Catagory:Government Regulation, Legislation & Enforcement

1
Australia and China to Cooperate Against Cybercrime
2
New Mexico’s New Data Breach Notification Laws
3
The police are reading … a lot … more than half a million times last year
4
Draft law proposes security assessment of data exported out of China
5
Is Uber’s Greyball pushing the boundaries of what is legally and ethically OK?
6
Australia’s new data breach notification laws: what they mean for you
7
Update: Mandatory Data Breach Notification Laws closer to being introduced
8
SAP criticises impending EU data protection laws
9
UK companies taking on cybersecurity-related insurance in soaring numbers
10
Data breach penalties could cost U.K. companies £122B in 2018

Australia and China to Cooperate Against Cybercrime

By Cameron Abbott and Edwin Tan

On 21 April 2017, Australian and Chinese Government representatives attended the inaugural Australian-China High-Level Security Dialogue. The Dialogue was launched to promote discussion between the two countries in the areas of counter-terrorism, cybercrime and other important security issues.

According to a joint statement by both parties, Australia and China reaffirmed their commitment to cooperate on cybersecurity issues. The key commitments include:

  • supporting the work of the UN Group of Governmental Experts and to act in accordance with its reports;
  • establishing an information-sharing mechanism to assist in combating cybercrime and preventing cyber incidents that could cause problems between the countries;
  • working together against internet distribution of child sex abuse material, e-mail scams and other transnational cybercrime activities;
  • discussing options for joint operations against cybercrime; and
  • exchanging cybersecurity delegations and regulatory documents to enhance understanding, cooperation and mutual trust.

The second High-Level Security Dialogue session will be held in China in the first half of 2018. One imagines that this is a tricky dialogue to foster, but clearly Australia takes the view of better off having China “in the tent than out”.  Read the joint statement here.

New Mexico’s New Data Breach Notification Laws

By Cameron Abbott and Edwin Tan

New Mexico has followed other U.S. states in enacting data breach notification laws coming into effect on 16 June 2017. The statute will only apply to computerised data, which is narrower in scope compared to Australian laws that also apply to physical records.

The key provisions from the new data breach laws include:

  • Companies must notify New Mexico residents, the Attorney General and Consumer Reporting Agencies as appropriate within 45 days of discovery of data breaches that pose “a significant risk of identity theft or fraud”;
  • Companies that disclose Personal Identifying Information to third party vendors must contractually require the vendors to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures; and
  • Civil penalties of $10 per instance of failed notification up to a maximum of $150,000.

There are concerns that this adds another layer of complexity for companies trying to remain compliant, as they will now have to comply with data breach notification laws of 48 states and 3 territories. We think that there may be a big push for a unified federal law on this issue in the near future.

The police are reading … a lot … more than half a million times last year

By Cameron Abbott and Edwin Tan

News Corp reported today that law enforcement agencies accessed the private data of Australian individuals about 541,300 times during the past 12 months. This is an estimated increase of about 60 percent compared to the previous year.

This is in addition to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) confirming on Friday that an officer had accessed phone records without a warrant earlier in the year. No action was taken against the officer.

The 2015 amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) made it mandatory for telecommunications companies and internet service providers to retain metadata. This metadata can be accessed without a warrant by 21 government agencies, including the AFP.

However, journalists’ telecommunications data cannot be accessed by agencies without first obtaining a “Journalist Information Warrant”. An agency must apply to a Federal Court judge or a nominated Administrative Appeals Tribunal member to be granted the warrant.

The breach has sparked calls for an independent and public inquiry into the AFP, with Senator Nick Xenophon calling the incident “a complete failure with no real explanation”.  Not the last we will hear about this issue we think.  Read more about this here.

Draft law proposes security assessment of data exported out of China

By Cameron Abbott and Allison Wallace

The Cyberspace Administration of China has released a draft law that would impose an annual security assessment on firms exporting data out of China.

The proposed legislation would apply to any business which transfers more than 1000 gigabytes of data, or which affects more than 500,000 users, and is the latest of several safeguards announced in recent times against threats such as hacking and terrorism.

Under the draft law, economic, technological or scientific data whose transfer would post a threat to public or security interests would be banned, and there would be extra scrutiny of sensitive geographic data.

Businesses would also have to obtain the consent of users before transmitting it overseas.

The draft law follows another passed in November 2016 which formalised a range of controls over firms that handle data in industries the Chinese government labels critical to national interests.

Is Uber’s Greyball pushing the boundaries of what is legally and ethically OK?

By Cameron Abbott and Allison Wallace

Ridesharing service Uber has been using a self-developed program called Greyball in a bid to avoid regulatory scrutiny and other law enforcement activity.

As reported in The New York Times, the program uses various techniques to survey government officials when rolling out the service in new cities. This came after Uber’s services encountered legal issues (including cars being impounded and drivers fined) as it tried to operate in new locations, including in Melbourne, Australia. Read More

Australia’s new data breach notification laws: what they mean for you

By Cameron Abbott, Rob Pulham and Allison Wallace

Further to our blog post yesterday, we’ve prepared a summary into the implications of the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2017 that has now been passed by both houses of Parliament. Read our article here.

Update: Mandatory Data Breach Notification Laws closer to being introduced

By Cameron Abbott and Allison Wallace

As foreshadowed by the Attorney General’s Department last year, the Australian government is pushing ahead with its plan to introduce mandatory data breach notification laws, with Parliament today agreeing to a third reading of the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016. You can find more about the proposed legislation here. We’ll keep you updated as the bill makes its way through parliament.

SAP criticises impending EU data protection laws

By Cameron Abbott and Allison Wallace

SAP has expressed concerns over the implications of the landmark EU data privacy regulations, saying the penalties that will be imposed are too high, and could impede the development of Europe’s start-up culture.

The data privacy regulation will be implemented in May 2018, and includes fines for EU companies up to 4 per cent of their global revenues if they commit a significant breach of data privacy.

In an interview with the Financial Times, SAP’s head of products and innovation, Bernd Leukert said he believes the penalties are too high, and put companies at risk of losing their entire revenue if they commit multiple breaches.

Mr Leukert said he also fears that the EU regulations were not properly aligned with laws in other jurisdictions, such as the US.

UK companies taking on cybersecurity-related insurance in soaring numbers

By Cameron Abbott and Allison Wallace

There was a 50% growth in the adoption of cybersecurity-related insurance in the UK between 2015 and 2016.

CFC Underwriting discovered the trend after polling industry representatives at the 2016 Cyber Symposium late last year.

The underwriter, which provides cyber insurance to more than 20000 clients globally, found the factors driving clients to purchase these kinds of policies included the “fear factor” of a cyber attack (23%) and the impending introduction of the European General Data Protection Regulation in 2018 (26%).

More than half of the respondents to the poll (53%) indicated they believed electronic computer crime will lead to an increase in insurance claims. Earlier figures released by CFC Underwriting revealed it handled over 400 claims on cyber policies in 2016, a 78% increase on 2015.

Data breach penalties could cost U.K. companies £122B in 2018

By Cameron Abbott and Rebecca Murray

U.K. businesses could face up to £122 billion in penalties for data breaches when EU legislation comes into effect in 2018, according the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council (PCI SSC). The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will introduce fines for groups of companies of to €20 million or 4% of annual worldwide turnover, significantly higher than the current maximum of £500,000. This means that if data breaches remain at 2015 levels, the fines paid to the European regulator could see a near 90-fold increase, from £1.4 billion in 2015 to £122 billion, the PCI SSC calculated. For large U.K. organisations, this could see regulatory fines for data breaches soar to £70 billion, more than a 130-fold increase, rising to an average of £11 million per organisation. Regulatory fines for SMEs could see a 57-fold increase, rising to £52 billion, averaging £13,000 per SME. Read more at ComputerWeekly.com by clicking here.

 

Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.