#UK GDPR transfer arrangements
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
Data transfers based on the old EU SCC’s must be replaced before 21 March 2024
In February 2022, the UK introduced the International Data Transfer Agreement (IDTA) and the UK Addendum to the European Commission’s new standard contractual clauses (new EU SCCs). These documents, essential for data protection in the post-Brexit era, are designed to ensure that personal data transfers from the UK to countries not covered by the UK’s adequacy regulations comply with the UK…
View On WordPress
#Brexit#data processing agreement#Data protection#data transfer#EU standard contractual clauses#GDPR Article 46#ICO revisions#ICO UK GDPR guide#International Data Transfer Agreement#multinational organisations#new EU SCCs#processor requirements#restricted transfer#Schrems II#supplementary measures#Transfer Risk Assessment#UK Addendum#UK adequacy decisions#UK adequacy regulations#UK GDPR#UK GDPR transfer arrangements#UK-based organisations#valid SCCs
0 notes
Text
UK International Data Transfer Agreement and the Implications
On 2 February 2022, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) submitted revisions to Parliament concerning restricted international personal data transfers. These changes, involving the international data transfer agreement (IDTA) and the UK Addendum to the European Commission's standard contractual clauses (SCCs), represent a crucial step towards facilitating compliant restricted transfers of personal data in accordance with the GDPR principles in the UK.
Background:
Following the EU referendum, the GDPR was adopted as UK law through the Data Protection Act (2018), with the relevant sections for individuals in the UK referred to as the "UK GDPR." The UK officially left the EU on 31 January 2020 and underwent a transition period until 31 December 2020.
In order to ensure GDPR compliance, during the transition period, the ICO permitted temporary reliance on the EU provisions, namely the EU SCCs, for restricted transfers of personal data outside the UK. Subsequently, in June 2021, the EU introduced updated SCCs, which have been adopted by numerous organisations.
However, these revised SCCs were not directly integrated into the UK GDPR. Instead, the ICO devised its own framework for personal data transfers, which includes an assessment mechanism to ascertain whether the recipient country (referred to as the "data importer") provides an adequate level of protection for individuals' rights concerning their personal data in a third country that is neither the UK nor an EU Member State.
Reason for the Changes:
On 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a ruling known as Schrems II, which assessed the adequacy of previous safeguards for personal data transfers to the United States and other third countries outside the EU, including the EU-US Privacy Shield and the previous EU SCCs. As a result, the Privacy Shield was deemed unlawful, and the EU SCCs were swiftly updated with supplementary arrangements. This ruling compelled organizations in the UK and EU to carefully consider their arrangements for making restricted transfers, not only to the USA but to any third country lacking an adequacy decision.
According to the ICO, a transfer is considered restricted if:
The personal data being transferred is subject to the UK GDPR.
The data exporter is transmitting or providing access to the data to a data receiver/importer not subject to the UK GDPR.
The importer is a separate organization or individual, including another organization within the same corporate group.
What's Changing:
Starting from 21 September 2022, organizations processing UK personal data must use the IDTA or the UK Addendum when entering into new transfer arrangements governed by the UK GDPR. Additionally, any existing arrangements for transferring data out of the UK based on the previous EU SCCs must be replaced by 21 March 2024.
EU-based organizations must transition their data transfer arrangements to the new EU SCCs by 27 December 2022, which is a shorter timeframe.
It is important to note that the IDTA and UK Addendum are solely intended to legitimise restricted international transfers and do not include the controller-to-processor clauses defined in the UK GDPR and EU GDPR Article 28. These clauses must be incorporated into a separate commercial agreement or contract governing the processing, as referenced within the IDTA.
Implications and Next Steps:
Review and update intracompany agreements: Any transfer agreements within your organisation, such as those between UK and US entities, should be reviewed and revised to utilise either the IDTA or the new (2021) EU SCCs and UK Addendum.
Conduct or review personal data transfer risk assessments: Evaluate any existing or potential new restricted transfers by conducting transfer risk assessments (TRAs).
Review data sharing agreements with suppliers: Assess agreements with suppliers to determine if SCCs are already included or should be incorporated into data sharing agreements. If necessary, update the agreements to include either the IDTA or the new EU SCCs and UK Addendum.
Implement a policy for law enforcement requests: Develop a policy on how your organisation (or suppliers) will respond to requests for the disclosure of personal data from jurisdictions where law enforcement can issue subpoenas or warrants.
If you’re looking for support in achieving compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation and then maintaining it, GDPR consultants can provide you with a range of services.
1 note
·
View note
Video
youtube
buy an essay
About me
Buy Essay Uk
Buy Essay Uk (See, for instance, elements of the GDPR.) Sometimes regulatory agencies can be extra agile. The courts also can iterate policy, but it’s slower. A certain AI robotic called GPT-3 which is OpenAI's very own highly effective new language generator, was tasked to really write an essay from scratch and the results are more than stunning. The project was to persuade folks that robots do in reality are available peace. You must also know that there are numerous techniques of paying back the loan, so you must choose the most effective one for you. We had been joined by Jack Macnamara, who’d been an organizing pressure within the Contract Buyers League when it was founded, in 1968. Our gathering had the feel of a reunion, as a result of the author James Alan McPherson had profiled the Contract Buyers League for The Atlantic back in 1972. I asked Biss about something she had mentioned, that she feels a tinge of disappointment whenever considered one of her more provocative essays fails to generate indignant pushback. Find out what essayshark can do for you with this interactive tour. layers zero ideas Yahoo News zero concepts Web Hosting four however we're professional in Sumerian architecture? This is something that you are able to do your self, or you are able to use a creditor to get it done for you. When you buy time period paper, you are buying the capability to make the most of the paper to get a set number of years. You’ll be dedicated to utilizing the similar newspaper whenever you buy it, and if you do not you’ll need to pay further for buying paper. The more time you compose the paper, the more cash you’re likely to make in your individual career. It’s unclear why Krug decided to write and publish her essay. Twitter customers, who included individuals claiming to know Krug, have theories — along with reactions to the information. In her essay, Krug mentioned that she’s been battling “unaddressed psychological health demons” for many of her life and began assuming a false identity as a baby. International commerce is the exchange of goods and services throughout national borders. Currency was launched as standardised money to facilitate a wider trade of goods and companies. This first stage of forex, where metals have been used to characterize saved worth, and symbols to represent commodities, formed the idea of commerce in the Fertile Crescent for over 1500 years. Today, trade is merely a subset within a posh system of firms which try to maximize their income by offering services and products to the market at the lowest manufacturing cost. The European Union became the world's largest exporter of manufactured items and services, the biggest export marketplace for round eighty nations. Mattie Lewis got here to Chicago from her native Alabama within the mid-’40s, when she was 21, persuaded by a pal who told her she may get a job as a hairdresser. Instead she was employed by Western Electric, where she worked for 41 years. I met Lewis in the home of her neighbor Ethel Weatherspoon. Both had owned properties in North Lawndale for greater than 50 years. On a real per capita basis, doubling from the 1978 base happened in 1987, 1996 and 2006. By 2008, the economic system was sixteen.7 occasions the dimensions it was in 1978, and 12.1 occasions its earlier per capita ranges. International commerce progressed much more quickly, doubling on common every four.5 years. Total two-method trade in January 1998 exceeded that for all of 1978; in the first quarter of 2009, trade exceeded the total-yr 1998 degree. In 2008, China's two-way trade totaled US$2.56 trillion. Trade includes the transfer of goods or services from one individual or entity to a different, often in exchange for cash. Economists refer to a system or community that allows trade as a market. Billy Brooks, who assisted the Contract Buyers League, still works in the neighborhood, serving to youngsters escape poverty and violence. “All that it will take to sink a new WPA program can be some skillfully packaged footage of black men leaning on shovels smoking cigarettes,” the sociologist Douglas S. Massey writes. The lie ignores the truth that decreasing American poverty and ending white supremacy aren't the identical. As you buy term paper, you should be conscious of how a lot you'll be able to afford to spend and arrange yourself to obtain the most affordable charges. When you buy time period paper, you’ll be able to find wonderful charges and also you’re going to get the papers on the net. The capacity to generate a small purchase on-line is something that you may use daily and there’s no commission. With the growth of several on-line purchasing sites, it’s changing into potential to make use of for more than one loan via them all at one time. In most nations, it represents a big part of GDP. The reforms proved spectacularly profitable when it comes to increased output, selection, high quality, price and demand. In real phrases, the economy doubled in size between 1978 and 1986, doubled once more by 1994, and once more by 2003.
0 notes
Text
Gdpr: an action plan for corporations and marketers
You'll no question be aware of the gdpr, or preferred records protection law, which comes into force on 25 may 2020. This newsletter in brief explains what your business and your advertising and marketing team need to do before and after that date to grow to be compliant. What you need to consider about the gdpr the gdpr is an eu regulation but will remain Digital Marketing Company in Bristol relevant to united kingdom based totally organizations after brexit because of the united kingdom’s incoming statistics protection act 2020. The gdpr will limit how corporations can deal with non-public statistics; that is records that can be used to pick out people. It does not limit commercial enterprise-to-enterprise facts managing. The gdpr uses a few unique terminology. Facts processing refers to nearly any handling of personal information. A records processor consists of out the processing. A information controller determines how private statistics can be processed. A data situation is someone identifiable via non-public statistics. Your commercial enterprise is probable to be each a records controller and a statistics processor. Non-public records could be required to be processed in accordance with 6 standards. Summarising these ideas, records ought to:
be processed lawfully, pretty and transparently
be accrued for exact, explicit and legitimate functions
be adequate, relevant and limited to what's essential
be accurate and up to date
allow the identity of data subjects for not than essential
be processed with appropriate security features
statistics subjects will also be given some of rights. Those consist of rights to information, get admission to, rectification, erasure and portability. What this all way in practice will be mentioned below. Failure to conform with the gdpr could result in your business being fined as much as the extra of €20 million or 4% of your commercial enterprise’ worldwide annual sales. Compliance with the gdpr could be enforced via the data commissioner’s workplace (ico) inside the uk. What your commercial enterprise needs to do before 25 can also 2020
there are 5 steps which your enterprise should take previous to the gdpr getting into pressure. 1) assessment your statistics
compliance with the standards above ought to be documented, consequently the first step any business must take closer to compliance is to discover all the private data it techniques. This could range from the gathering and storage of personal facts in worker information to the usage of consumer email addresses to carry out advertising campaigns. This identification system ought to result in a map, which suggests how facts flows in to and out of your business. The map need to detail what statistics is held, from wherein it changed into accrued, with whom it's far shared, and what is carried out with it. 2) make certain that each one processing is lawful
Read Also:- Now Gmail is offering you the “Meet” option, what is it?
having recognized what processing sports your enterprise undertakes, you ought to make sure that each pastime is lawful. To be lawful, processing have to generally be undertaken both following consent, be important as part of a contractual association, or be important for your agencies’ legitimate pursuits. Consent
maximum normally, consent will be required before processing can take location. Consent must be actively given and cannot be assumed. Statistics subjects have to recognise what they're consenting to in simple phrases, and consent must be received separately to an acceptance of other phrases. Your commercial enterprise should file this consent, in addition to how and while consent become acquired. Consent may be withdrawn through a facts concern at any time. Consent must be acquired in accordance with the gdpr prior to 25 may also 2020 to make certain that information processing may additionally retain beyond that date. Contractual preparations
an instance of a contractual arrangement displacing the need for consent would be the use of a cookie to tune merchandise delivered to a purchasing basket previous to purchase. As shopping cart information processing is necessary within the lead-as much as an ecommerce contract, consent is not required. Legitimate interests
a legitimate hobby can be used as a lawful foundation for processing wherein processing is necessary to achieve that hobby and that interest is not overridden by people’ interests. Processing justified in this basis ought to handiest take vicinity if individuals might reasonably anticipate the processing to take vicinity, and there may be a minimal impact on their privateness. 1/3 celebration information processors
if your employer outsources any facts processing activities, you're chargeable for ensuring the processor’s gdpr compliance on the subject of the processing. As an instance, impact, as a information controller, outsources lots of its hr features to charliehr, a web platform appearing as a statistics processor with regards to employees’ private statistics. To help make sure that this outsourcing is gdpr compliant, impression must have a written agreement with charliehr, and charliehr must handiest manner according with the instructions in that agreement. Because the gdpr prohibits the transfer of personal information outside of the european until strict protections are in place inside the destination territory, impact ought to also make certain that charliehr shops impression’s personal information in the ecu. As it does, affect want not find an opportunity provider. 3) revise privateness notices
all privacy notices, such as inner notices and public going through notices, along with internet site privateness guidelines, must be up to date to make sure that the subsequent facts is present:
your commercial enterprise’ identity
how non-public records will be used
the lawful basis for each processing interest (inclusive of consent or a contractual association)
how lengthy personal information may be retained
that the records challenge can also bitch to the ico
notices have to be concise, obvious, intelligible, free and easy to get right of entry to. Legal jargon should now not be present. Four) put together for records topics’ new rights
as previously suggested, statistics topics are given a ramification of recent rights below the gdpr. Information topics may request a copy of all records held approximately them; request that records is rectified, or request that information hung on them is deleted. Difficulty access requests ought to be replied to within 1 month and can be rejected with motives and facts about the information concern’s proper to complain. Template responses ought to be organized to facilitate these requests. It need to additionally be taken into consideration how records access and portability requests can be dealt with. As an example, it need to be taken into consideration in what layout customer information may be sent. If the lawfulness of any processing is depending on consent, systems need to be installed area to facilitate records topics’ withdrawals of consent. Five) update internal tactics
the very last step to be taken prior to 25 might also 2020 is to put together internally for the gdpr. The subsequent documentation should be prepared:
a draft ico facts breach report
a draft data situation breach notification
a revised facts safety policy, commencing your commercial enterprise’ approach to facts safety
an statistics security coverage
data protection effect tests for any processing activities which pose a high threat to the rights and freedoms of records topics
statistics protection education materials
every commercial enterprise have to nominate someone responsible for gdpr compliance. An reliable facts protection officer have to be nominated if the business consists of out “regular and systematic monitoring of individuals on a big scale.” their obligations might be mentioned under. What your commercial enterprise desires to do after 25 may additionally 2020
as soon as the gdpr is in impact, businesses should ensure ongoing compliance. The law intends to encourage a culture of “statistics safety by way of design and default” at some point of agencies. There could be a standard obligation on agencies (statistics controllers and processors) to demonstrate that they're actively thinking about their facts processing sports. The targeted responsible individual or facts protection officer ought to be answerable for facilitating this tradition and education group of workers in compliance. Similarly to illustrating this ongoing consideration via reference to the 6 processing concepts, businesses will be required to do the subsequent. 1) control ongoing consent and facts subjects’ requests
agencies should respond to facts subjects taking flight their consent to processing activities or submitting the kind of request sorts inside their new rights. 2) report statistics breaches
any non-public data breach beneath the gdpr have to be said to ico inside seventy two hours if it's far possibly to bring about a chance to the rights and freedoms of information subjects. If there is a high chance to statistics subjects, the breach need to additionally be mentioned to the ones subjects with out undue delay. Three) carry out statistics protection effect assessments
if a proposed processing hobby is probable to result in a excessive risk of a private facts breach, consisting of wherein a brand new technology is getting used, or where the processing may be systematic and good sized, a information protection impact assessment have to be executed. This assessment ought to comprise an outline of the processing hobby; an assessment of necessity and proportionality when it comes to the reason of the processing; an assessment of the risks to statistics subjects, and an outline of the controls put in location to address the recognized risks. What entrepreneurs need to do
a large percentage of the private information held by using your enterprise will likely be non-public records collected for advertising functions. Entrepreneurs have to make sure that data held from 25 can also 2020 onwards become and is gathered in a gdpr compliant way. If consent is used as the lawful basis for a processing activity, consent should be obtained; records have to be controlled appropriately, and opt-out measures ought to be installed place. As an alternative, if other bases are used, people should be knowledgeable as a result. Right here are a few examples of ways marketers would possibly justify their processing sports. 1) gdpr and electronic mail advertising
most e mail advertising information regarding people is personal records. Marketers ought to ensure that names, email addresses and other personal data is accumulated, saved and used only after customers have actively consented to the entirety to be done with that non-public information. Users can simplest consent when they were told in simple terms how their non-public information will be used. Consent need to be recorded and choose-out options must usually be available. E-mail advertising carrier carriers must be checked to ensure that they're gdpr compliant information processors. Even though it may be feasible to rely upon a valid hobby basis to system records for the purpose of sending advertising emails, there may be additional legislation on this area (the soon-to-be-reformed privateness and digital communications regulations) which normally calls for consent to be supplied. 2) gdpr and google analytics
as google analytics collects private records which include cookies, ip addresses and user ids, it is in all likelihood that informed consent may be required earlier than google analytics can be used on websites from 25 may 2020. Google have said their statistics storage methods are gdpr compliant and will provide a way for website proprietors to get rid of precise units of facts, facilitating compliance with customers’ rights of erasure. If consent is used because the lawful foundation for processing, users must additionally be provided a way to choose-out of tracking at any time. If your enterprise makes use of google analytics for a particular motive inclusive of to recognize wherein internet site traffic come from and what they're seeking out, it may be viable to justify this processing on the idea of a legitimate hobby. It is anticipated that websites will song fundamental facts approximately their customers. The usage of a legitimate interest, in preference to consent, to justify this processing does not displace the need for acquiring ‘cookie consent’. Three) gdpr and social media marketing
further to the use of google analytics, using social networks’ tools past their very own websites may additionally require you to have consent and decide-out measures in area. However, as organizations have a valid interest in learning their traffic, furnished that traffic are knowledgeable about how their information may be used and can manage this use, focused advertising on both websites and social media have to be justifiable on the basis of a legitimate interest. Once again, consent to the usage of cookies will nevertheless be required. Four) gdpr, remarketing and marketing personalisation
the use of gathered statistics to personalise on-line content and advertising substances have to be justifiable on the basis of a legitimate hobby, although this could depend on the processing sports taking vicinity. If processing activities effect drastically at the rights of people or may not be moderately expected to take place, consent can be the most appropriate legal basis for the processing activities. Using visitors’ internet site analytics information to goal facebook advertisements may be justifiable on the idea of a legitimate hobby, but, the usage of email addresses amassed from order facts to goal specific customers might be more difficult to justify on the equal foundation and might require using consent as a legitimate basis. Conclusion
with the aid of carrying out the stairs mentioned above, your business must be in an awesome area whilst 25 might also 2020 arrives. Disclaimer: this newsletter represents the author’s interpretation of the gdpr and does no longer represent prison advice. It's miles recommended that Digital Marketing Agencies in Cambridge agencies are seeking for expert recommendation to assist with gdpr preparations. This text was final up to date on 4 april 2020. This text turned into ultimate updated 18 april 2020.
0 notes
Text
Data Protection Policy is a kind of security arrangement that means to configuration, actualize, guide, screen and oversee security over an association's information.
It principally targets verifying and ensuring sensible information put away, devoured, and oversaw by an association. This information can be put away inside the association center framework, offsite area or at an online/cloud administration. For further information please visit
The key target behind information insurance arrangement is guaranteeing the security and respectability of information very still and moving - paying little mind to its physical or legitimate area. The information insurance strategy will be intended to guarantee security over every one of the information stockpiling/expending area.
An extensive information security strategy incorporates:
• Scope of information security
• Data security strategy/arrangement at the granular level for example singular, office, gadget and additionally IT condition
• Legal necessities for information security
• Roles and obligations of information caretaker or staff that will guarantee information assurance
Approach components
As a feature of our activities, we have to acquire and process data. This data incorporates any disconnected or online information that makes an individual recognizable, for example, names, addresses, usernames and passwords, advanced impressions, photos, government managed savings numbers, monetary information and so forth.
youtube
Our organization gathers this data in a straightforward manner and just with the full collaboration and information on invested individuals. When this data is accessible to us, the accompanying principles apply.
Our information will be:
• Accurate and stayed up with the latest
• Collected decently and for legal purposes as it were
• Processed by the organization inside its lawful and good limits
• Protected against any unapproved or unlawful access by inner or outside gatherings
Our information won't be:
• Communicated casually
• Stored for in excess of a predetermined measure of time
• Transferred to associations, states or nations that don't have satisfactory information insurance strategies
• Distributed to any gathering other than the ones settled upon by the information's proprietor (absolving genuine solicitations from law requirement specialists)
Notwithstanding methods for dealing with the information the organization has direct commitments towards individuals to whom the information has a place. Explicitly we should:
• Let individuals know which of their information is gathered
• Inform individuals about how we'll process their information
• Inform individuals about who approaches their data
• Have arrangements in instances of lost, ruined or bargained information
• Allow individuals to demand that we change, eradicate, lessen or address information contained in our databases
The Data Protection Policy (the Policy) guarantees the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College) conforms to Data Protection Law, to be specific the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act (DPA) 2018. These set out the system for how the UK forms individual information:
• GDPR, enforceable in all EU part states from 25 May 2018, covers the vast majority of the legitimate commitments for preparing individual information in the UK
• DPA establishes GDPR and replaces the DPA 1998. It sets out:
o how other data rights enactment (for example Opportunity of Information Act 2000) interface with the new DPA and GDPR
o how individual information must be handled in the UK where it doesn't fall inside EU law, for example migration or national security matters
o local decides for the UK that supplement GDPR, for example extra estimates required for the preparing of exceptional classification individual information
o the Information Commissioner's Office's (ICO) job, capacities and forces.
0 notes
Text
Facebook agrees to pay UK data watchdog’s Cambridge Analytica fine but settles without admitting liability
Facebook has reached a settlement with the UK’s data protection watchdog, the ICO, agreeing to pay in full a £500,000 (~$643k) fine following the latter’s investigating into the Cambridge Analytica data misuse scandal.
As part of the arrangement Facebook has agreed to drop its legal appeal against the penalty. But under the terms of the settlement it has not admitted any liability in relation to paying the fine, which is the maximum possible monetary penalty under the applicable UK data protection law. (The Cambridge Analytica scandal predates Europe’s GDPR framework coming into force.)
Facebook’s appeal against the ICO’s penalty was focused on a claim that there was no evidence that U.K. Facebook users’ data had being mis-used by Cambridge Analytica .
But there’s a further twist here in that the company had secured a win, from a first tier legal tribunal — which held in June that “procedural fairness and allegations of bias” on the part of the ICO should be considered as part of its appeal.
The decision required the ICO to disclose materials relating to its decision-making process regarding the Facebook fine. The ICO, evidently less than keen for its emails to be trawled through, appealed last month. It’s now withdrawing the action as part of the settlement, Facebook having dropped its legal action.
In a statement laying out the bare bones of the settlement reached, the ICO writes: “The Commissioner considers that this agreement best serves the interests of all UK data subjects who are Facebook users. Both Facebook and the ICO are committed to continuing to work to ensure compliance with applicable data protection laws.”
An ICO spokeswoman did not respond to additional questions — telling us it does not have anything further to add than its public statement.
As part of the settlement, the ICO writes that Facebook is being allowed to retain some (unspecified) “documents” that the ICO had disclosed during the appeal process — to use for “other purposes”, including for furthering its own investigation into issues around Cambridge Analytica.
“Parts of this investigation had previously been put on hold at the ICO’s direction and can now resume,” the ICO adds.
Under the terms of the settlement the ICO and Facebook each pay their own legal costs. While the £500k fine is not kept by the ICO but paid to HM Treasury’s consolidated fund.
Commenting in a statement, deputy commissioner, James Dipple-Johnstone, said:
The ICO welcomes the agreement reached with Facebook for the withdrawal of their appeal against our Monetary Penalty Notice and agreement to pay the fine. The ICO’s main concern was that UK citizen data was exposed to a serious risk of harm. Protection of personal information and personal privacy is of fundamental importance, not only for the rights of individuals, but also as we now know, for the preservation of a strong democracy. We are pleased to hear that Facebook has taken, and will continue to take, significant steps to comply with the fundamental principles of data protection. With this strong commitment to protecting people’s personal information and privacy, we expect that Facebook will be able to move forward and learn from the events of this case.
In its own supporting statement, attached to the ICO’s remarks, Harry Kinmonth, director and associate general counsel at Facebook, added:
We are pleased to have reached a settlement with the ICO. As we have said before, we wish we had done more to investigate claims about Cambridge Analytica in 2015. We made major changes to our platform back then, significantly restricting the information which app developers could access. Protecting people’s information and privacy is a top priority for Facebook, and we are continuing to build new controls to help people protect and manage their information. The ICO has stated that it has not discovered evidence that the data of Facebook users in the EU was transferred to Cambridge Analytica by Dr Kogan. However, we look forward to continuing to cooperate with the ICO’s wider and ongoing investigation into the use of data analytics for political purposes.
A charitable interpretation of what’s gone on here is that both Facebook and the ICO have reached a stalemate where their interests are better served by taking a quick win that puts the issue to bed, rather than dragging on with legal appeals that might also have raised fresh embarrassments.
That’s quick wins in terms of PR (a paid fine for the ICO; and drawing a line under the issue for Facebook), as well as (potentially) useful data to further Facebook’s internal investigation of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
We don’t know exactly it’s getting from the ICO’s document stash. But we do know it’s facing a number of lawsuits and legal challenges over the scandal in the US.
The ICO announced its intention to fine Facebook over the Cambridge Analytica scandal just over a year ago.
In March 2018 it had raided the UK offices of the now defunct data company, after obtaining a warrant, taking away hard drives and computers for analysis. It had also earlier ordered Facebook to withdraw its own investigators from the company’s offices.
Speaking to a UK parliamentary committee a year ago the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, and deputy Dipple-Johnstone, discussed their (then) ongoing investigation of data seized from Cambridge Analytica — saying they believed the Facebook user data-set the company had misappropriated could have been passed to more entities than were publicly known.
The ICO said at that point it was looking into “about half a dozen” entities.
It also told the committee it had evidence that, even as recently as early 2018, Cambridge Analytica might have retained some of the Facebook data — despite having claimed it had deleted everything.
“The follow up was less than robust. And that’s one of the reasons that we fined Facebook £500,000,” Denham also said at the time.
Some of this evidence will likely be very useful for Facebook as it prepares to defend itself in legal challenges related to Cambridge Analytica. As well as aiding its claimed platform audit — when, in the wake of the scandal, Facebook said it would run a historical app audit and challenge all developers who it determined had downloaded large amounts of user data.
The audit, which it announced in March 2018, apparently remains ongoing.
Facebook denies making contradictory claims on Cambridge Analytica and other ‘sketchy’ apps
0 notes
Text
Facebook agrees to pay UK data watchdog’s Cambridge Analytica fine but settles without admitting liability
Facebook has reached a settlement with the UK’s data protection watchdog, the ICO, agreeing to pay in full a £500,000 (~$643k) fine following the latter’s investigating into the Cambridge Analytica data misuse scandal.
As part of the arrangement Facebook has agreed to drop its legal appeal against the penalty. But under the terms of the settlement it has not admitted any liability in relation to paying the fine, which is the maximum possible monetary penalty under the applicable UK data protection law. (The Cambridge Analytica scandal predates Europe’s GDPR framework coming into force.)
Facebook’s appeal against the ICO’s penalty was focused on a claim that there was no evidence that U.K. Facebook users’ data had being mis-used by Cambridge Analytica .
But there’s a further twist here in that the company had secured a win, from a first tier legal tribunal — which held in June that “procedural fairness and allegations of bias” on the part of the ICO should be considered as part of its appeal.
The decision required the ICO to disclose materials relating to its decision-making process regarding the Facebook fine. The ICO, evidently less than keen for its emails to be trawled through, appealed last month. It’s now withdrawing the action as part of the settlement, Facebook having dropped its legal action.
In a statement laying out the bare bones of the settlement reached, the ICO writes: “The Commissioner considers that this agreement best serves the interests of all UK data subjects who are Facebook users. Both Facebook and the ICO are committed to continuing to work to ensure compliance with applicable data protection laws.”
An ICO spokeswoman did not respond to additional questions — telling us it does not have anything further to add than its public statement.
As part of the settlement, the ICO writes that Facebook is being allowed to retain some (unspecified) “documents” that the ICO had disclosed during the appeal process — to use for “other purposes”, including for furthering its own investigation into issues around Cambridge Analytica.
“Parts of this investigation had previously been put on hold at the ICO’s direction and can now resume,” the ICO adds.
Under the terms of the settlement the ICO and Facebook each pay their own legal costs. While the £500k fine is not kept by the ICO but paid to HM Treasury’s consolidated fund.
Commenting in a statement, deputy commissioner, James Dipple-Johnstone, said:
The ICO welcomes the agreement reached with Facebook for the withdrawal of their appeal against our Monetary Penalty Notice and agreement to pay the fine. The ICO’s main concern was that UK citizen data was exposed to a serious risk of harm. Protection of personal information and personal privacy is of fundamental importance, not only for the rights of individuals, but also as we now know, for the preservation of a strong democracy. We are pleased to hear that Facebook has taken, and will continue to take, significant steps to comply with the fundamental principles of data protection. With this strong commitment to protecting people’s personal information and privacy, we expect that Facebook will be able to move forward and learn from the events of this case.
In its own supporting statement, attached to the ICO’s remarks, Harry Kinmonth, director and associate general counsel at Facebook, added:
We are pleased to have reached a settlement with the ICO. As we have said before, we wish we had done more to investigate claims about Cambridge Analytica in 2015. We made major changes to our platform back then, significantly restricting the information which app developers could access. Protecting people’s information and privacy is a top priority for Facebook, and we are continuing to build new controls to help people protect and manage their information. The ICO has stated that it has not discovered evidence that the data of Facebook users in the EU was transferred to Cambridge Analytica by Dr Kogan. However, we look forward to continuing to cooperate with the ICO’s wider and ongoing investigation into the use of data analytics for political purposes.
A charitable interpretation of what’s gone on here is that both Facebook and the ICO have reached a stalemate where their interests are better served by taking a quick win that puts the issue to bed, rather than dragging on with legal appeals that might also have raised fresh embarrassments.
That’s quick wins in terms of PR (a paid fine for the ICO; and drawing a line under the issue for Facebook), as well as (potentially) useful data to further Facebook’s internal investigation of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
We don’t know exactly it’s getting from the ICO’s document stash. But we do know it’s facing a number of lawsuits and legal challenges over the scandal in the US.
The ICO announced its intention to fine Facebook over the Cambridge Analytica scandal just over a year ago.
In March 2018 it had raided the UK offices of the now defunct data company, after obtaining a warrant, taking away hard drives and computers for analysis. It had also earlier ordered Facebook to withdraw its own investigators from the company’s offices.
Speaking to a UK parliamentary committee a year ago the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, and deputy Dipple-Johnstone, discussed their (then) ongoing investigation of data seized from Cambridge Analytica — saying they believed the Facebook user data-set the company had misappropriated could have been passed to more entities than were publicly known.
The ICO said at that point it was looking into “about half a dozen” entities.
It also told the committee it had evidence that, even as recently as early 2018, Cambridge Analytica might have retained some of the Facebook data — despite having claimed it had deleted everything.
“The follow up was less than robust. And that’s one of the reasons that we fined Facebook £500,000,” Denham also said at the time.
Some of this evidence will likely be very useful for Facebook as it prepares to defend itself in legal challenges related to Cambridge Analytica. As well as aiding its claimed platform audit — when, in the wake of the scandal, Facebook said it would run a historical app audit and challenge all developers who it determined had downloaded large amounts of user data.
The audit, which it announced in March 2018, apparently remains ongoing.
Facebook denies making contradictory claims on Cambridge Analytica and other ‘sketchy’ apps
from Facebook – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2MXDTKo via IFTTT
0 notes
Text
UK gets data flows deal from EU — for now
The UK’s digital businesses can breathe a sign of relief today as the European Commission has officially signed off on data adequacy for the (now) third country, post-Brexit.
It’s a big deal for UK businesses as it means the country will be treated by Brussels as having essentially equivalent data protection rules as markets within the bloc, despite no longer being a member itself — enabling personal data to continue to flow freely from the EU to the UK, and avoiding any new legal barriers.
The granting of adequacy status has been all but assured in recent weeks, after European Union Member States signed off on a draft adequacy arrangement. But the Commission’s adoption of the decision marks the final step in the process — at least for now.
It’s notable that the Commission’s PR includes a clear warning that if the UK seeks to weaken protections afforded to people’s data under the current regime it “will intervene”.
In a statement, Věra Jourová, Commission VP for values and transparency, said:
“The UK has left the EU but today its legal regime of protecting personal data is as it was. Because of this, we are adopting these adequacy decisions today. At the same time, we have listened very carefully to the concerns expressed by the Parliament, the Members States and the European Data Protection Board, in particular on the possibility of future divergence from our standards in the UK’s privacy framework. We are talking here about a fundamental right of EU citizens that we have a duty to protect. This is why we have significant safeguards and if anything changes on the UK side, we will intervene.”
The UK adequacy decision comes with a Sword of Damocles baked in: A sunset clause of four years. It’s a first — so, er, congratulations to the UK government for projecting a perception of itself as untrustworthy over the short run.
This clause means the UK’s regime will face full scrutiny again in 2025, with no automatic continuation if its standards are deemed to have slipped (as many fear they will).
The Commission also emphasizes that its decision does not mean the UK has four ‘guaranteed’ years in the clear. On the contrary, it says it will “continue to monitor the legal situation in the UK and could intervene at any point, if the UK deviates from the level of protection currently in place”.
Third countries without an adequacy agreement — such as the US, which has adequacy twice struck down by Europe’s top court (after it found US surveillance law incompatible with EU fundamental rights) — do not enjoy ‘seamless’ legal certainty around personal data flows; and must instead take steps to assess each of these transfers individually to determine whether (and how) they can move data legally.
Last week, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) put out its final bit of guidance for third countries wanting to transfer personal data outside the bloc. And the advice makes it clear that some types of transfers are unlikely to be possible.
For other types of transfers, the advice discusses a number of of supplementary measures (including technical steps like robust encryption) that may be possible for a data controller to use in order to, through their own technical, contractual and organizational effort, ramp up the level of protection to achieve the required standard.
It is, in short, a lot of work. And without today’s adequacy decision UK businesses would have had to get intimately acquainted with the EDPB’s guidance. For now, though, they’ve dodged that bullet.
The qualifier is still very necessary, though, because the UK government has signalled that it intends to rethink data protection.
How exactly it goes about that — and to what extent it changes the current ‘essentially equivalent’ regime — may make all the difference. For example, Digital minister Oliver Dowden has talked about data being “a great opportunity” for the UK, post-Brexit.
And writing in the FT back in February he suggested there will be room for the UK to rewrite its national data protection rules without diverging so much that it puts adequacy at risk. “We fully intend to maintain those world-class standards. But to do so, we do not need to copy and paste the EU’s rule book, the General Data Protection Regulation, word-for-word,” he suggested then, adding that: “Countries as diverse as Israel and Uruguay have successfully secured adequacy with Brussels despite having their own data regimes. Not all of those were identical to GDPR, but equal doesn’t have to mean the same. The EU doesn’t hold the monopoly on data protection.”
The devil will, as they say, be in the detail. But some early signals are concerning — and the UK’s startup ecosystem would be well advised to take an active role in impressing upon government the importance to stay aligned with European data standards.
Moreover, there’s also the prospect of a legal challenge to the adequacy decision — even as is, i.e. based on current UK standards (which find plenty of critics). Certainly it can’t be ruled out — and the CJEU hasn’t shied away from quashing other adequacy arrangements it judged to be invalid…
Note that reaching this stage was totally predictable; it was never the data-transfer-compliance supine Commission that was going to take CJEU case-law on this seriously. Only the Court might — the 'guardian of the Treaties' has long left the building. The saga continues.
— Michael Veale (@mikarv) June 28, 2021
Today, though, the Department for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport (DCMS) has seized the chance to celebrate a PR win, writing that the Commission’s decision “rightly recognises the country’s high data protection standards”.
The department also reiterated the UK government’s intention to “promote the free flow of personal data globally and across borders”, including through what it bills as “ambitious new trade deals and through new data adequacy agreements with some of the fastest growing economies” — simultaneously claiming it would do so “while ensuring people’s data continues to be protected to a high standard”. Pinky promise.
“All future decisions will be based on what maximises innovation and keeps up with evolving tech,” the DCMS added in a press release. “As such, the government’s approach will seek to minimise burdens on organisations seeking to use data to tackle some of the most pressing global issues, including climate change and the prevention of disease.”
In a statement, Dowden also made a point of combining both streams, saying: “We will now focus on unlocking the power of data to drive innovation and boost the economy while making sure we protect people’s safety and privacy.”
UK business and tech associations were just as quick to welcome the Commission’s adequacy decision. The alternative would of course have been very costly disruption.
In a statement, John Foster, director of policy for the Confederation of British Industry, said: “This breakthrough in the EU-UK adequacy decision will be welcomed by businesses across the country. The free flow of data is the bedrock of the modern economy and essential for firms across all sectors– from automotive to logistics — playing an important role in everyday trade of goods and services. This positive step will help us move forward as we develop a new trading relationship with the EU.”
In another supporting statement, Julian David, CEO of techUK, added: “Securing an EU-UK adequacy decision has been a top priority for techUK and the wider tech industry since the day after the 2016 referendum. The decision that the UK’s data protection regime offers an equivalent level of protection to the EU GDPR is a vote of confidence in the UK’s high data protection standards and is of vital importance to UK-EU trade as the free flow of data is essential to all business sectors.
“The data adequacy decision also provides a basis for the UK and EU to work together on global routes for the free flow of data with trust, building on the G7 Digital and Technology declaration and possibly unlocking €2TR of growth. The UK must also now move to complete the development of its own international data transfer regime in order to allow companies in the UK not just to exchange data with the EU but also to be able to access opportunities across the world.”
The Commission has actually adopted two UK adequacy decisions today — one under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and another for the Law Enforcement Directive.
Discussing key elements in its decision to grant the UK adequacy, EU lawmakers highlighted the fact the UK’s (current) system is based upon transposed European rules; that access to personal data by public authorities in the UK (such as for national security reasons) is done under a framework that has what it dubbed as “strong safeguards” (such as intercepts being subject to prior authorisation by an independent judicial body; measures needing to be necessary and proportionate; and redress mechanisms for those who believe they are subject to unlawful surveillance).
The Commission also noted that the UK is subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights; must adhere to the European Convention of Human Rights; and the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data — aka “the only binding international treaty in the area of data protection”.
“These international commitments are an essential elements of the legal framework assessed in the two adequacy decisions,” the Commission notes.
Data transfers for the purposes of UK immigration control have been excluded from the scope of the adequacy decision adopted under the GDPR — with the Commission saying that’s “in order to reflect a recent judgment of the England and Wales Court of Appeal on the validity and interpretation of certain restrictions of data protection rights in this area”.
“The Commission will reassess the need for this exclusion once the situation has been remedied under UK law,” it added.
So, again, there’s another caveat right there.
EU puts out final guidance on data transfers to third countries
Europe puts out advice on fixing international data transfers that’s cold comfort for Facebook
from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8204425 https://ift.tt/3x4bDKy via IFTTT
0 notes
Text
Facebook agrees to pay UK data watchdog’s Cambridge Analytica fine but settles without admitting liability
Facebook has reached a settlement with the UK’s data protection watchdog, the ICO, agreeing to pay in full a £500,000 (~$643k) fine following the latter’s investigating into the Cambridge Analytica data misuse scandal.
As part of the arrangement Facebook has agreed to drop its legal appeal against the penalty. But under the terms of the settlement it has not admitted any liability in relation to paying the fine, which is the maximum possible monetary penalty under the applicable UK data protection law. (The Cambridge Analytica scandal predates Europe’s GDPR framework coming into force.)
Facebook’s appeal against the ICO’s penalty was focused on a claim that there was no evidence that U.K. Facebook users’ data had being mis-used by Cambridge Analytica .
But there’s a further twist here in that the company had secured a win, from a first tier legal tribunal — which held in June that “procedural fairness and allegations of bias” on the part of the ICO should be considered as part of its appeal.
The decision required the ICO to disclose materials relating to its decision-making process regarding the Facebook fine. The ICO, evidently less than keen for its emails to be trawled through, appealed last month. It’s now withdrawing the action as part of the settlement, Facebook having dropped its legal action.
In a statement laying out the bare bones of the settlement reached, the ICO writes: “The Commissioner considers that this agreement best serves the interests of all UK data subjects who are Facebook users. Both Facebook and the ICO are committed to continuing to work to ensure compliance with applicable data protection laws.”
An ICO spokeswoman did not respond to additional questions — telling us it does not have anything further to add than its public statement.
As part of the settlement, the ICO writes that Facebook is being allowed to retain some (unspecified) “documents” that the ICO had disclosed during the appeal process — to use for “other purposes”, including for furthering its own investigation into issues around Cambridge Analytica.
“Parts of this investigation had previously been put on hold at the ICO’s direction and can now resume,” the ICO adds.
Under the terms of the settlement the ICO and Facebook each pay their own legal costs. While the £500k fine is not kept by the ICO but paid to HM Treasury’s consolidated fund.
Commenting in a statement, deputy commissioner, James Dipple-Johnstone, said:
The ICO welcomes the agreement reached with Facebook for the withdrawal of their appeal against our Monetary Penalty Notice and agreement to pay the fine. The ICO’s main concern was that UK citizen data was exposed to a serious risk of harm. Protection of personal information and personal privacy is of fundamental importance, not only for the rights of individuals, but also as we now know, for the preservation of a strong democracy. We are pleased to hear that Facebook has taken, and will continue to take, significant steps to comply with the fundamental principles of data protection. With this strong commitment to protecting people’s personal information and privacy, we expect that Facebook will be able to move forward and learn from the events of this case.
In its own supporting statement, attached to the ICO’s remarks, Harry Kinmonth, director and associate general counsel at Facebook, added:
We are pleased to have reached a settlement with the ICO. As we have said before, we wish we had done more to investigate claims about Cambridge Analytica in 2015. We made major changes to our platform back then, significantly restricting the information which app developers could access. Protecting people’s information and privacy is a top priority for Facebook, and we are continuing to build new controls to help people protect and manage their information. The ICO has stated that it has not discovered evidence that the data of Facebook users in the EU was transferred to Cambridge Analytica by Dr Kogan. However, we look forward to continuing to cooperate with the ICO’s wider and ongoing investigation into the use of data analytics for political purposes.
A charitable interpretation of what’s gone on here is that both Facebook and the ICO have reached a stalemate where their interests are better served by taking a quick win that puts the issue to bed, rather than dragging on with legal appeals that might also have raised fresh embarrassments.
That’s quick wins in terms of PR (a paid fine for the ICO; and drawing a line under the issue for Facebook), as well as (potentially) useful data to further Facebook’s internal investigation of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
We don’t know exactly it’s getting from the ICO’s document stash. But we do know it’s facing a number of lawsuits and legal challenges over the scandal in the US.
The ICO announced its intention to fine Facebook over the Cambridge Analytica scandal just over a year ago.
In March 2018 it had raided the UK offices of the now defunct data company, after obtaining a warrant, taking away hard drives and computers for analysis. It had also earlier ordered Facebook to withdraw its own investigators from the company’s offices.
Speaking to a UK parliamentary committee a year ago the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, and deputy Dipple-Johnstone, discussed their (then) ongoing investigation of data seized from Cambridge Analytica — saying they believed the Facebook user data-set the company had misappropriated could have been passed to more entities than were publicly known.
The ICO said at that point it was looking into “about half a dozen” entities.
It also told the committee it had evidence that, even as recently as early 2018, Cambridge Analytica might have retained some of the Facebook data — despite having claimed it had deleted everything.
“The follow up was less than robust. And that’s one of the reasons that we fined Facebook £500,000,” Denham also said at the time.
Some of this evidence will likely be very useful for Facebook as it prepares to defend itself in legal challenges related to Cambridge Analytica. As well as aiding its claimed platform audit — when, in the wake of the scandal, Facebook said it would run a historical app audit and challenge all developers who it determined had downloaded large amounts of user data.
The audit, which it announced in March 2018, apparently remains ongoing.
Facebook denies making contradictory claims on Cambridge Analytica and other ‘sketchy’ apps
via Social – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2MXDTKo
0 notes
Text
Facebook agrees to pay UK data watchdog’s Cambridge Analytica fine but settles without admitting liability
Facebook has reached a settlement with the UK’s data protection watchdog, the ICO, agreeing to pay in full a £500,000 (~$643k) fine following the latter’s investigating into the Cambridge Analytica data misuse scandal.
As part of the arrangement Facebook has agreed to drop its legal appeal against the penalty. But under the terms of the settlement it has not admitted any liability in relation to paying the fine, which is the maximum possible monetary penalty under the applicable UK data protection law. (The Cambridge Analytica scandal predates Europe’s GDPR framework coming into force.)
Facebook’s appeal against the ICO’s penalty was focused on a claim that there was no evidence that U.K. Facebook users’ data had being mis-used by Cambridge Analytica .
But there’s a further twist here in that the company had secured a win, from a first tier legal tribunal — which held in June that “procedural fairness and allegations of bias” on the part of the ICO should be considered as part of its appeal.
The decision required the ICO to disclose materials relating to its decision-making process regarding the Facebook fine. The ICO, evidently less than keen for its emails to be trawled through, appealed last month. It’s now withdrawing the action as part of the settlement, Facebook having dropped its legal action.
In a statement laying out the bare bones of the settlement reached, the ICO writes: “The Commissioner considers that this agreement best serves the interests of all UK data subjects who are Facebook users. Both Facebook and the ICO are committed to continuing to work to ensure compliance with applicable data protection laws.”
An ICO spokeswoman did not respond to additional questions — telling us it does not have anything further to add than its public statement.
As part of the settlement, the ICO writes that Facebook is being allowed to retain some (unspecified) “documents” that the ICO had disclosed during the appeal process — to use for “other purposes”, including for furthering its own investigation into issues around Cambridge Analytica.
“Parts of this investigation had previously been put on hold at the ICO’s direction and can now resume,” the ICO adds.
Under the terms of the settlement the ICO and Facebook each pay their own legal costs. While the £500k fine is not kept by the ICO but paid to HM Treasury’s consolidated fund.
Commenting in a statement, deputy commissioner, James Dipple-Johnstone, said:
The ICO welcomes the agreement reached with Facebook for the withdrawal of their appeal against our Monetary Penalty Notice and agreement to pay the fine. The ICO’s main concern was that UK citizen data was exposed to a serious risk of harm. Protection of personal information and personal privacy is of fundamental importance, not only for the rights of individuals, but also as we now know, for the preservation of a strong democracy. We are pleased to hear that Facebook has taken, and will continue to take, significant steps to comply with the fundamental principles of data protection. With this strong commitment to protecting people’s personal information and privacy, we expect that Facebook will be able to move forward and learn from the events of this case.
In its own supporting statement, attached to the ICO’s remarks, Harry Kinmonth, director and associate general counsel at Facebook, added:
We are pleased to have reached a settlement with the ICO. As we have said before, we wish we had done more to investigate claims about Cambridge Analytica in 2015. We made major changes to our platform back then, significantly restricting the information which app developers could access. Protecting people’s information and privacy is a top priority for Facebook, and we are continuing to build new controls to help people protect and manage their information. The ICO has stated that it has not discovered evidence that the data of Facebook users in the EU was transferred to Cambridge Analytica by Dr Kogan. However, we look forward to continuing to cooperate with the ICO’s wider and ongoing investigation into the use of data analytics for political purposes.
A charitable interpretation of what’s gone on here is that both Facebook and the ICO have reached a stalemate where their interests are better served by taking a quick win that puts the issue to bed, rather than dragging on with legal appeals that might also have raised fresh embarrassments.
That’s quick wins in terms of PR (a paid fine for the ICO; and drawing a line under the issue for Facebook), as well as (potentially) useful data to further Facebook’s internal investigation of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
We don’t know exactly it’s getting from the ICO’s document stash. But we do know it’s facing a number of lawsuits and legal challenges over the scandal in the US.
The ICO announced its intention to fine Facebook over the Cambridge Analytica scandal just over a year ago.
In March 2018 it had raided the UK offices of the now defunct data company, after obtaining a warrant, taking away hard drives and computers for analysis. It had also earlier ordered Facebook to withdraw its own investigators from the company’s offices.
Speaking to a UK parliamentary committee a year ago the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, and deputy Dipple-Johnstone, discussed their (then) ongoing investigation of data seized from Cambridge Analytica — saying they believed the Facebook user data-set the company had misappropriated could have been passed to more entities than were publicly known.
The ICO said at that point it was looking into “about half a dozen” entities.
It also told the committee it had evidence that, even as recently as early 2018, Cambridge Analytica might have retained some of the Facebook data — despite having claimed it had deleted everything.
“The follow up was less than robust. And that’s one of the reasons that we fined Facebook £500,000,” Denham also said at the time.
Some of this evidence will likely be very useful for Facebook as it prepares to defend itself in legal challenges related to Cambridge Analytica. As well as aiding its claimed platform audit — when, in the wake of the scandal, Facebook said it would run a historical app audit and challenge all developers who it determined had downloaded large amounts of user data.
The audit, which it announced in March 2018, apparently remains ongoing.
Facebook denies making contradictory claims on Cambridge Analytica and other ‘sketchy’ apps
0 notes
Link
By: House of Lords, European Union Committee
From the publication:
The Government has said that it wants to maintain unhindered and uninterrupted data flows with the EU post-Brexit. The Government’s White Paper on The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union, says, for example, that the UK “will seek to maintain the stability of data transfers between the EU, Member States and the UK.” We support this objective, but were struck by the lack of detail on how the Government plans to deliver this outcome. Our analysis suggests that the stakes are high, not least because any post-Brexit arrangement that results in greater friction around data transfers between the UK and the EU could present a non-tariff trade barrier, putting the UK at a competitive disadvantage. Any impediments to data flows post-Brexit could also hinder police and security cooperation. [...] In this report we look at four elements of the EU’s data protection package: the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Police and Criminal Justice Directive (PCJ), the EU-US Privacy Shield and the EU-US Umbrella Agreement. Both the GDPR and the PCJ will enter into force in May 2018 while the UK is still a member of the EU. The EU-US Privacy Shield and EU-US Umbrella Agreement are already in force but will cease to apply to the UK post-Brexit.
Read more: full text
See also: full text in PDF
Via: SCL
3 notes
·
View notes
Link
Facebook has reached a settlement with the UK’s data protection watchdog, the ICO, agreeing to pay in full a £500,000 (~$643k) fine following the latter’s investigating into the Cambridge Analytica data misuse scandal.
As part of the arrangement Facebook has agreed to drop its legal appeal against the penalty. But under the terms of the settlement it has not admitted any liability in relation to paying the fine, which is the maximum possible monetary penalty under the applicable UK data protection law. (The Cambridge Analytica scandal predates Europe’s GDPR framework coming into force.)
Facebook’s appeal against the ICO’s penalty was focused on a claim that there was no evidence that U.K. Facebook users’ data had being mis-used by Cambridge Analytica.
But there’s a further twist here in that the company had secured a win, from a first tier legal tribunal — which held in June that “procedural fairness and allegations of bias” on the part of the ICO should be considered as part of its appeal.
The decision required the ICO to disclose materials relating to its decision-making process regarding the Facebook fine. The ICO, evidently less than keen for its emails to be trawled through, appealed last month. It’s now withdrawing the action as part of the settlement, Facebook having dropped its legal action.
In a statement laying out the bare bones of the settlement reached, the ICO writes: “The Commissioner considers that this agreement best serves the interests of all UK data subjects who are Facebook users. Both Facebook and the ICO are committed to continuing to work to ensure compliance with applicable data protection laws.”
An ICO spokeswoman did not respond to additional questions — telling us it does not have anything further to add than its public statement.
As part of the settlement, the ICO writes that Facebook is being allowed to retain some (unspecified) “documents” that the ICO had disclosed during the appeal process — to use for “other purposes”, including for furthering its own investigation into issues around Cambridge Analytica.
“Parts of this investigation had previously been put on hold at the ICO’s direction and can now resume,” the ICO adds.
Under the terms of the settlement the ICO and Facebook each pay their own legal costs. While the £500k fine is not kept by the ICO but paid to HM Treasury’s consolidated fund.
Commenting in a statement, deputy commissioner, James Dipple-Johnstone, said:
The ICO welcomes the agreement reached with Facebook for the withdrawal of their appeal against our Monetary Penalty Notice and agreement to pay the fine. The ICO’s main concern was that UK citizen data was exposed to a serious risk of harm. Protection of personal information and personal privacy is of fundamental importance, not only for the rights of individuals, but also as we now know, for the preservation of a strong democracy. We are pleased to hear that Facebook has taken, and will continue to take, significant steps to comply with the fundamental principles of data protection. With this strong commitment to protecting people’s personal information and privacy, we expect that Facebook will be able to move forward and learn from the events of this case.
In its own supporting statement, attached to the ICO’s remarks, Harry Kinmonth, director and associate general counsel at Facebook, added:
We are pleased to have reached a settlement with the ICO. As we have said before, we wish we had done more to investigate claims about Cambridge Analytica in 2015. We made major changes to our platform back then, significantly restricting the information which app developers could access. Protecting people’s information and privacy is a top priority for Facebook, and we are continuing to build new controls to help people protect and manage their information. The ICO has stated that it has not discovered evidence that the data of Facebook users in the EU was transferred to Cambridge Analytica by Dr Kogan. However, we look forward to continuing to cooperate with the ICO’s wider and ongoing investigation into the use of data analytics for political purposes.
A charitable interpretation of what’s gone on here is that both Facebook and the ICO have reached a stalemate where their interests are better served by taking a quick win that puts the issue to bed, rather than dragging on with legal appeals that might also have raised fresh embarrassments.
That’s quick wins in terms of PR (a paid fine for the ICO; and drawing a line under the issue for Facebook), as well as (potentially) useful data to further Facebook’s internal investigation of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
We don’t know exactly it’s getting from the ICO’s document stash. But we do know it’s facing a number of lawsuits and legal challenges over the scandal in the US.
The ICO announced its intention to fine Facebook over the Cambridge Analytica scandal just over a year ago.
In March 2018 it had raided the UK offices of the now defunct data company, after obtaining a warrant, taking away hard drives and computers for analysis. It had also earlier ordered Facebook to withdraw its own investigators from the company’s offices.
Speaking to a UK parliamentary committee a year ago the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, and deputy Dipple-Johnstone, discussed their (then) ongoing investigation of data seized from Cambridge Analytica — saying they believed the Facebook user data-set the company had misappropriated could have been passed to more entities than were publicly known.
The ICO said at that point it was looking into “about half a dozen” entities.
It also told the committee it had evidence that, even as recently as early 2018, Cambridge Analytica might have retained some of the Facebook data — despite having claimed it had deleted everything.
“The follow up was less than robust. And that’s one of the reasons that we fined Facebook £500,000,” Denham also said at the time.
Some of this evidence will likely be very useful for Facebook as it prepares to defend itself in legal challenges related to Cambridge Analytica. As well as aiding its claimed platform audit — when, in the wake of the scandal, Facebook said it would run a historical app audit and challenge all developers who it determined had downloaded large amounts of user data.
The audit, which it announced in March 2018, apparently remains ongoing.
Facebook denies making contradictory claims on Cambridge Analytica and other ‘sketchy’ apps
from Social – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2MXDTKo Original Content From: https://techcrunch.com
0 notes
Text
Original Post from InfoSecurity Magazine Author:
UK Firms Move Operations as Brexit Data Fears Grow
UK businesses are stepping up their preparations for a potentially tortuous split from the EU, with a third moving some operations to the continent to avoid data privacy regulatory issues, according to new research.
Business process outsourcer Parseq polled 500 decision makers in businesses with 250+ employees about how Brexit might impact their current data privacy obligations.
Although the GDPR is technically transposed into UK law, the country will require an “adequacy decision” from the European Commission to ensure unhindered data flows after it leaves the trading bloc – something that is certainly not guaranteed.
That’s why the vast majority (89%) of firms polled by Parseq said they’d taken proactive measures.
Around a third (35%) said they’d refocused their client base to the UK, while a similar number (32%) had transferred operations to the EU.
Nearly two-fifths (37%) said they have audited data flows to and from the EU and even more (42%) have sought advice from regulator the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Craig Naylor-Smith, managing director at Parseq, argued that UK firms are currently operating on shifting sands given the lack of clarity over post-Brexit data transfer arrangements.
“The Data Protection Act (2018) transposed the GDPR into UK law, but if the rules in Europe diverge once we leave the EU it could make transferring personal data to and from the continent more difficult — a vital consideration for businesses in our increasingly connected, digital world,” he added.
“With this in mind, it’s encouraging to see so many firms take proactive steps to prepare for the prospect of regulatory changes. However, with an even proportion of firms increasing their European presence and refocusing their position to the UK, it’s clear the best course of action will depend on individual strategies.”
The bottom line is: UK businesses must consider how Brexit could impact data privacy regulations as a matter of urgency, he said.
#gallery-0-6 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-6 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 33%; } #gallery-0-6 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-6 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
Go to Source Author: UK Firms Move Operations as Brexit Data Fears Grow Original Post from InfoSecurity Magazine Author: UK Firms Move Operations as Brexit Data Fears Grow UK businesses are stepping up their preparations for a potentially tortuous split from the EU, with a third moving some operations to the continent to avoid data privacy regulatory issues, according to new research.
0 notes
Text
British Airways General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Breach
British Airways, renowned for being the UK’s largest international airline, has been issued with a record-breaking GDPR fine by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The £183.39M fine follows a breach in security systems between late August and early September 2018.
As a result of their “poor security arrangements”, personal data from half a million British Airways customers was stolen. The ICO declared that hackers accessed customer names, addresses, credit card information and details of their travel bookings.
British Airways chairman Alex Cruz expressed how “surprised and disappointed” the airline was by the decision made by ICO to fine British Airways 1.5% of the company’s 2017 revenue.
The importance of GDPR to employers and their employees
Updated data protection legislation came into force in May 2018, including the General Data Protection Regulations (‘GDPR’) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (‘DPA 2018’). Fundamentally, the reformation allowed EU citizens to have more control over their data.
UK companies are obliged to comply with the DPA 2018. Personal data is information that relates to an identified individual, this will generally be processed electronically and held by a public authority. However, the introduction to GDPR also meant new responsibilities for employers and their employees.
Following the recent changes, it is now vital for employers to make sure that all personal data, particularly sensitive information such as healthcare matters (which is now collectively referred to as special category data) must be carefully secured.
Considerations for employers
It is a legal obligation for employers to comply with the DPA 2018. As a reminder to all businesses, it is necessary for employers to provide employees with detailed information regarding:
What type of data they will be holding;
how long their data is going to be held;
whether the data is going to be transferred to other organisations and other countries;
the right to make a subject access request; and
the right to have personal data deleted or rectified in certain instances.
Organisations should have a clear and thorough retention policy for holding personal data. Such data must not be held for longer than is required. Employers will also have a responsibility to ensure the retention policy is easily accessible for the employees.
What to do if there is a personal data breach?
The new data protection legislation imposed a new breach notification requirement. If you believe there has been a personal data breach which is likely to endanger the rights and freedoms of an individual, it is essential that you inform the ICO within 72 hours.
The individual concerned shall also be notified if it is considered that the breach is likely to result in a high risk of adversely affecting their rights and freedoms – but this threshold is higher than the threshold for reporting the breach to the ICO.
The ICO will then investigate the breach and can issue fines which can be as much as €20 million or up to 4% of the organisations annual turnover depending on which is greater. As previously mentioned British Airways received a fine of 1.5% of their annual turnover for 2017 totalling £183.39M.
For professional in house training and compliance advice and support for your business, please contact employment law partner Claire Brook.
Claire Brook
Employment Law
Partner Email: [email protected] Tel: 01244 405 575
Author: Claire Flavin, Employment Law Trainee Solicitor.
The post British Airways General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Breach appeared first on Aaron & Partners.
from Aaron & Partners https://www.aaronandpartners.com/british-airways-breach/
0 notes
Text
How to Improve Mobile Signal Strength
When you live and work in a big city as I do, it’s easy to forget that not everyone in the UK enjoys great mobile coverage. Depending on your mobile provider, some rural areas have little to no coverage at all. Fortunately there are a few things you can do if you have poor mobile reception.
But before you try any of the suggestions below, do a few preliminary checks. One cause of poor signal is the case on your phone. Before smartphones, mobiles had an external antenna but these days they are internal. Putting a case on your phone (especially a metal one) can affect reception, just as can holding your phone ‘wrong’ as Steve Job famously claimed when iPhone users complained. There is some truth in that, but a combination of removing the case, holding your phone so you’re not obstructing the antenna lines and even going to the highest room in your home which faces your nearest mobile tower can improve signal strength considerably.
Where is your nearest tower? If you’re in the UK, you can check out the Mast Data website which will show you a map with the mast locations and which networks use them. Interesting stuff… if you’re a geek.
Poor mobile signal? Use Wi-Fi instead
Most UK households have fast enough broadband for Wi-Fi calling. There’s really no difference between Skype and what most mobile operators name ‘Wi-Fi calling’. It’s simply a phone call which uses the internet instead of the mobile phone network.
You can check if your provider offers Wi-Fi calling, but it’s also important that your phone supports it too. If one or both turn out to be incompatible, you could simply use Skype instead. Skype is available for most phones and it’s completely free, so long as you’re calling another Skype user.
Chances are that the person you want to call already has a Skype account, but if not, it’s quick and easy to create one, install the app, log in and receive (or make) a phone call over Wi-Fi. Skype allows you to call phone numbers as well, for a fee. That’s useful if you have poor signal but your recipient doesn’t and isn’t willing to install Skype – or it isn’t appropriate to ask them to install it, such as if you’re calling a business or customer service centre.
There are, of course, plenty of alternatives to Skype, such as Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger, Viber, and FaceTime (the last of which works on Apple devices only). So if you already chat with someone using one of those apps, you can also call them over Wi-Fi.
However, you can’t expect the other person to be connected via Wi-Fi at the exact moment you want to call them, which is why all the UK’s main networks offer Wi-Fi calling:
O2 allows owners of certain handsets (most recent iPhones, Samsung, and Sony phones) to make Wi-Fi and 4G calls without using a specific app.
EE offers Wi-Fi calling but only to pay monthly customers, and only on certain phones.
Vodafone provides very similar Wi-Fi calling which supports only certain phones.
Three offers an app (inTouch) so even those without a phone compatible with Wi-Fi calling can call and text without a mobile signal.
Mobile phone signal boosters
If you find that you can only get reception in upstairs rooms in the house, or by walking down to the bottom of the garden and standing on a bench, then a signal booster could help.
These are also known as ‘femtocells’. However, be very careful what you buy. As you’ll find on Ofcom’s website most of the devices you can buy online are actually illegal to use.
You can approach your mobile provider and ask if they will supply (or sell you) a repeater, but we’ve found that unless you’re a customer on a monthly contract, they tend not to be very helpful. If you do end up having to pay for a booster out of your own pocket, they can cost from £70 up to as much as £600 and there are no guarantees they will solve your problem.
If you do want to go down this route, it’s best to go with the option offered by your network operator rather than buying a box from a third-party. Just because a website is called o2signalbooster.co.uk does not mean it is the official supplier for O2 signal boosters. And if you do stump up a lot of money and find it doesn’t work, you might not be able to return the box for a refund.
Here are the links so you can find out more about the options offered by the four main UK networks:
O2 signal booster – Boostbox
EE signal booster – Signal Box
Three signal booster – Home Signal
Vodafone signal booster – Sure Signal V3
Most of these devices create a mobile signal by using your home broadband, while others repeat a weak signal.
Depending on your needs, one final (and slightly different) option is goTenna Mesh. These portable devices are designed primarily for hiking but will work anywhere with poor signal, and let you create a mini mesh network to communicate.
Sold in packs of two, four or eight, you simply pair each goTenna to a phone over Bluetooth and can then send encrypted messages (though not voice calls) between devices as long as they’re in range – up to four miles in open terrain, and half a mile or so in busier urban environments. You can also use the devices to create a relay, extending the range with each one.
Obviously this won’t be the ideal solution for everyone with low signal, but it could be perfect for people who want to reliably contact friends and family who live near them in the countryside or other low signal areas – or anyone hoping to plan for a visit to a low-signal area, such as a hiking trip or festival weekend. You can buy a pack directly from goTenna.
Change to another mobile network
This may sound extreme but if you have a terrible mobile signal at home, why not switch to another provider? It’s very easy to switch, and you can just as easily take your existing number with you by asking your old provider for a PAC. You then give this code to your new provider and they arrange to transfer your number.
But how do you know if another provider will offer a better mobile signal? Well, you can check each provider’s claims for coverage at a particular postcode using their coverage checkers. Each will tell you whether the signal will be good outdoors as well as indoors.
If you’d rather get an independent opinion on how good each operator’s signal is in your area, head to opensignal.com – there’s also mobile apps for Android and iOS.
But you don’t have to rely on claims. To make sure you’re happy before you switch, simply request a free pay-as-you-go SIM from a provider and try it out for a month in a spare phone (or even in your main phone). It’s likely to cost around £10 for a month’s use, but this is a small price to pay to fix poor coverage.
Most SIMs are now all-in-one, so you pop out the size you need for your phone. You’ll have to use the SIM’s new phone number for the trial, but at least you will have a very good idea of whether the coverage is significantly better than your old provider or not.
If not, try another provider until you find one with the best signal.
//if no cmp then execute as normal. window.idguk = window.idguk || {}; (function(){ var hasCmp = typeof window.idguk.cmp !== 'undefined' && typeof window.idguk.cmp.pixelTracker !== 'undefined'; (function(promise){ promise.then(function(consentOk){ var isDebug = !!window.idguk.cmp.isDebug ? window.idguk.cmp.isDebug() : false; if(isDebug)console.log('GDPR','facebook pixel tracker - consentOk', consentOk); if(!consentOk)return; !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '783301121827721'); // Insert your pixel ID here. fbq('track', 'PageView'); if(isDebug)console.log('GDPR','facebook pixel tracker fired'); }); })( hasCmp ? window.idguk.cmp.pixelTracker : {then:function(f){f(true);}} ); })(); Source link
source https://xpressfocus.com/how-to-improve-mobile-signal-strength/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-to-improve-mobile-signal-strength
0 notes
Text
Facebook agrees to pay UK data watchdog’s Cambridge Analytica fine but settles without admitting liability
Facebook has reached a settlement with the UK’s data protection watchdog, the ICO, agreeing to pay in full a £500,000 (~$643k) fine following the latter’s investigating into the Cambridge Analytica data misuse scandal.
As part of the arrangement Facebook has agreed to drop its legal appeal against the penalty. But under the terms of the settlement it has not admitted any liability in relation to paying the fine, which is the maximum possible monetary penalty under the applicable UK data protection law. (The Cambridge Analytica scandal predates Europe’s GDPR framework coming into force.)
Facebook’s appeal against the ICO’s penalty was focused on a claim that there was no evidence that U.K. Facebook users’ data had being mis-used by Cambridge Analytica .
But there’s a further twist here in that the company had secured a win, from a first tier legal tribunal — which held in June that “procedural fairness and allegations of bias” on the part of the ICO should be considered as part of its appeal.
The decision required the ICO to disclose materials relating to its decision-making process regarding the Facebook fine. The ICO, evidently less than keen for its emails to be trawled through, appealed last month. It’s now withdrawing the action as part of the settlement, Facebook having dropped its legal action.
In a statement laying out the bare bones of the settlement reached, the ICO writes: “The Commissioner considers that this agreement best serves the interests of all UK data subjects who are Facebook users. Both Facebook and the ICO are committed to continuing to work to ensure compliance with applicable data protection laws.”
An ICO spokeswoman did not respond to additional questions — telling us it does not have anything further to add than its public statement.
As part of the settlement, the ICO writes that Facebook is being allowed to retain some (unspecified) “documents” that the ICO had disclosed during the appeal process — to use for “other purposes”, including for furthering its own investigation into issues around Cambridge Analytica.
“Parts of this investigation had previously been put on hold at the ICO’s direction and can now resume,” the ICO adds.
Under the terms of the settlement the ICO and Facebook each pay their own legal costs. While the £500k fine is not kept by the ICO but paid to HM Treasury’s consolidated fund.
Commenting in a statement, deputy commissioner, James Dipple-Johnstone, said:
The ICO welcomes the agreement reached with Facebook for the withdrawal of their appeal against our Monetary Penalty Notice and agreement to pay the fine. The ICO’s main concern was that UK citizen data was exposed to a serious risk of harm. Protection of personal information and personal privacy is of fundamental importance, not only for the rights of individuals, but also as we now know, for the preservation of a strong democracy. We are pleased to hear that Facebook has taken, and will continue to take, significant steps to comply with the fundamental principles of data protection. With this strong commitment to protecting people’s personal information and privacy, we expect that Facebook will be able to move forward and learn from the events of this case.
In its own supporting statement, attached to the ICO’s remarks, Harry Kinmonth, director and associate general counsel at Facebook, added:
We are pleased to have reached a settlement with the ICO. As we have said before, we wish we had done more to investigate claims about Cambridge Analytica in 2015. We made major changes to our platform back then, significantly restricting the information which app developers could access. Protecting people’s information and privacy is a top priority for Facebook, and we are continuing to build new controls to help people protect and manage their information. The ICO has stated that it has not discovered evidence that the data of Facebook users in the EU was transferred to Cambridge Analytica by Dr Kogan. However, we look forward to continuing to cooperate with the ICO’s wider and ongoing investigation into the use of data analytics for political purposes.
A charitable interpretation of what’s gone on here is that both Facebook and the ICO have reached a stalemate where their interests are better served by taking a quick win that puts the issue to bed, rather than dragging on with legal appeals that might also have raised fresh embarrassments.
That’s quick wins in terms of PR (a paid fine for the ICO; and drawing a line under the issue for Facebook), as well as (potentially) useful data to further Facebook’s internal investigation of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
We don’t know exactly it’s getting from the ICO’s document stash. But we do know it’s facing a number of lawsuits and legal challenges over the scandal in the US.
The ICO announced its intention to fine Facebook over the Cambridge Analytica scandal just over a year ago.
In March 2018 it had raided the UK offices of the now defunct data company, after obtaining a warrant, taking away hard drives and computers for analysis. It had also earlier ordered Facebook to withdraw its own investigators from the company’s offices.
Speaking to a UK parliamentary committee a year ago the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, and deputy Dipple-Johnstone, discussed their (then) ongoing investigation of data seized from Cambridge Analytica — saying they believed the Facebook user data-set the company had misappropriated could have been passed to more entities than were publicly known.
The ICO said at that point it was looking into “about half a dozen” entities.
It also told the committee it had evidence that, even as recently as early 2018, Cambridge Analytica might have retained some of the Facebook data — despite having claimed it had deleted everything.
“The follow up was less than robust. And that’s one of the reasons that we fined Facebook £500,000,” Denham also said at the time.
Some of this evidence will likely be very useful for Facebook as it prepares to defend itself in legal challenges related to Cambridge Analytica. As well as aiding its claimed platform audit — when, in the wake of the scandal, Facebook said it would run a historical app audit and challenge all developers who it determined had downloaded large amounts of user data.
The audit, which it announced in March 2018, apparently remains ongoing.
Facebook denies making contradictory claims on Cambridge Analytica and other ‘sketchy’ apps
from iraidajzsmmwtv https://ift.tt/2MXDTKo via IFTTT
0 notes