No.
A group of privacy advocates and privacy software companies has proposed an “unofficial” specification for how consumers might transmit, and how companies might receive, a global privacy opt-out signal that indicates an intention for information not to be sold. As of 12 October 2020, the draft “Global Privacy Control specification” claims to have “no
A group of privacy advocates, publishers, and privacy software companies have proposed an “unofficial” specification for how consumers might transmit, and how companies might receive, a global privacy opt-out signal that indicates an intention for information not to be sold. They refer to their specification as the Global Privacy Control header, “GPC header,” or “GPC
No.
The regulations implementing the CCPA require that if a business sells personal information and collects personal information from consumers online it must honor “user-enabled global privacy controls” that communicate a desire of the consumer to opt-out of the sale of personal information.[1] There is no single format or technical specification for creating, transmitting,
No.
The European GDPR permits a company to retain personal data for “no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed.”[1] As a result, if a company no longer needs information to accomplish a specific purpose, the company is, theoretically, required to delete that information. The requirement that
No.
The European GDPR permits a company to collect only that information which is “adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes” for which the information is to be processed.”[1] As a result, a company arguably is not permitted to collect personal data that is not “necessary” for a
No.
The right of rectification refers to the ability of a person to request that a company fix any inaccuracies in the personal information that it holds about them. While the right of rectification is one of the core tenants of European data privacy law, it is not included within the CCPA.
Unlike the CCPA,
The term “personally identified information” is utilized by some industry groups, including the Network Advertising Initiative (“NAI”). Personally identified information, or “PII,” is defined by such organizations to refer to a significantly narrower set of data than the term “personal information” used within the CCPA. The following provides a side-by-side comparison of the two terms:
The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (the “CPRA” or “Proposition 24”) labels 20 data fields as constituting “sensitive personal information.” [1] If Proposition 24 is enacted businesses would be permitted to use sensitive personal information for one of the following purposes:[2]
Yes and no.
The CCPA references directly, or by incorporating definitions from other code provisions, 55 data types that may fall under the broad definition of “personal information.” While the CCPA does not label any data type as being more, or less, sensitive than another, the Act does confer special rights on a subset of
Regulators’ enforcement priorities evolve alongside technological changes and in response to consumer-impacting activities that are emphasized in news headlines. This trend can be seen in the SEC’s relatively recent focus on monitoring and bringing formal actions against opportunistic stock trading by corporate insiders who have knowledge of enterprise security incidents and data breaches.
As the SEC described in its 2018 guidance intended to assist public companies in preparing disclosures about cybersecurity risks and incidents: “Companies and their directors, officers, and other corporate insiders should be mindful of complying with the laws related to insider trading in connection with information about cybersecurity risks and incidents, including vulnerabilities and breaches.”
What follows is an overview of an article published in Cybersecurity Law Report (subscription paywall) last week by Greenberg Traurig’s Darren Abernethy regarding the interplay between corporate insider trading and cybersecurity incidents, including some possible planning steps for businesses to consider with legal counsel.
Continue Reading Insider Trading in the Data Breach Context: Proactive Corporate Planning and Regulatory Enforcement