Search This Blog

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Labels

Showing posts with label Privacy Act. Show all posts

Ministry of Justice Workers’ Online Comments Highlight Workplace Communication Risks

 

Ministry of Justice employees referred to a woman as a “bitch” in an online conversation, which she later received a copy of, serving as a reminder of the importance of careful workplace communication, says an employment lawyer. 

Academic and author Barbara Sumner, conducting PhD research on adoption systems, made several Official Information Act requests. In October last year, she requested all correspondence mentioning her name. Among the responses was a 2022 Teams conversation where employees complained about her requests and referred to her derogatorily.

This disclosure is a stark reminder to anyone venting via Teams or similar platforms to be cautious. Here's what you need to know about accessing your workplace communications.

Alastair Espie, an employment law specialist and partner at Duncan Cotterill, explains that anything sent on a work device or communication tool, like email or internal messaging, is typically accessible by the employer. Employers generally have the right to view such communications unless they have explicitly stated they will treat them as private. However, this assurance is rare.

Espie notes that individuals can use the Privacy Act to request information an organization holds about them, potentially revealing messages intended to be private. This often occurs during employment processes like restructures or disciplinary actions, where employees seek personal information that might include internal emails about the process.

Public sector employees, such as those at the ministry, face additional exposure as their communications can be requested under the Official Information Act. This act allows any public member to request information from government bodies, including emails and messages.

Espie states that if an employer pays for your phone plan, it does not automatically give them the right to access your information. However, if they provide the phone or messaging system, the same rules apply as for other workplace devices.

Espie highlights that certain information, such as legally privileged conversations or details that could breach someone else’s privacy, can be withheld or redacted. Additionally, information given for references or skill assessments is generally confidential. However, most information sent internally, especially in the public sector, is at risk of being discoverable unless specific exemptions apply.

India's DPDP Act: Industry's Compliance Challenges and Concerns

As India's Data Protection and Privacy Act (DPDP) transitions from proposal to legal mandate, the business community is grappling with the intricacies of compliance and its far-reaching implications. While the government maintains that companies have had a reasonable timeframe to align with the new regulations, industry insiders are voicing their apprehensions and advocating for extensions in implementation.

A new LiveMint report claims that the government claims businesses have been given a fair amount of time to adjust to the DPDP regulations. The actual situation, though, seems more nuanced. Industry insiders,emphasize the difficulties firms encounter in comprehending and complying with the complex mandate of the DPDP Act.

The Big Tech Alliance, as reported in Inc42, has proposed a 12 to 18-month extension for compliance, underscoring the intricacies involved in integrating DPDP guidelines into existing operations. The alliance contends that the complexity of data handling and the need for sophisticated infrastructure demand a more extended transition period.

An EY study, reveals that a majority of organizations express deep concerns about the impact of the data law. This highlights the need for clarity in the interpretation and application of DPDP regulations. 

In another development, the IT Minister announced that draft rules under the privacy law are nearly ready. This impending release signifies a pivotal moment in the DPDP journey, as it will provide a clearer roadmap for businesses to follow.

As the compliance deadline looms, it is evident that there is a pressing need for collaborative efforts between the government and the industry to ensure a smooth transition. This involves not only extending timelines but also providing comprehensive guidance and support to businesses navigating the intricacies of the DPDP Act.

Despite the government's claim that businesses have enough time to get ready for DPDP compliance, industry opinion suggests otherwise. The complexities of data privacy laws and the worries raised by significant groups highlight the difficulties that companies face. It is imperative that the government and industry work together to resolve these issues and enable a smooth transition to the DPDP compliance period.

Here's Why Twitter Rival Threads Isn’t Accessible in the E.U.

 

With the introduction of Threads, Meta's text-based conversation network, across 100 countries in July, Twitter is facing its most formidable rival yet after months of instability under its new owner. 

The app gained 30 million users in less than a day, including celebrities and media outlets, but its debut in Europe has been delayed due to concerns over data protection. 

The app has been delayed by "upcoming regulatory uncertainty," as Meta spokesperson Christine Pai put it, which is generally understood to be a reference to the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA). 

Tech firms and regulatory sceptics have long maintained that rules like the DMA stifle innovation by imposing onerous user security measures, but the looming competition law hasn't stopped Meta from offering new products — and Meta hasn't suggested that a European launch will be cancelled. 

If anything, the DMA adds friction to a product's introduction, forcing the company to review how it safeguards users before releasing it into the open — even if it affects Threads' popularity promptly. 

However, there is still a lot of uncertainty as companies wait for additional guidelines later this autumn, as well as an unanswered question: will compliance with Europe's standards undermine the design that has allowed Threads to grow so quickly?

Pai and other Meta representatives have refused to blame the Threads delay on any of Europe's multiple tech guidelines. However, discussions with Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri suggest that the EU's Digital Markets Act is to blame.

The regulation, which was passed last year, includes a slew of new rules aimed at preventing "gatekeepers" — companies with a specific user base and market cap — from abusing their market position.

The DMA forbids companies as big as Meta from reusing a user's personal data — including name and location — across products for targeted advertising without the user's agreement.

According to Meta's privacy policies, it collects and uses information across its products to deliver adverts to consumers. Information from Apple’s App Store suggests that Threads could collect a wide range of personal data, including a user's contacts and search history, as well as health and location data.

According to Ireland's Independent newspaper, a representative for the Data Protection Commission (DPC) suggested that the watchdog had been in communication with Meta concerning Threads and that the platform would not be rolled out in the EU "at this point." 

Meta's history with EU regulators 

Two recent rulings have raised data and privacy concerns regarding Meta's operations in the European Union. Earlier this year in July, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg ruled that a German watchdog may investigate privacy violations in which user agreement wasn't acquired prior to the firm using personal data to target adverts to consumers.

Furthermore, in May, Ireland's Data Protection Commission (DPC), which oversees Meta across the EU, ordered Facebook to halt data transfers from the EU to the US and fined the internet giant a record 1.2 billion euros ($1.3 billion) for violating General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) standards. 

Meta announced that it will appeal the ruling, claiming that it had been "singled out" by the DPC despite the fact that several other companies use identical data migration techniques.