Know Your Privacy Laws – a Weapon vs. Collectors and Mutants of All Sorts

[Sharing Lights]

Fair Information Practice Principles




These widely accepted Fair Information Practice Principles are the basis for many privacy laws in the United States, Canada, Europe and other parts of the world.

The Principles were first formulated by the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 1973, and are quoted here from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (available at http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/9302011E.PDF).

Openness
There should be a general policy of openness about developments, practices and policies with respect to personal data. Means should be readily available for establishing the existence and nature of personal data, and the main purposes of their use, as well as the identity and usual residence of the data controller.

Collection Limitation
There should be limits to the collection of personal data and any such data should be obtain by lawful and fair means and, where appropriate, with the knowledge or consent of the data subject.

Purpose Specification
The purpose for which personal data are collected should be specified not later than at the time of data collection and the subsequent use limited to the fulfillment of those purposes or such others as are not incompatible with those purposes and as are specified on each occasion of change of purpose.

Use Limitation
Personal data should not be disclosed, made available or otherwise used for purposes other than those specified as described above, except with the consent of the data subject or by the authority of law.

Data Quality
Personal data should be relevant to the purposes for which they are to be used, and, to the extent necessary for those purposes, should be accurate, complete, relevant and kept up-to-date.

Individual Participation
An individual should have the right: a) to obtain from a data controller, or otherwise, confirmation of whether or not the data controller has data relating to him; b) to have communicated to him, data relating to him within a reasonable time; at a charge, if any, that is not excessive; in a reasonable manner; and in a form that is readily intelligible to him; c) to be given reasons if a request is denied and to be able to challenge such denial; and d) to challenge data relating to him and, if the challenge is successful, to have the data erased, rectified, completed or amended.

Security Safeguards
Personal data should be protected by reasonable security safeguards against such risks as loss or unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification or disclosure of data.

Accountability
A data controller should be accountable for complying with measures which give effect to the principles stated above.

[Sharing Lights]

INTRODUCTION TO THE SAFE HARBOR:

The European Commission’s Directive on Data Protection went into effect in October,1998, and would prohibit the transfer of personal data to non-European Union nations that do not meet the European “adequacy” standard for privacy protection. While the United States and the European Union share the goal of enhancing privacy protection for their citizens, the United States takes a different approach to privacy from that taken by the European Union.
The United States uses a sectoral approach that relies on a mix of legislation, regulation, and self regulation. The European Union, however, relies on comprehensive legislation that, for example, requires creation of government data protection agencies, registration of data bases with those agencies, and in some instances prior approval before personal data processing may begin. As a result of these different privacy approaches, the Directive could have significantly hampered the ability of U.S. companies to engage in many trans-Atlantic transactions.

In order to bridge these different privacy approaches and provide a streamlined means for U.S. organizations to comply with the Directive, the U.S. Department of Commerce in consultation with the European Commission developed a "Safe Harbor" framework. The Safe Harbor — approved by the EU in July of 2000 — is an important way for U.S. companies to avoid experiencing interruptions in their business dealings with the EU or facing prosecution by European authorities under European privacy laws. Certifying to the Safe Harbor will assure that EU organizations know that your company provides “adequate” privacy protection, as defined by the Directive.

[Sharing Lights]

Safe Harbor Overview

The European Commission’s Directive on Data Protection went into effect in October, 1998, and would prohibit the transfer of personal data to non-European Union nations that do not meet the European "adequacy" standard for privacy protection. While the United States and the European Union share the goal of enhancing privacy protection for their citizens, the United States takes a different approach to privacy from that taken by the European Union. The United States uses a sectoral approach that relies on a mix of legislation, regulation, and self regulation. The European Union, however, relies on comprehensive legislation that, for example, requires creation of government data protection agencies, registration of data bases with those agencies, and in some instances prior approval before personal data processing may begin. As a result of these different privacy approaches, the Directive could have significantly hampered the ability of U.S. companies to engage in many trans-Atlantic transactions.

In order to bridge these different privacy approaches and provide a streamlined means for U.S. organizations to comply with the Directive, the U.S. Department of Commerce in consultation with the European Commission developed a "safe harbor" framework. The safe harbor -- approved by the EU in 2000-- is an important way for U.S. companies to avoid experiencing interruptions in their business dealings with the EU or facing prosecution by European authorities under European privacy laws. Certifying to the safe harbor will assure that EU organizations know that your company provides "adequate" privacy protection, as defined by the Directive.

SAFE HARBOR BENEFITS

The safe harbor provides a number of important benefits to U.S. and EU firms. Benefits for U.S. organizations participating in the safe harbor will include:

All 25 Member States of the European Union will be bound by the European Commission’s finding of adequacy
Companies participating in the safe harbor will be deemed adequate and data flows to those companies will continue;
Member State requirements for prior approval of data transfers either will be waived or approval will be automatically granted; and
Claims brought by European citizens against U.S. companies will be heard in the U.S. subject to limited exceptions.
The safe harbor framework offers a simpler and cheaper means of complying with the adequacy requirements of the Directive, which should particularly benefit small and medium enterprises.

An EU organization can ensure that it is sending information to a U.S. organization participating in the safe harbor by viewing the public list of safe harbor organizations posted on the Department of Commerce’s website (http://export.gov/safeharbor). This list will become operational at the beginning of November 2000. It will contain the names of all U.S. companies that have self-certified to the safe harbor framework. This list will be regularly updated, so that it is clear who is assured of safe harbor benefits.

HOW DOES AN ORGANIZATION JOIN?

The decision by U.S. organizations to enter the safe harbor is entirely voluntary. Organizations that decide to participate in the safe harbor must comply with the safe harbor's requirements and publicly declare that they do so. To be assured of safe harbor benefits, an organization needs to self certify annually to the Department of Commerce in writing that it agrees to adhere to the safe harbor's requirements, which includes elements such as notice, choice, access, and enforcement. It must also state in its published privacy policy statement that it adheres to the safe harbor. The Department of Commerce will maintain a list of all organizations that file self certification letters and make both the list and the self certification letters publicly available.

To qualify for the safe harbor, an organization can (1) join a self-regulatory privacy program that adheres to the safe harbor's requirements; or (2) develop its own self regulatory privacy policy that conforms to the safe harbor.

WHAT DO THE SAFE HARBOR PRINCIPLES REQUIRE?

Organizations must comply with the seven safe harbor principles. The principles require the following:

Notice: Organizations must notify individuals about the purposes for which they collect and use information about them. They must provide information about how individuals can contact the organization with any inquiries or complaints, the types of third parties to which it discloses the information and the choices and means the organization offers for limiting its use and disclosure.

Choice: Organizations must give individuals the opportunity to choose (opt out) whether their personal information will be disclosed to a third party or used for a purpose incompatible with the purpose for which it was originally collected or subsequently authorized by the individual. For sensitive information, affirmative or explicit (opt in) choice must be given if the information is to be disclosed to a third party or used for a purpose other than its original purpose or the purpose authorized subsequently by the individual.

Onward Transfer (Transfers to Third Parties): To disclose information to a third party, organizations must apply the notice and choice principles. Where an organization wishes to transfer information to a third party that is acting as an agent(1), it may do so if it makes sure that the third party subscribes to the safe harbor principles or is subject to the Directive or another adequacy finding. As an alternative, the organization can enter into a written agreement with such third party requiring that the third party provide at least the same level of privacy protection as is required by the relevant principles.

[Sharing Lights]

Access: Individuals must have access to personal information about them that an organization holds and be able to correct, amend, or delete that information where it is inaccurate, except where the burden or expense of providing access would be disproportionate to the risks to the individual's privacy in the case in question, or where the rights of persons other than the individual would be violated.

Security: Organizations must take reasonable precautions to protect personal information from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction.

Data integrity: Personal information must be relevant for the purposes for which it is to be used. An organization should take reasonable steps to ensure that data is reliable for its intended use, accurate, complete, and current.

Enforcement: In order to ensure compliance with the safe harbor principles, there must be (a) readily available and affordable independent recourse mechanisms so that each individual's complaints and disputes can be investigated and resolved and damages awarded where the applicable law or private sector initiatives so provide; (b) procedures for verifying that the commitments companies make to adhere to the safe harbor principles have been implemented; and (c) obligations to remedy problems arising out of a failure to comply with the principles. Sanctions must be sufficiently rigorous to ensure compliance by the organization. Organizations that fail to provide annual self certification letters will no longer appear in the list of participants and safe harbor benefits will no longer be assured.

To provide further guidance, the Department of Commerce has issued a set of frequently asked questions and answers (FAQs) that clarify and supplement the safe harbor principles.

HOW AND WHERE WILL THE SAFE HARBOR BE ENFORCED?

In general, enforcement of the safe harbor will take place in the United States in accordance with U.S. law and will be carried out primarily by the private sector. Private sector self regulation and enforcement will be backed up as needed by government enforcement of the federal and state unfair and deceptive statutes. The effect of these statutes is to give an organization's safe harbor commitments the force of law vis a vis that organization.

Private Sector Enforcement: As part of their safe harbor obligations, organizations are required to have in place a dispute resolution system that will investigate and resolve individual complaints and disputes and procedures for verifying compliance. They are also required to remedy problems arising out of a failure to comply with the principles. Sanctions that dispute resolution bodies can apply must be severe enough to ensure compliance by the organization; they must include publicity for findings of non-compliance and deletion of data in certain circumstances. They may also include suspension from membership in a privacy program (and thus effectively suspension from the safe harbor) and injunctive orders.

The dispute resolution, verification, and remedy requirements can be satisfied in different ways. For example, an organization could comply with a private sector developed privacy seal program that incorporates and satisfies the safe harbor principles. If the seal program, however, only provides for dispute resolution and remedies but not verification, then the organization would have to satisfy the verification requirement in an alternative way.

Organizations can also satisfy the dispute resolution and remedy requirements through compliance with government supervisory authorities or by committing to cooperate with data protection authorities located in Europe.

Government Enforcement: Depending on the industry sector, the Federal Trade Commission, comparable U.S. government agencies, and/or the states may provide overarching government enforcement of the safe harbor principles. Where a company relies in whole or in part on self regulation in complying with the safe harbor principles, its failure to comply with such self regulation must be actionable under federal or state law prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts or it is not eligible to join the safe harbor. At present, U.S. organizations that are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Transportation with respect to air carriers and ticket agents may participate in the safe harbor. The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Transportation with respect to air carriers and ticket agents have both stated in letters to the European Commission that they will take enforcement action against organizations that state that they are in compliance with the safe harbor framework but then fail to live up to their statements.

Under the Federal Trade Commission Act, for example, a company's failure to abide by commitments to implement the safe harbor principles might be considered deceptive and actionable by the Federal Trade Commission. This is the case even where an organization adhering to the safe harbor principles relies entirely on self-regulation to provide the enforcement required by the safe harbor enforcement principle. The FTC has the power to rectify such misrepresentations by seeking administrative orders and civil penalties of up to $12,000 per day for violations.

Failure to Comply with the Safe Harbor Requirements: If an organization persistently fails to comply with the safe harbor requirements, it is no longer entitled to benefit from the safe harbor. Persistent failure to comply arises where an organization refuses to comply with a final determination by any self regulatory or government body or where such a body determines that an organization frequently fails to comply with the requirements to the point where its claim to comply is no longer credible. In these cases, the organization must promptly notify the Department of Commerce of such facts. Failure to do so may be actionable under the False Statements Act (18 U.S.C. § 1001).

The Department of Commerce will indicate on the public list it maintains of organizations self certifying adherence to the safe harbor requirements any notification it receives of persistent failure to comply and will make clear which organizations are assured and which organizations are no longer assured of safe harbor benefits.

An organization applying to participate in a self-regulatory body for the purposes of re-qualifying for the safe harbor must provide that body with full information about its prior participation in the safe harbor.

[Sharing Lights]

Safe Harbor Workbook


SL: You may apply the same vs. any one who infringes
on your privacy.

Privacy is privacy and principles are the same.

Therefore, I publish the provisions.


This Safe Harbor workbook is intended to aid U.S. businesses in assessing their privacy policies and practices with respect to compliance with the Safe Harbor privacy framework. Because implementation of the Safe Harbor will require that you consider your organization’s specific needs, practices, and objectives, this publication does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to substitute for the services of legal counsel or other qualified professionals. The information in this publication is provided on an "as is" basis, and no warranty of the suitability of the advice offered for your organization is made by this publication.

INTRODUCTION: PRIVACY AND THE SAFE HARBOR ARRANGEMENT

Today’s information technologies allow information to be collected, compiled, analyzed, and delivered around the world more quickly and inexpensively than ever before. Where it was once difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to obtain and compile information, it is now often available with a few simple clicks of a computer mouse. This increased access to information facilitates personal and political expression as well as commerce, education, and health care. Consumers benefit from the increased access to information. Organizations benefit through reduced costs and better targeted advertising.

The great promise of the Information Age also raises new challenges and opportunities for ensuring effective privacy protections. Multinational organizations may centralize all personnel data in one location from locations around the world for record keeping, benefits, and payroll purposes; credit card organizations may do the same with bankcard information for billing purposes. Citizens of one country may easily visit web sites in other countries, transferring personal information across borders as they visit. Laws, which generally are limited by nations’ borders, may have little effect in a medium without borders.

Many nations share concerns about the impact of the expansion of electronic networks on information privacy. The United States and the European Union (EU) [*The European Union (EU) is a regional, treaty-based organization that manages economic and political cooperation among its twenty-five European member countries. The European countries that belong to the EU are: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom] are both addressing these concerns, but in markedly different ways. The European Commission proposes legislation, implements policy and enforces the Treaties. It has investigative powers and can take legal action against Member States or companies that violate Treaties or rules. The Commission manages the EC budget and represents the Union in trade negotiations. The terms of the EU Directive on Data Protection requires the Commission to determine the "adequacy" of data protection in third countries and to prohibit personal data flows to countries with privacy regimes that are not deemed "adequate." Organizations wishing to receive personally identifiable information from the European Union would have to provide "adequate" privacy protection.

The implications for countries such as the United States, which receive a significant number of data transfers EU Member States and, in 2002, had approximately $379 billion in trade with the EU, are serious. Data transfers are the life blood of many organizations and the underpinnings for all of electronic commerce. Multinational organizations routinely share among their different offices a vast array of personal information. This information can be as simple as personnel telephone directories to more sensitive information such as personnel records, insurance information needed to process medical claims, credit card billing information, or patient information essential for conducting pharmaceutical research on new drugs.

Accordingly, the United States initiated a high-level informal dialogue, led by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration and the European Commission Directorate for Internal Market, with the goals of ensuring the free flow of data and effective protection of personal data. These discussions led to the development of a "Safe Harbor" framework based on principles that reflect the U.S. approach to privacy and, at the same time, meet the European Directive’s "adequacy" requirements. These principles were deemed "adequate" by the European Commission in July 2000. The Safe Harbor became effective on November 1, 2000.

This workbook provides further guidance on how U.S. organizations can comply with the Safe Harbor privacy principles. This is for information only and creates no legally binding effects.

SECTION I: PRIVACY IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

Introduction

Objectives

At the end of this section, you should be able to

Understand the impact of differing national law, and
Know the differences in approaches to privacy in the U.S. and Europe.
Many fear that privacy concerns can stunt the growth of electronic commerce. Without confidence that data provided on-line will be protected and used responsibly, users will not take full advantage of the benefits that electronic commerce offers. No amount of marketing, attractive pricing or convenience will spur on-line users to conduct business on-line if they believe that doing so will unduly compromise the privacy of their personal information.

[Sharing Lights]

The United States, the E.U. and its member states are committed to making privacy protections available to their citizens without unnecessarily impeding the free flow of information. The United States has largely adopted a self-regulatory approach to the development of privacy protections in the private sector, addressing specific privacy concerns in the law as needed. The concern is that privacy issues differ across industry sectors, and that "a one size fits all" legislative approach would lack the necessary precision to avoid interfering with the benefits that result from the free flow of information. Nonetheless, the United States does address specific privacy concerns in the law as needed, particularly where sensitive information is involved or there have been cases of abuses. In Europe, however, privacy laws tend to be comprehensive, applying to every industry and closely regulating what data is collected and how it is used.

U.S. Approach to Privacy

In the United States, the importance of protecting the privacy of individuals’ personal information is a priority for the federal government and consumers. Consumers repeatedly cite fears that their personal information will be misused as a reason for not doing business online. In this way, moves to bolster on-line privacy protect consumer interests and fuel the broader growth of on-line communications, innovation, and business. Self-regulatory initiatives are an effective approach to putting meaningful privacy protections in place. In certain highly sensitive areas, however, legislative solutions are appropriate. These sensitive areas include financial and medical records, genetic information, Social Security numbers, and information involving children.

A self-regulatory initiative could involve a number of companies in the same line of business deciding that they will follow certain rules in handling information about their customers. These companies might also decide to display a seal that shows that they follow the rules. If one of the members of this "self-regulatory regime" breaks the rules, the company's membership and permission to display the seal will be revoked. Companies across industries -- and especially inInternet-related fields -- are increasingly hiring privacy experts and making the protection of consumer information a priority. The continuing introduction of new technologies designed to protect the privacy of personal information will have a profound effect on empowering consumers to control how their personal information is used. The federal government continues in its mission to be a model citizen of cyberspace in its information practices. The goal is for the government to serve as an example for private companies, as well as state and local governments.

The United States has supported legislative solutions in certain sensitive areas. In 1999, Congress passed and President signed into law the Financial Modernization Act which included significant new privacy protections for financial information. In addition, the Administration has issued rules guaranteeing the privacy of medical information under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. In 1998, the Administration worked with Congress to pass the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). COPPA requires commercial web sites that target children under the age of 13 to obtain verifiable parental consent before they gather information from children under age thirteen.

The European Approach

While the United States and EU generally agree on the underlying fair information principles, they employ different means to achieve this goal. The EU’s approach to privacy grows out of Europe’s history and legal traditions. In Europe, protection of information privacy is viewed as a fundamental, human right. Europe also has a tradition of prospective, comprehensive lawmaking that seeks to guard against future harms, particularly where social issues are concerned.

The EU began examining the impact of technology on society over a fifteen years ago; the inquiry culminated in the adoption of a directive in July 1995 specifically addressing privacy issues. The European Community’s Directive on Data Protection took effect in October 1998. Member States were required to bring into force laws, regulations, and administrative provisions to comply with the Directive by its effective date.

The European Union Directive on Data Protection

A quick review of the Directive’s basic terms makes clear that, consistent with European tradition, the Directive takes a regulatory and comprehensive approach to privacy issues. It has two basic objectives: first, to protect individuals with respect to the "processing" of personal information; and second, to ensure the free movement of personal information within the EU through the coordination of national laws (Article 1).

Personal information is defined as information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. An identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity (Article 2).

[Sharing Lights]

The scope of the Directive is very broad. It applies to all processing of data, on-line and off-line, manual as well as automatic, and all organizations holding personal data. It excludes from its reach only data used "in the course of purely personal or household activity" (Article 3). The Directive establishes strict guidelines for the processing of personal information. "Processing" includes any operations involving personal information, except perhaps its mere transmission (Article 2). For example, copying information or putting it in a file is viewed as "processing." The substantive aspects of the Directive’s privacy protections are based on the Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data adopted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1981.

Data Quality. The Directive requires that all personal information must be processed fairly and lawfully, so that, for example, a person whose personal information is at issue knows that it is being collected and used and must be informed of the proposed uses. Furthermore, the use of personal information must be limited to the purpose first identified and to other compatible uses, and no more information may be collected than is required to satisfy the purpose for which it is collected. In other words, the theory is that if a person provides information to obtain telephone service, that information should not be used to target that person for information about vacation trips, nor should information relevant to a customer’s interests in vacation trips be required to get, for instance, telephone service. Information must also be kept accurate and up to date (Article 6).

Legitimate Data Processing. The Directive sets forth rules for "legitimate" data processing. Most basically, this requires obtaining the consent of the data subject before information is processed unless specific exemptions apply (Article 7). In addition, certain information must be provided to data subjects when their personal information is processed (Article 10), such as whether they have rights to see the data, to correct any information that is inaccurate, or to know who will receive the data (Article 12).

Sensitive Data. "Sensitive" data, such as that pertaining to racial or ethnic origins, political or religious beliefs, or health or sex life, may not be processed at all unless such processing comes within limited exceptions, for example if the individual gives explicit consent (Article 8).

Security. The Directive requires that "appropriate technical and organizational measures to protect data" against destruction, loss, alteration, or unauthorized disclosure or access be taken(Article 17).

Data Controllers. The Directive requires those processing data to fulfill very specific requirements. Specifically, they must appoint a "data controller" responsible for all data processing, who must register with government authorities (Article 19) and notify them before processing any data (Article 18). Notification must at a minimum include: the purpose of the processing; a description of the data subjects; the recipients or categories of recipients to whom the data might be disclosed; proposed transfers to third countries; and a general description that would allow a preliminary assessment of whether requirements for security of processing have been met (Article 19).

Government Data Protection Authorities. The Directive also mandates a government authority to oversee data processing activities. Each Member State must establish an independent public authority to supervise the protection of personal data. These "Data Protection Commissions" must have the power to: (1) investigate data processing activities and monitor application of the Directive; and (2) intervene in the processing and to order the blocking, erasure, or destruction of data as well as to ban its processing. They must also be authorized to hear and resolve complaints from data subjects and must issue regular public reports on their activities (Article 28).

Transfers of Data Outside the EU. Most importantly from the U.S. perspective, the Directive requires that Member States enact laws prohibiting the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union that fail to ensure an "adequate level of [privacy] protection" (Article 25). Where the level of protection is deemed inadequate, Member States are required to take measures to prevent any transfer of data to the third country. Member States and their Data Protection Commissions must inform each other when they believe that a third country does not ensure an adequate level of protection.

SECTION II: OVERVIEW OF THE SAFE HARBOR FRAMEWORK

Objectives

At the end of this session, you should be able to

Describe the Safe Harbor arrangement and its benefits;
Determine what organizations may join the Safe Harbor; and
Understand how the arrangement will be enforced.
Introduction

The Safe Harbor framework was developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, in consultation with the European Commission, industry and non-governmental organizations to provide U.S. organizations with a streamlined means of satisfying the "adequacy" requirement under the European Directive on Data Protection. U.S. organizations wishing to receive personal information from European organizations legally must either join the safe harbor, satisfy one of the Directive’s other exceptions, or seek an "adequacy" determination. For example, personal data that is necessary to complete a contract between an individual and the company may be transferred without an "adequacy" determination, and data importing companies may receive such data if they enter into contracts with data exporting companies that bind the data importer to provide "adequate" privacy protection (See Article 26).

Description of the Safe Harbor Framework

The Safe Harbor framework is set forth in a set of seven privacy principles, 15 frequently asked questions and answers (FAQs), the European Commission’s adequacy decision, the exchange of letters between the Department and the European Commission, and letters from the Department of Transportation and Federal Trade Commission on their enforcement powers. Understanding the Safe Harbor requires familiarity with all of these documents. The Safe Harbor can apply to all personal information transferred from the European Union - whether collected on or off-line and whether it is within the scope of the Directive. Decisions by U.S. organizations to enter the Safe Harbor are entirely voluntary.

A "flexible implementation period", a political agreement by the EU to use discretion regarding enforcement to avoid disrupting data flows to U.S. organizations during the implementation period, remains in effect. A joint Department of Commerce and European Commission review of the implementation of the Safe Harbor was completed in January 2002. During this review, the Commission and Department officials discussed a range of implementation issues. In particular, they: 1) verified that all of the elements required by the framework are in place; 2) discussed the "visible compliance" of current safe harborites to the Safe Harbor privacy principles and Frequently Asked Questions; 3) discussed the progress of the Department's outreach and education plan; and 4) reviewed the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms named by current harborites.

Both sides were pleased to see that membership has grown significantly in recent months, but efforts need to continue to explain the advantages of joining the Safe Harbor. In addition, the importance of future cooperation between the U.S. and the EU in order to ensure continued data-flows was emphasized. Furthermore, the Commission reaffirmed its commitment to inform the Department if it becomes aware of any actions that may interrupt data flows to the U.S. and stated that it sees no reason to expect any change in policy regarding the "flexible implementation period".

Benefits of Implementing the Safe Harbor Framework

The Safe Harbor provides predictability and continuity for those EU organizations that send personal information to the United States and U.S. organizations that receive personal information from the EU. All 15 Member States are bound by the European Commission’s finding of adequacy. The Safe Harbor either eliminates the need for prior approval to begin data transfers or provides for automatic approvals. It provides for a flexible privacy regime more congenial to the U.S. approach to privacy and, for the most part, enforcement will be conducted in the United States (as opposed to Europe). The Safe Harbor privacy principles offer a simpler and more efficient means of complying with the adequacy requirements of the Directive, which should particularly benefit small and medium enterprises.

[Sharing Lights]

In addition to the specific benefits that flow from joining the Safe Harbor, developing a privacy policy can be a good business decision for U.S. organizations. By developing a well-thought out, carefully implemented privacy policy, and a policy that is compliant with the Safe Harbor, if your organization receives personally identifiable information from the EU, such a policy will, increase its customers’ confidence. A privacy policy should be seen as a critical piece of any overall business strategy, particularly an international business strategy, as well as a critical piece of its electronic commerce strategy.

For example, by providing customers with choice about how your organization uses their personal information, you can reduce the possibility that you will lose sales because your customers are concerned about use of their data.

What Organizations May Join the Safe Harbor

Any U.S. organization that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or U.S. air carriers and ticket agents subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation (DoT) may participate in the Safe Harbor. The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Transportation have both stated in letters to the European Commission that they will take enforcement action against organizations that state that they are in compliance with the Safe Harbor framework but then fail to live up to their statements. Please note that certain sectors are not subject to the jurisdiction of either the FTC or the DoT, and thus may not be eligible for Safe Harbor. Organizations that are telecommunications common carriers, meat packers, banks, insurance companies, credit unions or not-for-profits may not be eligible for Safe Harbor. If you are considering joining Safe Harbor, but are not certain whether your organization falls within the jurisdiction of either the FTC or the DoT, it is recommended that you contact those agencies for further guidance.

What Organizations Should Join the Safe Harbor

Organizations that receive personally identifiable information from EU Member States are required to demonstrate that they provide "adequate" privacy protections. Organizations that receive personally identifiable information and have not identified either another basis for demonstrating "adequacy" or a relevant exception in the Directive should consider joining the Safe Harbor as one means of meeting the Directive’s "adequacy" requirements. Though not necessary to comply with U.S. law, companies that wish to demonstrate to their customers that they provide a high level of privacy protection may also consider joining the Safe Harbor, recognizing the the Safe Harbor is only applicable to transfers of personally identifable data from the European Union to the United States.

How Do Organizations Join the Safe Harbor

Organizations that decide to participate in the Safe Harbor must comply with the Safe Harbor’s requirements and publicly declare that they do so. To be assured of Safe Harbor benefits, an organization needs to reaffirm its self-certification annually to the Department of Commerce, incidcating that it continues to adhere to the Safe Harbor’s requirements, and of course, it must continue to abide by the Safe Harbor requirements. As set forth in FAQ 6, it also required that the organization state in its published privacy policy statement that it adheres to the Safe Harbor privacy principles.

The Department of Commerce maintains a list of all organizations that register through the website or through a letter. An EU organization can ensure that it is sending information to a U.S. organization participating in the Safe Harbor by viewing the public list of Safe Harbor organizations posted on the Department of Commerce’s website (http://export.gov/safeharbor). This list became operational in November 2000. The list is updated regularly, so that it is clear who is in the Safe Harbor.

How and Where will the Safe Harbor be Enforced

In general, enforcement of the Safe Harbor takes place in the United States in accordance with U.S. law and relies, to a great degree, on enforcement by the private sector. The Safe Harbor private sector enforcement has three components: verification, dispute resolution, and remedies. Organizations are required to have procedures for verifying compliance; to have in place a dispute resolution system that will investigate and resolve individual complaints and disputes; either independent or self-assessment; and to remedy problems arising out of a failure to comply with the principles. Provision is also made for U.S. organizations to cooperate with European Data Protection Authorities to satisfy the dispute resolution and remedy requirements or where human resources data is involved. (See introductory paragraph of the principles for further guidance).

Private sector self regulation and enforcement will be backed up as needed by government enforcement of the federal and state unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes. The effect of these statutes is to give an organization’s Safe Harbor commitments the force of law vis-a-vis that organization.

[Sharing Lights]

Depending on the industry sector, the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Transportation provide overarching government enforcement of the Safe Harbor principles. Where an organization relies in whole or in part on self regulation in complying with the safe harbor principles, its failure to comply with such self regulation must be actionable under federal or state law prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts or it is not eligible to join the safe harbor. (Note: It is possible that an annex to the Safe Harbor principles will contain a list of additional U.S. governmental enforcement agencies recognized by the European Commission. It is possible that this list will expand as more agencies declare their willingness to enforce the Safe Harbor).

Failure to Comply with the Safe Harbor Requirements

If a U.S. Safe Harbor organization persistently fails to comply with the Safe Harbor requirements, it is no longer entitled to benefit from the Safe Harbor. Persistent failure to comply arises where an organization refuses to comply with a final determination by any self regulatory or government body or where such a body determines that an organization frequently fails to comply with the requirements to the point where its claim to comply is no longer credible. In these cases, the U.S. Safe Harbor organization must promptly notify the Department of Commerce [by letter or by email] of such facts. The Safe Harbor list will indicate that there has been a persistent failure to comply and the communication from the enforcement body will be made public 30 days after the Department of Commerce receives the notification.

The list maintained by the Department of Commerce will indicate any notifications the Department receives of persistent failure to comply and will make clear which organizations are assured and which organizations are no longer assured of Safe Harbor benefits.

Determining what your privacy policy should contain

In order for a privacy policy to be compliant with the Safe Harbor, the policy must address the seven privacy principles and any relevant points that are covered in the frequently asked questions (FAQs) and reflect the organization's actual and anticipated information handling practices. For instance, FAQ 6 requires that you state that you are in compliance with the Safe Harbor privacy principles. Please note that important exceptions are contained in the introductory paragraphs of the principles (as well as in other Safe Harbor documents) and your organization needs to takes these into account as well. It is important to write a policy that is clear, concise, and easy to understand.

Safe Harbor Principles

Notice: An organization must inform individuals about the purposes for which it collects and uses information about them, how to contact the organization with any inquiries or complaints, the types of third parties to which it discloses the information, and the choices and means the organization offers individuals for limiting its use and disclosure. This notice must be provided in clear and conspicuous language when individuals are first asked to provide personal information to the organization or as soon thereafter as is practicable, but in any event before the organization uses such information for a purpose other than that for which it was originally collected or processed by the transferring organization or discloses it for the first time to a third party.

Notice is a key element of any privacy policy. In order for consumers to make informed decisions about what information they provide, they must understand what data is being collected, for what purposes the data is being collected, how that data is used, how to contact the organization with inquiries or complaints, the types of third parties to which the information may be disclose, the choices and means the organization offers individuals for limiting its use and disclosure, and how it is secured. By providing notice to customers about your data collection practices, you enable consumers to make informed decisions about their on-line activities. Note that for a third party which is acting as an agent, notice and choice do not need to be provided.

Choice: An organization must offer individuals the opportunity to choose (opt out) whether their personal information is (a) to be disclosed to a third party or (b) to be used for a purpose that is incompatible with the purpose(s) for which it was originally collected or subsequently authorized by the individual. Individuals must be provided with clear and conspicuous, readily available, and affordable mechanisms to exercise choice.

[Sharing Lights]

Choice ensures that consumers have choices regarding the collection of their personal data. For example, individuals who do not wish that their data be used as described in the privacy policy can choose not to have their data shared, have complimentary goods and services marketed to them, have their data sold to third parties or used in other ways. By providing customers the option of choice, you can also reduce the possibilities that you will lose sales because your customers are concerned about the use of their data. An organization must offer individuals the opportunity to opt out of two situations: if an organization discloses personal information to third parties, even for the same purpose for which it was originally collected or subsequently authorized; or where the information may be used by the collecting organization for a purpose which is "incompatible" with the purpose for which it was originally collected or subsequently authorized by the individual.

Safe Harbor Sensitive Information Principle: For sensitive information (i.e. personal information specifying medical or health conditions, racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership or information specifying the sex life of the individual), they must be given affirmative or explicit (opt in) choice if the information is to be disclosed to a third party or used for a purpose other than those for which it was originally collected or subsequently authorized by the individual through the exercise of opt in choice. In any case, an organization should treat as sensitive any information received from a third party where the third party treats and identifies it as sensitive.

For sensitive information, affirmative or explicit (opt in) choice must be given if the information is to be disclosed to a third party or used for a purpose other than its original purpose or the purpose authorized subsequently by the individual.

Onward Transfer: To disclose information to a third party, organizations must apply the Notice and Choice Principles. Where an organization wishes to transfer information to a third party that is acting as an agent, as described in the endnote, it may do so if it first either ascertains that the third party subscribes to the Principles or is subject to the Directive or another adequacy finding or enters into a written agreement with such third party requiring that the third party provide at least the same level of privacy protection as is required by the relevant Principles. If the organization complies with these requirements, it shall not be held responsible (unless the organization agrees otherwise) when a third party to which it transfers such information processes it in a way contrary to any restrictions or representations, unless the organization knew or should have known the third party would process it in such a contrary way and the organization has not taken reasonable steps to prevent or stop such processing.

This principle is intended to assure that there is as little "leak-out" of data from Safe Harbor protections as possible. In certain circumstances, if you know someone is doing wrong, such as misusing property for which you are responsible, or misbehaving in a situation for which you have responsibility and you don’t stop them, you bear some responsibility for the consequences. This principle provides some on-going responsibility for data transferred pursuant to the Safe Harbor. In Europe, this responsibility would be provided by data protection laws. Since omnibus data protection laws do not exist in the United States, we have adopted this principle.