of data processing (e.g., may not decide to forward Personal Data to a third party, unless instructed by the Data Controller). The Data Processor may subcontract its data processing activities and employ further Data Processors with the consent of the Data Controller. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The Data Protection Act applies to the processing of Personal Data (including automatic or manual data processing) on the territory of Hungary, unless the Data Processing is carried out solely for the Data Subject’s own (household) purposes (such that said Act does not apply to the private data processing activities of individuals). Furthermore, the provisions of the Data Protection Act are applicable if a foreign Data Controller (processing Personal Data outside the EU) employs a Data Processor whose registered address or place of business (branch) or habitual residence is situated in Hungary or if it makes use of equipment situated in Hungary, unless such equipment is used solely for the purpose of data traffic exclusively within the territory of the European Union. In such a case, the Data Controller must appoint a representative in Hungary. If Personal Data is transferred outside Hungary, the general rule is that the Data Protection Act applies to data transfer. The territorial scope of the E-Commerce Act which also contains some data protection rules is broader than the territorial scope of the Data Protection Act. This legislation may be relevant when a service provider situated outside the European Union directs e-commerce and/or information society services to Hungary. e. Sensitive Personal Data The Data Protection Act imposes additional requirements relating to the processing of “Sensitive Personal Data” – that is, Personal Data relating to racial, national, or ethnic origin, political opinions or political party membership, religious or other convictions, membership in a society, association or trade union, health condition, abnormal addiction, sexual orientation, and criminal records. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hungary Baker & McKenzie 319 Sensitive Personal Data may be processed only if: • the Data Subject gives his/her written consent to the Data Processing; • the Data Processing is required under an international convention or by an Act of Parliament for the purpose of enforcing a fundamental constitutional right, or for national security purposes, crime prevention, or criminal investigation; • the Data Processing is otherwise required by an Act of Parliament in the interest of the general public – e.g., it is performed by a health care professional for such purposes which are defined by law; or • the Data Processing is otherwise authorized based on Section 6 of the Data Processing Act. f. Employee Personal Data The Labor Code contains only a few general rules on employment related Data Processing. In the absence of specific rules, in case of employment related Data Processing, in addition to the Labor Code, the Data Protection Act must also be applied.1 Under the Labor Code, an employee (or job applicant) may be requested to make a statement or to disclose information only if it does not violate his/her personal rights and which is deemed necessary for the conclusion, maintenance or termination of the employment relationship. The opportunity to require an employee (or job applicant) to take an aptitude test, provide background information or to perform a detailed background check is limited. An employer has a general obligation to inform its employees concerning the processing of their Personal Data. Although an employer may monitor employees in connection with the performance of their obligations, the employer must notify its employees concerning the means and methods the employer uses for this purpose. The private life of employees may not be monitored or violated in any manner. The data protection and personal rights of employees may be restricted if deemed strictly necessary for reasons directly related to the intended purpose of the employment relationship and if proportionate for achieving its objective. The means and conditions for any restriction of personal rights and their expected duration must be communicated to the employees in advance. 1 For example, the new Labor Code provides an opportunity to check/control employee’s work during working time. However, the Labor Code contains only some general rules and does not provide a detailed description on how and to what extent employers may exercise their control rights. As exercising the control rights affects the data protection rights of the employees and in certain cases, also the rights of third parties, the Data Protection Act has to be considered as well and applied together with the Labor Code. 320 Baker & McKenzie Data Processing by the employer may be conducted if it is (i) authorized or (ii) required by law. The statutory authorization to process Personal Data of an employee (including Sensitive Personal Data), however, covers only the minimum Data Processing activities which are strictly required to perform the employment relationship and to comply with statutory obligations. Also, the Authority − based on its published guidelines − is of the view that the consent of the employees may only serve as legal grounds for Data Processing in cases where the voluntary nature of the employee’s consent may clearly be ensured. In line with this, the Authority also stated that an employer − in certain cases − may rely on its legitimate interests as the legal grounds for the Data Processing only if enforcing such interest is considered proportionate to the limitation of its employee’s right to the protection of Personal Data. As the Labor Code contains only a few rules on this issue, employers must prepare a privacy policy, in which the most important rules, such as those on the usage of company equipment, the controlling rights of the employer etc. are stated. The employer, by the adoption and distribution of an adequate privacy policy, can simultaneously ensure compliance with its statutory information obligation and ensure that it is entitled to exercise its monitoring rights as described in the policy. 5. Consent a. General Consent of the Data Subject is one of the legal ground for processing Personal Data in Hungary based on the informational self-determination right of the data subject. The Data Protection Act provides for exemptions to the consent requirement in cases where the processing of Personal Data is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interest pursued by the Data Controller or by a third party and enforcing those interests is considered proportionate to the limitation of the right to the protection of Personal Data or where processing is for compliance with a legal obligation. Consent by the Data Subject must always be voluntary, informed (i.e., based on accurate and detailed information), explicit and unambiguous. To be unambiguous, the consent must be a clear indication of the Data Subject’s agreement to the processing of Personal Data relating to him, without limitation or with reference to specific operations, though consent is not required in certain prescribed circumstances. Consent may be express or implied; the appropriate form of consent will depend on the circumstances, expectations of the Data Subject, and the sensitivity of the Personal Data. When the Data Subject gives consent, it is understood to cover only the identified purpose(s). A new consent is required for purposes which were not previously identified and consented to. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hungary Baker & McKenzie 321 There is no requirement that consent must be in writing. It may be provided orally or in other forms/formats. In addition, the Data Subject also has the right to withdraw consent at any time in given circumstances. b. Sensitive Data Where consent is relied upon to justify the processing of Sensitive Personal Data, it must have been obtained in writing prior to the processing. c. Minors Under general Hungarian law rules, a person under the age of 18 is usually considered a minor, who may make valid legal declarations (e.g., conclude contracts) if the minor’s legal representative (i.e., parent, guardian, etc.) consents to those declarations. Minors between the ages of 14 - 18 have limited legal capacity to conclude certain contracts. The Data Protection Act contains a special rule applicable to minors over 16. Under that rule, the consent of such a minor is valid without the consent or subsequent approval of the minor’s legal representative. d. Employee Consent The Labor Code states that the employer may disclose Personal Data to a third party only in the cases specified by an Act of Parliament or with the employee’s consent. In that context, a related company of the employer or another member of the group of companies of which the employer is a member of also qualifies as a third party. The Labor Code does not require that the consent be given in written form. However, in its guidance, the Authority stated that the employee’s consent may serve as the legal grounds for Data Processing only in cases where the voluntary nature of the employee’s consent may clearly be ensured. This guidance indicates that employers should rely on other legal grounds when processing their employees’ Personal Data, e.g., statutory authorization and/or the legitimate interests pursued by the employer as Data Controller provided that enforcing these interests is considered proportionate to the limitation of the employee’s right to protection of Personal Data. e. Online/Electronic Consent In cases where the Data Protection Act requires written consent, the consent may be given in an electronic document signed by an advanced electronic signature (in this case, an electronic consent qualifies as a written consent). Electronic signatures, however, are not widely applied in Hungary. According to the practice of the Authority, pre-checked boxes may not be used to signify the affirmative consent of the Data Subject. 322 Baker & McKenzie 6. Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide clear and detailed information to Data Subjects about all relevant aspects of data processing, including; the organization’s identity; the types of Personal Data being collected; the legal bases and purposes for collecting Personal Data; the organization’s privacy practices (which must be given in a clear and transparent way); the identity of the third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; the rights of and the legal remedies available to the Data Subject; how the Personal Data is to be retained; where the Personal Data is to be transferred; where the Personal Data is to be stored; and how to contact the privacy officer or other person who is accountable for the organization’s policies and practices. The Data Controller must inform the Data Subject if the Data Controller relies on the legitimate interest test as a legal basis of data processing. If the provision to the Data Subject of such notice proves impossible or would involve disproportionate costs to the Data Controller, the notice may be published in a way which makes it publicly accessible to the Data Subjects. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected; and delete/ anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and how the Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and request the deletion, blocking and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements The general rule is that every data processing activity has to be notified to the Authority but the Data Processing may not be commenced before the earlier of the receipt of the Authority’s confirmation of said notification or the 9th day following the submission of such notification, provided that the notification contains all the relevant information required by law. (Implied authorization) There are several, strictly interpreted exemptions, however, which include Data Processing for the purposes of maintaining an employment, customer (but excluding communications service providers, banks or insurance companies) or supplier relationship. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hungary Baker & McKenzie 323 10. Data Protection Officers The appointment of a data protection officer is required by law only in the case of financial institutions, public utility companies and telecom companies. 11. International Data Transfers Notwithstanding the medium or the manner of the data transfer, Personal Data (including Sensitive Personal Data) may be forwarded outside Hungary to non-EU countries only if: • the Data Subject gives his/her explicit consent; or • the conditions of the Data Protection Act are met and the laws of the nonEEA third country in question afford an adequate level of protection. An adequate level of protection is achieved: • if the European Commission, in its decision, determines that the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection (such as Safe Harbor); • if the transfer is prescribed by a bilateral treaty containing guarantees for the rights of Data Subjects, their rights to remedies, and for the independent control of processing; • even if the above rules are not complied with, to enforce the provisions of an international legal aid treaty (such as MLATs) or of a treaty on the avoidance of double taxation, under the terms of those treaties; • an adequate level of data protection may be ensured by the use of EU model clauses; or • from 1 October 2015, through the use of BCRs subject to the approval of the Authority. The Data Protection Act does not allow the transfer of Personal Data to third countries where adequate protection is ensured through ad hoc contractual clauses. In practice, data controllers rely on adequacy decisions or use the relevant EU model clauses, adopted by the European Commission, for international data transfers. If there are no laws authorizing the transfer, the consent of the Data Subject will be required. Transfer of data to EEA member states is treated as a transfer within Hungary if Personal Data is transferred in order to process it. 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control is protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organization security 324 Baker & McKenzie safeguards to protect Personal Data, and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. The Data Protection Act requires additional security measures to be introduced in relation to the automatic data processing activities. This must cover measures securing: • the prevention of unauthorized input of data; • the restriction of use of data transfer devices by unauthorized persons; • the control and recording of data transfers to organizations that are or may be made by data transfer devices; • the monitoring and supervision of the input of personal data into automated data processing systems by recording the identity of the person who made such input and the time when such input was made; • the recovery of the systems in case of any malfunction; and • the maintenance of a log file and a report of malfunctions or failures. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties In 2013, the Authority examined international data transfer requirements and indicated that if data is transferred to a third country based on the Data Subject’s explicit consent, the Data Subject must clearly state that he/she has understood the possible risks arising from the data transfer and agrees to such transfer of his/her Personal Data. Accordingly, prior to obtaining his/her consent to such data transfer, the Data Controller must inform the Data Subject that his/her Personal Data could be transferred to third countries which do not provide the necessary level of protection of Personal Data. Regarding the transfer of employees’ Personal Data to third countries, the Authority stated that the consent of the employees may serve as the legal grounds for data processing only if the voluntary nature of the employee’s consent may clearly be ensured. The Authority also stated that an employer is expected not to transfer its employees’ Personal Data to countries without adequate levels of data protection. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, authority investigations/audits, authority orders, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, seizure of equipment or data, civil actions, criminal proceedings and/or private rights of action. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Hungary Baker & McKenzie 325 15. Data Security Breach There is no obligation under Hungarian laws for organizations that are involved in a data breach situations to inform the Data Subjects or authorities about the breach except for a specific regime applicable only to electronic communications services providers as regulated in the Electronic Communications Act. The organization may be required to gather information about the breach, assess the potential risk of harm to the Data Subjects, take steps to prevent future similar breaches and assist authorities with any investigation relating to the breach. If, during a data protection audit, a security breach is discovered by the Authority, the Data Controller could be subject to various sanctions for noncompliance with the processing rules. If the Data Subject discovers such a breach, he or she may claim damages as a result of the breach. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to suspension of business operations, closure or cancellation of the file, register or database, an administrative fine, penalty or sanction, or civil actions and/or class actions. As of 1 October 2015, Data Controllers must keep a register of data breaches, including any measures introduced by the Data Controller to remedy such breaches. This new provision applies only to Data Controllers. But existing data processing agreements will need to be amended because Data Processors also will be required to register data breaches on behalf of the Data Controller. Thus, the processing agreement should contain detailed provisions regulating how the Data Processor should comply with such obligations relating to the recordal of data breaches. 16. Accountability Subject to regulatory guidance, organizations may be obliged to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. Organizations may also be required to furnish to privacy regulators evidence relating to the effectiveness of the organization’s privacy management program. 17. Whistle-blower hotline Under the Whistleblowing Act, an employer and its owner(s) are authorized by law to establish a whistleblowing system, should they wish to operate one, to investigate reports about violation of laws or rules of conduct issued by the employer, provided that such rules of conduct protect a public interest or a significant private interest. In order to investigate whistleblowing reports, the employer may process and transfer to third parties participating in the investigation the Personal Data indicated in the report of the reporter and of the person(s) to whom the report refers. Reporting persons may include 326 Baker & McKenzie employees, contractors or any third person having a legitimate interest in making the report or in remedying the reported situation. The Whistleblowing Act requires that the data processing related to the whistleblowing system must be notified to the Authority. In addition, the employer must disclose on its corporate website the rules of conduct of the whistleblowing system, as well as a detailed description of the reporting procedure, in Hungarian. The Whistleblowing Act permits data to be transferred abroad only if adequate protection of the transferred data is ensured and the foreign Data Controller and Data Processor make a contractual commitment to comply with the provisions of the Whistleblowing Act. 18. E-discovery The implementation of an e-discovery system without the informed consent of the Data Subject raises serious data protection and privacy issues. Even if the Data Subject has granted consent, certain discovery measures may still be considered infringing (e.g., monitoring of private e-mails). 19. Anti-Spam Filtering When implementing an anti-spam filter solution into its operations, an organization is required to inform employees of monitoring policies being implemented. Though not mandatory, employers may give employees the opportunity to opt-out from the spam-filtering solution and the opportunity to review the isolated emails designated as spam. 20. Cookies There are no specific laws/rules that regulate the deployment of cookies except for those applicable only to electronic communications service providers and laid down in the Electronic Communications Act, and hence, the use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. In general, consent of Data Subjects must be obtained before cookies may be used. Some types of cookies that track or monitor the user may not be permitted under Hungarian law. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject may be required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond to the request for his/her consent. An organization must obtain consent for a specific marketing activity. Bundled consent is not considered valid consent. Iceland Hjördis Halldórsdóttir Reykjavik Tel: + 354 5 400 300 hjordis@logos.is 328 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments On 1 January 2001, the Icelandic Act on the Protection and Processing of Personal Data No. 77/2000 (the “Data Protection Act” or the “Act”) entered into force. The Act implemented Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. The Data Protection Act provides for the establishment of a specific institution, the Data Protection Authority (the “DPA”), which is responsible for monitoring the application of the Act and the administrative rules that are based on it. The DPA registers more than 1,200 matters each year. The most notable rulings in the recent years are the following: • On 25 February 2015, the DPA ruled in two cases regarding a “fraud button” on the Social Insurance Administration’s webpage. In both cases, No 2014/832 and No 2014/1068, the DPA held that as the notifications could be sent anonymously, the data subject’s right e.g. to know where the information came from could not be secured. All collection and processing of such personal data were held to be in breach of the Data Protection Act. • In a ruling by the DPA, dated 9 February 2015 in case No 2014/884, a former employee complained to the DPA as his former employer had not closed his e-mail account and e-mails from his account were forwarded to the company’s general e-mail address. The DPA found that this was contrary to rules No 837/2006 on electronic surveillance, as the employer could not prove that the employee had specifically provided his consent for the transfer. • On 14 December 2014, the DPA issued a ruling in case No 2014/796 where a complaint was submitted to it on the collection of biomedical samples by Decode. The complainant was of the opinion that the way in which these samples were collected was in breach of the Data Protection Act. However, as the collection of samples was not done for the purpose of marketing, business or profits, but for the sole purpose of improving health and curing diseases, the DPA found that Decode was allowed to collect these samples by knocking on peoples’ doors and by disregarding public ban lists for marketing. The DPA also found that the processing of the data did not go against the Act as it was based on the clear consent of participants. • On 22 October 2014, the DPA gave an opinion, No 2014/1134, on whether or not landlords were allowed to seek personal data on tenants before signing tenancy agreements. The DPA found that landlords were entitled to seek information on (a) the general identity of tenants, such as confirmation of employment, pay slips, registered defaults, copies of Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Iceland Baker & McKenzie 329 passports and marital status and (b) sensitive personal information such as criminal records. Landlords would however have to make sure that all processing would comply with the requirements of the Act and be carried out with proportionality and fairness. • On 25 January 2012, the DPA passed a ruling in case No 2012/531 where it found that any personal data that has been collected through a “fraud button” on an insurance company’s webpage, where notification on insurance frauds can be sent anonymously, shall be deleted as soon as the data subject requests deletion. • On 12 October 2011, the DPA passed a ruling in case No 2011/84 where it found that CCP, an online video game company, contravened the Act by transferring a player´s personal data to the USA and China. The DPA found that a data subject who accepts a company´s privacy policy, which refers to transfer of personal data to third countries without specifying which countries, is not considered to have accepted a transfer of his/her personal data to countries that do not provide an adequate level of personal data protection. In recent years, no significant amendments have been made to the Data Protection Act. In 2014, two minor amendments were however made stating that (i) health science research is now subject to specific permission in accordance with the Act on Scientific Research in the Biomedical Field No 44/2014 and (ii) information that falls under the scope of the Data Protection Act may be handed to a Public Archive for preservation according to the Act on Public Archives No 77/2014. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends • Mandatory Breach Notification: There is no mandatory requirement in the Data Protection Act to report data security breaches or losses to the DPA. However, a notice is considered as good practice, particularly if the security breach is major. • Direct Marketing: Based on Article 46 of the Icelandic Electronic Communications Act No 81/2003 (the “ECA”), the use of automated calling systems, facsimile machines or electronic mail for direct marketing is only allowed if a subscriber has given prior consent. Electronic mail addresses obtained in the context of the sale of a product or service may however be used for direct marketing of own goods or services if customers are given the opportunity to object to such use of addresses free of charge when they are listed and similarly each time a message is sent, if the customer has not initially refused such use. Users who use public telephone services as part of their marketing must respect designations in a telephone directory indicating that the subscriber in question does not wish to receive such calls to his/her number (Do Not Call Registry). 330 Baker & McKenzie • Cloud computing and social media: No specific legislation has been passed, however all processing must comply with the Data Processing Act. In relation to cloud computing, the question on where the data is stored has lead the DPA to conclude that a processor cannot, in all events, be considered to fulfill the Act’s requirements concerning security measures. • Electronic Signatures: The Act on Electronic Signatures No 28/2001, which implemented Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Community Framework for Electronic Signatures, stipulates that fully qualified electronic signatures shall have the same effect as handwritten signatures. Furthermore, it is stipulated that other electronic signatures can be legally binding. Icelandic legislation faithfully follows the definitions of the European Directive. • Binding Corporate Rules: International companies are allowed to transfer personal data between operating bases, across borders, if the company has applied the so-called Binding Corporate Rules. Such rules are intended to ensure that within each company falling under their scope, all personal data is given adequate protection. Their binding value is based on the companies’ unilateral commitment to the rules. However, for the transfer of data across borders to be lawful under the Binding Corporate Rules, it must have been authorized by the DPA. • Data Protection Enforcement: The Data Protection Authority has the power to impose daily fines until it concludes that the necessary improvements have been made. If the Authority’s decision to impose daily fines is referred to the courts, then the fines will not begin to accrue until a final judgment has been rendered. The Authority can assign to the Chief of Police the task of temporarily halting the operations of the party in question and sealing its place of operation without delay. The Director of Public Prosecutions and the National Commissioner of the Icelandic Police have the power of prosecution. 3. Law Applicable The key legislation on data privacy in Iceland is the Data Protection Act. An English translation of the Act can be found on the DPA’s website, http://www.personuvernd.is/information-in-english/greinar/nr/438 Since the Data Protection Act entered into force, the DPA has issued some public guidelines and rules. Among others are rules on how to obtain an informed consent for processing of personal data in scientific research in the health sector (rules No 170/2001), rules on the obligation to notify and processing of personal data which requires a permit (rules No 712/2008), rules concerning the security of personal data (rules No 299/2001), rules on employers’ supervision of employee’s emails (advertisement No 1001/2001) Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Iceland Baker & McKenzie 331 and rules on the transfer of personal data over borders (advertisement No 228/2010). 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data Personal data in the Data Protection Act is defined as any data relating to a data subject who is identified or identifiable, i.e., information that can be traced directly or indirectly to a specific individual, deceased or living, according to Article 2. The definition in the Act is based on the standard definition of personal data. b. Data Processing Data processing is defined as any operation or set of operations, which is performed upon personal data, whether the processing is manual or automatic, according to Article 2 of the Act. c. Processing by Data Controllers Data controllers may process personal data when any of the following conditions are met, according to Article 8 of the Act: 1. the data subject has unambiguously agreed to the processing or given his consent; 2. the processing is necessary to honour a contract, to which the data subject is a party, or to take measures at the request of the data subject before a contract is established; 3. the processing is necessary to fulfil a legal obligation of the controller; 4. the processing is necessary to protect vital interests of the data subject; 5. the processing is necessary for a task that is carried out in the public interest; 6. the processing is necessary in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom data are transferred; or 7. the processing is necessary for the controller, or a third party, or parties to whom data are transferred, to be able to safeguard legitimate interests, except where overridden by fundamental rights and freedom of the data subject, which shall be protected by law. Where sensitive personal data is processed, one of the above conditions must be met as well as one of a further list of additional conditions, according to Article 9 of the Act. Those additional conditions are: 1. the data subject gives his consent to the processing; 2. the processing is specifically authorized in another act or law; 332 Baker & McKenzie 3. the controller is required, by contracts between the Social Partners, to carry out the processing; 4. the processing is necessary to protect vital interests of the data subject or of another party who is incapable of giving his consent in accordance with item 1; 5. the processing is carried out by an organization with a trade-union aim or by other non-profit organizations, such as cultural, humanitarian, social or ideological organizations, on condition that the processing is carried out in the course of the organization’s legitimate activities and relates solely to the members of the body or to individuals who according to the organization’s goals are, or have been, in regular contact with it; it is however prohibited to disclose such personal data to a third party without the data subject’s consent; 6. the processing extends only to information that the data subject himself has made public; 7. the processing is necessary for a claim to be established, exercised or defended because of litigation or other such legal needs; 8. the processing is necessary because of a medical treatment or because of the routine management of health care services, provided that it is carried out by an employee of the health care services who is subject to an obligation of secrecy; or 9. the processing is necessary for the purposes of statistical or scientific research, provided that the privacy of individuals is protected by means of specific and adequate safeguards. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality According to Article 6 of the Act, it applies to data controllers and data processors and the processing of personal data: (i) if it is conducted on behalf of a data controller established in Iceland, if the processing is carried out in the EEA, an EFTA country or a country or a place that the DPA lists in a notice in the Law and Ministerial Gazette; (ii) if the data controller, who is established in a country outside of the EEA or EFTA, makes use of equipment and facilities situated in Iceland; and (iii) about financial and credit standing data concerning legal persons using equipment in Iceland even if the data controller is not established in Iceland. e. Sensitive Personal Data Sensitive personal data is defined in Article 2 of the Act as the following data: a. data on origin, skin colour, race, political opinions, religious beliefs and other life philosophies; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Iceland Baker & McKenzie 333 b. data on whether a man has been suspected of, indicted for, prosecuted for or convicted of a punishable offence; c. health data, including genetic data and data on use of alcohol, medical drugs and narcotics; d. data concerning sex life (and sexual behaviour); and e. data on trade-union membership. There are special requirements for processing sensitive personal data, as stated in Section 4(c). f. Employee Personal Data The Act does not include a specific definition on Employee Personal Data. 5. Consent a. General Consent is the most common ground for processing of personal data. Different requirements are however made in order for consent to be a valid ground, depending on the nature of the personal data being processed. According to Article 2 of the Data Protection Act, a consent is defined as a specific, unambiguous declaration, which is given freely by an individual, signifying that he agrees to the processing of particular personal data relating to him, and that he is aware of the purpose of the processing, how it will be conducted, how data protection will be ensured, that the individual can withdraw his consent, etc. As silence is not equivalent to consent, the data subject must be aware of what he is consenting to and what consequences the processing of the information has or can have on him and the data subject must give its consent himself. Consent regarding processing of general personal data can sometimes be based on active actions on behalf of the data subject. A consent regarding processing of sensitive personal data must however always be in the form of a declaration where the data subject signifies that he/she agrees to the processing in question. There are no formalities to obtain consent to process personal data under the Act and the Act does not require the consent of the data subject to be in writing unless the processing is for scientific research, according to Article 11 of Rules no 170/2001 on informed consent in scientific research in the health sector. However, as the consent must be informed, the data subject must be given sufficient information regarding the processing of its personal data and an opportunity to object to it. The burden of proof is placed on the data controller 334 Baker & McKenzie to show that this requirement is satisfied. Therefore, for evidential purposes, written consent is recommended in practice. b. Sensitive Data Sensitive personal data is specifically defined in the Act, as stated in Section 4(e). Processing of sensitive personal data is only allowed if one of the requirements in Article 8 is met as well as one of the requirements in Article 9 of the Act, such as the data subject has given his consent to the processing or the processing is authorized in another act of law. c. Minors Minors under 18 years old cannot give a valid consent. According to Article 51 of Act No 71/1997 on legal competence, parents of a child not possessing legal competence is in charge of the child’s personal affairs. Consent must therefore be acquired from a child’s parent. d. Employee Consent There is no specific definition of Employee Personal Data or Employee Consent in the Act. Therefore, the rules in Article 8 and 9, referred to above, apply. e. Online/Electronic Consent Consent can be given online or electronically, however the consent must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Article 2. 6. Information/Notice Requirements When a data controller obtains personal data directly from the data subject, notice must be provided to the data subject, according to Article 20 of the Act. Notice must also be provided to a data subject when personal data is obtained from someone other than the data subject, according to Article 21. When a controller obtains personal data directly from the data subject, the following information must be provided to the data subject, according to Article 20 of the Act: 1. the name and address of the controller and, where relevant, its representative in Iceland; 2. the purposes of the processing; 3. other information, in so far as such further information is necessary, having regard to the specific circumstances in which the data is processed, to enable the data subject to protect his or her interests, including information on: (a) the recipients or categories of recipients of the data; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Iceland Baker & McKenzie 335 (b) whether he is obliged or not to provide the requested data, as well as the possible consequences of failure to reply; and (c) the provisions of the Act regarding the data subject’s right of access, as well as the data subject’s right to rectification and deletion of wrong or misleading data. If the data subject has already received this information, it does not need to be provided again. When personal data is obtained from someone other than the data subject, the controller must concurrently provide the following information to the data subject, according to Article 21 of the Act: 1. the name and address of the controller and, where relevant, its representative in Iceland, 2. the purpose of the processing; 3. other information, in so far as such further information is necessary, having regard to the specific circumstances in which the data is processed, to enable the data subject to protect its interests, including information on: (a) the types or categories of the data being processed; (b) where the data comes from; (c) the recipients or categories of recipients of the data; and (d) the provisions of the Act regarding the data subject’s right of access, as well as the data subject’s right to rectification and deletion of wrong or misleading data on it. When personal data is obtained from someone other than the data subject, a notice is not required if: 1. it is impossible to inform the data subject or if it would place a heavier burden upon the controller than can reasonably be demanded; 2. it may be assumed that the data subject is already aware of the processing; 3. recording or disclosure of the data is laid down by law; 4. the data subject’s interests, of receiving notice of the data, are deemed secondary to vital public or private interests, including its own interests. There is no obligation to specify the names of the entities or individuals to whom the information is being disclosed. According to DPA practice, the country of the recipients should also be disclosed if the information is to be transferred to recipients established outside of EU/EEA (or outside those 336 Baker & McKenzie countries or places which the DPA considers to provide adequate level of personal data protection, see Section 11). 7. Processing Rules When processing personal data, all of the following shall be observed, according to Article 7 of the Act: 1. that they are processed in a fair, apposite and lawful manner and that all their use is in accordance with good practices of personal data processing; 2. that they are obtained for specified, explicit, apposite purposes and not processed further for other and incompatible purposes, but further processing of data for historical, statistical or scientific purposes shall not be considered as incompatible provided that proper safeguards are adhered to; 3. that they are adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for the processing; 4. that they are reliable and kept up to date when necessary, personal data which are unreliable or incomplete, having regard to the purposes for their processing, shall be erased or rectified; 5. that they are preserved in a form which does not permit identification of data subjects for longer than is necessary for the purposes for the processing. 8. Rights of Individuals Data subjects have the right to be informed of processing of their personal data, whether the data is collected from them or from third parties according to Articles 20 and 21 of the Act, see Section 6. The data subject can also require the following information from the controller, according to Article 18 of the Act: 1. what data on him is being or has been processed: 2. the purpose of the processing; 3. who receives, has received or will receive data on him; 4. where the data has been obtained; 5. what security measures are applied to the processing, provided that this will not diminish the security of the processing. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Iceland Baker & McKenzie 337 However there are a few exemptions from the duty to inform the data subject in Article 19 of the Act. These include data which is solely used for statistical processing or scientific research, provided that the processing cannot have direct influence on the data subject’s interest. The data subject has the right to request rectification and deletion of incorrect and misleading personal data according to Article 25 of the Act. The data subject can also object, on compelling legitimate grounds relating to his particular situation, to the processing of personal data relating to him, save where otherwise provided by national legislation, according to Article 28 of the Act. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements Each data controller who uses electronic technology to process personal data must notify the DPA of the processing, using a form intended for that purpose, in a timely manner before beginning the processing, according to Article 31 of the Act. There are no notification costs. Any changes that are made after the original notification shall also be notified. According to Article 6 of the DPA’s rule No 712/2008 on the obligation to notify and processing of personal data which requires a permit, the following categories of processing of non-sensitive data are exempted from the obligation to notify: 1. processing which is contingent on a permit from the DPA; 2. processing, carried out in the regular or standard course of activities, relating solely to those who have a connection to the activities or the relevant field of work, e.g., business associates, employees, members; 3. processing, necessary to fulfil legal obligations of the controller; 4. processing necessary to fulfil a contract to which the data subject is a party, or an agreement between labor market organizations; 5. processing, extending only to data that has been and is accessible to the public, provided that it is not aligned or combined with other personal data which has not been made accessible; and 6. processing, resulting from electronic surveillance, conducted for the purposes of security and property protection only, provided that legal obligations regarding duty of information and warning have been fulfilled. The aforementioned exemptions do not apply to the following categories of electronic processing of personal data: • processing, regarding conduct and individual evaluation, e.g., of performance of employees; • processing, for the purposes of aligning individuals to personal profiles; 338 Baker & McKenzie • processing, involving systematic recording of telephone calls. If the processing of general or sensitive personal data is likely to present specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, the DPA can decide that the processing may not begin until it has been examined by the DPA and approved, by the issuance of a special permit, according to Article 33 of the Act. The DPA has issued rules No 712/2008 on the obligation to notify and processing of personal data which requires a permit, where it is stipulated when a permit is required for processing of personal data. Transfer of personal data to countries that do not provide adequate levels of personal data protection is prohibited, unless certain conditions are met, according to Article 30 of the Act. The DPA can however authorize such transfer if it determines that special circumstances warrant it(see Section 11). 10. Data Protection Officers There is no specific requirement under the Act to appoint data protection officers. In the event the controller does not have an establishment in Iceland, but the Act is still applicable, the controller must however designate a representative established in Iceland, according to Article 6 of the Act. In such case the provisions of the Act relating to controllers apply to the representative. 11. International Data Transfers The transfer of personal data to another country that provides an adequate level of personal data protection is permitted, according to Article 29 of the Act. A country that complies with the EU Directive 95/46/EC is considered to provide an adequate level of protection. The same applies to those countries or places which the DPA has listed in advertisement no 228/2010. They are EEA and EFTA member states, Andorra, Argentina, Canada, the Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland, Uruguay, and the Isle of Man, as well as adherents to the US Safe Harbour Principles. The transfer of personal data to a country that does not provide an adequate level of protection is prohibited, according to Article 30 of the Act, unless: 1. the data subject has consented to the transfer; 2. it is necessary for the fulfilment of obligations under international law or as a result of Iceland’s membership of an international organization; 3. such a transfer is authorized in another legislative act; 4. the delivery is necessary to establish or fulfil a contract between the data subject and the controller; 5. the transfer is necessary to establish or fulfil a contract in the interest of the data subject; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Iceland Baker & McKenzie 339 6. the delivery is necessary in order to protect vital interests of the data subject; 7. if dissemination is necessary or legally required on important public interest grounds, or for the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims; or 8. the data in question is accessible to the general public. The DPA can authorize the transfer of data to a country that does not provide an adequate level of protection, if it determines that special circumstances warrant it, even if the conditions of the provision are not met, according to paragraph 2 of the Article. In such cases the nature of the data, the planned purpose of the processing and its duration are among the factors that must be taken into account. The DPA can authorize the transfer of data to third countries even if they have not been thought of as providing the citizens with an adequate level of privacy protection. This is contingent upon the controller having, in the opinion of the DPA, provided sufficient guarantees to meet these concerns. The DPA can for example require that the controller enter into a written contract with the recipient and that the contract contains certain standard contractual clauses in conformance with a decision which the DPA has advertised in the Law and Ministerial Gazette, having considered the decisions of the Commission of the European Union. 12. Security Requirements According to Article 11 of the Act, the controller must implement appropriate technical and organizational measures to protect personal data against unlawful destruction, against accidental loss or alteration and against unauthorized access. Having regard to the state of the art and the cost of their implementation, such measures must ensure a level of security appropriate to the risks represented by the processing and the nature of the data to be protected. The controller is responsible for having risk analysis and security measures which are implemented in the processing of personal data, conform with laws, rules and instructions given by the DPA on how to ensure information security, including standards that the DPA decides that must be followed. The controller is responsible for risk analysis being reviewed routinely and security measures upgraded to the extent necessary to fulfil these security requirements. The controller must document how he produces a security policy, conducts a risk analysis and decides on security measures to be implemented. The DPA must be granted access to information regarding these issues at any time. Where data is to be processed by a processor, the controller must ensure that the processor in question is able to carry out the required security measures and conduct internal audits, according to Article 13 of the Act. 340 Baker & McKenzie 13. Special Rules for the Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties When processing is carried out by a processor, the controller must verify that the processor in question is able to carry out the required security measures and conduct internal audits, according to Article 13 of the Act. The controller must enter into a written agreement with the processor with specific obligations, i.e.,: • that the processor must act only on instructions from the controller and that the obligations set out in the Act will also be incumbent on processing carried out by the processor; • anyone acting in the name of the controller or the processor, including the processor itself, and has access to personal data, may only process personal data according to the instructions of the controller, unless legislative acts stipulate otherwise; • if the processor is established in another state within the European Economic Area than the controller, then it must also be stipulated in the contract that the laws and regulations of the state in which the processor is established will govern the security measures to be applied to the processing of personal data. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions The DPA is responsible for the enforcement of the Data Protection Act, according to Article 37 of the Act. Infringements of the provisions of the Act and of regulations issued according to it are punishable by means of fines or a prison term of up to three years, unless more severe sanctions are provided for in other acts of law, according to Article 42 of the Act. The same punishment does apply if instructions by the DPA are not observed. If an offense is committed as part of the operations of a legal person, that legal person can be fined, as provided for in Chapter II A of the General Penal Code. If a controller or a processor has processed personal data in violation of the Act, rules or instructions by the DPA, then the controller must compensate the data subject for the financial damage suffered by it as a result of this, according to Article 43 of the Act. A controller will, however, not be made to compensate for any detriment which it proves that can neither be traced to its mistake nor to any negligence on its or its processors’ behalf. The DPA can order the cessation of processing of personal data, including collection, documenting or disclosure, order the erasure of personal data or the deletion of records, wholly or partially, prohibit further use of data or instruct the controller to implement measures that ensure the legitimacy of the processing, according to Article 40, paragraph 1 of the Act. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Iceland Baker & McKenzie 341 If a processing is discovered, which violates provisions of the Act, or those administrative rules which are issued according to it, the DPA can assign to the Chief of Police the task of halting temporarily the operations of the party in question and seal its place of operation without delay, according to Article 40, paragraph 2 of the Act. If someone does not comply with the above mentioned instructions of the DPA, then it can revoke a permit that it has granted according to the provisions of the Data Protection Act until it concludes that the necessary improvements have been made, according to Article 40 of the Act. 15. Data Security Breach There is no mandatory requirement in the Data Protection Act to report data security breaches or losses to the DPA or to the data subject. However, a notice is considered as good practice, particularly if the security breach is major. 16. Accountability The controller shall ensure that the processing of personal data is always in compliance with the Act. A processor can also be held liable. 17. Whistle-Blower Hotline There are no obligations or regulations specific to whistleblowing hotlines; however, the general data protection rules would apply with respect to the processing of any personal data that results from the establishment of such hotlines. It may be expected that the DPA would take note of Opinion 1/2006 of the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party when interpreting general provisions of the Act. 18. E-Discovery There are no special rules in Iceland regarding E-Discovery. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering There are no special rules in Iceland regarding Anti-Spam Filtering. 20. Cookies There are no provisions in Icelandic legislation which particularly deal with the use of cookies or location data. IP addresses are considered personal data as well as location data. If the use of cookies leads to the use of IP addresses, or other personal data, the processing of such data and location data must comply with the Act. The processing is therefore not permissible unless one of the listed conditions is met, in most instances the data subject must consent to the processing of such data. 342 Baker & McKenzie 21. Direct Marketing Based on the ECA the use of automated calling systems, including electronic mail, for direct marketing is only allowed if a subscriber has given prior consent, according to Article 46 of the ECA. If the electronic mail addresses have been obtained in the context of the sale of a product or service it may be used for direct marketing of own goods or services if customers are given the opportunity to object to such use of addresses free of charge when they are listed and similarly each time a message is sent, if the customer has not initially refused such use. Apart from that, unsolicited electronic communications in the form of direct marketing are not allowed for subscribers who do not wish to receive these communications. The sending of electronic mail for purposes of direct marketing, where the name and address of the party responsible for the marketing is not clearly indicated, is prohibited, according to Article 46 of the ECA. Registers Iceland, which registers a range of information on Iceland’s residents and real properties, also maintains a registry of those individuals who object to their names being used for marketing purposes, according to Article 28 of the Data Protection Act. Controllers engaged in direct marketing, and those who use a list of names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and similar data, or disclose them to a third party in connection with a similar enterprise, shall, prior to using such a list for the described purposes, compare it with the Registers Iceland’s registry, in order to prevent direct mail from being sent to, or phone calls being made to, those who have objected to it. The DPA can make exemptions from this duty in special cases. India Probir Roy Chowdhury Bangalore Tel: +91-80-43503618 probir@jsalaw.com Sajai Singh Bangalore Tel: +91-98450 78666 sajai@jsalaw.com 344 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments Mandatory Notification of Data Security Incidents The Government of India has enacted the Information Technology (the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team and Manner of Performing Functions and Duties) Rules, 2013 (“Cert-In Rules”), which impose mandatory notification requirements on service providers, intermediaries, data centers and corporate entities, upon the occurrence of certain ‘cyber security incidents’. Cyber security incidents have been defined to mean any real or suspected adverse events, in relation to cyber security, that violate any explicitly or implicitly applicable security policy, resulting in: • unauthorised access, denial or disruption of service; • unauthorised use of a computer resource for processing or storage of information; or • changes to data, information without authorisation. The occurrence of the following types of cyber security incidents trigger the notification requirements under the Cert-In Rules: a. Targeted scanning/ probing of critical networks/ systems; b. Compromise of critical information/ system; c. Unauthorized access of IT system/ data; d. Defacement of websites or intrusion into website of unauthorized changes such as inserting malicious codes, links to external websites; e. Malicious code attacks such as spreading virus, worm/trojan/botnets/ spyware; f. Attacks on servers such as database, mail and DNS & network devises such as routers; g. Identity theft, spoofing and phishing attacks; h. Denial of service (DoS) and Distributed Denial of service (DDoS) attacks; i. Attacks on critical infrastructure, SCADA systems and wireless networks; and j. Attacks on applications, such as E-governance and E-commerce etc. Upon the occurrence of any of the aforementioned events, companies are now required to notify the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) within a reasonable time, so as to leave scope for appropriate action by the authorities. The format and procedure for the reporting of cyber security Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – India Baker & McKenzie 345 incidents have been provided by Cert-In on its official website, http://www.certin.org.in/. CERT-In was established in 2004, to collect, analyse and disseminate information on cyber incidents, provide forecasts and alerts of cyber security incidents, provide emergency measures for handling cyber security incidents and coordinate cyber incident response activities. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends Right to Privacy Bill, 2011 2015 is anticipated to be the year when the Government of India introduces the Right to Privacy Bill, 2011 (“Privacy Bill”) in the Parliament for scrutiny and approval. The Privacy Bill proposes an overhaul of the data privacy framework in India, whereby the collection, storage, processing and transfer of data would be assessed for compliance through the lens of privacy principles (similar to the OECD privacy principles). The Privacy Bill also proposes the setting up of a Data Protection Authority (“DPS”), to investigate any data security breaches and issue appropriate orders to safeguard security interests of all affected data subjects. It also proposes to provide guidance for data controllers, who would be responsible for exercising self regulation and confidentiality while dealing with personal data. In June 2014, the Department of Personnel and Training (“DoPT”) submitted the Privacy Bill to the Ministry of Law and Justice for its consideration. If approved, the Privacy Bill would be sent to the Cabinet of Ministers for a final review, and thereafter placed before the Parliament of India for enactment. 3. Law Applicable The Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”), as amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, and circulars, notifications and various rules made thereunder, including: the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or information) Rules, 2011 and the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (“Privacy Rules”) The following additional legislations, though not directly dealing with data protection and information technology, find application in addition to the aforementioned regulations: (i) The Indian Contract Act, 1872; (ii) Indian Penal code, 1860; (iii) Right to Information Act, 2004; (iv) Indian Copyright Act, 1957; (v) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986; 346 Baker & McKenzie (vi) Specific Relief Act, 1963; (vii) Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; (viii) Tort Law. Offenses under the above rules and regulations are enforced by the judiciary and the various cyber crime cells across the country. The provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, have been applied to offenses under the law applicable to information technology as well. India does not have a ‘Regulator’ in place presently, however there are various organizations lobbying for more stringent data protection and privacy laws to be implemented. Presently, data protection is maintained by the judiciary and the cyber crime units of the police force. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data The Privacy Rules define “Personal Data” as “any information that relates to a natural person, which, either directly or indirectly, in combination with other information available or likely to be available with a body corporate, is capable of identifying such person.” Apart from Personal Data, the Privacy Rules also define the term “Sensitive Personal Data or Information”. Even though both the terms have been defined in the Privacy Rules, the concepts tend to overlap. Different provisions are applicable to “Personal Information” and “Sensitive Personal Data or Information”, while some provisions are applicable to both. The interpretation of the Press Note and the current stance of the industry is that, while all the provisions of the Privacy Rules apply to Sensitive Personal Data or Information, only some provisions apply to Personal Data or Information. b. Data Processing Person located in India Privacy Rules are applicable to a person located in India. However, there is lack of clarity on whether the term “person” refers to “natural individuals” who are the providers of information, or body corporates collecting data. If it is assumed that “person” refers to “natural individuals”, then a body corporate located overseas, which handles data of individuals located in India through a computer resource located in India, will have to comply with the Privacy Rules. Body corporate located in India, computer resource located in India or overseas Irrespective of the location of the computer resource (either in India or abroad) and the place of residence of the data subject, the Privacy Rules are applicable to all body corporates located in India. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – India Baker & McKenzie 347 Body corporate located overseas, computer resource located in India Section 43-A of the IT Act, read with Section 75, provides that the IT Act will be applicable to a body corporate located overseas, whose computer resource is located in India. As per the interpretation that has been adopted, the Privacy Rules apply to all Indian body corporates and to those foreign body corporates which collect personal or Sensitive Personal Data or Information from Indian persons. c. Processing by Data Controllers There are no specific provisions under applicable Indian laws. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality A body corporate or any person on its behalf may transfer Sensitive Personal Data or Information or any other information, to any other body corporate or a person in India, or in any other country, only after it ensures, in the case of another country, that such jurisdiction provides the same level of data protection as is required to be in compliance with the Privacy Rules. Further, such transfer may be done only if it is necessary for the performance of the lawful contract between the body corporate or any person on its behalf and Data Subject. Alternatively, such data may be transferred with prior consent of the Data Subject. As per the accepted interpretation of the Privacy Rules, this provision is applicable for both personal and Sensitive Personal Data or Information. e. Sensitive Personal Data The Privacy Rules define sensitive personal information to include information relating to: • passwords; • financial information (e.g., bank account/credit or debit card or other payment instrument details); • physical, physiological and mental health condition; • sexual orientation; • medical records and history; • biometric information (biometrics means the technologies that measure and analyse human body characteristics, such as fingerprints, eye retinas and irises, voice patterns, facial patterns, hand measurements and DNA for authentication purposes); • any detail relating to the above clauses as provided to a body corporate for providing services; and 348 Baker & McKenzie • any of the information received under the above clauses for storing or processing under a lawful contract or otherwise. However, any information available in the public domain or any information to be furnished to any government agency or which should be made available to the public under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been expressly exempt from the scope of this definition. f. Employee Personal Data There are no additional requirements/definitions for employee Personal Data. If Sensitive Personal Data or information of employees is being collected, then prior consent of such employees will be required. There is no specific legislation pertaining to monitoring of employees. Employers do monitor email and computer use of employees but usually inform employees about such monitoring. Employers must be careful to comply with the right to privacy of employees and comply with regulations pertaining to collection, use, storage and transfer of Sensitive Personal Data and Personally Identifiable Information. Further, the IT Act also regulates images being captured via such monitoring and employers would have to adhere to the same. An additional point to be noted is that the courts may construe the right to access information on a computer or computer resource in light of the ownership of computer or computer resource being transferred. 5. Consent a. General In India, consent of the Data Subject is required for the collection, processing, and disclosure of Personal Data. Consent is also contemplated as a justification or legal grounds for the collection, processing and/or use of Personal Data. For consent to be considered valid, it must be voluntary, informed, explicit and unambiguous. It can be express or implied but the appropriate form of consent will depend on the circumstances, expectations of the Data Subject, and sensitivity of the Personal Data. Consent must be obtained prior to or at the time of collection of data. Consent given by a Data Subject can be withdrawn at any time. It does not need to be in the local language, but the Data Subject must understand the language in which consent is given. b. Sensitive Data An organization that processes Sensitive Data has an obligation to obtain consent in writing through letter or fax or email or other electronic means from the Data Subject. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – India Baker & McKenzie 349 Based on this, the privacy policy of each body corporate may contain an “I Agree” tab at the end of the text. A click on the tab by the reader of the privacy policy (i.e., the Data Subject) would be deemed to be valid consent under the Privacy Rules. Additionally, the Privacy Rules require that, while collecting Sensitive Personal Data or information directly from the Data Subject, the body corporate must, inter alia, inform the Data Subject of the purpose for which his or her information is being collected, that the information so collected may be transferred/disclosed and names/addresses of the agency collecting and retaining this information. Further, a body corporate or any person on its behalf may collect any Sensitive Personal Data or information only if the information is collected for a lawful purpose connected with an integral activity of the body corporate. c. Minors There are no specific guidelines with regard to data privacy under the IT Act or Privacy Rules regarding minors. However, the IT Act punishes publication or transmission of material depicting children in sexually explicit acts, in electronic form. d. Employee Consent Employee consent is required to collect and process an employee’s Personal Data. Employee consent is required if his or her sensitive Personal Data or information is being collected, used, handled, stored and/or transferred by the employer (i.e., the body corporate). The requirements for such consent are the same as the general consent requirements. Employee consent is also required when an employer decides to implement a BYOD program. There is no specific legislation pertaining to BYOD, however various laws pertaining to the right to individual privacy and collection and storage of Sensitive Personal Data and personally identifiable information would apply. The general practice prevalent is for companies to implement in-house corporate policies that cover various scenarios regarding confidentiality, integrity and access of data. e. Online/Electronic Consent Online/Electronic consent is permissible and can be effective if properly structured and evidenced. Hence, electronic consent is enforceable in India. The related contract must comply with the requirements of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to qualify as valid binding contracts. 350 Baker & McKenzie The IT Act prescribes regulations pertaining to electronic signatures, the procedure for the issuance and the manner of obtaining a digital signature, and regulations pertaining to certifying authorities. Under the IT Act, any subscriber may authenticate an electronic record by affixing his digital signature to such electronic record. Further under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 electronic records may be submitted as primary evidence if compliant with the conditions provided thereunder. However the prevalent practice presently is to affix a ‘wet signature’ to a document, scan and email the same as an electronic record. This does not however satisfy the conditions provided under the Evidence Act, 1872 for electronically signed documents and primary evidence and is thereby considered secondary evidence by the courts. 6. Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about: the organization’s identity; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; its privacy practices (which must be given in a clear and transparent way); third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; the consequences of not providing consent; the rights of the Data Subject; how the Personal Data is to be retained; where the Personal Data is to be transferred and stored; how to contact the privacy officer or other individual who is accountable for the organization’s policies and practices; how to make an inquiry or file a complaint; how to access/and or correct the Data Subject’s Personal Data; the duration of the proposed processing; and the means of transmission of the Personal Data. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected, and delete/ anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and how the Data Subject’s Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data, subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements There are no formal registration requirements in India imposed on organizations that collect and process Personal Data. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – India Baker & McKenzie 351 10. Data Protection Officers Every body corporate collecting/ using/ retaining or transferring Sensitive Personal Data or information is obligated to designate a Grievance Officer in order to address any discrepancies and/or grievances that any Data Subject may have. The names and contact details of such Grievance Officer must be published on the website of the body corporate. The Grievance Officer is required to redress the grievances of the Data Subject within one month from the date of receipt of grievance. 11. International Data Transfers Organizations in India may transfer Personal Data outside of the jurisdiction provided that the receiving jurisdiction provides a similar level of protection for Personal Data; impacted Data Subjects have been informed or have been provided consent; and that reasonable steps have been taken to safeguard the Personal Data to be transferred. 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to: ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organization security safeguards to protect Personal Data; and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. Foreign entities may have to comply with Indian security standards when dealing with Indian companies. Presently, Indian legislation prescribes data security standards of ISO/IEC 27001:2005 as the norm when handling sensitive personal information and personally identifiable information. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Organizations that disclose Personal Data to third parties are required to use contractual or other means to protect Personal Data. These organizations may also be required to comply with sector specific requirements. Furthermore, organizations that outsource data processing shall be liable with the third party provider in case of breach by the latter. There is no specific regulation pertaining to cloud computing. However any entity collecting Sensitive Personal Data or personally identifiable information must comply with ISO/IEC 27001:2005 security standards. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, civil actions, and/or private rights of action. As per the IT Act, any body corporate which breaches Section 43-A is liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the Data Subject so affected. There is no limit on the amounts recoverable. 352 Baker & McKenzie 15. Data Security Breach As discussed earlier, under the Cert-In Rules, service providers, intermediaries, data centers and corporate entities are obligated to notify Cert-In upon the occurrence of certain cyber security incidents, including data security breaches. While no fixed time limit has been prescribed in this regard, the Cert-In Rules require such notifications to be made within such reasonable time as would allow authorities to take necessary remedial measures. 16. Accountability Organizations are currently not required to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. 17. Whistle-blower hotline There is no filing requirement for the introduction of a whistle-blower hotline in India. Whistle-blower hotlines may be established as long as they are in compliance with local laws. 18. E-discovery When implementing an e-discovery system, an organization is required to obtain the consent of employees if the collection of Personal Data is involved, and advise employees of its implementation, the monitoring of work tools, and the storage of information. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering Generally, the introduction of a spam filtering solution in an organization does not raise privacy issues provided that the employees have been informed of the monitoring policies being implemented in the workplace. 20. Cookies There are specific laws/rules that regulate the deployment of cookies in India; and hence, the use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. Some types of cookies that track or monitor the user may not be permitted. Consent of Data Subjects must be obtained before cookies can be used. Under the IT Act, any person who, without permission of the owner or any other person who is in charge of a computer, computer system or computer network or computer resource introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus into any computer, computer system or computer network shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the person so affected. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – India Baker & McKenzie 353 Cookies fall under the definition of ‘computer virus’ as provided under the IT Act which means any computer data that attaches itself to another computer resource and operates when a programme, data or instruction is executed or some other event takes place in that computer resource. Based on the above, if a person were to include cookies on their websites without obtaining permission of and informing such user of the use of cookies and any damage were to result from the placement of such cookies, the owner of such website would be liable to pay compensation to the person so effected. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject may be required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. There is no specific legislation in India that governs online direct marketing; however, the general practice is to permit an intended recipient to opt-in/optout of receiving any marketing material. There is no existing legislation that governs spam, however the general practice of providing an opt-in/unsubscribe option is followed by email marketers. The IT Act has tried to implement anti-spam regulations which state that any person who sends by means of a computer resource or a communication device, any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages may be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine. Any information that may be grossly offensive, have menacing character, cause annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injure, criminally intimidate, cause enmity, hatred or ill will, sent persistently by use of a computer resource or a communication device may be held in violation of the IT Act. This provision has not however been tested in a court of law and does not specifically deal with email marketing. The Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations (“TRAI Regulations”) regulate unsolicited marketing calls. The TRAI Regulations establish a ‘National Do Not Call Register’, and a ‘Private Do Not Call List’. The TRAI Regulations provide customers with the option to register with Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”) or their service providers under the ‘fully blocked’ or ‘partially blocked’ categories’. The TRAI Regulations also require telemarketers to register themselves with TRAI which maintains a National Telemarketers Register. Indonesia Aryadharma Alimsardjono Jakarta Tel: +62 21 2960 8501 aryadharma.alimsardjono@bakermckenzie.com Susie Beaumont Jakarta Tel: +62 21 2960 8608 susie.beaumont@bakermckenzie.com Mark Innis Jakarta Tel: +62 21 2960 8618 mark.innis@bakermckenzie.com Alvira M. Wahjosoedibjo Jakarta Tel: +62 21 2960 8503 alvira.m.wahjosoedibjo@bakermckenzie.com 356 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments There have been no recent significant developments on data privacy in Indonesia. There are still no specific data privacy/protection regulations in Indonesia. However some regulations are expected in late 2015. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends Wire-tapping Issues & Security requirements – After the recent government wire-tapping issues by other countries, the Ministry of Communications and Informatics (“MOCI”) indicates that they will tighten the data privacy requirements (especially for telecommunication operators) in Indonesia. Recently, the MOCI issued a directive to major Indonesian telecommunication companies to provide reports on wire-tapping procedures and mechanisms, and will require stricter security requirements including the protection of privacy of the customers. Data Protection Enforcement - In the absence of a specific data protection/privacy regulation, the implementation of data privacy requirements in Indonesia is limited. The MOCI will issue a ministerial regulation on Personal Data protection/privacy. However, there is no draft regulation available and the MOCI cannot confirm when such regulation will be issued. 3. Law Applicable Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transaction (“EIT Law”) and Government Regulation No. 82 on the Implementation of Electronic Systems and Transactions (“Regulation 82”) remain the main law and regulation that address data protection/privacy matters. Other than the above, there are also a number of other Indonesian laws that relate to the issue of data privacy (e.g., bank secrecy requirements under the banking regulations). 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data Regulation 82 defines “Personal Data” as data of individuals which must be stored and maintained without error and the secrecy of which is protected (this is a literal translation of the regulation and it remains unclear at this time). The above definition only covers data of individuals and does not cover data on businesses (e.g., company’s name, address, phone number, etc.). However, the definition is very general and may be interpreted broadly. It is advisable that a conservative approach be taken in assessing whether certain data contains Personal Data and to assess whether or not an element of information can lead to a specific person (e.g., name, email, IP address, phone number, ID, location, etc.). Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Indonesia Baker & McKenzie 357 b. Data Processing Effectively, data processing the use of Personal Data, which must be based on consent from the Data Subject and in accordance with the purpose conveyed to the relevant Data Subject when collecting the data. c. Processing by Data Controllers There are no specific laws or regulations on the processing of Personal Data by Data Controllers. Effectively, any use of Personal Data must be based on consent from the Data Subject and in accordance with the purpose conveyed to the relevant Data Subject when collecting the data. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The EIT Law (including, in this regard, Regulation 82 as its implementing regulation) applies to local or foreign legal subjects and to all electronic transactions conducted inside or outside Indonesia, having a legal impact in Indonesia, or having a legal impact outside of Indonesia but produces detrimental effects to the interests of Indonesia. Consequently, entities which do not have any presence in Indonesia but have activities that may affect Indonesia or Indonesian entities/individuals, may also be subject to the EIT Law. Although, in practice the EIT Law has not been strictly enforced against an offshore entity given the impracticality of doing so, ultimately the Government could require sites/services to be blocked (as it does with pornography sites). e. Sensitive Personal Data There is no law or regulation which classifies certain Personal Data as Sensitive Personal Data. In practice, however, the consent form, employment agreement, company regulation or collective labor agreement may include a provision which classifies certain Personal Data of an employee as “Sensitive Personal Data of an employee”. f. Employee Personal Data There is no law or regulation which classifies certain data of an employee as Personal Data. In practice, however, the consent form, employment agreement, company regulation or collective labor agreement may include a provision which classifies certain data of an employee as employee Personal Data. 5. Consent a. General The EIT Law and Regulation 82 require consent of the relevant individuals with respect to any use of their private or Personal Data through electronic media and/or electronic systems, unless the law stipulates otherwise. In addition, there is ambiguity among the various Indonesian laws to suggest that the prudent course would be to always secure prior consent of the Data 358 Baker & McKenzie Subject of such data to use, process, transfer and disclose their Personal Data, regardless of whether electronic media are used. b. Sensitive Data There is no provision in the EIT Law, Regulation 82 or other laws and regulations on “Sensitive Data”. As the EIT Law and Regulation 82 generally require consent for any use of Personal Data in electronic media and/or electronic systems from the relevant Data Subjects, any use of Sensitive Personal Data must also be based on prior consent of the owner of such Sensitive Data. c. Minors There is no provision in the EIT Law, Regulation 82 or other laws and regulations specifically addressing consent requirements for the use of a minor’s data. However, consent may be obtained from a legal guardian or parent on behalf of a minor. d. Employee Consent The EIT Law requires consent of the relevant individuals with respect to any use of their private or personal information through electronic media, unless the law stipulates otherwise. Regulation 82 requires Electronic Systems Operators to ensure that the use of Personal Data (including employees) is based on consent. In practice, the employment agreement, company regulation or collective labor agreement may also include a provision which reflects the employees consenting to the employer’s possible use, access, process, transfer and disclosure of their Personal Data. Nevertheless, in reviewing a number of related laws, the prudent course of action is to secure the prior consent of the employees concerned regardless of whether electronic media are used. e. Online/Electronic Consent Technically, it is possible to obtain affirmative/express consent of a Data Subject online or electronically. Under the EIT Law and Regulation 82, electronic information and electronic documents, including their print outs, are considered valid legal evidence, except where the law requires such documents to be made in writing (e.g., employment agreements) or in the form of a deed (e.g., land title documents). Electronic information and electronic documents are valid to the extent that the information can be accessed, presented or guaranteed of its completeness, and can be relied on to explain certain situations. In practice, Indonesian courts (particularly, the Industrial Relations Courts, in the event of an employment dispute) may request for a print-out of the relevant electronic document. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Indonesia Baker & McKenzie 359 In light of the above, we suggest that even though consent can be obtained electronically, mechanisms are put in place to: (i) allow the printing of such consent whenever necessary (e.g., in the event that the consent will be used as evidence in court); and (ii) verify the authenticity of the consent (which is electronically generated). 6. Information/Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about: the organization’s identity; the types of Personal Data being collected; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; its privacy practices (which must be given in a clear and transparent way); third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; the rights of the Data Subject; how the Personal Data is to be retained; where the Personal Data is to be transferred; where the Personal Data is to be stored; how to make an inquiry or file a complaint, how to access and/or correct the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and the duration of the proposed processing. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization on what Personal Data is being collected and how the Personal Data is being used; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements There are no requirements for organizations that collect and process Personal Data to register, file or notify the local data authority. 10. Data Protection Officers There is no requirement for organizations to designate a privacy officer or other individual who will be accountable for the privacy practices of the organization. 360 Baker & McKenzie 11. International Data Transfers Organizations may transfer Personal Data outside of Indonesia provided that impacted Data Subjects have been informed or have provided consent; and that reasonable steps have been taken to safeguard the Personal Data to be transferred. 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organization security safeguards to protect Personal Data, and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties The general requirements of an outsourcing arrangement under the Indonesian labor laws and regulations will apply. In addition, for Indonesian banks, the Central Bank has Bank Indonesia Regulation No. 9/15/PBI/2007 on the Application of Risk Management System for Information Technology in Banks. This regulation is the legal basis for banks in Indonesia in applying its information technology system, particularly for data processing. Indonesian banks are allowed to engage a third party that provides Information Technology service. The Information Technology service provider may be a local provider (Indonesian company) or a foreign provider (non-Indonesian company). If the bank intends to engage a foreign Information Technology service provider, the bank must first secure an approval from Bank Indonesia (Indonesia’s Central Bank). Such approval can only be given by Bank Indonesia, if the Indonesian bank meets certain requirements. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, civil actions, class actions, criminal proceedings, and private rights of action. 15. Data Security Breach Regulation 82 requires a written notification to the relevant Data Subject in case of a data breach. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Indonesia Baker & McKenzie 361 An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to a suspension of business operations, closure or cancellation of the file, register or database, an administrative fine, penalty or sanction, or civil actions and/or class actions, and a criminal prosecution. 16. Accountability Subject to regulatory guidance, organizations may be required to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data; furnish the results of the privacy impact assessments to privacy regulators upon request; and furnish evidence relating to the effectiveness of the organization’s privacy management program to privacy regulators upon request. 17. Whistle-Blower Hotline There are no laws/rules that regulate the implementation of whistle-blower hotlines in Indonesia. 18. E-Discovery A provision in the Human Rights Law provides that secrecy of correspondence (including those in electronic form) may not be violated except by a court order in accordance with the prevailing laws. In addition, under the EIT Law, the basic principle is for the confidentiality of private or personal information of an individual must be preserved. Conceivably, if Personal Data of employees are deemed to have been gathered from various correspondence between the company and its employees, the provisions under the Human Rights Law and the EIT Law may be applied. However, there has been no case reported on this. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering When implementing an anti-spam filter solution into operations, an organization may be required to inform employees of monitoring policies being implemented in the workplace; and give employees the opportunity to review the isolated emails designated as spam. 20. Cookies There are no specific laws/rules in Indonesia that regulate the use and deployment of cookies. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to use any Personal Data for direct marketing activities is required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent. Ireland John Cahir Dublin Tel: + 353 1 649 2000 jcahir@algoodbody.com Alison Obernik Dublin Tel: +353 1 649 2461 aobernik@algoodbody.com 364 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments Implementation of the remaining provisions of the Data Protection Acts 1998 – 2003 (as amended) (“the DP Acts”) • On 18 July 2014, the remaining provisions of the DP Acts were signed into effect by the Minister for Justice and Equality. S.I. No. 337 of 2014 brought subsections 6(2)(b) and 10(7)(b) into effect, while S.I. No. 338 of 2014 brought into force subsection 4(13) of the DP Acts. • Section 6 had already provided that a Data Controller must rectify, block or erase personal data that is collected, processed or otherwise dealt with in contravention of the DP Acts and to notify the data subject accordingly. Section 6(2)(b) extends this obligation by requiring a data controller to notify any person to whom personal data was disclosed to in the 12 preceding months. There is an exception for when such notification proves impossible or involves a disproportionate effort. • Section 10 had already provided that following receipt of an enforcement order issued by the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (“ODPC”), the data controller must notify the data subject where the controller blocks, rectifies, erases, destroys or adds a statement to personal data. Section 10(7)(b) extends this obligation by requiring the data controller to also notify any person to whom the personal data was disclosed during the preceding 12 months. The same exception applies in relation to when the notification proves impossible or involves a disproportionate effort. • Section 4(13) makes it unlawful for employers to require employees or job applicants to make an access request seeking copies of personal data which is then made available to the employer/prospective employer. This subsection also applies to any person who engages another to provide a service. In June 2015 the ODPC announced that it had written to 40 organisations across a range of industries so as to assess their compliance with legislation on enforced subject access requests. ODPC secured first personal convictions against company directors • In October 2014, the ODPC secured its first personal convictions against company directors for their part in the breach of data protection law by their private investigation company. The company was charged with 23 counts of breaches of section 22 of the DP Acts for obtaining access to personal data without the prior authority of the data controller by whom the data is kept and disclosing the data to another person. Separate prosecutions were made under section 29 of the DP Acts, which provides for the prosecution of directors, or other officers of a company, where an offence by a company is proved to have been committed with the consent Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Ireland Baker & McKenzie 365 or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of the directors or other officers. Increased Government Focus on Data Protection • The 2015 Irish Government Budget doubled the funding for the ODPC. In July 2014, Ireland appointed Dara Murphy TD as a dedicated Data Protection Minister. In December 2014, Minister Murphy took part in the Irish Government’s filing of an amicus curiae brief in relation to the US Court of Appeal case Microsoft v the United States. Amius curiae (friend of the court) standing allows a party to offer perspective and a position on a case that it is not directly involved in. The brief outlined the Irish position with regard to the ongoing legal dispute between the US and Microsoft over access to an email account held on an Irish server. • 2014 also saw the replacement of former Data Protection Commissioner, Billy Hawkes with Ireland’s first female Data Protection Commissioner; Helen Dixon. Amongst her proposals for 2015 is an increased focus on the level of clarity and information given to the data subjects by public bodies that process and control data. 2. Emerging Privacy issues and Trends Cyber Crime and Cyber Security • Ireland is required to transpose Directive 2013/40/EU on Attacks against Information Systems by 4 September 2015. The Directive retains most of the provisions contained in the EU’s first legal initiative in this area; Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA. However, in response to the evolution and sophistication of cybercrime, the Directive has introduced new crimes such as botnet attacks (the use of a group of computers or servers for malicious purposes) and identity theft. An obligation has also been imposed on Member States to respond to urgent information requests within eight hours and to collect basic statistical data on national cybercrime including the number of offences registered and the number of persons convicted. • This area of cyber security also continues to grow in Ireland as cyber threats are now seen to be as tangible as physical threats to a company’s assets with companies needing to focus on the ever-changing set of laws and regulations relating to the collection, storage and use of data. The PWC 2014 Irish Economic Crime Survey stated that the instances of reported cybercrime have doubled in the last two years, while it remains the second most common type of fraud after asset misappropriation. In line with this new threat, there has been an increase in the amount of companies purchasing cyber-insurance in an effort to cope with the risks posed by cybercrime. The insurance is aimed at alleviating some of the associated costs victims of cybercrime security breaches face such as 366 Baker & McKenzie the expense of notifying clients, IT forensics experts’ fees and possible ODPC fines. Data Protection Audits • In August 2014, the ODPC published an updated version of their 2009 Guide to the Audit Process. The revised version was updated to reflect the developments in the legislation and the changes in the approach of the ODPC to the audit process. The guide is aimed at assisting those who are selected for audit by the ODPC. • 2014 saw a 13% decrease in the number of audits from 2013 to 38. The legal basis for the audits, which the ODPC has conducted since 2003, is contained in Section 10 (1A) of the DP Acts. The audits usually involve the examination of an organisation’s records, systems, policies and procedures in order to assess whether the organisation is generally in compliance with requirements under the DP Acts. The audit will also involve the review of the organisation’s general level of awareness of the requirements under the DP Acts based on the existing policies and practices of the organisation. 3. Law Applicable • The Data Protection Acts 1988 – 2003 (as amended) (“the DP Acts”) implemented the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. • The European Communities (Electronic Communications Networks and Services) (Privacy and Electronic Communications) Regulations 2011, implemented the E-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data The DP Acts apply to the processing of any data (“Personal Data”) relating to an identified or identifiable living individual (“Data Subject”). Personal Data is defined under the DP Acts as data relating to a living individual who is or can be identified either from the data or, most notably, from the data in conjunction with other information that is in or is likely to come into, the possession of the data controller. Where the disclosure or receipt of data does not include Personal Data as defined then such processing falls outside the scope of the legislation. The ODPC has issued guidance that in order for the processing of Personal Data to be considered fair for the purposes of the DP Acts certain information must be provided to an individual. It covers any information that relates to an identifiable, living individual. There are different ways in which an individual can be considered ‘identifiable’. A person’s full name is an obvious likely identifier but a person can also be identifiable from other information, including Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Ireland Baker & McKenzie 367 a combination of identification elements such as physical characteristics, pseudonyms, occupation, or an address. b. Data Processing “Processing” is widely defined to mean performing any operation or set of operations on information or data, whether or not by automatic means. To ensure that processing is in accordance with the DP Acts, a Data Controller should obtain consent from a Data Subject to process his/her Personal Data and should give notification to the Data Subject of certain specified information. This would include information on the right of access to the Personal Data and the purposes for which the data are processed. c. Processing by Data Controllers The DP Acts apply to a person who, either alone or with others, controls the contents and use of Personal Data (a “Data Controller”). d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The DP Acts apply to Data Controllers in respect of the processing of Personal Data only if: • the Data Controller is established in Ireland and the data is processed in the context of that establishment, or • the Data Controller is established neither in Ireland nor in any other state that is a contracting party to the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement but makes use of equipment in Ireland for processing the data otherwise than for the purpose of transit through the territory of Ireland. The following shall be treated as “established in Ireland”: • an individual who is normally resident in Ireland, • a body incorporated under the law of Ireland, • a partnership or other unincorporated association formed under the law of Ireland, and • a person who does not fall within the above, but maintains in Ireland an office, branch or agency through which he or she carries on any activity, or a regular practice. e. Sensitive Personal Data Sensitive Personal Data means Personal Data relating to racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or other beliefs, trade union membership, physical or mental health or condition, sexual life, commission or alleged commission of any offence, or criminal proceedings. The DP Acts set out additional requirements for the processing of sensitive Personal Data. 368 Baker & McKenzie The processing of Sensitive Personal Data is prohibited unless at least one of a number of stated conditions is met. • the Data Controller obtains the explicit consent of the Data Subject; • the processing is necessary for the purpose of exercising or performing any right or obligation which is conferred or imposed by law on the Data Controller in connection with employment; • the processing is necessary to prevent injury or other damage to the health of the data subject or another person or serious loss in respect of, or damage to, property or otherwise to protect the vital interests of the Data Subject or of another person in a case where consent cannot be given by or on behalf of the Data Subject or where the Data Controller cannot reasonably be expected to obtain such consent, or the processing is necessary to prevent injury to, or damage to the health of, another person, or serious loss in respect of, or damage to the property of another person, in a case where such consent has been unreasonably withheld; • the processing is carried out in the course of its legitimate activities by any body corporate, or any unincorporated body of persons, that is not established, and whose activities are not carried on, for profit, and exists for political, philosophical, religious or trade union purposes, it is carried out with the appropriate safeguards for the fundamental rights and freedoms of Data Subjects, it relates only to individuals who are either members of the body or have regular contact with it in connection with its purposes and it does not involve disclosure of the data to a third party without the consent of the Data Subject; • the information contained in the data has been made public as a result of steps deliberately taken by the Data Subject; • the processing is necessary for the administration of justice, for the performance of a function conferred on a person by or under an enactment, or for the performance of a function of the Government or a Minister of the Government; • the processing is required for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or for the purposes of, or in connection with, legal proceedings or prospective legal proceedings, or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights; • the processing is necessary for medical purposes and is undertaken by a health professional, or a person who in the circumstances owes a duty of confidentiality to the Data Subject that is equivalent to that which would exist if that person were a health professional; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Ireland Baker & McKenzie 369 • the processing is necessary in order to obtain information for use, subject to and accordance with the Statistics Act, 1993, only for statistical, compilation and analysis purposes; • the processing is carried out by political parties, or candidates for election to, or holders of, elective political office, in the course of electoral activities for the purpose of compiling data on people’s political opinions and complies with such requirements (if any) as may be prescribed for the purpose of safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedoms of Data Subjects; • the processing is authorised by regulations that are made by the Minister and are made for reasons of substantial public interest; • the processing is necessary for the purpose of the assessment, collection or payment of any tax, duty, levy, or other moneys owed or payable to the State and the data has been provided by the Data Subject solely for that purpose; and • the processing is necessary for the purposes of determining entitlement to or control of, or any other purpose connected with the administration of any benefit, pension, assistance, allowance, supplement or payment under the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993, or any non-statutory scheme administered by the Minister for Social Protection. f. Employee Personal Data The ODPC has published guidance notes in relation to employment issues and while they are not legally enforceable they would be taken into account by the courts when enforcing the DP Acts. These notes are a practical guide as to how the ODPC considers employers can comply with the DP Acts in relation to employee data and cover areas such as access requests and HR, staff monitoring, considerations when vetting prospective employees, biometrics, whistleblowing and transfer of ownership of a business. While the ODPC accepts that organisations have a legitimate interest to protect their business, reputation, resources and equipment, the monitoring of employees must comply with the transparency requirements of the DP Acts. Any monitoring must be a proportionate response by an employer to the risk he or she faces taking into account the legitimate privacy and other interests of workers. The ODPC recommends that at a very minimum, staff should be aware of what the employer is collecting on them (directly or from other sources). Staff have a right of access to their data under the DP Acts. The employer is generally able to justify processing non-sensitive employee Personal Data without the need to obtain the employees’ consent. It can do so, for example, if: (i) it is necessary to perform the employment contract; (ii) it is necessary to comply with a legal obligation; (iii) it is necessary to prevent injury or damage to the health of the Data Subject or to prevent serious loss or 370 Baker & McKenzie damage to the property of the Data Subject; or (iv) because it is in the employer’s legitimate interests and does not unduly prejudice the employee’s right to privacy or other rights. However, these legitimate interests cannot take precedence over the principles of data protection, including the requirement for transparency, fair and lawful processing of data and the need to ensure that any encroachment on an employee’s privacy is fair and proportionate. A worker can always object to processing on the grounds that it is causing or likely to cause substantial damage or distress to an individual. If the information being processed is sensitive, explicit consent must be obtained, unless certain limited exceptions apply such as: (i) the processing is necessary to perform or exercise any right or obligation imposed by law in connection with their employment; (ii) the processing is necessary for the purpose of or in connection with legal proceedings or to obtain legal advice; or (iii) the processing is necessary to establish exercise or defend legal rights. 5. Consent a. General Consent is not defined in the DP Acts. In practice, while consent of the Data Subject to process Personal Data is not mandatory, it is contemplated as a justification for its processing and is often one of the more straightforward ways to justify processing. Written consent is not required and in certain circumstances, it may be implied. In addition, the Data Subject also has the right to withdraw consent at any time. In July 2011, the Article 29 Working Party issued an opinion paper on the definition of “consent” as used in the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) and the E-Privacy Directive. b. Sensitive Data If the information being processed is sensitive (relating to race or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union memberships, physical or mental health, sexual life or commission or alleged commission of or a prosecution for an offense) and consent is relied upon to justify the processing of sensitive Personal Data, it must be explicit and must be obtained prior to processing, unless certain limited exceptions apply. The ODPC has clarified that explicit consent means clear, unambiguous and freely given. c. Minors The DP Acts do not specify a minimum age at which a child can provide valid consent to having their Personal Data processed. Where a person is under the age of majority (18), the DP Acts require the Data Controller to make a judgement on whether the young person can appreciate the implications of giving consent. The ODPC has issued useful guidance on the issues concerning the age of consent. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Ireland Baker & McKenzie 371 Specifically in relation to the right of access to health data, the guidance recommends that the general practitioner use professional judgement on whether the entitlement to access should be exercisable by (i) the individual alone, (ii) a parent or guardian alone, or (iii) both. In making a decision, there is suggestion that particular regard should be had to the maturity of the young person concerned and his or her best interests. According to the ODPC, where marketing to young people is involved, a person under 18 could be expected to understand the implications of giving consent in suitable cases. It should be considered whether someone under 18 could be expected to understand the implications of giving consent to processing of their Personal Data in order to avail of a particular product or service. Otherwise, the consent of a parent or guardian should be obtained and suitable authentication measures adopted to make sure that such consent is genuine. d. Employee Consent The guidance of the Article 29 Working Party sets out the view that consent is not particularly easy to achieve and that the other justifications (see Section 4(f)) should always be considered in preference to consent. The ODPC issued some guidance in respect of consent and the obtaining of medical data in the employment context. An employer would not normally have a legitimate interest in knowing the precise nature of an illness and would therefore be at risk of breaching the DP Acts if they sought such information. The consent of the employee may not allow the disclosure of such information to an employer as there is a doubt as to whether such consent could be considered to be freely given in such circumstances. e. Online/Electronic Consent Electronic consent will suffice if appropriate safeguards are taken to ensure a Data Subject is aware of the Data Controller’s data processing notice and has granted consent on that basis (e.g., inclusion of a hyperlink directly above a consent button) and to prevent consent by mistake (e.g., a double click acceptance process). The Data Controller should be able to evidence that such safeguards have been put in place (e.g., the Data Controller should be able to demonstrate that the user was provided with sufficient notice and that consent was informed and voluntary). 6. Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about: the organization’s identity; the types of Personal Data being collected; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; its privacy practices (which must be given in a clear and transparent way); the rights of the Data Subject; how the Personal Data is to be retained; where the Personal Data is to be transferred; where the Personal Data is to be stored; how to contact the privacy officer or person accountable for the organization’s policies and 372 Baker & McKenzie practices; how to make an inquiry or file a complaint; how to access and/or correct the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and the means of transmission of the Personal Data. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected; and delete/anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and how the Data Subject’s Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements An organization that collects and processes Personal Data is required to register with the local data authority. 10. Data Protection Officers In Ireland, there is no requirement to appoint or designate a data privacy officer or other individual who will be accountable for the privacy practices of the organization. 11. International Data Transfers Transfers of Personal Data from Ireland to EEA Member States are generally permitted without the need for further approval. Transfers are also permitted to Canada (for certain types of Personal Data), Argentina, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey, the Faroe Islands, Andorra, Israel, Switzerland, New Zealand and Uruguay, which are the subject of the European Commission’s findings of adequacy (subject to the fulfilment of certain preconditions) in relation to their data protection laws. Transfer to the US is permitted where the recipient has signed up to the US Department of Commerce’s Safe Harbour Privacy Principles. Any US organisation that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may participate in Safe Harbour. Subject to the specific authorizations mentioned above, Personal Data may not be transferred to countries outside the EEA unless the destination country provides adequate protection of the Personal Data. Exceptions to this general prohibition are, however, expressly contemplated under the DP Acts, including where: Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Ireland Baker & McKenzie 373 • the transfer of Personal Data is required or authorised by law; • the Data Subject has consented to the transfer; • the transfer is necessary to perform a contract with the Data Subject, or to take steps at his request with a view to entering into a contract with him; • the transfer is necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract entered into between the Data Controller and third parties in the interests of, or at the request of, the Data Subject; • the transfer is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest; • the transfer is necessary for obtaining legal advice or in connection with legal proceedings; • the transfer is necessary to prevent injury or other damage to the data subject’s health, or to prevent serious damage to his or her property, or to protect his or her vital interest in some other way- provided that it is not possible to inform the data subject, or to obtain his or her consent, without harming his or her vital interests; • the Personal Data to be transferred are an extract from a statutory public register; or • the transfer has been specifically authorized by the ODPC where the Data Controller can point to adequate data protection safeguards, such as approved contractual provisions. The adoption of model contractual clauses approved by the European Commission will also provide an adequate level of protection to justify the transfer. (Note that the Data Controller must in any event justify all of its data processing under the DP Acts; justification of any transfers is an additional compliance requirement.) Unlike many other EU Member States, if a transfer contract is used it will not need to be filed or approved by the ODPC, whether before or after any transfers take place. However, it is important to note that Data Controllers which do not have the requisite contracts in place, and which cannot point to alternative data protection safeguards, may be subject to enforcement proceedings under the DP Acts. Where multinational organizations are transferring personal information outside the EEA, but within their group of companies, they may also adopt Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) as a means of justifying such intra-group transfers. BCR provide adequate safeguards for the protection of privacy with regard to all transfers of Personal Data protected under European law. Acceptable BCR may include intra-group agreements, policies or procedures, and special arrangements among the group of companies that afford the requisite protection. 374 Baker & McKenzie The ODPC, along with twenty other DPAs across the EEA have agreed to mutually recognise BCR approved by one of these 21 DPAs. For BCR to enable the transfer of personal information freely within a corporate group, they must be approved by at least one DPA that has agreed to mutually recognise BCR applications, and by any remaining DPAs in EEA countries from which the organization transfers Personal Data and which have not agreed to mutual recognition of BCRs applications. The Article 29 Working Party has adopted a model checklist and table setting out the required contents of an application to a data protection authority for approval of proposed BCRs. In January 2012 the ODPC approved Intel Corporation’s BCRs in conjunction with other EU DPAs. The ODPC highlighted how BCR are a valuable tool for entities to embed privacy principles into their business practices and to comply with EU data protection requirements. 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organization security safeguards to protect Personal Data, and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Organizations that disclose Personal Data to third parties are required to use contractual or other means to protect the Personal Data. There may be additional obligations to comply with requirements for specific sectors. In case of an occurrence of data breach, the outsourcing organization may be held liable together with the third party provider. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, data authority orders, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, seizure of equipment or data, civil actions, class actions, criminal proceedings and/or private rights of action. 15. Data Security Breach Under the Privacy Regulations, “publicly available communications services” providers (such as telecommunications companies and ISPs) are required to report all incidents in which Personal Data have been put at risk as soon as the Data Controller becomes aware of the incident, except when the full extent and consequences of the incident have been reported without delay directly to the affected Data Subject(s) and it affects no more than 100 Data Subjects and it does not include Sensitive Personal Data or Personal Data of a financial Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Ireland Baker & McKenzie 375 nature. The ODPC has the ability to audit relevant organizations to assess their compliance with these guidelines and instructions. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to an administrative fine, penalty or sanction, or civil actions, class actions, and/or a criminal prosecution. 16. Accountability There is no existing law in Ireland that requires organizations to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. It is also not a requirement to furnish evidence relating to the effectiveness of the organization’s privacy management program to privacy regulators. 17. Whistle-blower hotline The general filing requirement under the DP Acts applies, and any whistleblower hotline will constitute one of the Data Controller’s data processing activities in Ireland. That must be covered in its filing (i.e., registration) with the ODPC. The employees should also be informed (in a written policy typically) as to how the data will be processed as part of the hotline procedure. The ODPC has issued specific guidance in respect of whistleblowing and how to ensure compliance when Personal Data are involved. A best practice approach for an organisation introducing a whistle-blowing scheme is to arrange, where possible, that the data produced from such a scheme refer to issues as opposed to individuals. 18. E-discovery When implementing an e-discovery system, an organization may be required to obtain the consent of employees if the collection of Personal Data is involved, and advise employees of the implementation of said system, the monitoring of work tools and the storage of information. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering When implementing an anti-spam filter solution into its operations, an organization may be required to inform employees of monitoring policies being implemented in the workplace. 20. Cookies Organisations may no longer simply provide website users with the opportunity to “opt-out” of the use of cookies, but are now required to obtain the consent of the user to the organisation’s storage of cookies on their device. The Privacy Regulations prohibit the use of an electronic communications network to store information or gain access to information already stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user unless the individual (i) has been given clear and comprehensive information about why 376 Baker & McKenzie this is being done and (ii) has given consent. Information that is necessary to facilitate the transmission of a communication, or information that is strictly necessary to provide an information society service explicitly requested by the user, is not subject to this requirement. The ODPC issued guidance setting out that in order to meet the legal requirements such settings would require, as a minimum, clear communication to the user as to what they are being asked to consent to in terms of cookies usage and a means of giving or refusing consent to any information being stored or retrieved. It is particularly important that the requirements are met where third party or tracking cookies are involved. Unlike other jurisdictions, there is no formal compliance grace period in Ireland. In December 2012 the ODPC issued correspondence to 80 Irish companies requesting information on how they are complying with the revised rules for cookies, providing 21 days to outline the steps that have been taken to ensure compliance. The ODPC made specific reference to its powers of enforcement in the event of non-compliance. In December 2013, the ODPC issued updated guidance on the use of cookies. In respect of cookie usage, the ODPC indicated that they would be satisfied with a prominent notice on the homepage of a website informing users about the website’s use of cookies with a link through to a cookie statement containing information sufficient to allow users to make informed choices, together with an option to manage and disable the cookies. From a practical perspective they set out certain minimum requirements for website operators to adhere to as follows: (1) Consent - consent of the user must be captured and may be obtained explicitly through the use of an opt-in check box or may be obtained by implication. (2) Notification - consent should be sought as part of a prominent notification displayed on entry to a website containing a link to a cookie statement which should outline in further detail how the website makes use of cookies. (3) Cookies Statement - this statement should contain clear and comprehensive information on the types of cookies, how cookies are used and details on how to remove them. (4) Third Party Cookies - it is not sufficient to simply refer a user to third party websites. The cookie statement should ideally contain information as to the type of cookies, their name, a description of their purpose, their expiry dates and link to advertising networks’ opt-out mechanisms for third party cookies. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject may be required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. Israel Nurit Dagan Tel Aviv Tel: +9722 3 692 7424 dagan@hfn.co.il 378 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Development The Protection of Privacy Law, 1981 (the “Privacy Law”) regulates the issue of protection of privacy in general, and the matter of protection of privacy in computer databases in particular. The Registrar of Databases (the “Registrar”), which is part of the Israeli Law Information and Technology Authority (“ILITA”), is responsible for the enforcement of the Privacy Law. In accordance with the Registrar’s role, the Registrar has issued from time to time various guidelines which set out ILITA’s interpretation of the Privacy Law and operative instructions and also various recommendations for the general public. In this regard, we set out in brief some of the principles contained in the guidelines and recommendations issued by ILITA: i) ILITA published a statement of opinion with respect to the use of biometric attendance control system in the workplace. Under such statement, an employer must: (a) first justify the selection in a mean which infringes privacy, in light of other alternatives which may cause less harm to the privacy and if such justification exists – use such mean in a proportional manner; (b) Refrain as much as possible from storing biometric information in a database (the storage of such information in “smart keys” is advisable); (c) In the event where there is no other alternative but to store biometric information in a database – employ strict data security measures. The legal status of the abovementioned statement is not clear but it indicates how the Registrar interprets the use of biometric attendance systems in the workplace, in light of the Law. ii) Protection of privacy on the internet ILITA has published recommendations addressed to the general public with respect to using the internet. Such recommendations are intended to raise awareness and provide general tools for coping with the disclosure of personal information on social networks, security risks relating to one’s personal computer, the use of smart phones and downloading applications, tracking activities on the internet, and internet scams. iii) Guideline No 2-2012, dated February 28, 2012, titled: The Application of the Provisions of the Protection of Privacy Laws on Processes for Screening Applicants for Employment Purposes and the Activities of Employee Screening Centers. This guideline sets out various requirements. For instance, it establishes the requirement to register a database with respect to the information collected during the employee screening process, access rights with respect to such a database, limitations on the uses of the database, the requirement to receive the applicant’s consent to any use of the information, the requirement that the use be subject to general criteria determined by labor law and relevant case law, the requirement that use of the personal information be proportionate and reasonable, the requirement that access rights with Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Israel Baker & McKenzie 379 respect to the screening information (including test results) be granted, and the obligation to delete the information or render it anonymous when it is no longer necessary for its applicable purpose. This guideline has been scrutinized by many screening centers and by the Organization of Psychologists. These organizations have filed petitions with courts against the Registrar and this guideline. During 2013, such petitions were settled and ILITA published an update to the guideline. This update provides, among other things, that access rights granted to the applicant will not include access to certain types of data including: (i) details relating to the potential employer, (ii) specific characterizations of the job, and (iii) analysis of the suitability of the applicant and his/her qualities and personality to the job specifications based on the details detailed in (i) and (ii) above. iv) Guideline No 4-2012, dated October 21, 2012, titled: The Use of Security and Surveillance Cameras and the Use of Databases Containing Pictures Taken by Those Surveillance Cameras. Under this guideline, the Registrar addresses the application of the Privacy Law with respect to the use of Surveillance Cameras in public areas. The guideline provides guidance with respect to using Surveillance Cameras and choosing the specific location of such Cameras, the coverage they provide and their specific functionalities. The guideline also states that the public must be informed as to the use of the Surveillance Camera, including by way of placing clear and readable signs and the contents of such warning signs (including, for example, the name of the organization that installed the Camera, the purpose for which it was installed, contact details, etc.). The guideline also sets out instructions with respect to the period of retention of the pictures and their deletion, the rights of inspection of the pictures by those who have been captured on the cameras, various security requirements with respect to the database of pictures, and limitations on the uses of the database. v) Guideline No 3-2012, dated July 29, 2012, titled: The Application of the Privacy Law on Databases Owned by Private Agencies for Placing of Foreign Employees in the Nursing Field. The purpose of this guideline is to protect the privacy of people who require the services of foreign workers in the nursing field, as these people are usually among the weaker and more vulnerable persons in the general population. The guideline sets out the requirements of the applicable private agencies with respect to: registering databases, receiving applicable consents, the uses and transfer of the personal data, use of data for direct marketing, data security, and conditions of retaining data upon the termination of the services. 380 Baker & McKenzie vi) Guideline No 2-2012, dated June 10, 2012, titled: Use of Outsourcing Services for Processing of Personal Data. This guideline refers to any outsourcing to third parties for the processing of personal data from an Israeli Database. vii) Guideline No 1-2012, dated February 27, 2012, titled: The Application of the Provisions of the Protection of Privacy Law on Databases of Public Transportation Operators using “Smart Cards”. Smart Cards are electronic tickets used for most means of public transportation. They are issued in accordance with certain applicable transportation legislation. This guideline refers to the information collected by the public transportation operators for the purpose of issuing the Smart Cards and through the use of the Smart Cards by passengers. The guideline refers to matters such as: the registration of applicable databases and data security, receipt of informed consents from the passengers to the collection, processing and transfer of the information, and permitted uses of the information. viii) Guideline No 1-2011, dated September 20, 2011, titled: Prohibition on the Use of Information Regarding Attachments Imposed on a Third Party. This Guideline clarifies that a third party (such as a bank, insurance company, etc.) is not permitted to use information regarding the imposition of an attachment on the assets of a debtor that have come to such third party’s knowledge due to an attachment order that was submitted to the third party other than for the purpose stated in the order, without the prior informed consent of the debtor. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends Protection of privacy is a developing area in Israel, and it has become more and more predominant, both due to the technological developments which create new risks to privacy (such as social networks, e-commerce, etc.) and the active role taken by ILITA and the Registrar including by increasing the enforcement of the Privacy Law and by raising the public’s awareness to privacy matters. During 2013 the head of ILITA was changed and it is still too early to assess the effects of such change on trends in the field. Some examples of enforcement actions that were taken by the Registrar are published on ILITA’s website, and they include: i) Imposing administrative fines on companies that used or transferred information from their databases for purposes other than those for which the databases were established. ii) Imposing an administrative fine for engaging in direct marketing activities in contravention of the requirements of the Privacy Law. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Israel Baker & McKenzie 381 In addition, the Registrar has issued many guidelines in which the Registrar sets out the authority’s interpretation of the Privacy Law with respect to various privacy-related fields. Details of some of the guidelines can be found in Section 1 above. Furthermore, there are also draft laws and guidelines which to date have still not been enacted or approved. These legal developments demonstrate a focus on strengthening the powers of the Registrar, ensuring the security of databases, and developing privacy awareness in various fields. We have set out below, in brief, some principles set out in such draft legislation and guidelines. It should be noted that currently, the draft legislation and guidelines indicated below are at the very early stages of the enactment or approval process, as applicable, and accordingly it is unclear whether or when they will be enacted or approved, and what their final versions look like. • In 2013, ILITA updated its forms for registration of databases which are required to be registered under the Privacy Law and for updating registration details. The new and amended application forms are more comprehensive and require the applicant (i.e. the owner of the database) to provide more detailed information than was previously required, such as the sources of the data, information concerning third parties to whom information is transferred, database’s infrastructure, etc. • On December 9, 2014, 26 Data Protection Authorities worldwide (Israel among them) issued an open letter to operators of app marketplaces (Apple among them), urging them to require each app to provide specific and direct links to privacy policies applicable for apps that collect personal information. • In October 2013, a non-governmental draft bill initiated by a few members of Parliament was issued, entitled: the Draft Bill Protection of Privacy Law (Amendment- Report on Security Breach in a Database), 2013. The purpose of this draft bill is to require the owner or holder of a database to report cases of penetration of their databases to data subjects and to the Registrar, and in addition, to authorize the Registrar to impose fines in this regard. It should be noted that currently, this draft bill is at the very early stages of its enactment process and accordingly it is unclear whether and when it will be enacted, and what its final version looks like. • ILITA published a draft Directive regarding the interpretation and implementation of the Privacy Law provisions relating to direct marketing and direct marketing services. With respect to consent, the Directive states that generally consent for direct marketing and direct marketing services is an opt-out consent, unless the inclusion of the data subject in the database was by way of breach of the Privacy Law. However, the draft Directive further states that the use of information relating to a data 382 Baker & McKenzie subject, which has been obtained during a relationship between a client and a service provider to which a standard contract (a contract which has been pre-determined by one party in order for it to be used in several agreements between that party and an undetermined and unspecified number of other parties) applies, for direct marketing purposes, requires an opt-in consent (except when the service provider wishes to refer to the client offers for services or products which have a direct line to the main service provided by the service provider). The draft Directive has only been published for the public’s comments. Accordingly, the final contents of the Directive as well as the date in which it will come into force, if at all, are unclear at this stage in time. • In 2013, ILITA published a draft guideline titled: Prohibition on Use by Banks of Information on Restricted Accounts after the Termination of the Restriction Period. This draft guideline would, if implemented, limit the bank’s ability to use information regarding a restricted account in the event that the owner of the account was not the bank’s client during the restriction period. The draft guideline also outlines certain circumstances in which the banks should delete all information regarding restrictions on accounts. • In November 2011, the government published a draft bill titled: Draft Bill Protection of Privacy Law (Amendment No. 12) (Enforcement Powers), 2011 (the “Draft Enforcement Powers Bill”), as part of its efforts to improve the supervisory and enforcement powers of the Registrar. The Draft Enforcement Powers Bill would enable the Registrar to, among other things: issue security orders with respect to security breaches, penetrating computers, requesting the court to issue various orders, performing investigations, seizing relevant documents and other materials, conducting searches, and imposing various monetary fines. The Draft Enforcement Powers Bill proposes establishing an alternative administrative enforcement mechanism that could be used in parallel with the current enforcement mechanism under the Penal Law 1977. • In August 2012, an initial draft of an amendment to the Protection of Privacy Law was issued for the public’s comments, titled Reducing Registration Requirements and Determining Obligations to Maintain Management and Work Procedures and their Documentation, 2012. The purpose of this draft bill is to loosen the requirement to register databases and to place more emphasis on improving compliance with the provisions of the Privacy Law by establishing internal procedures and enforcement of the supervisory authorities of the Registrar. • In June 2012, ILITA published draft regulations titled: Protection of Privacy Regulations (Data Security), 2012. The purpose of these regulations is to specify and determine the principles relating to data security according to different types of databases. These regulations Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Israel Baker & McKenzie 383 refer, inter alia, to appointing a data security officer and setting out such officer’s obligations, an obligation to have a security policy and its contents, a requirement to conduct a risk survey, physical security requirements, access rights to the database, documentation and periodic audits, documenting security events, use of portable devices, security of data systems and networks, outsourcing data processing, backup and recoveries, and the authorities of the Registrar in this regard. • In April 2012, ILITA issued a draft guide entitled: Handbook for Employers and Employees on the Protection of Personal Information at the Workplace, for the public’s comments. The draft handbook covers various issues including employee consent limitations and requirements, uses of information, confidentiality and data security, processing of employees’ personal information during the entire period of the relationship between the parties (including with respect to applicants, employees and former employees), and monitoring of employees’ use of various technological means at the workplace. 3. Law Applicable In general, the Israeli legislation with respect to privacy issues is governed by The Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (the “Basic Law”) (as Israel does not have a written Constitution, the Supreme Court of Israel has conferred constitutional status on such Basic Laws), and the Privacy Law. Whilst the Basic Law sets out in general terms the fundamental rights of any person to privacy and to intimacy and further protects in general the privacy and secrecy of a person’s communications, the Privacy Law and the subsequent regulations set out in detail provisions for the protection of personal information (note that the Privacy Law refers to protection of privacy and of personal information of individuals only and not of entities). These include a number of substantive issues concerning, inter alia, the processing, collecting, transferring and maintaining of such information. Below is a list of the regulations and orders which have been enacted under or in connection with the Privacy Law: (i) Protection of Privacy Regulations (Conditions for Viewing Information and Procedural Rules for Appealing Against A Refusal to Allow Viewing) 1981. These regulations establish the procedure for submitting an application for viewing information and the viewing process. In addition, these regulations set out the reasons according to which an owner of a database may reject the application and how to appeal against such rejection. (ii) Protection of Privacy Regulations (Conditions for Holding and Maintaining Information and Procedures for Transfer of Information Between Public Bodies) 1986. These regulations include general provisions with respect to the management of Databases; procedures for the transfer of 384 Baker & McKenzie information between public bodies; and rules for the management and use of databases that include restricted information. (iii) Protection of Privacy Regulations (Designation of Databases That Include Information that May Not be Disclosed) 1987. These regulations specify databases of particular bodies that may not be disclosed due to national security issues. (iv) Protection of Privacy Regulations (Fees), 2000. These regulations establish the amounts of the registration fees and annual fees with respect to the registered databases. (v) Protection of Privacy Regulations (Transfer of Information to Databases Outside the Borders of Israel) 2001. These regulations establish restrictions and conditions for the transfer of information from an Israeli database to a recipient outside of Israel. (vi) Administrative Offences Regulations (Administrative Fine – Protection of Privacy) 2004. These regulations determine the amount of the administrative fines which can be imposed in the event of any violation of specific provisions of the Privacy Law. (vii) Protection of Privacy Order (Designation of Public Bodies) 1986. These regulations set out a list of bodies to be considered as public bodies under the Privacy Law (in addition to the public bodies listed in the Privacy Law). (viii) Protection of Privacy Order (Designation of Investigation Authority) 1998. These regulations set out specific authorities that have investigatory powers and the databases of which are therefore not subject to viewing rights of data subjects. (ix) Protection of Privacy Order (Establishment of Supervision Unit) 1999. These Regulations establish a supervisory unit for supervision of databases, their registration and data security. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data The Privacy Law handles both general matters of privacy as well as the protection of privacy in computerized databases. The first chapter of the Privacy Law regulates the infringement of privacy in general and establishes eleven occurrences which constitute an infringement of privacy, if done without the consent of the data subject: (i) spying on or trailing a person in a manner likely to harass him, or any other harassment; (ii) listening (wiretapping) in a manner prohibited under any law; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Israel Baker & McKenzie 385 (iii) photographing a person while he is in a private domain; (iv) publicizing a person’s photograph under circumstances in which the publication is likely to humiliate the person (there is an additional specific provision with respect to publicizing a photograph of injured persons during the occurrence of the injury or in proximity thereto in an identifiable manner which might humiliate them, excluding certain live broadcasting; in addition, under certain circumstances publicizing a picture of a deceased in a manner which could identify him/her will also be deemed to a breach of privacy); (v) publication of a victim’s photograph, shot during the time of injury or immediately thereafter, in a manner where he is identifiable and under circumstances by which the publication thereof is likely to embarrass him, except for the immediate publication of a photograph, without delays between the moment of photographing and the moment of actual transmission of broadcast, which is reasonable under the circumstances; for this purpose, “victim” – a person who suffered physical or mental injury due to a sudden event and the injury thereof is noticeable. (vi) copying or using, without permission from the addressee or the writer, the contents of a letter or of any other writing not intended for publication, unless the writing is of historical value or fifteen years have passed since the time when it was written (this provision refers also to electronic messages); (vii) using a person’s name, appellation, picture or voice for profit; (viii) infringing an obligation of secrecy laid down by law in respect of a person’s private affairs; (ix) infringing an obligation of secrecy laid down by explicit or implicit agreement in respect of a person’s private affairs; (x) using, or passing on to another, information on a person’s private affairs, other than for the purpose for which it was given; (xi) publicizing or passing on anything that was obtained by way of an infringement of privacy under paragraphs (i) to (viii) or (x) above; or (xii) publicizing any matter that relates to a person’s intimate life, state of health or conduct in the private domain. The second chapter of the Privacy Law regulates the protection of privacy in databases. According to the Privacy Law, the definition of “Database” is “a collection of information, maintained by magnetic or optical means and intended for computer processing”, subject to the following exclusions: a collection of information that includes only names, addresses and means of communicating, which by themselves do not create any characteristics that infringe the privacy of individuals whose names are included on it, on the 386 Baker & McKenzie condition that neither the owner of the collection, nor a body corporate under its control, owns an additional collection. Furthermore, “Information” is defined as “information about an individual’s personality, personal status, intimate affairs, health condition, financial condition, professional qualifications, opinions and beliefs”. The Privacy Law further defines “Sensitive Information” as “information about an individual’s personality, intimate affairs, health condition, financial condition, opinions and beliefs”. When a database includes Sensitive Information, this is one of the conditions under the Privacy Law for the registration of such database. It should be noted that according to Israeli case law, the definitions mentioned above of “Information” and “Sensitive Information” should be interpreted broadly. Accordingly, for example, a person’s identity number and date of birth might be considered Sensitive Information which requires the registration of a database. Whether information is sensitive depends on the specific circumstances including the aggregate scope of information maintained about the data subject. b. Data Processing We note that the Privacy Law does not define the term “Data Processing”. However, there is a definition of the term “Use” as including: “disclosure, transfer and delivery”. Furthermore, according to the Privacy Law, no person shall use Information in a database that must be registered under the Privacy Law for purposes other than those for which the database was established. In addition, under the Privacy Law, any request to a person for information, with the intention of maintaining and using it in a database, must be accompanied by a notice that indicates, inter alia, the purpose for which the information is requested, to whom the information is to be provided, and for what purpose. The database may not be used in a different manner than what was indicated in the notice without requesting an additional consent of the data subject. c. Processing by Data Controllers The Privacy Law applies to any person or entity that either owns or holds a database. In certain cases, specific provisions of the Law apply to their employees and to the manager of the database (such as with respect to confidentiality obligations). Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Israel Baker & McKenzie 387 d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality In general, the Privacy Law, as part of the Israeli civil legislation, has territorial application. Accordingly, the Privacy Law will apply to offenses which have been committed in Israel in respect of violations of the applicable provisions of the Privacy Law. However, it should be noted that there is one decision rendered by the District Court relating to the area of gambling, according to which operating an online gaming website was regarded as a domestic offense, even if the owner of the website is a foreign company, in the event that the website specifically addresses Israelis (such as translation of the website into Hebrew, the marketing of activities in Israel, etc.). The Court determined that the offence itself will have been “completed” in Israel when the Israeli gambler gambled through the website (by clicking the computer mouse) and accordingly, participation in the proposed activity of the gambling organization. The principles of this case could be applied to the Privacy Law as well, mutatis mutandis. e. Sensitive Personal Data According to the Privacy Law, “Sensitive Information” is defined as one of the following: (1) Information about an individual’s personality, intimate affairs, health condition, financial condition, opinions and beliefs. (2) Information which the Minister of Justice, by order (with the approval of the Israeli Parliament’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee) has referred to as sensitive information. As we have noted above, according to the Privacy Law, when a database includes sensitive information, it must be registered. It should be noted that the term sensitive information is interpreted broadly according to Israeli case law. f. Employee Personal Data The Privacy Law also applies to personal data concerning employees. Inevitably, employers are required to process both personal information as well as sensitive information regarding their employees (and potential employees). With respect to employees, according to case law, due to the nature of the relationship between the employer and the employee (i.e., the employee being in a relative position of weakness vis-a-vis the employer, with the result that the employee may be overzealous in his or her willingness to grant the employer broad consents over a wide range of information), the court will also carry out a review as to whether the employer’s actions, including the collection of any employee personal information, obtaining employee consents and the uses of the information, were undertaken in good 388 Baker & McKenzie faith and if they were proportional and relevant to the employment relationship. 5. Consent Requirements a. General Consent of the Data Subject is generally required prior to the collection, processing and disclosure of Personal Data. Consent must be informed, which means that the person should receive sufficient information with respect to the matter in order to be able to reach a decision whether or not to provide the Personal Data. In general, such consent could either be explicit or implicit. Consent can be express or implied, but the appropriate form of consent will depend on the circumstances, expectations of the data subject, and sensitivity of the personal data. b. Sensitive Data The same general rules above apply with respect to Sensitive Data. However, in general, the scrutiny of the informed consent is likely to be more stringent when it comes to Sensitive Data. c. Minors In general, the Privacy Law does not include any specific reference to minors and minors’ consent and accordingly the consent requirements detailed above would apply to them as well, subject to the provisions of the Legal Capacity and Guardianship Law 1962 (the “Capacity Law”) which governs matters relating to minors. Under the Capacity Law, the legal acts of a minor (i.e. a person under the age of 18) may be cancelled if performed without the consent of a parent/guardian. However, legal acts of a kind that minors of his/her age are accustomed to perform, or legal acts performed with a person who did not or could not reasonably be expected to know that the minor is a minor, may not be cancelled unless they involve material damage to the minor or his/her property. This general rule would be applicable to any consent provided by a minor for the purpose of compliance with the provisions of the Privacy Law. It should be noted that in December 2010, ILITA issued certain draft general principles (which are, as of this date, non-official and non-binding) which refer to the collection of information from minors over the internet. According to the draft principles, the collection of information will require, under certain circumstances, the consent of a parent/guardian, regardless of the qualifications set out under the Capacity Law, as the consent of a minor in this aspect should be dependent on the minor’s ability to understand the notice provided to the minor regarding the collection of information from such minor. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Israel Baker & McKenzie 389 Accordingly, ILITA recommends, inter alia: (i) restricting the collection and publication of information from minors under the age of 14, without the consent of a parent/guardian and restricting the collection and publication of sensitive information from minors under the age of 18, without the consent of a parent/guardian; (ii) requiring bodies who collect information from minors to set out and publish a defined and clear privacy policy; (iii) restricting the transfer of or trade in minor’s data to or with third parties; (iv) requiring bodies who collect information from minors to comply with certain security measures; and (v) erasing information of minors which is no longer needed or at the request of the minor’s parent or guardian. d. Employee Consent Under Israeli case law, an implicit consent is not sufficient with respect to employees and the employee is required to give his/her explicit consent (usually in writing) with respect to his/her waiver of his/her right to privacy. In addition, the employee’s consent should be examined in light of the following conditions: • condition of legitimacy – the violation of the privacy right must be limited to essential business purposes; • condition of proportionality – the employer should examine and select the means which are the least harmful to the employees’ privacy; • principle of proximity to the purpose – the collection of information is limited only to what is necessary in order to achieve the initial purpose for which the information was collected in the first place. Moreover, the general policy which is applicable in the workplace, with respect to privacy matters, should be approved by the employee. e. Online/Electronic Consent Electronic consent is permissible and can be effective in Israel if it is properly structured and evidenced. 6. Information/Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about: the organization’s identity; the types of Personal Data being collected; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; the consequences of not providing consent; and where the Personal Data is to be transferred. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected; and delete/ 390 Baker & McKenzie anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and exercise the writ of habeas data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements Organizations that collect and process Personal Data may be required to register, file or notify the local data authority. 10. Data Protection Officers Organizations may be required to designate a privacy officer or other individual who will be accountable for the privacy practices of the organization. 11. International Data Transfers Specific regulations have been enacted with respect to the transfer of data from a database in Israel outside of Israel, entitled: The Protection of Privacy Regulations (the Transfer of Information to a Database outside the State Borders), 2001 (the “Transfer Regulations”). The Transfer Regulations impose restrictions in addition to all other restrictions on transfer of information which appear in the Privacy Law, as follows: (i) The Transfer Regulations prohibit the transfer of information from a database in Israel to a database located abroad, unless the receiving country ensures a level of protection of Information that equals or exceeds the level of protection provided for under Israeli law. (ii) In addition, the Transfer Regulations lay down several conditions which enable the transfer of information from a database in Israel to a database abroad, even when the laws of the country in which the data will be received provide a level of protection which falls below that which is provided under Israeli law, subject to compliance with any one of the following conditions: • receipt of a consent to the transfer of the information from the person who is the subject of the information; • it is not possible to obtain the consent of the person who is the subject of the information, but its transfer is absolutely necessary in order to protect his/her health or the integrity of his/her physical body; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Israel Baker & McKenzie 391 • the information is being transferred to a corporation under the control (i.e. the ability to direct the activities of an entity) of the owner of the Israeli database and it has ensured the protection of privacy following the transfer; • the information is being transferred to someone who has undertaken in an agreement, with the owner of the Israeli database, to fulfill the conditions laid down in Israel for the maintenance and use of the information, mutatis mutandis; • the information was made public by the lawful authority, or it was made available for inspection by the public under lawful authority; • transferring the information is essential for the protection of public welfare and security; • transferring the information is required by Israeli law; or • the information is being transferred to a database in a country in which any one of the following conditions exist: (a) it is a party to the European Convention for the Protection of Individuals in connection with automatic processing of Sensitive Information; (b) it receives information from member states in the European Union, under the same conditions of receipt; (c) the Registrar has notified with respect to the destination country, in a notification which has been published in the Official Gazette, that there exists in such country a designated authority to protect privacy, after it has reached an arrangement for cooperation with such authority (to date the Registrar has not issued any such notification). In addition to the completion of the above conditions (either under subsection i) or ii)), the Transfer Regulations state that the owner of the database must ensure (by way of a written obligation from the recipient of the information) that the recipient shall take action to ensure the privacy of the person to whom the information relates, and that the recipient undertakes that the information shall not be transferred to any person other than the recipient, whether or not such person/entity be in the same country. 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to: ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organization security safeguards to protect Personal Data; and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. 392 Baker & McKenzie 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties ILITA has issued guidelines entitled “Use of Outsourcing Services for Processing of Personal Data”, which refer to any outsourcing to a third party of the processing of personal data from an Israeli database. These guidelines require that an agreement be entered into with the service provider which should include various matters. In addition, prior to entering into any agreement for the processing of personal data, such outsourcing should be reviewed carefully in order to ascertain its necessity and compliance with data protection laws. Under these guidelines, the following matters, inter alia, should be covered by the agreement with respect to outsourcing services: • The agreement should establish the purpose of the transfer of information and limitations on its uses and transfer. • Upon the termination of the agreement, the service provider should sign an affidavit confirming that the service provider has either returned the personal information or destroyed it. • The service provider should store the information separately from the information of its other clients or its other commercial activities. • Access and correction rights of data subjects are to be determined in the agreement (including with respect to timing and costs). • The service provider should hold regular guidance sessions to its employees and they should also sign NDAs. • The parties should each appoint a contact person with respect to the agreement. • The service provider should provide on-going reports with respect to the performance of the agreement and there should be extensive supervisory rights of the service provider’s activities (including audit and inspection rights). • The agreement should define a complete binding security document which should include reference to specific matters, such as, physical security, applicable security measures according to the sensitivity of the data, separation of the database from the service provider’s other databases, policies with respect to: storage means, management of the database, access rights, etc. As an alternative to the above security document, the service provider could undertake as part of the agreement to comply with the provisions of ISO/IEC 27001. • The service provider should appoint a security officer (provided that the service provider maintains databases of more than five clients for such data processing services). Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Israel Baker & McKenzie 393 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, data authority orders, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, seizure of equipment or data, civil actions, class actions, criminal proceedings, and/or private rights of action. 15. Data Security Breach Under Israeli law, there is no mandatory requirement to provide a notice to any data protection authority or other government agent in the event of a data security breach. Similarly, there is no mandatory legal obligation to provide any notification to the affected individuals of a data security breach. We would note that there currently is a non-governmental draft bill initiated by a few members of parliament, entitled: Draft Bill Protection of Privacy Law (Amendment- Report on Security Breach in a Database), 2012. Such draft bill requires the owner or holder of a database to report cases of penetration into their databases to Data Subjects and to the Registrar. However, this draft bill is at the very early stages of its enactment process and accordingly it is unclear whether and when it will be enacted and what the final version will look like. Despite the absence of any mandatory requirement, notification to the affected individuals is something that should be considered in order to reduce any possible damages and exposure under tort and contract law, if in the applicable circumstances, such damages or exposure might exist. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to closure or cancellation of the file, register or database, an administrative fine, penalty or sanction, civil actions and/or class actions, or a criminal prosecution. 16. Accountability Subject to regulatory guidance, organizations may be required to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to implementing new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. As such, organizations are required to furnish the results of privacy impact assessments to privacy regulators upon request, and to furnish evidence relating to the effectiveness of the organization’s privacy management program to privacy regulators upon request. 17. Whistle-Blower Hotline There are no specific laws/rules regarding whistle-blower hotlines in Israel. In general, whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Israel as long as they are in compliance with local laws, e.g., registration might be required in 394 Baker & McKenzie connection with the hotline under general privacy laws, depending on the specific circumstances of the matter. 18. E-Discovery When implementing an e-discovery system, an organization is required to obtain the consent of employees if the collection of Personal Data is involved. Organizations may be required to advise employees of the implementation of said system, the monitoring of work tools and the storage of information. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering When implementing an anti-spam filter solution into its operations, an organization is required to inform employees of monitoring policies being implemented in the workplace, and give employees the opportunity to opt-out from the spam-filtering. 20. Cookies There are no specific laws/rules in Israel that regulate the use and deployment of cookies. In general, the use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. As such, consent of Data Subjects may have to be obtained before cookies can be used. In addition, some types of cookies that track or monitor the user may not be permitted. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject may be required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. Italy Francesca Gaudino Milan Tel: +39 02 76231 452 francesca.gaudino@bakermckenzie.com Lorenzo de Martinis Milan Tel: +39 02 76231-334 lorenzo.de.martinis@bakermckenzie.com 396 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments Italian privacy authority calls for new security measures for Internet Exchange Points (“Ixp”) In the course of a number of inspections carried out during 2014 on Italian Internet eXchange Points located in different cities (for example, in Milan, Rome and Turin), the Italian data protection authority (“Garante”) has focused on issues that have emerged in relation to security, specifically in terms of protection of the communication networks. As a result, the authority has provided a number of precautions to be adopted, reserving the right to further develop the measures to be adopted in specific cases. The Garante’s investigation falls within the first stage of the process undertaken by Italian providers of Internet connection centers aimed at ensuring that personal information is properly protected and that applicable technical systems are duly updated and monitored in light of constant technology developments. The Garante has sent the findings of the report stemming from said investigations to the President of the Council of Ministers for due assessment by subjects in charge of national cybersecurity in consideration of the fact that security of electronic communications is a matter that also involves other institutional stakeholders. As a result, some guidelines for network security have been identified. Internet eXchange Points basically deal with interconnecting network infrastructure of major national and international telecommunications operators of Internet service providers as well as of major providers of online services and functionalities. IxPs also serve the purpose of hosting the equipment that manage communication networks among almost all Italian public administrations and research centers. The following are some of the measures requested by the Italian privacy authority: (i) Systems should not be accessed using shared authentication credentials, notably shared identifying codes, so as to identify and track access and use of the relevant systems by a single user; (ii) Tight physical measures must be adopted to control security of places via access controls and surveillance precautions where data is stored and processed, with focus given on infrastructure and data centers that may be easily accessed; (iii) Proper tracking systems must be implemented to analyze the activities performed by technical personnel on relevant equipment. This tracking is aimed at identifying possible anomalies and emergencies, including the duplication of Internet traffic, access of non-authorized electronic instruments to the internal network, and deviation of Internet traffic; (iv) Specific procedures and mechanisms must be set up to perform audit and to generate alerts in order to prevent and detect harmful events occurring in the relevant Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Italy Baker & McKenzie 397 systems; (v) In cases where external data centers are used, specific procedures must be adopted in order to make sure that third parties are duly and regularly verified, especially in relation to compliance with data security requirements. Cookies In January 2015, the Garante published an informative video that explains in an easy and clear manner what cookies are and how online users can express their preferences and defend against cookies. This initiative follows the enactment of the rules on cookies in Italy. Article 122 of the Privacy Code (Legislative Decree 196/2003 and following amendments and integrations) states the following on cookies: 1. Storing information, or accessing information that is already stored, in the terminal equipment of a contracting party or user shall only be permitted on condition that the contracting party or user has given his consent after being informed in accordance with the simplified arrangements mentioned in section 13(3). This shall be without prejudice to technical storage or access to stored information where they are aimed exclusively at carrying out the transmission of a communication on an electronic communications network, or insofar as this is strictly necessary to the provider of an information society service that has been explicitly requested by the contracting party or user to provide the said service. In order to determine the simplified arrangements referred to herein, the Garante shall also take account of the proposals put forward by the representative consumer and industry associations involved in order to also ensure that the mechanisms implemented make the contracting party or user actually aware. 2. With a view to giving the consent referred to in paragraph 1 above, specific configurations of software or devices may be used that should be user-friendly as well as unambiguous vis-à-vis the contracting party or user. 2-bis. Subject to the provisions made in paragraph 1 above, it shall be prohibited to use an electronic communications network in order to access information stored in the terminal equipment of a contracting party or user, store information, or monitor the operations performed by the user.” The Garante provided some implementation guidelines on May 8, 2014 - Simplified Arrangements to Provide Information and Obtain Consent Regarding Cookies. In brief, the Garante supports a double-decker approach, in the sense that a first high level privacy statement should be displayed through a pop-up language (e.g., a banner) published on the landing page of a website that provides brief information, to be coupled by a more comprehensive privacy statement that has to be referenced in the short 398 Baker & McKenzie privacy statement through a link. Consent should be obtained through the initial banner in a simplified form, as required by law, and users shall be given the opportunity to express granular and specific consent in relation to the different types of cookies used by accessing the second, more comprehensive privacy statement. e-Health Following complaints from persons worried about the protection and confidentiality of their data, the Privacy authority has started an investigation against a hospital located in northern Italy. The audit was completed in January 2015 with a number of recommendations concerning the security measures - e.g., physical, technical and organizational precautions put in place by a data controller as an appropriate defense against possible data misuse and breach. Specifically, the infringer has been allegedly building an electronic health database without gathering the informed consent of the data subjects. In addition, the system hosting the medical records had no proper access control measures, since records could be viewed by a large number of persons simply using search words like partial names and surnames of patients, dates of birth, or zip codes. This is in contrast to the applicable provisions issued by the Garante in 2009, which mandated detailed security precautions to protect e-health records, including securing a patient’s prior express consent to store medical information through e-health records. In addition, the patient must be provided with the option to make available only some of said records and he/she must be clearly informed of the persons who may access the records and of the actions that they can carry out on the relevant medical data, prior to giving consent. The privacy authority has thus ordered that medical records be made available only on a need-to-know basis to the relevant doctors, until patients provide their express and specific consent to the e-health record system. The order of the privacy authority has been made available for consultation to other entities of the national health service. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends Inspection activities For the year 2014, the annual report of the Italian privacy authority reveals that fines that have been imposed reached more than EUR 4 million. The breaches include: (i) failure to provide appropriate information to the data subjects; (ii) unlawful data processing; Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Italy Baker & McKenzie 399 (iii) breaches of orders and provisions of the Garante; and (iv) failure to comply with opt-out obligations in relation to marketing activities. The inspection plan for the year 2014 has focused on both ‘traditional’ and new areas of interest. Matters that represent a returning focus of attention include: • big data in the public sector; • banks; • direct marketing; • telephone operators; and • mobile payment. The new areas of interest include: • call centers located in non-EU countries; • customer and online profiling; • major hotel chains; • adoption of new technologies in the workplace; • e-health and medical Apps; • social media; • Internet Exchange Points (IxPs); • data breaches As to the last item (data breaches), it should be recalled that as currently drafted, the Privacy Code provides for a duty to warn the Garante and (under some instances) also the data subjects in case of data breaches only for providers of publicly available electronic communications services. The threshold of fines issued by the Garante in 2014 is about EUR 5 million and the number of inspections carried out amounts to 385 while the number of administrative breaches sanctioned amounts to 577. Lastly, 39 criminal cases have been referred by the Garante to judicial authorities. It is worth mentioning that the Garante actively joins national and international initiatives with other European data protection authorities and also regulatory authorities in relation to compliance auditing and enforcement activities. 400 Baker & McKenzie National and international cooperation - the case of cookies The Italian privacy authority is fairly active in collaborating with other European privacy authorities. Close collaboration can also be seen in relation to other (non privacy) authorities, international bodies and associations that deal with privacy issues or with issues overlapping with privacy, e.g., consumer protection authorities and international privacy organizations. The Garante, for example, is part of the Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN), which is an informal network of authorities with enforcement powers that has been established with an aim to ease and foster cooperation among authorities at a cross-border level. An example of a joint action launched at a European level is the so-called ‘Cookie sweep day’ initiative. From 15 to 19 September 2014, the Article 29 Working Party launched a coordinated assessment conducted by privacy authorities on the most visited European websites involved in e-commerce and media activities which target European users. The aim of the assessment was to verify compliance of said websites with applicable cookies regulations. The ultimate goal of the Cookie sweep day was to conduct an assessment in relation to general European requirements of information and consent, while gathering information on a comparative basis of Member States’ practices in relation to cookies, also in light of fostering a certain degree of harmonization. Privacy authorities involved may further make use of the results achieved for enforcement purposes at a national level. 3. Law Applicable The Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC), the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications (Directive 2000/58/EC), the Directive on Data Retention (Directive 2006/24/EC) and the Cookies Directive (Directive 2009/136/EC) have been implemented by Legislative Decree no. 196 of 30 June 2003, which enacted a code on the protection of Personal Data (the “Code”). The Code is primarily intended to consolidate all pre-existing Italian data protection rules, which were replaced by the Code. Furthermore, the Code provides for additional protections for Data Subjects (defined below) and simplifies the applicable rules. The Code attempts to ensure consistency between privacy rules and other legal provisions applicable to various sectors. The Code combines the provisions of the former basic privacy law and subsequent amendments, regulations, and codes of ethics, as well as the case law precedents of the Italian Data Protection Authority. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Italy Baker & McKenzie 401 The Code is organized into three parts: the first, containing general data protection provisions; the second, containing provisions applicable to specific sectors (e.g., judicial sector; public sector; health care sector; educational sector; processing for historic, scientific and statistical purposes; work and social security issues; banking, financial and insurance sectors; electronic communications; professionals and private detectives; journalism, literary and artistic sectors; direct marketing); and the third, on remedies and sanctions for breach of the Code. The Code applies to the processing of information relating to “Data Subjects” as outlined below. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data The Code applies to the processing of information relating to natural persons (“Data Subject”); legal entities and bodies or associations are within the scope of the Code only for limited purposes. Data is considered “personal” where a person can be identified from that data directly or indirectly by reference to any other information (e.g., through cross-referencing via a personal identification number) (“Personal Data”). The information necessary for the identification can be held by the Data Controller (defined below) processing data or by any other third party. Thus, the definition of Personal Data is significantly broad. In practice, only anonymous data (e.g., data that do not allow identification of the Data Subject, whether directly or indirectly) are not subject to application of the Code. b. Data Processing As in the applicable Directive, the term “processing” is extremely broadly defined to mean any operation or set of operations carried out on Personal Data, including the collection, recording, organization, keeping, elaboration, modification, selection, retrieval, comparison, utilization, interconnection, blocking, communication, dissemination, erasure, and destruction of Personal Data. Even mere reading is considered processing of Personal Data. The Code applies to electronic, automated and non-electronic (manual and paper) data processing. c. Processing by Data Controllers The Code applies to those who determine the purposes for which and the manner in which any Personal Data is will be processed (“Data Controllers”). d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The Code applies to data processing activities performed by a Data Controller established within Italy, and to data processing activities performed by Data Controllers that are established outside the EEA but that use equipment based in Italy to carry out data processing activities (other than merely for the purpose of transit). 402 Baker & McKenzie e. Sensitive Personal Data The Code imposes additional requirements for the processing of sensitive Personal Data – that is, Personal Data relating to racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, trade union membership, religious or philosophical beliefs, and data concerning health or sexual life. Specifically, the processing of sensitive Personal Data is prohibited unless the following conditions are met: the Data Controller provides an information notice drafted pursuant to the Code and obtains the explicit written consent of the Data Subject; limited exceptions apply (see Sections 4(f) and 5(b) below); and the Data Controller has the prior authorization of the Authority. The Authority has issued general authorizations that cover usual business activities. A specific authorization is required when the Data Controller intends to perform a data processing activity that does not fall within the general authorizations issued by the Authority. f. Employee Personal Data Employee Personal Data is likely to include sensitive Personal Data (e.g., health- and trade union-related information) and non-sensitive Personal Data. Sensitive Personal Data relating to an employee may be processed provided that the requirements mentioned in Section 4(e) above are met. The employee’s consent is not necessarily limited to the Sensitive Personal data whose processing is necessary to comply with specific obligations and/or tasks laid down by laws, regulations or Community legislation in the employment context, also when they relate to occupational and population hygiene and safety and to social security and assistance purposes. In addition, recent legal reform has introduced a further exemption from the written consent requirement. Written consent is not required for the processing of sensitive data of candidates, when such data are contained in the CV that is sent by candidates. One of the general authorizations issued by the Authority applies to employee sensitive Personal Data. This allows Data Controllers to process an employee’s sensitive Personal Data in certain circumstances and for certain purposes specified in the authorization. Non-sensitive Personal Data relating to an employee may be processed by a Data Controller in certain circumstances, including where the processing is necessary for the performance of the employment agreement or where the processing is necessary for compliance with a labor law or tax obligation of the employer. A fallback justification for processing both sensitive and non-sensitive Personal Data in the employment context may be available if consent (written, in the case of sensitive Personal Data) is provided by the Data Subject (see Section 5(d), below). The Authority issued two regulations on the processing of employees’ Personal Data and sensitive Personal Data in November 2006 and March 2007. The regulations impose an obligation on the employer to comply with the principles of transparency and proportionality, so that only data that is strictly necessary for a specified purpose may be processed. Further, the Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Italy Baker & McKenzie 403 consent of the employee must be obtained when there is no other legitimate ground for the processing. Moreover, if the employer provides its employees with personal computers, access to the Internet and email accounts, the employer must fulfill certain requirements. For example, the employer should clearly specify to the employees the conditions and limits of the use of the company’s information system and relevant resources, and it should also clarify, among other matters, whether personal use is allowed, the relevant conditions (e.g., time and duration), and whether and how the employer intends to perform monitoring activities (including the specific circumstances and purposes of said monitoring). The employer should also seek approval from trade unions or the competent labor office. 5. Consent a. General Consent of the Data Subject is generally required prior to the collection, processing and disclosure of Personal Data. Consent by the Data Subject must always be voluntary, informed, explicit and unambiguous, though it is not required in certain prescribed circumstances. Consent can be express or implied, but the appropriate form of consent will depend on the circumstances, expectations of the Data Subject, and sensitivity of the Personal Data. When the Data Subject gives consent, it is understood that such consent only covers the identified purpose(s). Fresh consent is required for purposes that have not been previously identified and consented to. Consent must be in the local language. The Data Subject also has the right to withdraw consent at any time in given circumstances. b. Sensitive Data Sensitive Personal Data is recognized as a special category of Personal Data and is subject to additional or special consent requirements. Sensitive Personal Data may only be collected and processed with the express consent of the Data Subject. For the processing of sensitive Personal Data, written consent must be provided – that is, in the form of a handwritten or digital signature of the Data Subject. Limited exceptions apply (See Section 4(f) above). c. Minors A person under the age of 18 cannot give valid consent. A parent or legal guardian must give consent on behalf of the minor. In general, when the minor becomes of age it is necessary to obtain confirmation of the consent previously provided by parents or guardians. 404 Baker & McKenzie d. Employee Consent Consent given by an employee to the processing of his or her Personal Data is generally considered valid. The usual business practice and advisable procedure is to have a specific privacy document containing the information notice and consent form, incorporated by reference in the employment agreement. If Personal Data is also to be processed for purposes unrelated to the employment agreement (for example, if Personal Data is disclosed to business partners or other companies that may offer products or services to the employees, or if employees’ Personal Data such as pictures or professional information are published on the company’s intranet), the Authority recommends that these additional purposes be specifically approved the employees through separate consent. e. Online/Electronic Consent Electronic consent is permissible and can be effective in Italy provided that it is properly structured and evidenced. For sensitive Personal Data, however, electronic consent may only be permissible in very limited circumstances. 6. Information/Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about: the organization’s identity; the types of Personal Data being collected; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; the organization’s privacy practices (which must be provided in a clear and transparent way); third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; the consequences of not providing consent; the rights of the Data Subject; how the Personal Data is to be retained; where the Personal Data is to be transferred; where the Personal Data is to be stored; how to contact the privacy officer or other person accountable for the organization’s policies and practices; how to make an inquiry or file a complaint; how to access and/or correct the Data Subject’s Personal Data; the duration of the proposed processing; and the means of transmission of the Personal Data. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must: limit the use of the Personal Data to those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected; anonymize the Personal Data whenever possible; provide the Data Subject the option of using a pseudonym or remaining anonymous whenever possible; and delete/anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and how the Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data, Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Italy Baker & McKenzie 405 subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and exercise the writ of habeas data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements Organizations that collect and process Personal Data may be required to register, file or notify the local data authority. 10. Data Protection Officers There is no such a privacy role under the Code. It is possible to appoint an internal data processor (Responsabile del trattamento) for managing privacy issues within an organization on behalf of the Data Controller. In case of third party service providers processing Personal Data in delivery of relevant services, they must be appointed by the Data Controller as external data processors. 11. International Data Transfers Transfer of Personal Data between member states of the EEA is generally permitted without the need for formal approval by the Authority. Furthermore, no restrictions apply to the transfer of Personal Data to recipients in countries that have been recognized by the European Commission as granting an adequate level of protection to Data Subjects. This is the case for transfers to Switzerland, the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Argentina, Canada, and US-based companies adhering to the Safe Harbor agreement. In the above referenced cases, the transfer of Personal Data is regulated as a communication of Personal Data, thus relevant requirements apply. Transfers outside the EEA are prohibited where the third country does not ensure an adequate level of protection of Personal Data. Exceptions are as follows: • the Data Subject has given his or her express consent to the transfer (written consent is required for sensitive Personal Data); • the transfer is necessary for the performance of obligations resulting from a contract to which the Data Subject is a party, or for gathering information at the Data Subject’s request prior to entering into a contract, or for the conclusion or performance of a contract made in the interest of the Data Subject; • the transfer is necessary for safeguarding an important public interest; • the transfer is necessary for carrying out criminal investigations; • the transfer is necessary to safeguard the life or bodily integrity either of the Data Subject or of a third party, and the Data Subject cannot give his or her consent because of physical or legal incapacity or mental disorder; 406 Baker & McKenzie • the transfer is carried out in response to a request for access to administrative documents or for information included in a public register, list, act, or document which is publicly available, in compliance with the provisions applying to such subject matter; and • the transfer is authorized by the Authority on the basis of adequate guarantees for the Data Subject’s rights, as resulting from contractual clauses in a data transfer agreement. The following specific requirements relate to the use of a data transfer agreement: incorporation (or incorporation by reference) of the European Commission’s model clauses for transfer of data between Data Controllers or towards Data Processors into the data transfer agreement by the data exporter and the importer, so that they are available, upon request, to the Data Subjects to whom the Personal Data relates; a copy of the data transfer agreement must be provided to the Authority upon request of the Authority; the choice made in case of a dispute that is not settled amicably and is submitted to an entity other than either the Authority or a judicial authority must be communicated to the Authority; the Data Subjects must be informed of the transfer and the fact that the data transfer agreement is in place. When the aforementioned conditions are met, no formal approval of the data transfer agreements by the Authority is required. 12. Security Requirements An organization is required to take steps to: ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organization security safeguards to protect Personal Data; and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Organizations that disclose Personal Data to third parties are required to use contractual or other means to protect Personal Data, and are required to comply with sector specific requirements. Organizations may be held liable together with third party providers in the event of breach by the latter. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints; data authority investigations/audits; data authority orders; administrative fines, penalties or sanctions; seizure of equipment or data; civil actions; class actions; criminal proceedings; and/or private rights of action. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Italy Baker & McKenzie 407 15. Data Security Breach The Code provides for an obligation of disclosure to Data Subjects and/or the Authority or other authorities in the event of a security breach limited to specific sectors (e.g. telecoms operators). In any case, the Data Controller is liable to compensate not only for monetary but also for moral damages caused by the data processing. Thus, also for companies not subject to a disclosure obligation under the Code, in the event of security breaches organizations that are involved in a data breach situation should: gather information about the breach; assess the potential risk of harm to the Data Subject(s); take steps to mitigate the harm to the impacted Data Subject(s); take steps to contain the breach and to prevent future similar breaches; assist authorities with any investigation relating to the breach; and comply with data authority orders and court orders. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to a suspension of business operations; closure or cancellation of the file, register or database; an administrative fine, penalty or sanction; civil actions and/or class actions; or a criminal prosecution. 16. Accountability Organizations are required to: conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data; furnish the results of the privacy impact assessments to privacy regulators upon request; and furnish evidence relating to the effectiveness of the organization’s privacy management program to privacy regulators upon request. 17. Whistle-Blower Hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Italy as long as they are in compliance with local laws. 18. E-Discovery Employers should advise employees of the implementation of an e-discovery system, the features and purposes of the said system, and (if applicable) that the use of work tools (e.g., email, Internet) is being monitored and that information such as emails is stored. Employers should also specify the features of the monitoring activities and the consequences of failure by employees to comply with the employer’s guidelines on the correct use of the employer’s electronic equipment and system. An employer should also specifically inform employees whether and to what extent electronic devices and equipment provided by the employer for business purposes may also be used for personal purposes. The above information should be contained in a specific IT policy that the employer provides to its employees, and that is agreed upon with trade unions or the competent labor office, as applicable. 408 Baker & McKenzie 19. Anti-Spam Filtering When implementing an anti-spam filter solution into its operations, an organization is required to: inform employees of monitoring policies being implemented in the workplace; give employees the opportunity to opt out from the spam-filtering solution; and give employees the opportunity to review the isolated emails designated as spam. 20. Cookies The use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. As such, consent of Data Subjects must be obtained before cookies can be used and deployed. Some types of cookies that track or monitor the user may not be permitted. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject is required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. Consent of the Data Subject must be obtained for a specific activity. Bundled consent is not considered valid consent. Japan Kensaku Takase Tokyo Tel: +813 6271 9752 kensaku.takase@bakermckenzie.com Daisuke Tatsuno Tokyo Tel: +813 6271 9479 daisuke.tatsuno@bakermckenzie.com 410 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments On 3 September 2015, extensive amendments were introduced to the law in Japan which deals with the protection of personal information, “The Act on the Protection of Personal Information” (“APPI”). The effective date of the amended APPI has not yet been fixed; however, the law will take effect two years from its date of publication. Until then, the previous APPI will continue to be the law in Japan. For purposes of this chapter, the phrase “previous APPI” refers to the APPI wording prior to the 3 September 2015 amendments. While the details on the manner of its implementation still remain unclear, the following are some of the noteworthy amendments to the law: a. Amended definition of “Personal Information” The amended APPI expands the definition of “personal information” to include a person’s bodily information, such as fingerprint data and face recognition data. Numeric codes associated with an individual will also be covered by the new definition, such as passport numbers and driver’s license numbers. b. Establishment of the Personal Information Protection Committee A new government authority will be established, which will be called the “Personal Information Protection Committee” (the “Committee”). The Committee will have the authority to exercise certain functions, such as the ability to request data controllers to submit reports, conduct onsite inspections and issue administrative orders. How large and structured this Committee will be is still uncertain. c. Handling of anonymized information The amended APPI creates obligations on business operators when anonymizing personal data to be transferred to third parties. For example, a business operator must create the anonymized data pursuant to the regulations of the Committee, and ensure that the original pre-anonymized data may not be recreated. d. Sensitive data Under the previous APPI, there were no specific definitions concerning sensitive data such as race, religion or medical history. Under the amended APPI, business operators are prohibited from obtaining such sensitive data without the data subject’s consent. It is likely that other restrictions will also be imposed on sensitive data. e. Transfer of personal data to third parties Under the amended APPI, a business operator which receives personal data which has been transferred to them will need to confirm how the personal data Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Japan Baker & McKenzie 411 was obtained, and retain for a certain period, a record of when the personal data was received. f. Criminal sanction for the misuse of personal data Under the amended APPI, individuals who are involved in the handling of personal data which has been subject to misuse or which has been stolen for unjust profit will be subject to a criminal penalty. g. Opt-out for transfers of personal data Under the previous APPI, a business operator may transfer personal data to third parties without the data subject’s consent if the data subject opts-out from doing so. Under the amended APPI, a prior notification to the Committee is necessary in order to use this opt-out arrangement. h. Cross-border transfer of personal data The amended APPI provides that personal data may be transferred to a foreign country only when the country has a legal system that is deemed equivalent to the Japanese personal data protection system, or to a third party which undertakes adequate precautionary measures for the protection of personal data, as specified by the Committee. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends There have been recent major data breaches in Japan, which have raised the Japanese public’s and government’s awareness of the importance of privacy issues, and the need to enhance Japan’s data protections laws. On 9 July 2014, a Japanese education company, Benesse Holdings Inc. and its group company Benesse Corp. (“Benesse”) announced that approx. 7.9 million pieces of its customer information were leaked from its database, and that direct-mail advertisements had been sent to its customers from an unrelated IT company, which allegedly obtained the information through a broker. An engineer who was working for an outsourcing company used by Benesse was later arrested on 17 July 2014 in connection with the leak. On 10 September 2014, Benesse announced that they will issue a 500 yen (just under USD 5) cash voucher to an estimated 28.95 million customers who were affected by the data leak. A compensation of 500-yen per customer is in line with the amount of compensation paid by Japanese companies in the past for data leak cases that were resolved outside of court. For example, in data leak cases from major convenience store franchisers, Lawson issued a 500 yen cash voucher to 5.6 million customers, and Family Mart issued a 1,000 yen cash voucher to 1.8 million customers, both in 2003. However, financial and insurance companies tend to pay more. Further, in data leak cases that were brought to court, the damage awarded by the court is even higher: 30,000 yen (plus 5,000 yen as attorney fee) per customer against TBC (major aesthetic salon operator) for the data leak in 2002, and 5,000 yen (plus 1,000 412 Baker & McKenzie yen as attorney fee) per customer against Softbank BB for the data leak in 2006. On 17 September 2014, Benesse submitted a final report to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), following METI’s request on 10 July 2014 to submit a report under the APPI. In the report, Benesse declared that it will no longer outsource maintenance and operations of its data system to an outside company. By April 2015, Benesse will set up a new joint venture for this purpose, with a Tokyo-based information security service firm, Lac Co, one of whose directors has been a member of Benesse’s “incident investigation board” that was formed after the data leak. Further, Benesse will also establish an external body comprising of information security experts who will monitor the data management. METI plans to review the report and decide whether to issue an improvement order or take other measures against Benesse. More generally, METI plans to amend the APPI guidelines to address issues posed by the Benesse incident. 3. Law Applicable As mentioned in Section 1, extensive amendments were introduced on 3 September 2015 to the law in Japan which deals with the protection of personal information, “The Act on the Protection of Personal Information” (“APPI”). While the effective date of the amended APPI has not yet been determined, the law will take effect two years from its date of publication. In addition to the APPI, various guidelines have been issued by different Japanese government agencies and industry groups, which serve to ensure compliance by companies with the APPI, and to provide interpretation of the APPI as it relates to specific industries and to particular issues, such as security measures. While the guidelines do not have any direct financial penalties for breach; noncompliance for applicable companies may have other consequences such as warnings from the agencies, or loss of regulatory licenses. The broadest guidelines, in terms of companies covered by such guidelines, would be the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry’s (“METI”) guidelines on the interpretation of APPI for companies. Other well-known guidelines include the guidelines which apply to companies in the financial, medical and telecommunications industries. In many instances, companies may find that more than one set of guidelines are applicable to them. There are proposals to consolidate many of the guidelines to remove the overlap. However, for the time being, companies do need to be aware of which guidelines may be applicable to them. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Japan Baker & McKenzie 413 There are also laws which separately relate to protection of personal information held by Japanese government agencies which will not be discussed in this handbook. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data The APPI applies to “Personal Information”, which is information about a living individual who can be identified by name, date of birth or other description contained in such information, including information which can easily be combined with other information so as to enable the identification of that individual. As mentioned in Section 1, the amended APPI expands the definition of “personal information” to include a person’s bodily information, such as fingerprint data and face recognition data. Numeric codes associated with an individual will also be covered by the new definition, such as passport numbers and driver’s license numbers. The APPI applies only to information concerning individuals, and does not cover information concerning corporations or other types of corporate entities. The METI guidelines define “Personal Information” as information about a living individual including the name, sex and date of birth, and other personal attributes including information about one’s body, assets, occupation, and title. The guidelines further explain how Personal Information may come in various forms such as printed publications, or in visual or aural form. Apart from “Personal Information”, “Personal Data” is separately defined to cover information stored in a business operator’s database (see the comments in Section 4(c) below with regard to a “business operator”). Such databases are defined include the following: (i) an assembly of information systematically arranged in such a way that specific personal information can be retrieved by a computer; or (ii) an assembly of information in accordance with certain rules, and that has a table of contents, index or other means to facilitate the retrieval. In other words, once Personal Information is stored in a database, it will be treated as “Personal Data” under the APPI. Certain provisions of the APPI deal with the broader concept of “Personal Information”, while other provisions deal with the more specific concept of “Personal Data”. The METI guidelines give various examples of what constitutes a “database”, such as: (i) Email address book (where combined information of names and email addresses are inputted); 414 Baker & McKenzie (ii) Electronic files in which user IDs and log-in information on transactions by users are stored; (iii) Business card information stored in electronic spreadsheets for business use and which can be retrieved by individuals such as workers; (iv) Alphabetically (Japanese) arranged registration cards of temporary staff; and (v) Commercially available directories arranged by name, address, and company. The APPI does not distinguish between public information and privately held information. b. Data Processing The APPI has a very broad and open concept on data processing. “A business operator handling personal information” is interpreted to mean a business operator using a personal information database for its business. c. Processing by Data Controllers There is no concept of a “data processor” under Japanese law. As such, handling of personal data under the APPI should pertain to how a “business operator” treats and manages the Personal Information or Personal Data in its possession. (i) Definition of “business operator” The APPI uses the term “business operator” which is not defined, but essentially refers to the entity responsible for the proper handling of all “Personal Information”. This is similar to the concept of a “data controller” under EU law. It is worth noting again that there is no “data processor” concept under the APPI. In addition, the APPI does not apply to a business operator that uses a database of personal information containing personal data of less than 5,000 living individuals. (ii) Use of Personal Information by the business operator Once the business operator has acquired Personal Information, the business operator must promptly notify the data subject or publicly announce the “Purpose of Use” of such Personal Information. “Purpose of Use” refers to the business operators’ intended methods of use of the Personal Information. Any such use of the Personal Information by the business operator must be made within the scope of the “Purpose of Use”. According to the METI guidelines, the public announcement must be done in a reasonable and appropriate manner depending on the nature of the business and the status of the Personal Information. Furthermore, the public announcement can be made via notices in stores, brochures, and on websites which should be easily accessible with a few clicks. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Japan Baker & McKenzie 415 The Data Controller must not use the Personal Information beyond the scope necessary to achieve the “Purpose of Use” unless: (i) it can obtain prior consent of the data subject; or (ii) such use is expressly permitted under the APPI or other applicable laws. The APPI encourages business operators to maintain accurate and up-to-date Personal Data within the scope necessary to achieve the “Purpose of Use”. Any subsequent changes to a “Purpose of Use” must be reasonable. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The APPI does not have express provisions dealing with jurisdiction and territoriality. e. Sensitive Personal Data Under the previous APPI, there were no specific definitions concerning sensitive data such as race, religion or medical history. Under the amended APPI, business operators are prohibited from obtaining such sensitive data without the data subject’s consent. It is likely that other restrictions will also be imposed on sensitive data. “”The METI and FSA guidelines both define “sensitive personal data” as information relating to political opinion, religion, union membership, race, place of domicile, medical information, sexual orientation, and criminal history. For companies which fall under the ambit of METI, the METI guidelines state that such companies should neither gather nor provide to third parties, such “sensitive personal data”. For companies which fall under the ambit of the FSA, the FSA guidelines state that such companies must treat “sensitive personal data” with caution, but does not go into further detail. The guidelines applicable to the medical and health industry do not specifically categorize “sensitive personal data”. f. Employee Personal Data The APPI does not treat employee Personal Information or Personal Data any differently than any other form of Personal Information or Personal Data. 5. Consent a. General The general rule under the APPI is that a data subject’s prior consent is required for the transfer of their Personal Data (not for the collection of the Personal Information). However, there are exceptions to the general rule: 416 Baker & McKenzie Subcontractor Where a business operator entrusts the handling of Personal Data under its control, in whole or in part to another party, such a party is considered a “subcontractor” for the purpose of the APPI. For a transfer of Personal Data to a subcontractor as such, data subjects’ consent is not required. However, the business operator must exercise necessary and appropriate supervision over the subcontractor to ensure proper security management of the Personal Data. Joint User If the Personal Data will be jointly used by a “joint user” for the purpose of the APPI, the data subject’s consent is not required. However, the business operator must notify the data subject of the following information in advance: (i) the fact that Personal Data is used jointly with other individuals or entities; (ii) the items of Personal Data to be used jointly; (iii) the scope of the joint users (i.e., the names of joint users or other information by which the Data Subject may understand who will jointly use the Personal Data); (iv) the purpose for which the Personal Data is used by them; and (v) the name of the individual or entity responsible for the management of the Personal Data. Opt-Out Under the previous APPI, a business operator may transfer personal data to third parties without the data subject’s consent if the data subject opts-out from doing so. Under the amended APPI, a prior notification to the Committee is necessary in order to use this opt-out arrangement. Disclosure due to corporate merger Where the information is disclosed to a surviving or newly established company following a merger or sale of a business, the surviving or newly established company receiving Personal Data is not considered a “third party”. Others Transfer of Personal Data to a third party is also allowed in the following circumstances: (i) When the disclosure is made in accordance with the law; (ii) When the disclosure is necessary to protect life, body or property (e.g., sudden illness); Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Japan Baker & McKenzie 417 (iii) When the disclosure is necessary to protect public health (e.g., epidemiology investigation); or (iv) When the disclosure is necessary for governmental purposes (e.g., tax investigations). b. Sensitive Data Under the previous APPI, there were no specific definitions concerning sensitive data such as race, religion or medical history. Under the amended APPI, business operators are prohibited from obtaining such sensitive data without the data subject’s consent. It is likely that other restrictions will also be imposed on sensitive data. c. Minors The METI guidelines state that where a child has no ability to understand the results which may arise from his or her consent to the handling of his or her Personal Information, then it is necessary for the business operator to obtain consent from the “attorney-in-fact”, which essentially means their parent or guardian. d. Employee Consent As there is no special treatment in the APPI for employees, the issue of employee consent is not addressed. e. Online/Electronic Consent: Catch-all and preliminary consent is not allowed under the APPI. Although the APPI has no restrictions on the manner of how consent is obtained, the METI and FSA guidelines both require written consent as a general rule. Electronic consent is also recognized by both the METI and FSA guidelines as being an acceptable form of written consent. 6. Notice Requirements Business operators are also obligated under the APPI to provide to data subjects: (i) the business operator’s name; (ii) the “Purpose of Use”; (iii) the procedures used by the business operator to access, modify and terminate the use of the Personal Data it possesses; and (iv) contact information for the purposes of handling complaints. 7. Processing Rules See our comments under Section 4(c)(ii) with regard to Purpose of Use. Generally, a business operator must ensure that their use of Personal 418 Baker & McKenzie Information does not extend beyond the Purpose of Use (which the data subject has agreed to in advance). 8. Rights of Individuals The Personal Data processed by the business operators must be disclosed to the data subjects upon their request in writing or by other means acceptable to the data subjects. If retained Personal Data is found to be incorrect, such Personal Data must be corrected while remaining in compliance with the Purpose of Use. If a Purpose of Use is found to have been violated, the Data Controller may have to discontinue using its retained Personal Data to the extent necessary to redress the violation. If a data subject requests disclosure of his/her information or requests modifications to his/her information, the business operator must, in principle, comply with such requests unless: (i) the disclosure is likely to harm the life, body, property or other rights or interests of the data subject or a third party; (ii) the disclosure is likely to seriously impede the proper execution of the business of business operator; (iii) or the disclosure violates other laws and regulations. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements There are no requirements to notify the breach of the APPI to a government organization. However, there are special organizations set-up to specifically handle complaints relating to Personal Information on an industry level. These organizations are referred to as “Authorized personal information protection organizations” but appear to be rarely utilized at this point in time. 10. Data Protection Officers Some guidelines, such as the METI guidelines, recommend the implementation of a data protection officer. However, such guidelines do not provide details on the role of the data protection officer other than to manage Personal Information within an organization. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare’s guidelines state that organizations under their ambit should have an administrator or preferably a group of administrators who have sufficient knowledge of Personal Information issues to ensure proper management of the Personal Information they deal with. 11. International Data Transfers The amended APPI provides that Personal Data may be transferred to a foreign country only when the country has a legal system that is deemed equivalent to the Japanese personal data protection system, or to a third party Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Japan Baker & McKenzie 419 which undertakes adequate precautionary measures for the protection of personal data, as specified by the Committee. 12. Security Requirements The APPI states that business operators must take necessary and appropriate measures to prevent leakage, loss or damage of Personal Data and ensure proper security management of Personal Data. This requirement is further built into industry-specific guidelines. In particular, under the METI Guidelines, business operators are recommended to establish and manage a system to report any data security breach to: (i) the business operator’s top management; (ii) the data subject(s) who may be affected by the breach; and (iii) to administrative authorities. In certain industrial sectors such as banking or financial business, the reporting of such breaches is mandatory and business operators are also required to make public announcements about the factual background as well as measures they intend to implement to prevent similar data security breach in the future. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties See comments under Section 5. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions The APPI imposes sentences of imprisonment (with labor) of not more than six months, or a fine of not more than 300,000 yen for certain breaches. However, such sentences or fines may only be imposed in cases where there have been a breach of a Minister’s order made under the APPI. So far, no such orders have been made. As such, no sentences or fines have yet been made either. 15. Data Security Breach To date, data security breaches have all been handled by companies taking the initiative and paying data subjects small amounts of compensation where breaches have occurred. There have been no instances of government agencies taking action against companies for data security breaches. 16. Accountability Japan does not have a concept of a data processor. Accountability is with the business operator, which is similar to a data controller under EU law. 420 Baker & McKenzie 17. Whistle-blower hotline There are no laws or regulations that govern whistle-blower hotlines in Japan. 18. E-discovery There are no laws or regulations that govern the implementation of an e-discovery system in Japan. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering There are no laws or regulations that govern the implementation of an anti-spam filtering system in Japan. 20. Cookies There are no specific provisions in either the APPI or the various guidelines on usage of electronic cookies. 21. Direct Marketing Other than general provisions dealing with transferring Personal Information to third parties, there are no specific provisions dealing with direct marketing. Please note however that sending of advertisement e-mails is regulated by a separate law named the Act on Regulation of Transmission of Specified Electronic Mail. Under this Act, advertisement e-mails may not be sent unless prior consent of the recipient is obtained. Kazakhstan Gulnur Bekmukhanbetova Almaty Tel: +7 727 330 0500 Tel: +7 727 250 99 45 gulnur.bekmukhanbetova@bakermckenzie.com Azamat Kuatbekov Almaty Tel: +7 727 330 0500 Tel: +7 727 250 99 45 azamat.kuatbekov@bakermckenzie.com 422 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments Kazakhstan has adopted a new, unified Personal Data Law (“Law”) for the first time, which specifically deals with Personal Data protection issues, purports to strengthen state control over the processing of Personal Data and regulates the cross-border transfer of Personal Data. The Personal Data Law was signed into law on 21 May 2013 and came into force on 26 November 2013. Before the adoption of the Law, Kazakhstan had only a few legal provisions relating to privacy protection, which were contained in various legislation such as the Constitution, Civil Code, Criminal Code, and the Labour Code. The main features of the Law are as follows: • the Law applies to all individuals, organizations (whether private-sector or state-owned) and state authorities engaged in data collection, processing or disclosure of such data within Kazakhstan; • “Personal Data” includes any information (in paper, electronic or other form) relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (“Data Subject”); • the Law imposes a general requirement to obtain consent of the Data Subject for the collection, use or disclosure of Personal Data. There are certain exceptions to this general consent requirement, e.g., disclosure of Personal Data when required by law, use of Personal Data by state authorities for statistical purposes, etc.; • organizations should clearly define the purpose for which they intend to collect, process and disclose Personal Data; fresh consent of the Data Subject is required for the disclosure of Personal Data if there has been a change in the purpose for which the data was originally collected; • organizations may collect Personal Data if such data is required for the purpose of their business activities; organizations must determine the list of such Personal Data which they are allowed to collect (in accordance with government-approved rules) and distinguish the Personal Data collected from other non-private information (e.g., by way of keeping the Personal Data in separate media); • organizations must appoint at least one person responsible for compliance with the Law; • organizations must bring their policies and practices into compliance with the Law no later than 26 February 2014. The Personal Data Law regulates the cross-border transfer of Personal Data. The principal rule is that Personal Data may be transferred to countries outside Kazakhstan only if they guarantee protection of Personal Data. Thus, Personal Data may in principle be transferred to countries outside Kazakhstan Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Kazakhstan Baker & McKenzie 423 if such countries have appropriate legislation guaranteeing Personal Data protection. There is a limited number of exceptions to this rule: specifically Personal Data may be transferred to a country that does not guarantee protection of Personal Data if, among other things: • the Data Subject has specifically consented to the transfer of Personal Data to the relevant jurisdiction; • the transfer of data is required as a matter of law, as a result of an overwhelming public interest, or to protect the legal rights, life and health of citizens; • the transfer of data is necessary in specific circumstances in order to protect the legal rights of the person concerned if it is not possible to obtain the consent of the relevant Data Subject. No exception is available for the transfer of Personal Data outside Kazakhstan within a single corporate group. Accordingly, an organization will need to rely on the above exceptions in order to transfer Personal Data of its employees, contractors and customers to a jurisdiction which is not deemed to guarantee Personal Data protection, even if such transfer occurs within a corporate group. It is an administrative and criminal offense to collect, process and disclose Personal Data without the consent of the Data Subject or otherwise in breach of the Personal Data Law. The penalties for such an offence include financial penalties (generally, penalties of up to US$3,200 for organizations and US$32,140 for officers of organizations) or for officers of organizations - correction works, restriction of freedom or imprisonment with or without temporary deprivation of the right to hold certain positions in organizations or carry out certain activities. In addition, an individual who suffers harm as a result of an organization breaching the Law may have the right to take civil action against such organization and seek damages. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends Mandatory Breach Notification. There is no legal requirement in Kazakhstan for organizations to notify Data Subjects when a privacy breach occurs. However, the Law allows a Data Subject to request information from an organization in order to determine how the organization has used his or her Personal Data and, where relevant, to seek to cure breaches of the Law (including by way of correcting any inaccurate information, blocking or destroying information that was collected in breach of the Law, etc.). Data Protection Enforcement. Since the Personal Data Law was adopted recently, there is no established practice on the implementation of the Law. Specifically, it is unclear how certain provisions of the Law which are not 424 Baker & McKenzie entirely clear will be implemented in practice, including whether it is permissible to obtain the Data Subject’s consent in electronic form (in lieu of written form specifically required by the Law), whether consent of each individual business counterparty is required to collect Personal Data (such as name, identity details, and address) for the purpose of entering into a contract. 3. Law Applicable The principal applicable laws and regulations include the following: • Law On Personal Data and Its Protection dated 21 May 2013; • Rules on Carrying Out Personal Data Protection Measures by the Owners and (or) Operators, as well as Third Parties approved by Government Resolution dated September 3, 2013, No. 909; • Rules On Determining the List of Personal Data Required and Sufficient for the Owners and (or) Operators to Carry Out Their Functions approved by the Government Resolution dated 12 November 2013, No. 1214; • Code On Administrative Offences dated 5 July 2014, as amended; and • Criminal Code of Kazakhstan dated 3 July 2014, as amended. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data “Personal Data” includes any information (in paper, electronic or other form) relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (“Data Subject”); The Labor Code defines “Personal Data” as information about the employee obtained in connection with the employment relationship. The employee’s name, address, education, pension fund related details, individual identification number, health information, and experience are considered to be the Personal Data pursuant to the Labor Code. The Law “On Informatization” also uses the term “Personal Data,” but defines it as information on facts, events, circumstances of a person’s life and/or information allowing identification of such person. b. Data Processing The Labor Code and the Law “On Informatization” provide for a general rule according to which the Personal Data of an individual (whether in electronic or any other form) is deemed confidential. Recipients of the Personal Data shall use such Personal Data only for the purposes for which it was obtained. The Law “On Informatization” specifies that recipients of the electronic resources with Personal Data must keep its confidentiality starting from the moment when such data was presented. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Kazakhstan Baker & McKenzie 425 According to the Labor Code, the employer may process Personal Data only to ensure compliance with laws and other regulations, to assist employees with job placement, training and promotion, and to ensure personal safety of the employees. The Labor Code defines the term “processing of employee’s Personal Data” as the receipt, storage and transfer of employee’s Personal Data. Within the organization, Personal Data can be transferred in accordance with the internal rules and procedures of the employer. The employee must be familiarized with such rules and procedures. Generally, the employer may disclose Personal Data to third parties only upon the employee’s written consent. An exemption from this general rule exists when the Personal Data is disclosed to entities who, in connection with their functions, are specifically authorized to access such Personal Data. In this case, no employee’s consent is necessary, but the entities to whom the Personal Data is disclosed must keep the Personal Data confidential. Other requirements which have to be complied with when processing the Personal Data include the following: • an employer shall have no right to demand information regarding an employee’s political, religious and other opinions and private life; and • an employer shall have no right to demand information regarding an employee’s membership or activity in social associations, including trade unions. The Law “On Informatization” specifies certain aspects related to the processing of the Personal Data in electronic form. In particular, under the Law “On Informatization,” processing of the Personal Data in electronic form is generally subject to the rules and procedures established by the owner/holder of the relevant electronic resource. The owner/holder of the electronic resource that contains Personal Data is obliged to take certain “preventive” measures with respect to such electronic resources. These measures include: • anti-disclosure measures (note: a subsequent disclosure of electronic resources that contain Personal Data is possible only upon the permission of a person to whom such Personal Data relates, or only on the grounds established by the laws of Kazakhstan); • appropriate monitoring of the facts of unauthorized access; and • mitigation of the consequences of various violations of the procedures regulating the access to electronic resources containing Personal Data. In addition, the Law “On Informatization” prohibits: • requesting, for the purpose of creation of an electronic information resource or otherwise, of information regarding the person’s private life (which information constitutes personal, family secrets, secrets of phone 426 Baker & McKenzie conversations, mail, telegraph and other communications), origin, health, beliefs, political and religious views; • obtaining the information referred to above without consent of the person whom the information relates to; and • the use of electronic resources containing Personal Data to cause property and/or non-property damages or limiting rights guaranteed by laws. c. Processing by Data Controllers Please see above. d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality These rules apply only within the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan. e. Sensitive Personal Data There is no distinction between sensitive and non-sensitive Personal Data under the Labor Code and under the Law “On Informatization.” f. Employee Personal Data Please see Sections 4(a) and 4(b). 5. Consent a. General Consent of the Data Subject is generally required prior to the collection, processing or disclosure of Personal Data, and is a justification or legal grounds for the use of Personal Data. Consent must be voluntary, informed, explicit and unambiguous, and must be in writing. Consent of the Data Subject only covers identified purposes. Fresh consent is required for purposes not previously identified and consented to. The Data Subject may be allowed to withdraw his or her consent. b. Sensitive Data Sensitive Data may only be collected and processed with the express consent of the Data Subject, except in certain prescribed circumstances. c. Minors Consent cannot be obtained from minors, but can usually be given by a legal guardian or parent. Consent of the minor is not required to release information about him/her to parents, guardians or legal representatives. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Kazakhstan Baker & McKenzie 427 d. Employee Consent Employee consent is generally required to collect and process an employee’s Personal Data, except in certain prescribed circumstances. e. Online/Electronic Consent Since the Personal Data Law was adopted recently, it is not yet clear whether it is permissible to obtain the Data Subject’s consent in electronic form (in lieu of written form specifically required by the Law). 6. Information/Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about the organization’s identity, the types of Personal Data being collected. the purposes for collecting Personal Data, its privacy practices (which must be given in a clear and transparent manner), and the duration of the proposed processing. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must limit the use of the Personal Data to those activities that are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected, and delete/anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and how the Personal Data is being processed, access the Data Subject’s Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications, request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data, and request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements There are no requirements for organizations that collect and process Personal Data to register, file or notify the local data authority. 10. Data Protection Officers Organizations are required to designate a privacy officer or other individual who will be accountable for the privacy practices of the organization. 11. International Data Transfers The Personal Data Law regulates the cross-border transfer of Personal Data. The principal rule is that Personal Data may be transferred to countries outside Kazakhstan only if they guarantee protection of Personal Data. Thus, Personal Data may in principle be transferred to countries outside Kazakhstan 428 Baker & McKenzie if such countries have appropriate legislation guaranteeing Personal Data protection. There is a limited number of exceptions to this rule: specifically Personal Data may be transferred to a country that does not guarantee protection of Personal Data if, among other things: • the Data Subject has specifically consented to the transfer of Personal Data to the relevant jurisdiction; • the transfer of data is required as a matter of law, as a result of an overwhelming public interest, or to protect the legal rights, life and health of citizens; • the transfer of data is necessary in specific circumstances in order to protect the legal rights of the person concerned if it is not possible to obtain the consent of the relevant Data Subject. No exception is available for the transfer of Personal Data outside Kazakhstan within a single corporate group. Accordingly, an organization will need to rely on the above exceptions in order to transfer Personal Data of its employees, contractors and customers to a jurisdiction which is not deemed to guarantee Personal Data protection, even if such transfer occurs within a corporate group. It is an administrative and criminal offense to collect, process and disclose Personal Data without the consent of the Data Subject or otherwise in breach of the Personal Data Law. The penalties for such an offence include financial penalties (generally, penalties of up to US$3,200 for organizations and US$32,140 for officers of organizations) or for officers of organizations - correction works, restriction of freedom or imprisonment with or without temporary deprivation of the right to hold certain positions in organizations or carry out certain activities. In addition, an individual who suffers harm as a result of an organization breaching the Law may have the right to take civil action against such organization and seek damages. 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to ensure that Personal Data in their possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; and implement appropriate physical, technical and organizational security safeguards to protect Personal Data. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties Organizations that disclose Personal Data to third parties are required to use contractual or other means to protect Personal Data. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Kazakhstan Baker & McKenzie 429 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Since the Personal Data Law was adopted recently, there is no established practice on the implementation of the Law. Specifically, it is unclear how certain provisions of the Law which are not entirely clear will be implemented in practice, including whether it is permissible to obtain the Data Subject’s consent in electronic form (in lieu of written form specifically required by the Law), whether consent of each individual business counterparty is required to collect Personal Data (such as name, identity details, and address) for the purpose of entering into a contract. 15. Data Security Breach There is no legal requirement in Kazakhstan for organizations to notify Data Subjects when a privacy breach occurs. However, the Law allows a Data Subject to request information from an organization in order to determine how the organization has used his or her Personal Data and, where relevant, to seek to cure breaches of the Law (including by way of correcting any inaccurate information, blocking or destroying information that was collected in breach of the Law, etc.). 16. Accountability Organizations are not required to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. 17. Whistle-Blower Hotline Whistle-blower hotlines may be established in Kazakhstan provided that they are in compliance with local laws. 18. E-Discovery When implementing an e-discovery system, an organization is required to obtain the consent of employees if the collection of Personal Data is involved, and advise employees of the implementation of the system, the monitoring of work tools and the storage of information. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering When implementing an anti-spam filter solution into its operations, an organization is required to inform employees of monitoring policies being implemented in the workplace. 20. Cookies The use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. 21. Direct Marketing There are no laws/rules in Kazakhstan that govern direct marketing. Luxembourg Audrey Rustichelli Luxembourg Tel: +352 261844 249 audrey.rustichelli@bakermckenzie.com 432 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments Decision of the Luxembourg District Court n° 905/2014 of 20 March 2014 regarding the right of access of an employer to employees’ private emails On 20 March 2014, the Luxembourg District Court handed down a judgment expanding the right of an employer to open employees’ private emails. An employee had been fired and was no longer required to report to work during this notice period. As a result, she was denied access to her work premises, and therefore to her emails. The employee was then informed that the emails received on her professional mailbox had been read by her former employer. The employee decided to bring proceedings against her former employer for violation of private correspondence. The District Court considered that the employer may have a right to access the private emails of employees when these may cause confusion as regards the nature of the email. In the present case, the subject of the email was “Private. New year drink”. The judges considered that the association of these two expressions could lead to the conclusion that it was an official invitation intended for several persons. In a second email, the object was “PRIVATE CONFIDENTIAL”. The court, however, noticed that the email had been sent from a bank to which the employer had professional relations. Therefore, the judges considered that there was only very little doubt that the employer, by opening this email sent from a professional who was then in a business relationship with the employer, had the intention to violate the legislation protecting private correspondence. In its assessment, the Court therefore took a rather open interpretation of the scope of professional emails. Decision of the Luxembourg Supreme Court of 3 April 2014 relating to the theft of computer data On 3 April 2014, the Luxembourg Supreme Court recognized for the first time the theft of computer data. In the past, intangible property had never been considered as falling within the general legal qualification of theft under Article 461 of the Criminal Code. The employee of a bank had downloaded and photocopied certain documents from the servers owned by his employer, a bank, for the purpose of his defense in the course of an employment-related dispute. The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal that considered that the theft was not qualified because there was no appropriation of tangible personal property from the former employee. This decision therefore gives a larger scope to the offence of theft, as theft could now be recognized either for intangible and tangible property. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Luxembourg Baker & McKenzie 433 Additionally, the Luxembourg Supreme Court enshrines the principle of “exonerating circumstances”, that is to say, the act of an employee of stealing and photocopying documents or the violation of the bank secrecy laws can be considered as exonerating circumstances, provided that they are strictly necessary to exercise the right to defend himself. Activity report from the National Commission for the Protection of Personal Data presented on 27 May 2014 reveals a record number of complaints filed by European citizens On 27 May 2014, the National Commission for the Protection of Personal Data presented its activity report for 2013. The report reveals a record number of complaints or requests of verification filed from European citizens and requests of information which increased to 33% and 22% respectively compared to 2012. These increased numbers attest to the particular sensitivity and attention of citizens regarding privacy and protection of their personal data. The complaints notably concern requests for deletion or correction of the personal data and questions on the lawfulness and validity of certain administrative or commercial practices. Additionally, certain requests introduced by citizens established on another European Country triggered investigations handled by the Luxembourg data protection authority towards international companies established in the GrandDuchy of the Luxembourg. Joint publication in September 2014 of the surveillance at the workplace by the National Commission for the Protection of Data and the Chamber of Employees regarding In September 2014, the National Commission for the Protection of Data (“CNPD”) and the Chamber of Employees published new guidelines regarding the surveillance of employees at their workplace. This publication echoes the decision of the Luxembourg District Court of 20 March 2014 regarding the access of an employer to private emails of his employees. In this respect, the judges notably ruled that an employer may have a right to access the private emails of employees when these emails may be confusing as regards their private or professional qualification. The Luxembourg legislator has created a quite restrictive framework regarding the implementation of processing of personal data for surveillance purposes. The publication aims at analyzing the different forms of surveillance that could occur at the workplace, such as video surveillance, the control of the use of IT tools or the recording of telephone conversations and provides requirements applicable to these types of surveillance as well as best practices. 434 Baker & McKenzie The document also contains guidelines for employers and employees on the use of IT tools, and in particular of the professional mailbox. Namely, the CNPD provides that employers should ask employees to: • clearly distinguish the private from the professional emails in the subject of the messages; • install a double mailbox separating the private and professional emails; • archive the personal emails in a file called “private”. Publication on 10 September 2014 from the National Commission for the Protection of Data regarding the right to oblivion On 10 September 2014, the CNPD published practical guidelines regarding the right to oblivion. The right of oblivion is the possibility given to a data subject to request that the processing of his/her personal data be discontinued and that the related data be removed. Contained in the law of 2 August 2002, as amended, regarding the Protection of Persons with regard to the Processing of Personal Data, this right can however only be exercised by showing compelling and legitimate reasons relating to the special situation of the data subject. This means that the data subject has to show that the processing of his/her personal data is contrary to the legal principles of necessity, relevance and legitimacy of the processing. In September 2014, the CNPD provided practical useful guidelines regarding the request for deletion of personal data from a specific website on the Internet and also from search engines. Forms are available online for such requests. Website administrators and search engine operators have one month to answer by making a balance between the legitimate interest of the web surfers to accessing certain links/information and the fundamental rights of the person concerned and, if negatively answered, to justify such refusal. The data subject may, in such case, contact the CNPD asking the authority to intervene. Such practical steps should help data subjects in the exercise of their right to oblivion which, until now, has been very rarely used by individuals. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends Internet of Things: Following the development of an increasing number of devices connected to the Internet and the security issues arising from this new trend, the CNPD is paying close attention to the Internet of Things. In a publication in December 2014, the authority highlighted the risks to privacy, as well as the impact on the protection of personal data of data subjects and mentioned tools that can be used which will provide protection when using such devices. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Luxembourg Baker & McKenzie 435 Privacy by design: A current point of focus and discussion of actors in privacy matters is the question of privacy by design. This concept refers to a way of protecting privacy by embedding it into the design specifications of technologies, business practices, etc. and decreasing the risk of security as regards to the processing of personal data of users. Following this approach, data protection safeguards should be built into products and services from the earliest stage of development. This issue has notably been addressed by the European Commission in their proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation. 3. Law Applicable The applicable law is the law of August 2, 2002, as amended, on the Protection of Persons with regard to the Processing of Personal Data (“Law of 2002”). Further data protection provisions are contained in legislation regulating specific sectors such as the law of July 28, 2011 amending the law of May 30, 2005 concerning the protection of privacy in the electronic communication sector. 4. Key Privacy Concepts a. Personal Data The Law of 2002 applies to any information (“Personal Data”) of any type regardless of the type of medium, including sound and image, relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (“Data Subject”). Natural persons will be considered to be identifiable if they can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or one or more factors specific to their physical, physiological, genetic, mental, cultural, social, or economic identity. b. Data Processing “Processing” is widely defined and covers any operation or set of operations performed on Personal Data, whether or not by operated means, such as the collection, recording, organization, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, as well as blocking, erasure or destruction of Personal Data. c. Processing by Data Controllers The Law of 2002 applies to a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body other than the Data Subject which, solely or jointly, determines the purposes and methods of processing Personal Data (“Data Controller”). 436 Baker & McKenzie d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The Law of 2002 only applies: • if the Data Controller is established in the territory of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; or • if the Data Controller is not established in Luxembourg nor in another EU member State, but involves “equipment of processing” based in Luxembourg territory, apart from equipment that is used only for the purposes of transit through the said territory. e. Sensitive Personal Data As a principle, the processing of sensitive Personal Data - that is, data relating to racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, trade union membership, religious or philosophical beliefs, or health or sexual life is prohibited. However, the Law of 2002 provides a list of exceptions to this prohibition. Sensitive Personal Data may be processed if: • the Data Subject has given his/her express (i.e., written) consent subject to certain restrictions; • the processing is necessary for the purpose of carrying out the obligations and specific rights of the Data Controller in the field of employment law in so far as it is authorized by law; • the processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the Data Subject or another person, where the Data Subject is physically or legally incapable of giving consent; • processing is carried out with the consent of the Data Subject by a foundation, association or any other non-profit-seeking body with a political, philosophical, religious or trade union aim in the course of its legitimate activities and on condition that the processing relates to the necessary data solely of members of that body or to persons who have regular contact with it in connection with its purposes and that the data is not disclosed to third parties without the consent of the Data Subject; • the processing relates to data that have been clearly made public by the Data Subject; • the processing is necessary to acknowledge, exercise or defend a right at law; • the processing is necessary in the public interest for historical, statistical or scientific reasons; • the processing is implemented via a specific Luxembourg regulation, such as the processing of operations relating to State security, defense and public safety; or, Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Luxembourg Baker & McKenzie 437 • the processing is implemented in the context of the processing of legal data; i.e., the processing of data for the purpose of criminal investigations and legal proceedings and data related to offenses, criminal convictions or security measures. There are specific additional requirements in relation to the processing of genetic data and the processing of specific categories of data by healthrelated services. f. Employee Personal Data The Law of 2002 does not provide for specific rules regarding employee Personal Data. When such data is likely to include Sensitive Personal Data (e.g., healthrelated information), the data may be processed in the circumstances mentioned in Section 4(e) above and, in particular, for the purpose of carrying out the Data Controller’s obligations under employment law. 5. Consent a. General Consent of the Data Subject is not specifically required by Luxembourg law. It is, however, considered as a justification for the collection, processing and use of Personal Data. Written consent is not required, except for Sensitive Data. When a Data Subject gives consent, it is understood to only cover the identified purpose(s). Fresh consent is required for purposes that have not been previously identified and consented to. In addition, a Data Subject has the right to withdraw consent at any time in given circumstances. b. Sensitive Data Where consent is relied upon to justify the processing of Sensitive Personal Data, it must be explicit and must be either written or obtained by a doubleclick, if consent is given over the Internet. c. Minors Minors under the age of 18 cannot give valid consent. The consent of a parent or guardian is required on their behalf. Further, the parent or guardian has the right to be informed of the collection of information and to access and rectify the Personal Data. d. Employee Consent While consent of employees is not specifically required by Luxembourg Law, the Article 29 Working Party has produced an opinion on the processing of Personal Data in the employment context which states that it is not appropriate for an employer to try to rely on an employee’s consent as it is unlikely to be freely given. 438 Baker & McKenzie The CNPD has raised doubts as to whether consent given in the context of an employment relationship can be considered valid. There is a risk that the employee may feel forced to consent. e. Online/Electronic Consent In the case of non-sensitive Personal Data, consent may be given electronically, and will be considered to have been properly demonstrated where it can be shown that the Data Subject had sufficient notice of the requisite information forming the basis of consent (e.g., inclusion of a notice or policy in a box directly above a consent button) and steps have been taken to prevent consent from being mistakenly given (e.g., a double click acceptance process). Where written consent is required by law (e.g., regarding Sensitive Data), further requirements need to be met. 6. Notice Requirements An organization that collects Personal Data must provide Data Subjects with information about: the organization’s identity; the types of Personal Data being collected; the purposes for collecting Personal Data; its privacy practices (which must be provided in a clear and transparent way); third parties to which the organization will disclose the Personal Data; the consequences of not giving consent; the rights of the Data Subject; where the Personal Data is to be transferred; where the Personal Data is to be stored; how to contact the privacy officer or other person who is accountable for the organization’s policies and practices; how to make an inquiry or file a complaint; and how to access and/or correct the Data Subject’s Personal Data. 7. Processing Rules An organization that processes Personal Data must: limit the use of the Personal Data to only those activities which are necessary to fulfill the identified purpose(s) for which the Personal Data was collected, and delete/anonymize Personal Data once the stated purposes have been fulfilled and legal obligations met. 8. Rights of Individuals Data Subjects have the general right to: be informed by an organization of the Personal Data the organization holds about the Data Subject and of how the Data Subject’s Personal Data is being processed; access the Data Subject’s Personal Data subject to some restrictions and/or qualifications; request the correction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data; and request the deletion and/or destruction of the Data Subject’s Personal Data. 9. Registration/Notification Requirements Data Controllers must notify the CNPD prior to the processing of Personal Data. The Law of 2002 provides for a list of cases where the Data Controller is exempt from the notification requirement. The exemption mainly applies to the Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Luxembourg Baker & McKenzie 439 processing of data concerning employees wages and/or payroll, as well as clientele management, bookkeeping, and the administration of shareholders. 10. Data Protection Officers The appointment of a data protection officer is possible but is not mandatory. Should a data protection officer be designated by the Data Controller, specific formalities defined by the Law of 2002 will apply. There is no requirement for such officer to be located in Luxembourg. 11. International Data Transfers Transfers of Personal Data from Luxembourg to EEA Member States are generally permitted without the need for further approval. The same applies to transfers to Andorra, Australia, Faeroe Islands, Switzerland, Israel, Jersey, Guernsey, Argentina, the Isle of Man, and Canada. Data from the EEA may only be freely sent to the United States to companies which have voluntarily adhered to the Safe Harbor arrangement. The Data Controller may transfer the Personal Data to a state not offering a sufficient level of protection of privacy in the following cases: • the Data Subject has given consent to the proposed transfer; • the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the Data Subject and the Data Controller are parties or which has been concluded in the interest of the Data Subject between the Data Controller and a third party; • the transfer is necessary or legally required on important public interest grounds, or for the establishment, exercise or defense of a legal claim; • the transfer is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the Data Subject; or • the transfer occurs from a public register. According to the Article 29 Working Party, the above-mentioned conditions must be interpreted strictly. Without prejudice to the exceptions listed above, the transfer of Personal Data to a “non-safe” country is legal if it has been authorised beforehand by the CNPD. Such authorisation is granted only if the following conditions are met: • Initial processing of Personal Data complies with the Law of 2002: the initial processing of Personal Data has to comply with the requirements related to the quality and security of the Personal Data processed, the legitimacy of the processing, and the information of the data subject; and 440 Baker & McKenzie • Contractual clauses: the CNPD’s authorization to transfer the Personal Data to a “non-safe” country may be granted if the Data Controller offers sufficient guarantees in respect of the protection of privacy, freedoms and fundamental rights of the Data Subjects, as well as the exercise of the corresponding rights and that these guarantees may result from appropriate contractual clauses. The CNPD will always accept data transfer agreements incorporating the model contractual clauses approved by the European Commission for transfers from Data Controller to Data Controller or from Data Controller to data processor. Alternatively, another form of securing the transfer of Personal Data within the same corporate group consists in applying binding corporate rules (“BCR”) with which any organization of the group will need to comply. The general rules concerning the legality of processing must always be fulfilled. 12. Security Requirements Organizations are required to take steps to ensure that Personal Data in its possession and control are protected from unauthorized access and use; implement appropriate physical, technical and organization security safeguards to protect Personal Data, and ensure that the level of security is in line with the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the Personal Data involved. 13. Special Rules for Outsourcing of Data Processing to Third Parties According to the Law of 2002, any processing carried out on another’s behalf must be governed by a written contract (data processing agreement) or legal instrument binding the data processor to the Data Controller and providing in particular that: • the Data Processor will act only on instructions from the Data Controller, and • the Data Processor has the obligation to implement adequate appropriate technical and organizational measures. 14. Enforcement and Sanctions Failure to comply with data privacy laws can result in complaints, data authority investigations/audits, data authority orders, administrative fines, penalties or sanctions, seizure of equipment or data, civil actions, criminal proceedings and/or private rights of action. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Luxembourg Baker & McKenzie 441 15. Data Security Breach There is no legal obligation to notify data security breaches under the Law of 2002. The Data Controller could, however, always decide, depending on the importance of the breach, to inform the authority or the affected individual on a voluntary and purely informative basis, based on an internal management decision and not as a consequence of a legal requirement. The only existing obligations to provide notice of a breach of security is in the sector of electronic communications and networks. A specific form allowing a Data Controller to notify of data security breaches is available on the website of the National Commission for Data Protection. An organization that is involved in a data breach situation may be subject to closure or cancellation of the file, register or database, an administrative fine, penalty or sanction, or civil actions and/or class actions. 16. Accountability There is currently no law/regulation/guidance materials in Luxembourg that mandates organizations to conduct privacy impact assessments prior to the implementation of new information systems and/or technologies for the processing of Personal Data. 17. Whistle-blower hotline The Law of 2002 is silent with respect to whistle-blower hotlines. On 11 May 2009, the CNPD published on its website, a “thematic file” on the issue and indicated that their position is in line with the Opinion WP 117 issued by the Article 29 Working party on 1 February 2006. Nevertheless, a whistle-blowing system has to be notified to the CNPD beforehand. Should the system imply the permanent monitoring of employees by technical instruments, the filing of a prior authorization is also needed. 18. E-discovery An organization implementing an e-discovery system is not required to obtain the consent of employees even if the collection of Personal Data is involved. The organization is also not mandated to advise employees of the implementation of an e-discovery system, the monitoring of work tools, and the storage of information. 19. Anti-Spam Filtering When implementing an anti-spam filter solution into its operations, an organization is required to inform employees of monitoring policies being implemented in the workplace. Spam-filtering solutions will need to comply with applicable data protection laws. A notification will need to be filed before 442 Baker & McKenzie the CNPD. Additionally, the storage and access to location and traffic data must be performed in compliance with the Law of 2011. 20. Cookies There are specific laws/rules that regulate the deployment of cookies; and hence, the use of cookies must comply with data privacy laws. Consent of Data Subjects must be obtained before cookies can be used. 21. Direct Marketing An organization that plans to engage in direct marketing activities with a Data Subject is required to obtain the Data Subject’s prior consent, which cannot be inferred from a Data Subject’s failure to respond. An organization must obtain consent for a specific activity. Bundled consent is not considered valid consent. Malaysia Woo Wei Kwang Kuala Lumpur Tel: +603 2298 7898 weikwang.woo@wongpartners.com Ken Boon Low Kuala Lumpur Tel: +603 2298 7988 kenboon.low@wongpartners.com Shameen Mohd. Haaziq Pillay Kuala Lumpur Tel: +603 2298 7943 shameen.mohd.haaziqpillay@wongpartners.com 444 Baker & McKenzie 1. Recent Privacy Developments The Malaysian Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (“PDPA”) came into force on November 15, 2013 together with various regulations. These are the Personal Data Protection Regulations 2013 (“Regulations”), Personal Data Protection (Class of Data Users) Order 2013, Personal Data Protection (Fees) Regulations 2013, and the Personal Data Protection (Registration of Data User) Regulations 2013. Prior to the coming into force of the PDPA, information of a personal nature was protected only as confidential information through sectoral secrecy obligations, contractual obligations or the common law. The PDPA seeks to govern the previously unregulated area of personal data processing by data users in the context of commercial transactions, and to provide safeguards for data subjects such as consumers, employees and e-commerce users. “Commercial transactions” are defined broadly to encompass transactions of a commercial nature, whether contractual or not, and include matters relating to the supply or exchange of goods and services, agency, investment, financing, banking and insurance. There was a 3-month transitional period for compliance in respect of Personal Data collected prior to the PDPA coming into force. The PDPA is a Code of Practice (“Code”)-based regime, but no Codes have thus far been introduced. 2. Emerging Privacy Issues and Trends (a) Codes, with the force of law under the PDPA have yet to be issued. (b) The Codes are expected to formally clarify the following issues among others: (i) how data subject consent, which must be recorded and maintained properly by the data user, may be implied and generally obtained and in what situations; (ii) clarification on the exemption from obtaining data subject consent where the processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party to; (iii) similarly, clarification on the exclusion for personal data processed in the course of “discharging regulatory functions”; (c) Detailed standards are expected to be issued relating to compliance with the Security, Retention and Data Integrity Principles. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Malaysia Baker & McKenzie 445 (d) At present, the Personal Data Protection Commissioner (“Commissioner”) has not made any official announcements, but we would expect the following issues to be dealt with as data users and data subjects become more familiar with the concept of personal data privacy: (i) employee monitoring; (ii) implied data subject consent; (iii) retaining or otherwise processing the information stored within the data subject’s national identification card; and (iv) clarification on personal data contained in business cards. The PDPA has no business information-related exceptions. 3. Law Applicable The PDPA, which came into force on November 15, 2013 together with various regulations. These are: the Personal Data Protection Regulations 2013, Personal Data Protection (Class of Data Users) Order 2013, Personal Data Protection (Fees) Regulations 2013, and the Personal Data Protection (Registration of Data User) Regulations 2013. 4. Key Privacy Concepts The PDPA sets out a broad framework for the protection of personal data. The scope and application of the PDPA will be fleshed out through Codes. a. Personal Data Under the PDPA, “personal data” means any information in respect of commercial transactions which: • is being processed wholly or partly by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose; • is being recorded with the intention that it should wholly or partly be processed by means of such equipment; or • is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system; and that relates directly or indirectly to a data subject, who is identified or identifiable from that information or from that and other information in the possession of a data user, including any sensitive personal data and expressions of opinion about the data subject; but does not include any information that is processed for the purpose of a credit reporting business carried on by a credit reporting agency under the Credit Reporting Agencies Act 2010. 446 Baker & McKenzie There are seven data protection principles which form the basis of protection of Personal Data under the PDPA. The principles are as follows: • General Principle; • Notice and Choice Principle; • Disclosure Principle; • Security Principle; • Retention Principle; • Data Integrity Principle; and • Access Principle. b. Data Processing The scope of the PDPA extends to personal data that is recorded in a form which may practically be processed by any automatic means or otherwise, including both electronic and manual processing. If the information is not recorded (e.g., in oral form or manual unconsolidated data), it will be excluded from the scope of the PDPA. “Processing” is defined under the PDPA as collecting, recording, holding or storing the personal data or carrying out any operation or set of operations on the personal data, including the: • organization, adaptation or alteration of personal data; • retrieval, consultation or use of personal data; • disclosure of personal data by transmission, transfer, dissemination or otherwise making available; or • alignment, combination, correction, erasure or destruction of personal data. c. Processing by Data Processors The PDPA defines a “data user” as a person who either alone or jointly or in common with other persons processes any personal data or has control over or authorizes the processing of any personal data, but does not include a data processor. Note that a person who merely collects, holds, processes or uses personal data solely on behalf of another person, and not for any of his own purposes may be construed as “data processor” under the PDPA. There are different requirements applicable to ensure that the personal data processed by data processors is protected. Baker & McKenzie’s Global Privacy Handbook – Malaysia Baker & McKenzie 447 d. Jurisdiction/Territoriality The scope of