Tsibouris & Associates home | practice areas | attorneys | contact | publications | clients | blog home

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Google's EU Data Protection Issues

On May 16, 2007, the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party sent Google a letter praising Google's efforts in improving its privacy practices. However, the Article 29 Working Party questioned Google's storage of server logs of 18-24 months.

Why should Google, a company based in the United States, care about what the EU says? Simply, the Article 29 Working Party states:

Although Google's headquarters are based in the United States, Google is under legal obligation to comply with European laws, in particular privacy laws, as Google's services are provided to European citizens and it maintains data processing activities in Europe, especially the processing of personal data that takes place at its European centre.

That said, why does the EU care about server logs being kept for 18-24 months. Well, first, server logs are information that can be linked to an identified or identifiable natural person. This fact falls within the definition of "personal data" of Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. The processing of server logs is tantamount to the processing of personal data and thus subject to the Data Protection Directive.

Article 6(e) requires that the personal data be "kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed."

The Article 29 Working Party is concerned that Google has not sufficiently specified the purposes for which the server logs are to be kept. So the WP specifically asked Google to clarify why this long storage period was chosen and to specify Google's legal justification for the storage of server logs in general.

The Article 29 Working Party also questioned Google's use of cookies that last approximately 30 years. The WP stated that the lifetime of the google cookie is disproportionate with respect to the purpose of the data processing which is performed and goes beyond what seems to be strictly necessary for the provision of the service, within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC.

The Article 29 Working Party will deal with the above issues at its June 2007 meeting and requested Google to respond to their concerns.

While I've not seen a formal response from Google, its global privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer, stated to Reuters that "I will tell the working party that Google needs to hold on to its log database to protect itself and the system from attacks and refine and improve the effectiveness of our search results." (eWeek)

Further, Mr. Fleischer posed the post Why does Google remember information about searches on the Official Google Blog on May 11, 2007. Mr. Fleischer outlined three critical factors in deciding upon the 18-24 month period: (1) to improve Google's services, (2) to maintain security and prevent fraud and abuse, and (3) to comply with legal obligations to retain data.

In its explanation to the third factor, in light of the Article 29 Working Party letter, it's interesting that Mr. Fleischer stated that "Google may be subject to the EU Data Retention Directive, which was passed last year, in the wake of the Madrid and London terrorist bombings, to help law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of "serious crime."

Labels: ,

Read More...

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

New England Banks to Sue TJX

The Boston Globe reports that a group of New England banks are planning to sue TJX Cos. over TJX's data breach.

Labels: , , ,

Read More...

Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board 2007 Report

The Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board recently released its report (PDF) to Congress on the Board's major activities during the preceding year. The Board's conclusions regarding Anti-terrorism policies and programs will probably be scrutinized and discussed:

Based upon its review, the Board has concluded that the Executive Branch’s conduct of these surveillance activities appropriately considers and reasonably protects the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. Persons. As a result of the new FISA Court Orders, the highly regimented Executive Branch process of justification, review, approval, and auditing has been further augmented by court supervision. This provides reasonable assurance that national security and privacy and civil liberties interests are appropriately balanced. The Board found no evidence or reasonable basis to believe that the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. Persons are improperly threatened or impinged under the surveillance conducted by the Executive Branch, either under the TSP or subsequently under the new FISC Orders. In the opinion of the Board, it appears that the officials and personnel who were involved in conducting the TSP, and who now are responsible for implementing surveillance under the FISC Orders, are significantly aware and respectful of U.S. Constitutional and legal rights and protections for U.S. Persons, and they are actively committed to protecting privacy and civil liberties of U.S. Persons in conducting such surveillance.


Hat tip: beSpacific

Labels: , ,

Read More...

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

TJX Companies 10K on Computer Intrusions

This InternetNews story says that TJX Companies, Inc. revealed to the SEC that as many as 47.5 million customer records were stolen during TJX's highly publicized computer intrusion. For those interested, here's TJX's 10-K filing. Pages 7-10 are devoted to a discussion of the computer intrusion and pages 18-21 detail the 19 legal proceedings related to the computer intrusion. Page 21 also details the various government investigations in regards to the computer intrusion.

Obviously, the security breach will not be cheap for TJX.

Recent News Stories:

Labels: , ,

Read More...

Friday, February 23, 2007

Ohio Senate Bill No. 6

Senate Bill Number 6 was introduced:

  • to allow consumers to place a security freeze on the consumer's credit report
  • to specify that Social Security numbers are confidential
  • to specify that certain personal information is not a public record
  • to require a public office to redact from a document that is otherwise a public record certain personal information
  • to require a public office to redact Social Security numbers and other confidential information from any document that is made available online to the public through the Internet
  • to require the Office of Criminal Justice Services to make state funding grants available to local law enforcement agencies for enforcement of identity fraud laws
  • to require the attorney general to support local law enforcement agencies with the enforcement of identity fraud laws, and
  • to enact a special statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions against identity fraud

The bill, if passed, would help erase the problem reported last year where a number of records from the Ohio Secretary of State's Office was displayed with Social Security numbers.

While I agree that government websites should not post information such as SSN's on their websites, I expect that this bill would either cost taxpayers money to find and redact SSN's already posted (which is not a trivial task). Alternatively, some agencies may take the information offline as they assess the scope of confidential information contained in their online records.

Labels: , ,

Read More...