10 Things To Know About the New EU Data Protection Regulation – Specialized Advice From CWIIL Group

The first EU Data Protection Directive was written in 1995, but a new, stronger regulation is being developed to take into account vast technology changes of the last 20 years. The plan is to finalise the regulation this year and implement it in 2017.

As with any regulation, the current draft could change. However, only minor changes were made between the last two drafts, despite lobbying attempts, and the latest version is possibly as close to final as we’ll see. Below are 10 of the most important elements European organisations should take away from the current draft, to help them prepare for 2017.

1. This Is A Regulation, Not A Directive

The terms regulation and directive are often used interchangeably, but they are very different. A directive is implemented and enforced by individual countries, but regulations become law without change when they are passed. The current EU data protection directive resembles a patchwork of slightly different laws across Europe, but the new regulation will be implemented in all 28 countries.

2. Data Processors Will Be Held Responsible For Data Protection

Under the directive, any data “by which an individual can be identified” was the sole responsibility of the data controller, i.e. the owner of this data. Under the new regulations, however, any company or individual that processes this data will also be held responsible for its protection, including third parties such as cloud providers. Put simply, anyone who touches or has access to your data, wherever they are based, is responsible in the case of a data breach. The ramifications of this are pretty broad. Third parties will need to be extra vigilant when it comes to securing the data of others, and data owners will want to thoroughly vet their partners.

With the new regulations in mind, organisations should think about reviewing their third party contracts now. In the case of cloud providers seriously consider having, as part of your contract, the ability to carefully review their procedures and even facilities to make sure they are up to scratch. Many cloud service providers, especially those based outside the EU, may not believe that the regulations apply to them, it is clear that they will.

3. The Regulation Has Global Ramifications

Don’t let the terms ‘EU’ or ‘Europe’ fool you, the new regulation affects every global organisation that may have data on EU citizens and residents. Reputational damage is also a key element of a data breach and the new regulation is likely to harmonise ‘naming and shaming’ policies across each country. For instance, in the UK, the Information Commissioner’s Office issues press releases when organisations are sanctioned at the moment, whereas some other countries are currently fairly light touch.

4. Users Will Be Able To Make Compensation Claims

The regulation will allow users to claim damages in the instance of data loss as a result of unlawful processing, including collective redress, the equivalent of a US-style class action lawsuit. Senior management will need a good understanding of what kind of impact this would have on their business. Not only can legal damages be incredibly costly from a financial perspective, they also represent further reputational damage as cases can carry on for years and keep the story in the public eye throughout this time. Sony, for instance, is currently facing seven class action lawsuits following last year’s hack. The public will be reminded of Sony’s security failings again and again.

5. There Are Tighter Rules On Transferring Data On EU Citizens Outside The EU

Even if sharing is allowed (however legitimate the data controller thinks this is), the directive currently prohibits personal data from being transferred outside the European Economic Area (EEA) unless the controller assures an adequate level of privacy protection (the adequacy requirement).

When negotiating with a cloud provider, pose the question of whether they are allowed to move data between countries as part of the contract, whether they have to inform you of such a move or can only do so at your request. Get visibility into the CSP’s HQ and data storage facilities (don’t assume it is the same) and also any countries where they employ people who manage the service. Furthermore, whereas the directive allows a data controller to decide if a third-party provider is safe, under the regulation, only the commission can do so.

6. Harmonised User Request Rights

Under the directive, users already have the right to see the data collected about them. However, each country currently defines how data controllers should respond (the UK allows 40 days) and in the new regulation the deadline will be harmonised, probably to 20 days.

7. New Erasure Rights

In the new regulation, users can also demand that their data be erased. This may sound straight-forward but it’s not always that simple. If a person said they wanted to be removed from one of your databases, how would you go about doing so? Would you have to remove data from multiple systems? Are syncing protocols in place that would make doing so difficult? Do you have processes now for this and how would you remove contact information from individual databases or spreadsheets? These are questions that need answering now, not after the regulation comes into play.

8. It Is Your Responsibility To Inform Users Of Their Rights

Under the new regulations, controllers must inform and remind users of their rights, as well as documenting the fact that they have reminded them of their rights. In addition, users should not have to opt-out of their data being used, they must opt-in to your systems. This is more stringent than the current directive and companies that fall foul of these measures will face larger fines.

9. Tougher Sanctions & Streamlined Incident Reporting

This is the big one. In case there was any doubt about how serious the regulators are taking the data breach issue, sanctions have been made much, much tougher. Fines may be as high as €100m or 5 percent of global revenue (whichever is higher), in stark contrast to i.e. in the UK, which is a maximum fine of £500,000.

Currently, different countries have different rules on data loss reporting for both the regulator and users. The regulation is intended to streamline the process, most likely so that regulators must be informed in 72 hours – unless, as per the ‘reasonable expectations’ requirement (explained shortly), data was encrypted or tokenised.

Arguably, something is missing from this new rule, namely how much time organisations have to inform users. TalkTalk, for instance, recently suffered a data breach and informed regulators within the required 72hrs (the UK rule). However, users were not informed until several months later, in which time hackers had used stolen contact information to phone/email TalkTalk customers, pretending to be from the company in an attempt to steal money. TalkTalk should have moved faster to inform its customers of the data breach.

10. Encryption & Tokenisation Can Come To Your Rescue

It’s not all bad news, there’s a piece in the regulation saying that controllers must meet individuals’ ”reasonable expectations” of data privacy. This is an interesting term as the regulations stipulate that tokenised, encrypted or pseudo-anonomised data does indeed meet these expectations. This is great news, as it allows organisations to encrypt or tokenise data before uploading to the cloud. Assuming that companies keep the encryption keys on their own premise, firstly data loss is much less likely and, if it does happen, they can show the regulators that they took steps to “meet the individual’s reasonable expectations of data privacy”.

Conclusion

This period, when the regulation is drafted but not yet in effect, is the ideal time for IT, security, and compliance teams to review the new requirements, seek legal guidance and put into place processes that will enable compliance.

These materials are not intended and should not be used as legal advice or other recommendation. If you need a legal opinion on a specific issue or factual situation, please contact a lawyer. Anyone using these materials should not rely on them as a substitute for legal advice.

Remember, no problem has a quick fix solution. Thus, always ensure to consult highly knowledgeable group of professionals whom would provide you with a collective advice, never individual advice. This group advice and approach is unique with CWIIL Group and is based on the overall Management Philosophy of all CWIIL Group Companies.

Consulting CWIIL Group of Companies, for any / all legal matters, ensures advice based on highest level of knowledge which are given to you by a team of select research-oriented experts whom each will do their own assessment of your matter, and also assess it together, thus ensuring that in case a mistake has been made by one, it will be noticed and corrected even before it is being passed on to you. Receiving incorrect and un-knowledgeable business advise can be disastrous and thus should be avoided.

CWIIL Group of Companies is a global group of multi-specialized units with diversified interests and activities, wherein each company is a separate legal entity registered under prevailing laws in different parts of the world. CWIIL Group of Companies Products, Services, Project and Solutions are in a multitude of Verticals including, but not limited to, Infrastructure, Power, Oil & Gas, Legal, Media, Technology, ITES, HR, Shipping, Aviation, Real Estate, Hospitals, Health and Medicine, Education, Funding & Investment, Business and Legal Consultancy, and Public Private Partnerships, and other CWIIL Group Units, worldwide, to name a few.

For Further Queries Feel Free to Contact :

CWIIL Group Global Regional Headquarters Denmark,
Address : No. 1, Klokkebjergevej, DK6900 Skjern, Denmark
Voice : +45.5148.3608
Fax : +45.7014.1498
Email : corpcomm@cwiilgroup.eu
Web : www.cwiilgroup.eu
Connect : LinkedIn – Twitter – Facebook – Quora

Office Hours :
Monday to Friday : 10.00 – 17.00 CET.
Saturday : 10.00 – 14.00 CET.
Sunday : Closed.

The Corporate Communications Team would require minimum a fortnight for Reviewing & Responding to Queries, which please note.

Software Patents – Professional Technology Consulting, Products, Projects, Services & Solutions From CWIIL Tech Labs

A software patent has been defined by the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) as being a “patent on any performance of a computer realised by means of a computer program”.

Globally the situation is more complex and reflects varying cultural views of invention itself. Most countries place some limits on the patenting of inventions involving software, but there is no one legal definition of a software patent. For example, U.S. patent law excludes “abstract ideas”, and this has been used to refuse some patents involving software. In Europe, “computer programs as such” are excluded from patentability, thus European Patent Office policy is consequently that a program for a computer is not patentable if it does not have the potential to cause a “further technical effect” beyond the inherent technical interactions between hardware and software.

There is a debate over the extent to which software patents should be granted, if at all. Important issues concerning software patents include:

  • Whether software patents should be allowed, and if so, where the boundary between patentable and non-patentable software should lie;
  • Whether the inventive step and non-obviousness requirement is applied too loosely to software; and
  • Whether patents covering software discourage, rather than encourage, innovation.

Background

A patent is a set of exclusionary rights granted by a state to a patent holder for a limited period of time, usually 20 years. These rights are granted to patent applicants in exchange for their disclosure of the inventions. Once a patent is granted in a given country, no person may make, use, sell or import/export the claimed invention in that country without the permission of the patent holder. Permission, where granted, is typically in the form of a license which conditions are set by the patent owner: It may be gratis or in return for a royalty payment or lump sum fee.

Patents are territorial in nature. To obtain a patent, inventors must file patent applications in each and every country in which they want a patent. For example, separate applications must be filed in Japan, China, the United States and India if the applicant wishes to obtain patents in those countries. However, some regional offices exist, such as the European Patent Office (EPO), which act as supranational bodies with the power to grant patents which can then be brought into effect in the member states, and an international procedure also exists for filing a single international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which can then give rise to patent protection in most countries.

These different countries and regional offices have different standards for granting patents. This is particularly true of software or computer-implemented inventions, especially where the software is implementing a business method.

Purpose of Patents

For the U.S., the purpose of patents is laid down in the constitutional clause that gives Congress the power “[t0] promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8). For Europe, there is no similar definition. Commonly four patent justification theories are recognised, as laid down for instance by Machlup in 1958, which include justice to the inventor and benefit for society by rewarding inventors. Disclosure is required in return for the exclusive right, and disclosure may promote further development. However, the value of disclosure should not be overestimated: Some inventions could not be kept secret otherwise, and patents also prohibit independent reinventions to be exploited. There is debate as to whether or not these aims are achieved with software patents.

Correct Utilisation is Crucial, and for that Professionals should Always be Consulted.

CWIIL TECH LABS is part of CWIIL Group Of Companies, a Global Group of Multi – Specialized Units with Diversified Interests and Activities, wherein each Company is a separate Legal Entity registered under prevailing laws in different parts of the world. The Group is active in a Multitude of Business Verticals, and its Technology Unit by the name of CWIIL TECH LABS covers a host of Technology Services, Products, Projects and Solutions.

Consulting Team – CWIIL Tech Labs, either directly or through the professionals in any CWIIL Group of Companies, for Professional Technology Guidance for your Specific Purpose, ensures Advise based on Highest Level of Knowledge which are given to you by a Team of Select Research-Oriented Experts whom each will do their own assessing of your matter, and also assess them together, thus ensuring that in case a mistake has been made by one, it will be noticed and corrected even before it is being passed on to you. Receiving incorrect and unknowledgeable technology advice can be disastrous and thus should be avoided.

Remember there is no quick fix solution to any problem. Thus, always ensure to consult Highly Knowledgeable Group Of Professionals whom would Provide You with a Collective Advice, never individual advise. This Group Advise and Approach is unique with all CWIIL Tech Labs Solutions and is in tune with the overall Management Philosophy of all CWIIL Group Companies, including but not limited to only CWIIL Tech Labs [ A Unit Of CWIIL Group ].

For Further Queries or to Request a Personal Quote Feel Free to Contact; Full Contact Details Available on www.cwiilgroup.eu/TechLabs/index.php

The Corporate Communications Team Would Need Minimum A Week’s Time For Responding To Queries.