This article is based on a presentation made by Steven Klimt, a partner in the Sydney office of Clayton Utz during the Data Privacy Asia 2016 conference held on 9-11 November 2016. It outlines the new mandatory data breach reporting legislation, how Australian privacy regulation impacts Big Data and the differences between Australian Privacy legislation and the proposed EU GDPR.
Data Protection
Certain types of personal data are very valuable to criminals, and can be very damaging to an individual or business if it falls into the wrong hands. As the world becomes more digital and more connected, more of this sort of data is generated and passed between various sources on a regular basis.
Government regulations and supervisory authorities aren’t just about keeping irresponsible parties in line. They also provide vital security guidance to every type of organization that handles sensitive personal, business or government information.
Data protection regulations also ensure that the end user has a transparent view of and a say in the processing of personal data. These safeguards play a significant role in everything from the preservation of civil rights to ensuring that democratic institutions function properly.
Some types of personal data are clear candidates for regulation: medical records, banking information, national ID numbers and so on. But some of these regulations also cover items that might seem relatively innocuous at first glance: home addresses, email addresses, website profile information and so on. For example, the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has stipulations about anything that is unique to an individual to include phone numbers and social media accounts. People have varying levels of privacy preference with these items, but they are often protected by regulation because they can be used for targeted scams and attempts at identity theft.
Given that regulations often take the size and customer count of businesses into consideration in terms of penalties and the scope of protection of personal data, compliance is particularly important for enterprise-scale organizations. You do not necessarily have to have an active business presence in a country or region; simply storing data on or moving it through servers there may subject you to their data protection rules.
An agreement in principle on two consumer privacy suits brought by the Texas Attorney General's office would settle the complaints for a total of $1.375 billion. The suits broadly involve surreptitious tracking of users via several methods and products in recent years, including alleged undisclosed company use of biometrics.
According to a new survey conducted by the IAPP and EY, Global 500 companies will spend a combined $7.8 billion over the next year on GDPR compliance. Those escalating compliance costs will mostly result from new hiring, as corporations race to catch up with changes to privacy laws.
A new report gave almost half of the 14 states that have laws on the books a failing grade and notes that industry lobbying influence on state data privacy laws has been very strong. California is the only state with a model that was not originally drafted by a big tech outfit.
Proposed privacy bill will establish a new federal Data Protection Agency responsible for creating national privacy rules and have broad enforcement powers by way of fines and civil penalties.
Recent ruling by the CJEU has given the region's data protection authorities a much greater ability to pursue cases against Big Tech companies that are not headquartered in their territory.
CCPA enforcement is set to get underway in July, understanding your company’s obligations under the law and using the right technology can help you achieve regulatory compliance.
25th May 2018 marked the implementation of the GDPR. However, many organizations outside Europe are not aware that a Nominated European Representative is required under certain conditions in GDPR Article 27.
The FTC investigation's specific concern with the Musk era is that the company is retaining adequate resources to fund and staff the privacy practices it remains obligated to in a 2011 FTC settlement.
A decision has found GDPR violations in the TCF consent management systems widely used by ad networks, ruling that the process is not adequately transparent to data subjects and does not inform them or secure their data properly.










