The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party has adopted on July 13, 2010 a report on the EU Data Retention Directive (2006/24/EC). This report is the Working Party’s contribution to the evaluation of the implementation of the Data Retention Directive by the European Commission, which is due by September 15, 2010. The report details the results of a joint inquiry made by the data protection authorities about the compliance, at the national level, with the obligations of telecom providers and Internet service providers with both the Data Retention Directive and articles 6 and 9 of the EU e-Privacy Directive (2002/58/EC).
Filed under Cédric Laurant, English, EU Law, Europe, European Union, Marie-Andrée Weiss, Outlines, Reports & Surveys · Tagged with access control, access request, Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, authentication, back-up, biometrics, cloud computing, cloud computing system, confidentiality, contractual clauses, Council of Europe Recommendation R(87)15, data deletion, data security, data security breaches, data security principles, digital signature, dual authentication, encryption, EU Data Retention Directive, EU Directive 95/46/EC, EU e-Privacy Directive, European Commission, European data protection authorities, external audit, handover procedures, in-house policies, integrity, law enforcement authorities, LEA-accessible systems, log integrity, log retention, logs, mutual assistance and cooperation, mutual authentication, non-repudiation, outsourcing, password, personal data, retained data, retention period, security audit, security certification, security policy, security standards, self-regulation, sensitive information, sensitive personal information, system administrator, system maintenance, technical and organizational security measures, third party certification, tracking, traffic data, warrant
A central aspect of every cloud service contract is the security of data processing. It is therefore important, if only for liability reasons, that responsibility for specific security measures be clearly assigned. This can be done by using security service level agreements between the cloud service provider and its client that clearly assign who is responsible for which particular security measure.
Storing data in a cloud located outside the EU raises specific legal compliance issues. According to some experts, such clouds are even unlawful. There are, however, some ways to make sure that, even if a data controller stores data into a cloud located in a third country, he is still in compliance with German data protection law. A data exporter must use, in order to satisfy the adequate level of data protection requirement, specific standard contractual clauses for all contracts with a cloud service company located outside the EU. Binding corporate rules are the alternative solution, though only for private clouds.
Filed under Cédric Laurant, Comments, English, EU Law, Europe, European Union, Germany, Marie-Andrée Weiss, Outlines · Tagged with adequate level of data protection, anonymization, Argentina, Article 26 (EU DP Dir.), Article 29 Working Party, BDSG, Binding corporate rules, Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, cloud computing, cloud service contract, cloud service provider, confidentiality, data controller, data processing security, Data Protection Authority, data protection law, data security, data security breaches, Datenschutzzentrum, Düsseldorfer Kreis, Dr. Thilo Weichert, encryption, EU Directive 95/46/EC, European Commission, European Privacy Seal, EuroPriSe, external audit, German Federal Data Protection Act, Germany, Google, IaaS, integrity, liability, PaaS, personal data, private cloud, pseudonym, public cloud, SaaS, Safe Harbor Framework, Safe Harbor self-certification, SAS 70, Security Service Level Agreement, standard contractual clauses, State of Schleswig-Holstein, Switzerland, third country, third party, United States, Yahoo
Are ‘clouds’ located outside the European Union unlawful?
Posted by "Security Breaches" Administrator on July 16, 2010 · 3 Comments
A central aspect of every cloud service contract is the security of data processing. It is therefore important, if only for liability reasons, that responsibility for specific security measures be clearly assigned. This can be done by using security service level agreements between the cloud service provider and its client that clearly assign who is responsible for which particular security measure.
Storing data in a cloud located outside the EU raises specific legal compliance issues. According to some experts, such clouds are even unlawful. There are, however, some ways to make sure that, even if a data controller stores data into a cloud located in a third country, he is still in compliance with German data protection law. A data exporter must use, in order to satisfy the adequate level of data protection requirement, specific standard contractual clauses for all contracts with a cloud service company located outside the EU. Binding corporate rules are the alternative solution, though only for private clouds.
Rate this:
Filed under Cédric Laurant, Comments, English, EU Law, Europe, European Union, Germany, Marie-Andrée Weiss, Outlines · Tagged with adequate level of data protection, anonymization, Argentina, Article 26 (EU DP Dir.), Article 29 Working Party, BDSG, Binding corporate rules, Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, cloud computing, cloud service contract, cloud service provider, confidentiality, data controller, data processing security, Data Protection Authority, data protection law, data security, data security breaches, Datenschutzzentrum, Düsseldorfer Kreis, Dr. Thilo Weichert, encryption, EU Directive 95/46/EC, European Commission, European Privacy Seal, EuroPriSe, external audit, German Federal Data Protection Act, Germany, Google, IaaS, integrity, liability, PaaS, personal data, private cloud, pseudonym, public cloud, SaaS, Safe Harbor Framework, Safe Harbor self-certification, SAS 70, Security Service Level Agreement, standard contractual clauses, State of Schleswig-Holstein, Switzerland, third country, third party, United States, Yahoo