Category: Privacy and Data Protection

Posted on

Statute of limitation and Data Retention Corporate Policies

There is a common opinion that personal data should be deleted almost immediately and, anyway, as soon as they become useless: a sensitive problem in particular under the (now defunct) Data Retention Directive, once the mandatory retention period expired.

This position is not correct since a company has a legitimate motive – and a legal obligation – to preserve whatever information, including personal data, that are necessary to abide the law and to protect both its right of defense and the right to a due process. This means that under the term set forth by the Statute of limitation a company might, at its own will, choose to continue retaining personal data of its customer base.

In Italy, the ordinary Statute of limitation is ten years. So companies can be sued by customers and tax authorities for alleged charges that go way back into the past. This is what happened in a court case tried in front of the Justice of peace of Grosseto (Tuscany) that on January 2014 ruled a quarrel started in 2011 between a telecom company and a client. The ruling said that, under the rule of evidence for civil trials, the telecom company has the duty to provide evidence of having actually delivered its services and that this duty is fulfilled by showing the traffic-data log.

It is clear that by interpreting the Italian Data Protection Act in a way that forces the deletion of the traffic data after a few months, an ISP or a telecom operator wouldn’t be able to defend itself if the trial starts within the Statute of limitation term but after the traffic data have been deleted.

A similar situation might happens in the antitrust field and in case of investigations run by the Italian Internal Revenue Service, so the conclusion is that the Data Protection Legal Framework cannot be interpreted in such a strict manner to endanger the legitimate rights of a company.

Posted on

The Impact of the Data-Retention ECJ Ruling on the Law Enforcement Activities

From the Law Enforcement perspective, the ECJ ruling that on Apr. 8, 2014 declared invalid the Data Retention Directive didn’t harm its investigation to such a greater extent as somebody has claimed. There are, indeed, other legal tools that can be used to fit the purpose of getting traffic data of interest.

First, ISPs and telco operators might still retain traffic data for other legitimate purposes and for longer periods than the six months “sponsored” by the ECJ. This can happens either with the consent of the customer (for marketing and commercial purposes) or without (in case the traffic data have to be retained to meet under a statutory term (in Italy, ten years) the legal obligation to provide evidence to the tax authorities that the billed services have actually been provided and that the ISP is not involved in a money laundering activity. Thus as soon as some data – though not all the one retained under the now defunct DRD – are available, a prosecutor can always seize it.

Second, the Budapest Convention on cybercrime allows the public authorities to issue a “data-freeze” order to avoid the deletion. Again, this might be a second best solution, but it is currently working and viable.

Third, the national Data Protection Authorities have the power, under the Directive 95/46, to issue orders to “customize” the implementation of this legal instrument so to match the requirements of the ECJ, thus legally keeping alive, though maybe partially, the intrinsic admissibility of the data-retention as such under the current European Data Protection legal framework.

Posted on

The EU Data Retention Directive Trashed by the EU Court of Justice

Today the Europan Court of Justice has declared invalid the Data Retention Directive that forced ISP’s to retain some traffic data to be made available for the law enforcement agencies. Though the decision is immediately effective, until the local parliaments don’t update the concerned internal regulations, as crazy as it may sounds, ? the data-retention is still a legal obligation to be fulfilled.

It would be of great help if the local data protection authorities would issue a statement saying that they will not enforce anymore their own controls on data-retention, since any activity in this direction could be challenged on the ECJ decision.

A final remark: how is it possible that the data-protection authorities all over Europe didn’t spot the “little”, “tiny” problem of the Data Retention Directive?

Posted on

Google and the Italian Data Protecion Authority fine

The news is making the round that Google has been indicted to pay a 1.000.000,00 Euros’ fine for the Street View’s “privacy infringement” under Italian Privacy Act. But (at least in this case) Google didn’t violate the Italian Laws and the Data Protection Authority did a blatant mistake: let’s see why.

1 – Google has not been investigated under “privacy” law, the relevant statute being the Data Protection Act (as I wrote, there is no superimposition between the two legal concepts);

2 – The Data Protection Act, being an enforcement of the EU Directive 95/46/CE only handles “personal data”, i.e. data that either identify a natural person or make a natural person identifiable;

3 – As the Italian Supreme Court said more than once – and so did the same Data Protection Authority ? – outdoor there is no reasonable privacy expectation,

Then, as soon as Street View shots pictures in open spaces and doesn’t identify people, there is no “privacy” infringement.

But this is just a conclusion drafted by interpreting the law. Real life is a horse of different colour.

Posted on

EU “Privacy” Directives and the Haunted Companies

The right to privacy is a pre-requisite of the EU Directive 95/46/CE ? and not its object. Art. 1 states it loud and clear:

1. In accordance with this Directive, Member States shall protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data.

This means that that calling the data protection-related directive – as well as the upcoming new regulation – “privacy law” or whatever similar is not just a terminology’s mistake but an error with actual (and costly) consequences negatively affecting companies’ budget allocation, legal compliance and marketing capabilities.

Under the EU data protection legal framework, companies are not required to protect “privacy” as such, but only to handle personal data on a “need-to-know” basis provided that fundamental rights are not endangered. This has nothing to do with the “hush-hush” attitude commonly “sold” by “expert” consultants summoning the right to privacy as a threatening devil to haunt a company.

Stop using “privacy” as a substitute for “data protection” and your (corporate) life will keep smiling at you again.