{"id":5404,"date":"2020-11-11T07:34:00","date_gmt":"2020-11-11T07:34:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/seersco.com\/blogs\/?p=5404"},"modified":"2024-07-29T07:46:24","modified_gmt":"2024-07-29T07:46:24","slug":"weekly-privacy-updates-11-nov","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/seersco.com\/blogs\/weekly-privacy-updates-11-nov\/","title":{"rendered":"Privacy Updates This Week"},"content":{"rendered":"

Fines and more fines everywhere! It has been a week of fine related news. This is why to help you go through a list of the recent fines, we have summarized all of the key fines that have been imposed under the GDPR law in the past few years together for you. You can find more information in the Seers<\/a> fine tracker here.<\/p>\n

To mitigate against all of these fines and penalties, it is imperative that you should reduce the possibility of a data breach for implementing the best practice in terms of policies, procedures and processes in your organisation. As well as to train your staff members on fulfilling their obligations under the GDPR by handling and processes personal data correctly through the use of this innovative GDPR Staff eTraining Solution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, here are the top privacy headlines.<\/p>\n

Top privacy headlines this week:<\/h2>\n

Most expensive data breach ever!<\/h3>\n

JM Bullion, a dealer for gold, silver, copper, platinum and palladium, recently became a victim of a cyber-attack. The cyber-attack took place somewhere in February this year. However, due to a lack of security checks in place, the attack was not discovered until July this year. This attack allowed the hackers to fetch information of the dealer and the clients and harbor it for a long period of time before revealing it to the public.<\/p>\n

Read more here<\/a><\/p>\n

Oracle and Salesforce could face multi-billion-dollar GDPR lawsuit<\/h3>\n

Two of the biggest tech companies are sued by privacy campaigner and data protection specialist Rebecca Rumbul. According to Rumbul they \u201cunlawfully\u201d gathered user data and used it to \u201cfollow\u201d people around the internet with ads. This is unethical and unlawful in several countries of the world. The data violation is considered a strictly penalisable offence under the GDPR and the PECR. In the Netherlands, upon trial the two firms were found guilty, they could be looking at a fine of anywhere between $13 and $19.5 billion. The lawsuit can emerge in other countries in a similar context at any time.<\/p>\n

Read more here<\/a><\/p>\n

Zoom has settled with the FTC over \u201cdeceptive\u201d security practices<\/h3>\n

The Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with videoconferencing platform Zoom over \u201cmisleading claims\u201d about its security. The agency said in a statement that when Zoom incorrectly claimed its video calls were protected by end-to-end encryption, the company engaged in \u201cdeceptive and unfair practices that undermined the security of its users.\u201d<\/p>\n

Read more here<\/a><\/p>\n

Experian given final chance after breaking GDPR<\/h3>\n

The ICO has warned Experian to comply with an enforcement notice or face a potentially huge GDPR fine for illegally using customer data for marketing purposes. The final notice asks for immediate changes and clarifications on its policy for dealing with the matter. This notice is among the steps taken post the investigation of the top three credit organisations operating in the UK including Experian, Equifax and TransUnion.<\/p>\n

Read more here<\/a><\/p>\n

Data Protection Commission finds prison security system in breach of GDPR<\/h3>\n

The Irish DPC found problems within the prison security system. The Irish prisons are found to be in breach of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) after investigating a complaint by a prison officer. According to the findings the security system involves scanning prison officers’ thumbprints in order to admit them through security gates.<\/p>\n

Read more here<\/a><\/p>\n

Why is the ICO reducing fines?<\/h3>\n

ICO reduced GDPR fines to \u00a320m for BA and \u00a318.4m for Marriott. There are several mitigating factors at play here. Due to the initial severity of the breach, the ICO initially proposed a \u00a330m fine as an appropriate starting point for BA, and \u00a328m for Marriott. Later, only a month ago, the fines were reduced and revised.<\/p>\n

The ICO considered the remedial measures proposed by BA and Marriott as mitigation factors, including the following:<\/p>\n