Feeds

Personal data export clauses now in force

EEA guidelines updated

Build a business case: developing custom apps

New 'model clauses' governing the exporting of personal data outside of the European Economic Area (EEA) have come into force. The new documents update one of the ways in which data can leave the EEA legally.

European Union data protection law says that personal data can only be transferred outside of the EEA if it is protected as well there as it is within the EU. One way of ensuring this is by using EU Commission-provided 'model clauses' in contracts to protect information.

New clauses published in February came into force on 15th May and now govern the sending of personal data outside the EEA. OUT-LAW.COM has published a brief guide to the changes, Model clauses for transferring personal data overseas: the May 2010 changes.

Companies processing the personal data of individuals must include these model clauses in contracts with companies outside the EEA that will do data processing on their behalf. Those contracts pass some of the EU company's responsibilities on to the processor outside the EEA.

The new clauses take account of the fact that outsourcing often happens a number of times. They allow for the fact that further sub-contracting of data processing can take place once data leaves the EU.

"A definition of sub-processors has been added," said Louise Townsend, a data protection law expert at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM. "This extends not just to someone acting as a sub-processor to the main processor but to sub-processors engaged by sub-processors – so the requirements flow all the way down the chain."

Townsend said that the new clauses make it clear who is responsible for the security of the data, saying that the company to which the data is first sent must ensure its security even if that company sub-contracts activities to other firms.

"A data importer must not subcontract without the prior written consent of the data exporter and then only by way of a written agreement imposing the same obligations on the sub-processor as the model clauses impose on the data importer," said Townsend. "The data importer remains fully liable for the activities of its sub-processors."

The new clauses also place a demand on the EU organisation which owns the data to keep track of all sub-contracting.

"The data importer is required to send a copy of any sub-processing contract to the data exporter," said Townsend. "The data exporter is required to keep a list of the sub-processing agreements which have been concluded and update this at least once a year. This should be available to the data exporter’s supervisory authority, which in the UK would be the Information Commissioner."

Townsend said that data controllers - meaning the companies that collected the information in the EEA in the first place - should take simple practical steps if they are using the newly published model clauses.

"Data controllers should make sure that they have a list and copies of all sub-processing agreements and keep this updated. If something changes on an existing contract with a non-EEA data processor, they should update it with the new model clauses," she said.

For companies outside the EEA that will be doing data processing, they should make sure that their responsibilities are reflected in contracts they make with their own sub-contractors. And, said Townsend, they should make sure that they are aware which law applies to the processing.

"Be aware that it is the law where the data controller is based that applies to the data protection aspects of the subcontract," she said. "In practice this could mean that there is a data controller based in England who transfers personal data to a data processor based in India who then transfers personal data to a sub-processor in Japan. English law will apply to the relationship between the data controller and the data processor and the data processor and the sub-processor, at least in relation to the data processing aspects."

Copyright © 2010, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
Assange™: Hey world, I'M STILL HERE, ignore that Snowden guy
Press conference: ME ME ME ME ME ME ME (cont'd pg 94)
Premier League wants to PURGE ALL FOOTIE GIFs from social media
Not paying Murdoch? You're gonna get a right LEGALLING - thanks to automated software
Caught red-handed: UK cops, PCSOs, specials behaving badly… on social media
No Mr Fuzz, don't ask a crime victim to be your pal on Facebook
Ballmer quits Microsoft board to spend more time with his b-balls
From Clippy to Clippers: Hi, I see you're running an NBA team now ...
Online tat bazaar eBay coughs to YET ANOTHER outage
Web-based flea market struck dumb by size and scale of fail
Kate Bush: Don't make me HAVE CONTACT with your iPHONE
Can't face sea of wobbling fondle implements. What happened to lighters, eh?
Amazon takes swipe at PayPal, Square with card reader for mobes
Etailer plans to undercut rivals with low transaction fee offer
Call of Duty daddy considers launching own movie studio
Activision Blizzard might like quality control of a CoD film
prev story

Whitepapers

5 things you didn’t know about cloud backup
IT departments are embracing cloud backup, but there’s a lot you need to know before choosing a service provider. Learn all the critical things you need to know.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Build a business case: developing custom apps
Learn how to maximize the value of custom applications by accelerating and simplifying their development.
Rethinking backup and recovery in the modern data center
Combining intelligence, operational analytics, and automation to enable efficient, data-driven IT organizations using the HP ABR approach.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.