Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Jan. 23, 2019, the European Union (EU) issued an adequacy decision regarding free flow of sensitive data with Japan. This is the first adequacy agreement since the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect last May. With countries around the world examining and strengthening their data protection laws, this agreement could be the first of many.
Under the GDPR, the EU can assess other countries' data security initiatives and, if sufficient, issue an adequacy decision that allows uninhibited data transfer between the EU and the other country. This is no small task, as the European Commission has to research the other country's data security measures and submit a proposal, receive input from the European Data Protection Board, gain approval from all EU countries, and ultimately adopt the parameters of the agreement. The other country also has to agree that the EU's system is adequate.
Since the GDPR has stringent data privacy regulations, it is important for other countries seeking data transfer partnerships with the EU to know what constitutes adequacy. While the other country's system does not need to be the same as the GDPR, it needs to be essentially equivalent to pass the test. To meet this bar, Japan implemented extra safeguards including:
All of these things ensure that data flowing to and from Japan will enjoy protections in line with the principles of the GDPR, thus protecting individual privacy. Business in both Japan and EU countries will also greatly benefit from this partnership, which further strengthens their economic relationship. Benefits from the adequacy decision include:
However, there may also be some challenges associated with this partnership. For example, Japan may have to deal with data subject access requests (DSARs) — requests individuals can make to any organization to identify, change and/or delete their personal data. While the adequacy decision does not specifically address DSARs, it does ensure that EU consumers will have similar procedures to make complaints about how Japan uses their personal data and seek redress, if necessary.
Another challenge could be ensuring consistent compliance with the terms of the adequacy decision. The EU will be monitoring the situation closely to ensure that Japan satisfies the terms of the agreement. In two years, there will be a joint review to see how well data transfers are operating. This will include a comprehensive review of the adequacy decision and how it was applied in practice for the first two years. Subsequently there must be a review at least every four years. It is unclear what would trigger a review to take place before each four year mark, however, a significant change in Japan's privacy standards or a large data breach would probably cause the need for an earlier review. The EU can even choose withdraw the adequacy decision if Japan's data privacy model changes or anything comes up that affects the data privacy promised under the agreement.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?