Legislation & Regulation

Subscribe to Legislation & Regulation via RSS

By Gail Crawford and Ksenia Koroleva

The Federal Law No. 87-FZ of May 1, 2017, on Amendments to the Federal Law on Information, Information Technologies, and Information Protection (the Law) came into force on July 1, 2017. The Law introduces the definition of an audiovisual service owner and regulates their activities, including imposing ownership restrictions.

The Notion of Audiovisual Service Owners

According to the Law, an audiovisual service owner is an owner of a website, a page of a website, an information system, and/or software (an Audiovisual Service):

  • Used for collating and providing access to audiovisual content
  • By paid subscription and/or funded by advertising
  • To users located in the territory of Russia
  • With more than 100,000 users a day (on average)

The following are not regarded an Audiovisual Service:

  • Information resources registered as online media in accordance with the Federal Law No. 2124-1 of December 27, 1991, on Mass Media (e.g., online media, TV-channels, TV/radio/video programs, etc.)
  • Search engines
  • Information resources which focus on hosting user-generated content under the criteria to be set by the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information Technologies, and Mass Communications (Roscomnadzor) (e.g., YouTube, RuTube, Vimeo).

By Steven Croley*, Jennifer Archie and Serrin Turner

The Trump Administration has issued a much anticipated Executive Order (EO),“Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure,” directing federal executive agency heads to undertake various cyber-related reviews and to report findings back to the White House Electricity_Pylon_singleColColorwithin prescribed timetables. Unlike some of the Trump Administration’s executive orders receiving much attention in recent weeks, this new cybersecurity EO does not aim to unwind policies put in place or initiatives undertaken by the Obama Administration. In fact, subsequent steps by the Trump Administration following the new EO may likely build upon the previous Administration’s efforts, which had assigned responsibilities to various executive departments serving as “sector specific” agencies for different sectors (energy, communications, transportation, and so on) with critical infrastructure.

By Ulrich Wuermeling

Well ahead of the implementation deadline for the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the German Parliament (Bundestag) passed a new Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz) on April 27, 2017. The Federal Council (Bundesrat) could confirm the Act before the summer, but may require further amendments. If the Parliament and the Council fail to agree, the legislative process will have to start from the beginning after the German elections in September.

The new Act retains the old title of the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, but the content has changed completely. The GDPR is directly applicable and, therefore, the Act only complements the GDPR or regulates areas outside the scope of it. Most of the 85 Articles of the new Act deal with the public sector and the implementation of the Law Enforcement Directive. However, it also includes some provisions for the private sector based on opening clauses that either allow or require national implementation. The main German modifications for the private sector are the following:

By Ulrich Wuermeling

On January 10, 2017, the European Commission proposed a new ePrivacy Regulation (Proposal). Compared to the internal draft that was leaked in December, the official Proposal has been substantially modified. However, the general approach taken by the European Commission has not changed. The Proposal includes provisions with a broad scope of application covering over-the-top (OTT) services as well as communication between devices and all data stored on a device.

In the internal draft, the European Commission suggested…

By Fiona Maclean & Calum Docherty

The Article 29 Working Party (WP29) – the group that represents the data protection authorities of all EU Member States – has published guidance and FAQs on a number of issues under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Data Protection Officers (DPOs) (Guidance & FAQs)

DPOs are the cornerstone of the GDPR’s accountability regime. The GDPR requires that organisations must appoint a DPO when they engage in large-scale processing of personal data, large-scale regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects, or where obliged to by local law. The WP29 guidance elaborates on what these criteria mean in practice, clarifying when a DPO should be appointed. The guidance also confirms that the DPO can be an external party and is not personally responsible in the case of noncompliance with the GDPR.

By Ulrich Wuermeling

An internal Commission draft of a new ePrivacy Regulation (Draft) has been leaked to the public. The Commission plans to propose it in early 2017, but the content of the Draft does not seem near a final proposal. It is either older or still needs some time to be finalized. The Draft reveals the Commission’s priorities of extending the scope of the Regulation, reducing the number of consent notices for first party cookies, increasing privacy and confidentiality of user data and applying higher fines.

If the approach proposed by the Draft were to pass, the commercial rules for the Internet could change substantially in the EU. The ability of internet service providers to monetize services with marketing would be hampered and the users would have to pick up the bill. The economic impact analysis of the Draft simply ignores these consequences by stating that website publishers would have “small” adoption costs and not mentioning any economic impact for users. Furthermore, the Regulation would in parts isolate the EU market from global innovations by fostering data localization. The approach might shield EU based companies from unwanted competition, but would ultimately slow down the development of the digital market in the EU.

By Ksenia Koroleva

On July 6, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed Federal Law No 374-FZ. This law is also known as the “Yarovaya” law (named after a Russian senator who was the main driving force for the law to come into existence).

The Yarovaya law introduces amendments to certain Russian federal laws. The majority of the amendments came into effect on July 20, 2016, however, some of the requirements relating to storage of metadata, as described below, will only come into force starting from July 1, 2018. A draft law which aims to postpone the effective date of such requirements due to their technical complexity from July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2023 is currently being considered by the Russian State Duma.

The Yarovaya law, which is political and primarily aimed at combating terrorism, contains new rules on data retention which need to be taken into account by telecom companies and other persons operating or assisting in the operation of communications services.

By Gail Crawford and Ulrich Wuermeling

As the whole world now knows, the UK voted to leave the European Union (EU) in its historic referendum on 23rd June by a vote of 51.9 percent in favour of “leave” to 48.1 in favour of “remain”. This blog focusses on how that decision will impact both UK and global organisations’ compliance with data protection law.

The referendum does not start the exit process. To formally start the exit process, the UK has to serve notice under Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union which triggers a period for negotiation of the terms of the UK’s exit; with exit taking effect once those negotiations have concluded, or after two years (if sooner), irrespective of what terms have (or have not) been agreed. The two year cut-off period can only be extended with unanimous consent from all EU member states.

By Serrin Turner

Typically, the process for amending the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is a sleepy affair. Proposed amendments wend their way through a series of judicial committees and, if approved by the Supreme Court, take effect automatically by the end of the year. Theoretically, Congress may choose to intervene and block the change – but it does so rarely. This year, however, a proposed amendment has caught the congressional eye.

Over the past several days, legislators in both the Senate and the House of Representatives have introduced legislation to block a proposed change to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which regulates the issuance of search warrants in federal criminal investigations. Law enforcement already uses Rule 41 routinely to obtain warrants to search computers recovered from physical premises or otherwise taken into law enforcement custody. The proposed amendment addresses a different scenario: when law enforcement has identified a computer being used to perpetrate a crime but cannot determine where it is located. With the proliferation of anonymizing technologies used by hackers and other criminals operating on the Internet, this fact pattern is increasingly common. The rule change under consideration would enable law enforcement to obtain a warrant in such circumstances to search the target computer “remotely” – that is, by hacking into it.

By Gail Crawford and Lore Leitner

Today, after more than four years of debate, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, or the Regulation) enters into force. The GDPR will introduce a rigorous, far-reaching privacy framework for businesses that operate, target customers or monitor individuals in the EU. The Regulation sets out a suite of new obligations and substantial fines for noncompliance. Businesses need to act now to ensure that they are ready for when the Regulation becomes enforceable after the …