The European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (‘LIBE Committee’) and the European Data Protection Board (‘EDPB’) have recently issued opinions on the European Commission’s draft US adequacy decision (‘Draft Adequacy Decision‘) for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (‘Framework‘). Both believe there is more
Alexander Pierce
NIS2 toughens up EU’s cyber security obligations
The European Union’s Second Network and Information Systems Directive (“NIS2”) entered into force on 16 January 2023, and replaces the NIS 1 Directive. NIS2 aims to “improve the resilience and incident response capacities of both the public and private sector and the EU as a whole”. In addition to the EU’s NIS2 update, the UK has also recently expanded its Network and Information Systems Regulations, and further details can be found in our blog here. The revised directive aims to remove divergences in cybersecurity requirements and in implementation of cybersecurity measures in different member states. To achieve this, it sets out minimum rules for a regulatory framework and lays down mechanisms for effective cooperation among relevant authorities in each member state. It updates the list of sectors and activities subject to cybersecurity obligations, and provides for remedies and sanctions to ensure enforcement.Continue Reading NIS2 toughens up EU’s cyber security obligations
CJEU rules on DPO conflicts of interest under the GDPR
The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued a judgment on the 9th of February 2023 (docket no. C-453/21), which addresses the question of the dismissal of a Data Protection Officer (“DPO”) and the interpretation of Article 38 of the EU GDPR.Continue Reading CJEU rules on DPO conflicts of interest under the GDPR
ICO provides an alternative to the EDPB transfer impact assessment
On 17 November 2022, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office issued updated guidance on international personal data transfers. The guidance is to be used for transfers of personal data from the UK to third countries. The ICO added a template transfer risk assessment (TRA) to the guidance, which is required when organisations rely on a transfer tool under Article 46 of the UK GDPR, e.g. the ICO’s International Data Transfer Agreement (the UK version of the EU SCCs); the Addendum to the EU SCCs, or the Binding Corporate Rules. The requirement to carry out transfer impact assessments stems from Article 46(1) of the UK GDPR, which states that the transfer mechanisms can be used “on condition that enforceable data subject rights and effective legal remedies for data subjects are available” confirmed by the CJEU’s Schrems II judgement.
The ICO’s TRA offers an alternative approach to the EDPB’s transfer impact assessments (TIA), to assist data exporters with carrying out their analysis to check that that protections under the transfer tool are not undermined by the laws and practices of the recipient third country.Continue Reading ICO provides an alternative to the EDPB transfer impact assessment
NCSC releases guidance on cyber security in the supply chain
The National Cyber Security Centre (“NCSC“) has published guidance for medium and large organisations on how to assess and improve cyber security in their supply chains. The guidance is a supplement to the NCSC’s supply chain principles. Continue Reading NCSC releases guidance on cyber security in the supply chain
The CMA’s shares its thoughts on a ‘pro-innovation’ approach to regulating artificial intelligence
The Competition & Markets Authority (‘CMA’) published its response to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (‘DCMS’) policy paper on establishing a pro-innovation approach to regulating artificial intelligence (AI) on 29 September 2022. This is in parallel with the coming into force of the new National Security & Investment Act 2021, under which the UK government is scrutinising transactions that use AI to produce goods, services and technology with the potential to track individuals, objects and events.
In its response, the CMA commented on the need to (i) adopt a risk based approach to the regulation of AI, (ii) consider whether existing regulatory powers are appropriate, and (iii) encourage collaboration between regulators.Continue Reading The CMA’s shares its thoughts on a ‘pro-innovation’ approach to regulating artificial intelligence