ДЕЯКІ ПРАВОВІ ПРОБЛЕМИ ІНТЕРНЕТУ РЕЧЕЙ І НАПРЯМИ ЇХ ВИРІШЕННЯ

The rapid growth of the big data industry has made personal information the basic resource. However, the convenience of obtaining personal information and the commerciality will inevitably lead to the problem of personal information security protection. Based on this background, this paper takes company A as the research case draws out the insufficiency of the protection of customers personal information: system risk, human risk, and process management risk in data storage and transmission, and systemic and human factors in data-supported security, and puts forward the countermeasures for the protection of personal information: 1) Clarification of the main bodys responsibility; 2) Classification and grading control; 3) Avoiding sensitive data out of the network; and 4) Information use requiring authorization. This study provides relevant suggestions on how to improve the security protection of personal information in the field of big data applications; from the technical aspect, it adopts classification control use authorization and other technologies to reduce network risks; on the other hand, from the management aspect, it clarifies the main safety responsibility, strengthens the professional skills training of personnel, and authenticates the use within the scope of authority, which can help enterprises make future strategies.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. "As a result of increasing interconnectivity, information systems and networks are now exposed to a growing number and a wider variety of threats and vulnerabilities. This raises new issues for security." OECD Guidelines for the Security of Information Systems and Networks, July 25, 2002, at p. 7, available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/22/15582260.pdf. 2. Although not the subject of this article, it is important to note that countries are also enacting cybercrime legislation to make clear that certain online activities are illegal and to assist law enforcement in efforts to prosecute cyber criminals. To that end, the Privacy and Computer Crime Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Science & Technology Law has recently undertaken a project to develop a Model Cybercrime Law for the UN International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) Cybersecurity Work Programme to Assist Developing Countries. See also the International Guide to Combating Cybercrime published by this Committee, available at http://www.abanet.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=ST202003. 3. See the Appendix for a compilation of some of the key laws and regulations governing information security. 4. See, e.g., EU Data Protection Directive and HIPAA, cited in the Appendix. 5. See, e.g., E-SIGN, UETA, and UN Convention cited in the Appendix. 6. See, e.g., Kimberly Kiefer and Randy V. Sabett, Openness of Internet Creates Potential for Corporate Information Security Liability, BNA Privacy & Security Law Report, Vol. 1, No. 25 at 788 (June 24, 2002); Alan Charles Raul, Frank R. Volpe, and Gabriel S. Meyer, Liability for Computer Glitches and Online Security Lapses, BNA Electronic Commerce Law Report, Vol. 6, No. 31 at 849 (August 8, 2001); Erin Kenneally, The Byte Stops Here: Duty and Liability for Negligent Internet Security, Computer Security Journal, Vol. XVI, No. 2, 2000. 7. See, e.g., Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007); Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006); and Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005) (all affirming a negligence cause of action). See also, In Re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 77236 (D. Mass. October 12, 2007) (rejecting a negligence claim due to the economic loss doctrine, but allowing a negligent misrepresentation claim to proceed). 8. See, e.g., American Express v. Vinhnee, 2005 Bankr. Lexis 2602 (9th Cir. Bk. App. Panel, 2005); Lorraine v. Markel, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 33020 (D. MD. May 4, 2007). 9. Available at www.pcisecuritystandards.org. 10. Available at www.cabforum.org. 11. ISO/IEC 27001, Information Technology—Security Techniques—Information Security Management Systems—Requirements (October 2005) (hereinafter "ISO/IEC 27001"), available for purchase at http://www.standards-online.net/InformationSecurityStandard.htm. 12. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 24, 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (hereinafter "EU Data Protection Directive"). 13. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 14. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 15. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 and 1320d-4, (providing that "each person … who maintains or transmits health information shall maintain reasonable and appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards: (A) to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of the information; (B) to protect against any reasonably anticipated: (i) threats or hazards to the security or integrity of the information; and (ii) unauthorized uses or disclosures of the information; and (C) otherwise to ensure compliance with this part by the officers and employees of such person," at 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(d)(2). 16. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act ("GLB"), Pub. L. No. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (November 12, 1999), at §§ 501 and 505(b), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801, 6805, providing that "[E]ach financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers' nonpublic personal information." 17. See, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLB"), Public Law 106-102, §§ 501 and 505(b), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801, 6805, and implementing regulations at 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 208, Appendix D (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part 364, Appendix B (FDIC), 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift Supervision) and 16 C.F.R. Part 314 (FTC). 18. Final HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Part 164. 19. There have also been efforts in the United States to pursue comprehensive federal privacy similar to the approach taken by many other countries. See e.g., Microsoft position paper at www.microsoft.com/presspass/download/features/2005/PrivacyLegislationCallWP.doc. Although it remains to be seen whether that approach will ultimately be adopted, it is clear that the combination of U.S. state and federal law has, in effect, imposed a comprehensive obligation of security with respect to all personal information held by all companies. 20. See, e.g., FTC enforcement actions regarding In the Matter of Sunbelt Lending Services, Inc.; In the Matter of Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.; In the Matter of MTS, Inc., d/b/a Tower records/Books/Video; In the matter of Guess?, Inc.; FTC V. Microsoft; and In the Matter of Eli Lilly and Company cited in the Appendix. 21. See, e.g., FTC enforcement actions regarding In the Matter of CardSystems Solutions, Inc.; United States v. ChoicePoint, Inc.; In the Matter of DSW Inc.; and In the Matter of BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. cited in the Appendix. 22. See list in the Appendix. 23. See, e.g., Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006) and Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). 24. 205 Mich. App. Lexis 353 at ∗16 (Mich. App. 2005). 25. 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 at ∗9 (D. Minn. 2006). 26. Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007). 27. In Re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 77236 (D. Mass. October 12, 2007), at pp. 28–29. 28. Ibid. 29. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 defines the term "information system" to mean "any equipment or interconnected system or subsystems of equipment that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information, and includes—(A) computers and computer networks; (B) ancillary equipment; (C) software, firmware, and related procedures; (D) services, including support services; and (E) related resources." Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, at Section 1001(b), amending 44 U.S.C. § 3532(b)(4). 30. See, e.g., Australia, Information Privacy Principles under the Privacy Act 1988, Principle No. 4, available at www.privacy.gov.au/publications/ipps.html; AICPA and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA), Generally Accepted Privacy principles, Principle No. 8, available at http://infotech.aicpa.org/Resources/Privacy/Generally+Accepted+Privacy+Principles; APEC, Privacy principles, Principle No. 7, available at http://austlii.edu.au/∼graham/APEC/APECv10.doc; US-EU Safe Harbor Privacy Principles, available at www.export.gov/safeharbor/SHPRINCIPLESFINAL.htm; Direct Marketing Association, Online Marketing Guidelines, available at www.the-dma.org/guidelines/onlineguidelines.shtml. 31. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 24, 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (hereinafter "EU Data Protection Directive"). 32. EU Data Protection Directive, Preamble at Para. 46. 33. EU Data Protection Directive, Article 17(1). 34. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 35. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 36. See generally, Bruce H. Nearon, Jon Stanley, Steven W. Teppler, and Joseph Burton, Life after Sarbanes-Oxley: The Merger of Information Security and Accountability, Jurimetrics Journal, Vol. 45, 379–412 (2005). 37. American Express v. Vinhnee, 336 B.R. 437; 2005 Bankr. Lexis 2602 (9th Cir. December 16, 2006). 38. Ibid., at p. 444. 39. Ibid., at p. 445. 40. Ibid., at pp. 446–447. 41. Ibid., at p. 449. 42. See, e.g., National Association of Corporate Directors, Information Security Oversight (2007). 43. Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Section 302. 44. See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations (Federal Reserve) 12 C.F.R. 208, Appendix D-2.III(A). 45. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section 164.308(a)(2). 46. See, FTC Decisions and Consent Decrees listed in the Appendix, including Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 27(a), p. 7; Eli Lilly Decision at II.A. 47. FISMA, 44 U.S.C. 3544(a). 48. E. Michael Power and Roland L. Trope, Sailing in Dangerous Waters: A Director's Guide to Data Governanc e , American Bar Association (2005), p. 13; Roland L. Trope, "Directors' Digital Fiduciary Duties," IEEE Security & Privacy, January/February 2005 at p. 78. 49. Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996). 50. Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005), at pp. 11–13 (noting that harm was foreseeable, but Board took no action). 51. Securing Cyberspace: Business Roundtable's Framework for the Future, Business Roundtable, May 19, 2004 at pp. 1, 2; available at www.businessroundtable.org/pdf//20040518000CyberSecurityPrinciples.pdf. The Business Roundtable is an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. corporations with a combined workforce of more than 10 million employees in the United States. See www.businessroundtable.org. 52. Information Security Governance: A Call to Action, Corporate Governance Task Force Report, National Cyber Security Partnership, April 2004, pp. 12–13, available at www.cyberpartnership.org/InfoSecGov4_04.pdf. The National Cyber Security Partnership (NCSP) is led by the Business Software Alliance (BSA), the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), TechNet, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in voluntary partnership with academicians, CEOs, federal government agencies, and industry experts. Following the release of the 2003 White House National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace and the National Cyber Security Summit, this public–private partnership was established to develop shared strategies and programs to better secure and enhance America's critical information infrastructure. Further information is available at www.cyberpartnership.org. 53. GLB Security Regulations (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part III.A and Part III.F. 54. See, e.g., Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002) 44 U.S.C. Section 3542(b)(1); GLB Security Regulations (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part II.B; HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section 164.306(a)(1); Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4. 55. See, e.g., 44 USC 3532(b)(1), emphasis added. See also FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Section 3542(b)(1). Most of the foreign privacy laws also focus their security requirements from this perspective. This includes, for example, the EU Privacy Directive, Finland's Privacy Law, Italy's Privacy Law, and the UK Privacy Law. Also in this category is the Canadian Privacy Law. 56. Although they often focus on categories of security measures to address. See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Part 164. 57. See, e.g., FDA regulations at 21 C.F.R. Part 11 (procedures and controls); SEC regulations at 17 C.F.R. 257.1(e)(3) (procedures); SEC regulations at 17 C.F.R. 240.17a-4 (controls); GLB regulations (FTC) 16 C.F.R. Part 314 (safeguards); Canada, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, Schedule I, Section 4.7 (safeguards); EU Data Privacy Directive, Article 17(1) (measures) available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/docs/95-46-ce/dir1995-46_part1_en.pdf. 58. See, e.g., HIPAA 42 U.S.C. 1302d-2, and HIPAA Security regulations, 45 CFR 164.306; COPPA, 15 U.S.C. 6502(b)(1)(D), and COPPA regulations 16 C.F.R. 312.8; IRS Rev. Proc. 97-22, sec. 4.01(2); SEC regulations 17 C.F.R. 257. See also UCC Article 4A, Section 202 ("commercially reasonable" security procedure), and Microsoft Consent Decree. 59. "Appropriate" security required by: HIPAA 42 U.S.C. 1302d-2, and HIPAA Security regulations, 45 CFR 164.306; EU Data Protection Directive, Article 17(1). 60. EU Data Protection Directive, Article 17(1) (emphasis added) 61. See, e.g., Belgium—Belgian Law of 8 December 1992 on Privacy Protection in relation to the Processing of Personal Data, as modified by the law of 11 December 1998 Implementing Directive 95/46/EC, and the law of 26 February 2003, Chapter IV, Article 16(4); Denmark—Act on Processing of Personal Data,; Act No. 429 of 31 May 2000 (unofficial English translation), Title IV, Part 11, Section 41(3); Estonia—Personal Data Protection Act; Passed February12, 2003 (RT1 I 2003, 26, 158), entered into force October 1, 2003, Chapter 3, Sections 19(2); Greece—Law 2472/1997 on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data (as amended by Laws 2819/2000 and 2915/2001); Article 10(3); Ireland—Data Protection (Amendment) Act 2003; Section 2.-(1)(d) and First Schedule Article 7; Lithuania—Law on Legal Protection of Personal Data, January 21, 2003, No. IX-1296, Official translation, with amendments April 13, 2004, Article 24(1); Netherlands—25 892—Rules for the protection of personal data (Personal Data Protection Act) (Unofficial translation); Article 13; Portugal—Act on the Protection of Personal Data (transposing into the Portuguese legal system Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 24, 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data), Article 14(1); Slovakia—Act No 428 of July 3, 2002 on personal data protection; Section 15(1); Sweden—Personal Data Act (1998:204); issued April 29, 1998, Section 31; and UK—Data Protection Act 1998, Schedule 1, Part I, Seventh Principle. 62. See, e.g., Finland—The Finnish Personal Data Act (523/1999), given on 22.4.1999, Section 32(1); Germany—Federal Data Protection Act as of January 1, 2003, Section 9; Hungary—Act LXIII of 1992 on the Protection of Personal Data and Public Access to Data of Public Interest, Article 10(1); Italy—Personal Data Protection Code, Legislative Decree No. 196 of 30 June 2003, Sections 31 and 33; Spain—Organic Law 15/1999 of December 13 on the Protection of Personal Data, Article 9. 63. 5 USC Sec. 552a. 64. 5 U.S.C. § 552a (d)(10) (emphasis added). 65. 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(d)(2). 66. See, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLB"), Public Law 106-102, §§ 501 and 505(b), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801, 6805, and implementing regulations at 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 208, Appendix D (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part 364, Appendix B (FDIC), 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift Supervision) and 16 C.F.R. Part 314 (FTC) (emphasis added). 67. Cal. Civil Code § 1798.81.5(b). 68. See UN Convention at Article 9(3), 9(4), and 9(5). 69. ISO/IEC 27001, Information Technology—Security Techniques—Information Security Management Systems—Requirements (October 2005). See text at footnotes 157–169, infra. February 1, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 208, Appendix D (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part 364, Appendix B (FDIC), 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift May 16 C.F.R. Part 44 U.S.C. Section 45 C.F.R. 164. See of the on by of the Technology and Homeland Security of the Committee on the United States 21, 2007 at p. (noting that FTC under the GLB Act as a for the obligation to maintain reasonable and appropriate available at See also, of the the on Information and the Committee on U.S. House of on April 21, 2004, at p. 5 (noting that is an of reasonable and appropriate measures in of the available at See, e.g., FTC Decisions and Consent Decrees listed in the Appendix. See, e.g., National Association of Insurance for Information Model available at in at See, e.g., Consent Decrees listed in the Appendix. 78. See, e.g., Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006) and Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006). Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). Committee on available at See, e.g., Italy—Personal Data Protection Code, Legislative Decree No. 196 of 30 June 2003, B, § Act No 428 of July 2002 on personal data § the Appendix, Act, B, Section Act, Section the Appendix, Act, Article Act, Section Act, 16(4); Act, Section 41(3); Act, Section Act, Section 32(1); Act, Section 9; Act, Article 10(3); Act, Article 10(1); Act, Article 24(1); Act, Article 13; Act, Article 14(1); Act, Section 15(1); Act, Article 9; Act, Section 31; UK Act, Schedule 1, Part I, Seventh Act, Article 7. the Appendix, Act, Schedule 2, Section Act, Act, Schedule 1, 4.7 Principle 7, Act, Section Act, Section Act, B, Sections and Act, Sections 17 and the Appendix, Act, Section A Security § Act, Section Decree the Appendix, Decree the Appendix, Act, Section Principle 4; Act, Article Act, Article Act, Sections and Act, Section Act, Section Act, Section Act, B, Sections and Act, Sections 17 and Bruce & Digital Security in a & at p. See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. Eli Lilly Decision at II.B; GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Eli Lilly Decision at See, e.g., FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Sections and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part See, e.g., In Electronic July 30, Financial Council, 2; available at See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; GLB Security Regulations (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Eli Lilly Decision at II.B; HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Information Security Management Act of 2002 44 U.S.C. Section See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Information Security Management Act of 2002 44 U.S.C. Section See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Information Security Management Act of 2002 44 U.S.C. Section See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section See, e.g., United States v. Cir. See, e.g., Inc. v. also v. or of to with and of See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part and Part FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Sections and Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 CFR Section and and on HIPAA Security of & Section of Science & Technology Law, No. April 2003, at p. 2, available at See, e.g., HIPAA regulations 45 C.F.R. Sections and GLB Regulations, 12 C.F.R. 208, Appendix and 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part Microsoft Consent at p. 4. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Sections and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section and Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 5 and Para. 25, p. 6. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Sections and Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, and 26, pp. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part See, e.g., FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 5. Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 7. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4. FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Section Eli Lilly Decision at GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. and p. 7; Eli Lilly Decision at HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. and p. 7; Eli Lilly Decision at GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Eli Lilly Decision at Microsoft Consent Decree at p. 5. Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 7. See, e.g., of the of the of National on 21, at See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007). See Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). See Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 at (D. Minn. February 7, 2006) that a was the to and a of a was not a of a of reasonable The Financial is a of U.S. federal agencies, that the Board of of the Reserve Insurance the National the of the of the and the of Thrift on on in an Internet 8, 2006 at p. available at on on in an Internet 8, 2006 at p. available at Guide for the Guidelines Information Security December available at Information Security July available at See National Institute of and Management Guide for Information Technology No. available at ISO/IEC 27001, Information Technology—Security Techniques—Information Security Management Systems—Requirements (October 2005) (hereinafter "ISO/IEC ISO/IEC § for is the and of International and is of a of the of with and a in that the The American National Institute the United States. See, The also in and in related to including The of make its with the United States. See ISO/IEC 27001, § (emphasis added). ISO/IEC 27001, § ISO/IEC 27001, § ISO/IEC 27001, § 164. ISO/IEC 27001, § ISO/IEC 27001, §§ and 6. ISO/IEC 27001, §§ and 8. ISO/IEC 27001, §§ ISO/IEC that with an International not in from legal p. 1. EU Data Protection Directive, Article 8. Article Data Protection on the processing of personal data to health in health February 15, at pp. available at (emphasis in See list of state laws in Report, Security and Laws of 15, 2005 at Appendix available at Code, § Rev. Stat. Available at www.pcisecuritystandards.org. See list in the Appendix. See, e.g., 16 CFR Section Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. § HIPAA security regulations to in the Act Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part security regulations to information in the financial Homeland Security Act of 2002 § 1001(b), amending 44 U.S.C. § and § amending 44 U.S.C. § information and information systems from unauthorized and regulations, 21 C.F.R. Part 11. See, e.g., Cal. Civil Code § 1798.81.5(b). See April 2, the Matter of of the Act of of Information and Information Services, No. No. April 2, at available at (hereinafter Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007). in an Internet 12, 2005 available at This was by an on on in an Internet 8, available at of No. 25, The is an See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. § at p. 6. Ibid., at p. 3. Ibid. v. National 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2007), at p. 13. See, e.g., on of Security Breach Personal of Privacy of April 2006 (hereinafter at pp. at note , at p. a of such in the United States and a of the number of individuals Privacy at IRS Rev. Proc. § See list of statutes in the Appendix. on for Access to Information and Part of A to Appendix, at 12 C.F.R. Part 30 (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part (FDIC), and 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift 29, Vol. No. 29, at p. (hereinafter the maintains personal information that the not in the laws the to the or of the information, than the individuals of any of the security of the See, e.g., Code § Rev. Stat. § Code, § Stat. § Code § 2007 The also any combination of of information that to or the such as and or and See, e.g., Breach to the of & Financial Services, December 15 USC Section This that with the of at 15 USC Section and are of in this and are of in this See, and of a Duty to Information Security Computer & L. See and to Law the Protection of Personal BNA Privacy & Security Law Report, 19, p. May See at on the of the Framework for Electronic and Services, with focus on the 26, available at Science and Technology Committee, House of Internet of July 24, at Para. of the Privacy of Canada, for in to Privacy available at See Privacy Breach of the Privacy available at Privacy available at See, of the Privacy to the Law of February at available at Available at Available at to information to state

In South Korea, artificial intelligence (AI)-related personal information protection has long been an issue, and the Lee-Luda (also referred to as ‘Iruda’) incident drove the development of specific policies and guidelines. The Lee-Luda case is fairly important for AI governance in Korea, since the Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC) decision was the first to make a judgment on the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) violations as a result of development and operation of AI. Following the Lee-Luda case, Korean society became more aware of the risks posed by privacy infringement in the age of intelligent information technology. Lawmakers began to establish legal frameworks for the protection of personal information while developing AI products and services. This study reviews legal issues and suggests policy directions while highlighting the significance of the Lee-Luda case, which was an epochal turning point in the protection of personal information related to AI products and services in Korea. First, the authors review the PIPC’s decision on Scatter Lab’s violation of the PIPA, analyse the legal issues in the Lee-Luda case, and derive the significance and limitations of the decision. Next, the authors suggest that it is desirable for AI governance to move towards self-regulation in a manner that ensures the autonomy of AI developers and operators; they also review the recent trends in the laws and policies on data protection that have been continually developed since the Lee-Luda case, especially with a focus on the AI Personal Information Protection Self-Checklist (Self-Checklist).

The rapid expansion of the digital economy and the exponential growth of data transmitted across national borders have made the harmonisation of personal data protection regimes a central issue in contemporary international law. Using comparative legal analysis, this article examines international, regional, and national legal instruments governing cross-border transfers of personal data. These include the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, as modernised, the European Union General Data Protection Regulation and its recent adequacy decision concerning the United States, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules systems, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Declaration on Government Access to Personal Data, United States national security regulations adopted under Executive Order No. 14117, China’s simplified 2024 rules on cross-border data transfers, Brazil’s 2024 regulation on international data transfers, and Russia’s 2025 amendments on data localisation. The article evaluates trust-building mechanisms, including standard contractual clauses, binding corporate rules, certification mechanisms, and privacy-enhancing technologies, and assesses the Group of Twenty initiative on Data Free Flow with Trust and related trade policy recommendations aimed at reducing regulatory fragmentation. The study concludes that, in the absence of a universal international treaty, mutual recognition of safeguards and the widespread use of privacy-by-design technologies are essential to balancing the protection of human rights with the promotion of innovation.

To ensure proper healthcare services and automation, including minimising medical errors and providing faster and more efficient healthcare, the medical field is experiencing innovative technological trends. They include automated patient records, hospital management system software, telemedicine, and the use of artificial intelligence devices. These innovations exist in more than just the global north, as they are slowly finding residence in African countries. Focusing on automated patient record, the article examines existing data protection legal frameworks in Africa to ascertain whether they provide effective remedy mechanisms patients can access should a breach occur. Taking cognisance of the current African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement (AfCFTA) aimed at creating a single market for goods and services; it is evident that healthcare services might have a continental approach. Thus, the article adopts a continental, regional, and national perspective. Using doctrinal method, the article compares the African Union Data Protection Convention with the European Union General Data Protection Regulation to draw lessons from the European Union Experience. The article finds that strengthened national mechanisms might provide the requisite remedy mechanisms patients can access to ensure enforcement of their rights to data protection.

Data protection laws, including the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, regulate aspects of online personalization. However, the data protection lens is too narrow to analyze personalization. To define conditions for personalization, we should understand data protection in its larger fundamental rights context, starting with the closely connected right to privacy. If the right to privacy is considered along with other European fundamental rights that protect information and communication flows, namely, communications confidentiality; the right to receive information; and freedom of expression, opinion, and thought, these rights are observed to enable what I call a “personal information sphere” for each person. This notion highlights how privacy interferences affect other fundamental rights. The personal information sphere is grounded in European case law and is thus not just an academic affair. The essence of the personal information sphere is control, yet with a different meaning than mere control as guaranteed by data protection law. The personal information sphere is about people controlling how they situate themselves in information and communication networks. It follows that, to respect privacy and related rights, online personalization providers should actively involve users in the personalization process and enable them to use personalization for personal goals.

The right to protection of personal data arises where personal data requires processing, usage ad storage. It is therefore a process requiring extracting of personal data from an individual and processing it without infringing on the person’s rights to protection of data as well as privacy. Contact tracing technology is used at the time of epidemics, and it is a technique by which people can be monitored to find out their interactions with a person who has tested positive for a specific infectious disease. This process was previously done as a means of managing infectious diseases so as to shorten the response time. Specifically, for the Covid-19 pandemic, the process has been digitized across the globe. In dealing with covid-19, the state should take into consideration the need to balance between the right of individuals to good health and the right to protection of data as contact tracing and following up on infections is paramount in managing the corona virus pandemic. This can be through setting out legislation that limits the use of information collected for the purposes of corona-virus for that limited purpose in the required institutions. Since Coronavirus is an emerging problem, more needs to be done in terms of research to understand how to deal with it effectively and in balance while protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals. The Paper discuss the legal principles on the right to personal privacy in both Germany and the European Union, through a comparative study between European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which came into force on 25th May 2018, and German Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG) of 30 June 2017, amended by Article 12 of the Act of November 20, 2019. it will delve deeper on the relationship between the protection of personal data and other fundamental rights and freedoms. Lastly it studies the balancing between measures that could help track and contain the virus while safeguarding the privacy of individuals.

This paper explores the importance of accountability to data protection, and how it can be built into the Internet of Things (IoT). The need to build accountability into the IoT is motivated by the opaque nature of distributed data flows, inadequate consent mechanisms, and lack of interfaces enabling end-user control over the behaviours of internet-enabled devices. The lack of accountability precludes meaningful engagement by end-users with their personal data and poses a key challenge to creating user trust in the IoT and the reciprocal development of the digital economy. The EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016 (GDPR) seeks to remedy this particular problem by mandating that a rapidly developing technological ecosystem be made accountable. In doing so it foregrounds new responsibilities for data controllers, including data protection by design and default, and new data subject rights such as the right to data portability. While GDPR is technologically neutral, it is nevertheless anticipated that realising the vision will turn upon effective technological development. Accordingly, this paper examines the notion of accountability, how it has been translated into systems design recommendations for the IoT, and how the IoT Databox puts key data protection principles into practice.

With the rapid development of mobile Internet, minors' personal information is inevitably collected and processed by various information processors. Due to the characteristics of immature mental development and weak risk prediction ability of minors, it is difficult to effectively protect their personal information security. Although China's "Personal Information Protection Law" makes provisions on the protection of minors' personal information, there are still some problems such as "one-size-fits-all" age limit and imperfect guardian consent system. This paper will test the current hundreds of various types of apps, conduct a questionnaire survey on the protection of personal information of minors and their guardians, analyze the current dilemma of the protection of personal information of minors at the social level, propose countermeasures according to the symptoms, and explore more targeted ways to protect the rights and interests of minors' personal information. Escort the physical and mental healthy development of minors under the background of the information age.

In the era of “big data”, personal information can be accumulated and utilized in large quantities. At the same time, the uneasiness about the invasion of personal privacy also follows. This paper focuses on the development and evolution of Japan’s Personal Information Protection Law, the restrictions on the application of personal information in Japan, the key points of revision of Japan’s Personal Information Protection Law and other measures taken by the Japanese government, and puts forward three inspirations from Japan’s personal information protection system to China. That is, (1) formulate a special law of the Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, (2) encourage all social parties to actively participate in “personal information protection”, and (3) establish a personal information protection system in line with national conditions. It is expected to provide useful reference for the further improvement of China’s information protection system.

This paper explores some key discrepancies between two sets of normative requirements applicable to the research use of personal data and human biological materials: (a) the data protection regime which follows the application of the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and (b) the Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS guidelines and other research ethics regulations. One source of this controversy is that the GDPR requires consent to process personal data to be clear, concise, specific and granular, freely given and revocable and therefore has challenged the concept of ‘broad consent’, which has been widely applied in the context of biobanking. Another source of controversy is the interplay between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data related to the secondary use of personal data and biological materials. In this case, the GDPR ‘research condition’ provides an alternative to re-consent for the use of previously collected personal data and biological materials. Although the mentioned controversies have been raised in the legal literature, they have not been explicitly addressed from the research ethics perspective. Should consent be regarded as a priority legal basis for personal data processing in health data research? Can broad consent still be a suitable legal ground for biobanking? What should be the role of research ethics provisions that differ from the GDPR standards, and what should be the role and function of research ethics committees in the changing environment of health data research? These are the ongoing controversies to be explored in the paper.

"Big Data" and data-mined inferences are affecting more and more of our lives, and concerns about their possible discriminatory effects are growing. Methods for discrimination-aware data mining and fairness-aware data mining aim at keeping decision processes supported by information technology free from unjust grounds. However, these formal approaches alone are not sufficient to solve the problem. In the present article, we describe reasons why discrimination with data can and typically does arise through the combined effects of human and machine-based reasoning, and argue that this requires a deeper understanding of the human side of decision-making with data mining. We describe results from a large-scale human-subjects experiment that investigated such decision-making, analyzing the reasoning that participants reported during their task to assess whether a loan request should or would be granted. We derive data protection by design strategies for making decision-making discrimination-aware in an accountable way, grounding these requirements in the accountability principle of the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, and outline how their implementations can integrate algorithmic, behavioral, and user interface factors.

This contribution aims to address risks and opportunities for cultural diversity resulting from ‎platforms’ personalisation tools based on a legal analysis of the main provisions of the European Union‎ General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on consumer profiling and automated decisions, as well as ‎a sample of data protection policies of selected streaming platforms. It examines how the latter may in‎ practice affect the protection of consumers’ personal data for the purpose of recommending personalised ‎audio-visual and music content online and how such provisions relate to the discoverability of a‎ diversified cultural offer online and, at the European level, the obligation for platforms to give prominence‎ to European works in their catalogues. The paper shows that a lot may still be done to improve the‎ transparency of algorithms used for personalisation purposes and to provide users with greater control of‎ their data, as required by the GDPR.‎

A profound shift across European public law has occurred as public authorities and private actors are increasingly interconnected in the exercise of public functions. This article explains the differences between the obligations imposed on private parties and public authorities by the European Union General Data Protection Regulation and UK Data Protection Bill, which is currently before the UK Parliament. It considers whether such a divide is justifiable, especially in light of private parties increasingly performing public functions, and makes recommendations for the interpretation and development of the public-private divide in the future. Although the structure adopted in the UK Data Protection Bill has the ability to achieve a coherent and appropriate public-private divide, it will present a considerable administrative challenge and must be monitored closely in the future.

The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) governs personal data processing, aiming to ensure privacy in all systems handling such data. All systems that process personal data, including software systems are legally obliged to comply to all articles of the GDPR applicable to them. In this paper, the case study of an e-Learning software platform, namely the INFORM platform and its compliance to relevant articles of the GDPR is presented. The e-Learning platform was developed with the objective to host the educational material developed under the JUSTICE EU-funded project INFORM, targeting judiciary, court staff and legal practitioners, in order to provide free and open distance access to the content. In particular, the paper demonstrates the compliance of the platform with the articles and principles of: Data Minimisation, Lawfulness of Processing, Right to Erasure, Right of Access, Right to Data Portability, Right to Rectification and Security of Processing. By applying these articles, conformance to the provision for Data Protection by design is also achieved; the platform's software development process integrates the articles of the GDPR early in the development steps, from the specification and design phases. We show how the design process progressed and demonstrate the corresponding functionality within the e-Learning platform. The paper extracts a list of lessons learned and conclusions on software GDPR compliance.