Data leaving the EU raises questions of security and jurisdiction. A top London lawyer has warned that the current trend of UK companies offshoring to locations outside the EU, such as India and China, raises a real threat of personal data being abused.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There are growing concerns that personal information being used by data processors such as offshore call centres may be abused once it is taken outside the reach of EU law enforcement bodies. And David Naylor, partner at law firm Morrison & Foerster, believes these fears are not without foundation, despite rules which make it illegal.<\/p>\n
Naylor said there are laws in place which mean companies generally cannot enter into outsourcing agreements where personal data is transferred outside Europe unless it is to a country which shares the same rigorous levels of data protection or the individuals concerned have consented to the transfer of their data abroad. In addition, the company transferring the data must ensure that the outsourcing service provider meets other key criteria, such as guaranteeing levels of security and employee reliability. However, he warned “there is definitely a significant danger that data could be misused once it is taken outside the EU, even though any data controller thinking they can do so without breaking UK law would probably be entirely wrong”.<\/p>\n
With so much data being transferred via so many transactions it is often difficult to spot the legitimate from the illegal. By moving operations offshore and adding a further level of complexity to this equation it is almost inevitable breaches, both deliberate and accidental, will occur. Naylor said: “Data is flowing from country to country at incredible speeds in ever greater volumes and the ability of regulators to control that and to ensure rules are observed and laws are obeyed is far from limitless.”<\/p>\n
More info:[url=http:\/\/www.silicon.com\/software\/security\/0,39024655,39117625,00.htm]http:\/\/www.silicon.com\/software\/security\/0,39024655,39117625,00.htm[\/url]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2327","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-warnings"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2327","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2327"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2327\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4814,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2327\/revisions\/4814"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}