🗃 Case Study After withdrawing a loan application, the complainant in this case wrote to the bank stating that they were withdrawing consent to the processing of any personal data held by the bank relating to the application and requesting the return of all documents containing the complainant’s personal data. 👉 https://lnkd.in/eHUWEXjd
Data Protection Commission Ireland’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
FTC Adds New Data Breach Reporting Obligations Under Safeguards Rule On October 27, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) unanimously approved an amendment to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) Safeguards Rule to require certain covered financial institutions to report a broad range of data breaches and other unauthorized data disclosures to the FTC. With a broader scope than existing obligations, quick timelines, and potentially public notices, the new rule ushers in a significant change for covered financial institutions' notification obligations. Under the new rule, certain non-banking financial institutions, such as mortgage brokers, motor vehicle dealers, and payday lenders, must now notify the FTC of any "notification event" impacting 500 or more customers. A "notification event" is broadly defined to mean "acquisition of unencrypted customer information without the authorization of the individual to which the information pertains." The definition makes clear that unauthorized access will be presumed to include unauthorized acquisition absent reliable evidence to the contrary. Under the GLBA, "customer information" includes any nonpublic personal information about a customer (i.e., an individual with whom the covered financial institution has a continuing relationship), which includes data categories that would not generally rise to the level of requiring notification under existing state data breach notification laws, such as a Social Security number, a driver's license number, medical information or account login information. And, unlike under many state data breach laws, the new Safeguards Rule requires notification even if the event poses no risk of harm to customers. Complete article:
FTC Adds New Data Breach Reporting Obligations Under Safeguards Rule - Data Protection - United States
mondaq.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Senior Data Protection Specialist at Mishcon de Reya LLP (also doing a fair bit of FOI). Chair of NADPO.co.uk. _Personal_ blog at informationrightsandwrongs.com
The FT reported yesterday that the ICO and the FCA are to send a letter to banks saying that data protection law does not prevent the sending of communications alerting customers to better savings deals. I’ll be very interested to see the letter. It is, of course, PECR which primarily prescribes how electronic marketing may be sent to individuals, as Rob Masson indicates in the FT piece, but his suggestion that banks could use post instead doesn’t deal with the issue of when customers opt out (as many do) from receiving any direct marketing, including by post. As with the recent ICO announcement regarding the communication by financial institutions of regulatory messages to customers, I suspect the letter may have the effect of complicating things for banks, and potentially blurring the lines between “obvious” marketing and sending a message “in a neutral tone [which] doesn’t contain any active promotion or encouragement for people to take a particular action” (which is what the ICO’s regulatory communications guidance suggests). And history and experience tell us that when legal and regulatory lines become blurred, some people may exploit the uncertainty. I suspect we may see future arguments where bank communications are alleged to have overstepped the line between neutral statement and active promotion. I sense that often when ICO are publicly challenged on a charge that “data protection law causes us problems”, their response tends to be “of course it doesn’t, don’t be silly”, even when their previous approach might actually have been the reason for the challenge.
Savers must be alerted to better deals, FCA and data watchdog warn banks
ft.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
UK Banks: Consumers Getting Poor Savings Rates the Fault of Data Protection Laws: After being pulled into an early July meeting with regulators over uncompetitive savings rates, some UK banks are now blaming data protection laws for consumer financial woes, claiming that rules forbid them from communicating better options to customers. #dataprotection #dataprivacy #privacy
UK Banks: Consumers Getting Poor Savings Rates the Fault of Data Protection Laws - CPO Magazine
cpomagazine.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Exciting News for the UK Finance sector!🏦 The recent introduction of the UK's Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill ('the bill') marks a significant milestone in tackling financial crime. Until now, it was legally difficult for businesses in the AML sector, such as banks and accountants, to share information about suspicious activity or customers that indicated financial crime. And the cost is huge - money laundering alone costs the UK £100BN per year. 😰 This new legislation makes it easier for relevant AML businesses to share customer data when it is for the purposes of preventing or investigating economic crime. Its up to individual businesses to decide the best way to share this sensitive information securely - and that's where we can help. At Verifoxx, we use various Privacy Enhancing Technologies to enable organisations to securely question and collaborate with each other's sensitive data, so that the value of data can be unlocked, without compromising on data protection laws. Reach out to us if you work in this sector and are curious to find out more. Read more on this new legislation here: https://lnkd.in/dMrKrqY8. #EconomicCrime #DataSharing #Banking #UKLegislation #antimoneylaundering #aml #amlcompliance #privacyenhancingtechnologies
Factsheet: information sharing measures
gov.uk
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
In the digital age, data protection and consumer privacy are of colloquial importance. RBI’s recent crackdown on credit bureaus can be seen as a positive step towards safeguarding consumer’s interests and stressing on the importance of data protection in the financial ecosystem. Prioritizing a responsible, fair and secure environment will empower consumers with a clear understanding of the processes that impact their financial standing and also support stability in the industry. Read Here:
MC Explains: Why RBI cracked down on credit bureaus that maintain your financial data
moneycontrol.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
An interesting reading on marketing, data protection and client protection.
Savers must be alerted to better deals, FCA and data watchdog warn banks
ft.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
A few days ago the government published a "near final" statutory instrument, branded as - allowing PSPs to adopt a risk-based approach to payments. The SI introduces a new 4-day time limit on stalling an outbound payment where there is a financial crime related concern. The legislation will place an impetus on PSPs to adequately evidence the basis on which delays to payments occur. PSPs will be liable for any interest and charges incurred by their customers for unduly delayed payments. https://lnkd.in/eJMwe3pj
HM Treasury publishes draft SI: The Payment Services (Amendment) Regulations 2024 | Global Regulation Tomorrow
https://www.regulationtomorrow.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
As a cardholder, it's essential to be aware of the dispense errors resolution process to ensure your financial security and protect your rights. Here are the key points you should know about dispense errors resolution: 1. What is a Dispense Error: A dispense error occurs when an ATM, cash dispenser, or any other automated payment system provides an incorrect amount of cash or fails to dispense cash during a transaction. 2. Prompt Reporting: If you encounter a dispense error, report it immediately to your bank or card issuer. Most financial institutions have a specific time frame within which you must report the error to be eligible for resolution. 3. Document the Incident: Make sure to keep a record of the transaction, noting the date, time, location of the ATM, and the details of the error. This documentation will be helpful when resolving the issue with your bank. 4. Contact Your Bank: Get in touch with your bank or card issuer's customer service as soon as possible. They will guide you through the process of filing a dispute and may ask for the transaction details and any supporting documents. 5. Dispute Resolution Process: The card issuer will investigate the dispense error and work with the ATM operator or network to verify the discrepancy. This process may take some time, so it's important to be patient. 6. Resolution Outcome: Once the investigation is complete, the bank will inform you of the resolution. If the dispense error is confirmed, the credited amount will be made permanent. If the error is not validated, the temporary credit may be reversed. 7. Your Rights: As a cardholder, you have rights protected by consumer laws, such as the CBN Consumer Protection Regulation - https://lnkd.in/djn-Qapb .These laws ensure that you are not held liable for unauthorized transactions, including dispense errors, beyond a certain limit. 8. Follow Up: If the dispense error resolution takes longer than expected or if you have any concerns about the process, follow up with your bank to get updates on the status of the investigation. Remember to be vigilant while using ATMs and automated payment systems and always protect your PIN and card information. Reporting dispense errors promptly helps ensure that your issue is addressed efficiently and that you are not held responsible for unauthorized transactions.
cbn consumer protection regulations.pdf
cbn.gov.ng
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Tech Lawyer |Empowering Influencers and creators economy |Enabling startups ,businesses|IPR I Gaming Lawyer|Data Privacy and protection Consultant @Tsaaro|Co founder @Biz Internaglo
In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has stirred attention by issuing a notice in response to a plea alleging violations of the right to #privacy by four foreign credit information companies operating in the country. The case, Surya Prakash v. Union of India and Others, has garnered significant interest due to its implications for data privacy and financial regulation. Despite the absence of legal representation for the petitioner, the three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, has taken proactive steps. They've solicited responses from key stakeholders, including the Ministry of Finance, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Ministry for Electronics & Information Technology, and the Ministry of Home Affairs. Furthermore, the Court has also sought responses from the accused entities: TransUnion CIBIL, Experian Credit Information Company of India, Equifax Credit Information Services, and CRIF High Mark Credit Information Services. In a move to ensure fair representation, Advocate K Parameshwar has been appointed as amicus curiae in the case. The crux of the petitioner's argument revolves around alleged breaches of privacy rights stemming from the collection, storage, and processing of sensitive financial data without consent. These actions, the petitioner claims, run afoul of the Credit Information Companies Regulation (CICR) Act, 2005. Moreover, concerns have been raised regarding the localization of data, as the servers and storage systems of these companies are situated outside India. The petitioner paints a grim picture of the consequences, alleging the emergence of a "parallel underworld economy" fueled by credit scores and histories generated by these companies. Moreover, a symbiotic relationship with various financial platforms has been alleged, further exacerbating the situation. The petitioner contends that these companies wield significant influence over the banking ecosystem, effectively determining who receives credit facilities and who doesn't. This, they argue, perpetuates financial paralysis for individuals with low credit scores, stifling economic growth and entrepreneurship. In light of these allegations, the petitioner seeks intervention from the Court to regulate data sharing practices and ensure compliance with the CICR Act, 2005. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for data privacy, financial regulation, and consumer rights in India. It will be Interesting to see how this case unfolds further ! https://lnkd.in/dQV9VbSu #privacymatters #india #CICRACT #dataprivacy
Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Alleging Data Privacy Violation By Foreign Credit Information Companies
livelaw.in
To view or add a comment, sign in
31,761 followers