Dec 282018
 December 28, 2018  Posted by  Laws, Non-U.S.

Isabel Carvalho, Rafael Loureiro, and Daniel Crespo of Hogan Lovells write:

The Brazilian General Data Protection Law (“Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados” or “LGPD”), passed by Congress on 14 August 2018, will come into effect on 15 February 2020. The new data protection law significantly improves Brazil’s existing legal framework by regulating the use of personal data by the public and private sectors. Very similar to the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) implemented in the European Union, the LGPD imposes strict regulations on the collection, use, processing, and storage of electronic and physical personal data. In conjunction with the passing of the LGPD, the National Data Protection Authority will be created in order to adequately implement the new legislation.

Read more on Chronicle of Data Protection.

Dec 282018
 December 28, 2018  Posted by  Laws, U.S.

Issie Lapowsky reports:

The global conversation around data privacy changed dramatically in March of 2018. That’s when Cambridge Analytica made international headlines. It was the story of a shadowy political firm misappropriating the data of tens of millions of Facebook users without their knowledge. But really, the story was how Facebook, keeper of 2 billion users’ private messages, photos, and social connections, let it happen.

Washington spent the better part of the year talking tough to tech companies and threatening a crackdown on the wanton collection, dissemination, and monetization of personal data. But all of that was just prelude. The real privacy showdown is slated for the year ahead.

Read more on WIRED.

Dec 272018
 December 27, 2018  Posted by  Court, Non-U.S., Surveillance


Is the evidence in the form of an audio-video recording of a private telephonic conversation collected in violation of a person’s fundamental right to privacy (after the Supreme Court’s Privacy judgment) by planting a recorder in the bedroom of that person admissible in a Family Court?

A Delhi court has answered the question in affirmative.


Dec 262018
 December 26, 2018  Posted by  Court, Featured News, Surveillance

Ian Lopez reports:

A new privacy battle is shaping up over DNA retention, and California is the battleground.

That’s after a group of social justice organizations brought suit over the state’s “failure to automatically expunge” genetic information collected from individuals who are arrested but never convicted of a crime.

To decode the case and its implications, The Recorder touched base with Jamie Williams, one of the Electronic Frontier Foundation attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the suit. In her opinion, the state’s effort is a direct violation of privacy rights, as well as a misuse of taxpayer dollars.
(You can get a glimpse of the plaintiffs’ entire argument here. A representative for the California Attorney General’s Office, which is defending the suit, declined to comment.)

Here’s a condensed version of our conversation with Williams, edited for length and clarity.

Read the interview on The Recorder.