Cross-Border Data Transfers

Subscribe to Cross-Border Data Transfers via RSS

The Belgian Data Protection Authority recently ruled that a Belgian government entity, FPS Finance, cannot transfer the personal data of “accidental Americans” to the IRS. According to the decision, the transfers needed to cease for several reasons.Continue Reading Belgian DPA Finds Certain Tax Information Transfers to IRS Unlawful

The Federal Trade Commission recently settled complaints against two data brokers over their handling of consumers’ sensitive location information. The agency alleged that such practices constitute unfair practices. Under the settlement, both Gravy Analytics and Mobilewalla, agreed to stop using and selling sensitive consumer location data.Continue Reading FTC Keeps Sights on Data Brokers that Sell Sensitive Location Sites

Verkada, a manufacturer and retailer of security cameras, has settled FTC accusations of lax security measures. The company sells its products to businesses, including schools and medical facilities. It markets its products as “plug and play:” the cameras connect to the cloud and allow customers’ remote access into both live and archived video footage. Among other features, the cameras have a “people analytics” tool that lets users “search images through facial recognition or face-matching technology.” A review of the settlement raises many reminders for companies about (1) security claims in privacy policies and marketing, (2) remediation concerns following a breach, (3) adherence to the Privacy Shield, and (4) a reminder about related (and often overlooked) laws like CAN-SPAM.Continue Reading Camera Company Will Pay $2.95 Million to Settle Security Claims

As more and more states enact laws that mirror aspects of GDPR, and as companies begin to get used to the EU’s new standard contractual clauses, now may be a good opportunity for a refresh on data sharing agreements. As most in the privacy space are well aware, the laws in many states -and countries- call for certain oversight in these situations. And many require specific content to be included in contracts. What might you want to include in your contract roadmap?Continue Reading DPA 101: Do You Know Where Your Data Is?

This month the EDPB shed light on the question of lead supervisory authorities. The issue arose in response to a question late last month from the French supervisory authority. Some background. As most international organizations are aware, GDPR provides for a “lead” supervisory authority where companies have their “main establishment” in that location. In the event, for example, if an investigation into a company’s violation of a particular provision of GDPR, the lead supervisory authority would be the sole authority to pursue the problem. This question can also come up when companies are trying to determine what authority to notify of a data breach. Without a lead supervisory authority, all supervisory authorities where there are data subjects would be able to participate.Continue Reading EDPB Provides Guidance on Determining Primary Supervisory Authority

Beginning today, the UK adequacy decision for US data protection measures goes into effect. As a result, UK companies can transfer personal information to entities in the US that are participants in the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF). As part of the decision, the UK Secretary of State will review the ongoing sufficiency of the DPF every four years. The ICO, in supporting the decision, suggested that the UK Secretary of State look at specific factors when reassessing the program. These include the risk to UK data subjects for automated decision making and right to be forgotten.Continue Reading No Need to Mind the Gap – UK Extension is a Data Bridge for US-UK Data Transfers

Now that the EU has adopted its adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF), many companies are assessing whether participation makes sense. Participation by a US entity is a mechanism -but not the only mechanism- for two parties (one EU and one US) to transfer personal data from the EU to the US. Other transfer methods include Binding Corporate Rules or Standard Contractual Clauses. As we wrote recently, when the EU determined that the program was “adequate,” it noted that the safeguards developed by the US for the DPF applied to all methods of transfer. In other words, for BCRs or SCCs.Continue Reading Considerations for Participation in the EU-US Data Privacy Framework

The EU Commission adopted today an adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework. As we indicated last month, this has been an area closely watched by those transferring data from the EU to the US. The issue has been a contentious one. Concerns in particular have been raised on the EU side regarding US surveillance agencies’ ability to access non-US individuals’ personal information. These concerns led to the downfall of both of the Framework’s predecessors: Safe Harbor and Privacy Shield. Continue Reading EU Adopts Adequacy Decision for EU-US Data Privacy Framework

As those in the privacy world await the outcome of the EU-US privacy framework negotiations, the EDPB was in the news recently for a different mechanism for data transfers: Binding Corporate Rules. Namely, it adopted recommended standard forms for BCR applications by controllers and recommendations for the application process.Continue Reading EDPB Adopts Binding Corporate Rules Recommendations