DOCSLIB.ORG

Non-Profit Activists' Strategic Pursuit of Alleged GDPR Violations Spurs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Non-Profit Activists' Strategic Pursuit of Alleged GDPR Violations Spurs THOMSON REUTERS Non-profit activists’ strategic pursuit of alleged GDPR violations spurs compliance developments By Michelle Reed, Esq., Natasha Kohne, Esq., Jo-Ellyn Sakowitz Klein, Esq., and Rachel Kurzweil, Esq., Akin Gump* MARCH 22, 2019 This alert discusses two recent developments in relation to Under this framework, data subjects are entitled to a copy of all compliance with the European Union’s General Data Protection raw data that a company holds about the data subject, including Regulation (GDPR) that came about as a result of complaints filed information about the sources and recipients of the data subject’s by NOYB — European Center for Digital Rights,1 an Austria-based, data, the purpose for which the data is processed, the countries non-profit organization founded by Max Schrems, a well-known where the data is stored and how long the data is stored. privacy activist. Schrems is best known for filing the case that led The recent NOYB complaints allege that, when individual users to the demise of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor data-sharing agreement sought to exercise this right by requesting information from the in 2015. Companies, each Company provided either a deficient response or no First, on January 18, NOYB filed a series of strategic complaints response at all. Accordingly, NOYB filed complaints on behalf of the with the Austrian Data Protection Authority against eight individuals against each Company for several violations of the GDPR. companies (on behalf of 10 users), including Apple Music, Amazon Under Article 83, the violations could carry a maximum fine of €20 Prime, YouTube, Netflix, Spotify and others (collectively, the million or 4 percent of the worldwide turnover (whichever is higher) “Companies”), for violations of the GDPR. — which NOYB estimates translates into a potential combined Second, on January 21, the French Data Protection Authority maximum penalty of €18.8 billion across the 10 complaints.3 To (Commission Nationale de l’informatique et des Libertés or CNIL) date, none of the fines sought by data protection authorities have fined Google €50 million (about $57 million) for GDPR violations.2 reached the statutory maximum. The CNIL’s fine arose out of an investigation initiated in response NOYB argues that the Companies have engaged in a pattern of to complaints filed by NOYB and a French digital rights group. structural violations by building automated systems that provide Below, we provide a brief overview of the claims alleged in the deficient responses to data access requests. recent NOYB complaints and in the CNIL/Google case. Specifically, NOYB alleges that each Company’s automated These recent developments suggest that NOYB and other activist responses violate the GDPR by failing to do one or all of the non-profit organizations may play an influential role in driving following in response to a data subject’s request: GDPR enforcement moving forward. NOYB’s recent complaints • Provide information about the exact purpose for which the indicate that it, and likely other activist non-profit organizations, data subject’s personal data is undergoing processing, as is strategically testing companies’ compliance with different parts required by Article 15(1)(a). of the GDPR. • Provide information about the recipients of the data subject’s NOYB’S COMPLAINTS TO THE AUSTRIAN DATA PROTECTION personal data, as required by Article 15(1)(c). AUTHORITY NOYB’s most recent complaints generally allege that the • Provide information about the envisaged personal data Companies failed to properly respond to consumers’ requests retention period, as required by Article 15(1)(d). for data that the Companies collected about consumers. The • Provide information about the data subject’s right to request complaints demonstrate that activists are proactively testing rectification or erasure, the right to restrict the processing of companies’ response systems and may go after noncompliant personal data, or the right to object to such processing, as companies. required under Article 15(1)(e). Article 15 of the GDPR grants data subjects a “right to access” personal data that has been collected about them, and Recital 63 • Provide information about the data subject’s right to lodge of the GDPR notes that data subjects must be able to exercise that a complaint with a supervisory authority, as required under right easily and at reasonable intervals. Article 15(1)(f). Thomson Reuters is a commercial publisher of content that is general and educational in nature, may not reflect all recent legal developments and may not apply to the specific facts and circumstances of individual transactions and cases. Users should consult with qualified legal counsel before acting on any information published by Thomson Reuters online or in print. Thomson Reuters, its affiliates and their editorial staff are not a law firm, do not represent or advise clients in any matter and are not bound by the professional responsibilities and duties of a legal practitioner. Nothing in this publication should be construed as legal advice or creating an attorney-client relationship. The views expressed in this publication by any contributor are not necessarily those of the publisher. THOMSON REUTERS EXPERT ANALYSIS • Provide information about the sources of the data The CNIL found two violations of the GDPR: lack of subject’s personal data, as required under Article 15(1)(g). transparency and invalidly obtaining user consent for ads personalization. • Provide information about appropriate safeguards for transfers of data to third countries, as required under Lack of transparency Article 15(2). Various portions of the GDPR require companies to process personal data in a transparent manner (see Art. 5), • Provide the data subject with raw data in a format provide information to data subjects in a transparent and that was concise, transparent, intelligible and easily easily accessible format (see Art. 12), and provide specific accessible, as required under Article 15(3). information to data subjects when data is collected (see Art. 13). NOYB asked that the Austrian Data Protection Authority (1) investigate each Company; (2) find that the complainants’ The CNIL found that the information provided by Google to rights were violated; (3) compel each Company to fully and users about its processing activities was not easily accessible correctly respond to the complainants’ access requests; and for users, nor was it clear and comprehensive because: (4) impose an “effective, proportionate and dissuasive fine” • “Essential information” that should have been provided on each Company of up to 4 percent of their worldwide to users when their data was collected (e.g., the data revenue. It remains to be seen what actions the Austrian Data processing purposes, data retention periods or the Protection Authority will take in response. categories of personal data used for ad personalization) The cases could be a bellwether for similar noncompliance was disseminated across several documents and claims in other EU states, as well as in other jurisdictions accessible only after several steps.8 that have adopted statutes with similar data subject request obligations. The 2018 California Consumer Privacy Act, for • The listed purposes of the processing operations carried example, also requires companies to provide consumers out by Google and the categories of data processed for with certain information in response to verifiable consumer those purposes were “described in a too generic and 9 requests. vague in manner.” • The information communicated to users “was not clear NOYB’S MAY 2018 COMPLAINTS AND CNIL’S ACTION enough so that the user could understand that the legal AGAINST GOOGLE basis of processing operations for ads personalization In May 2018, shortly after the GDPR took effect, NOYB filed is the consent, and not the legitimate interest of the a series of complaints against several large tech firms in a company.”10 number of European jurisdictions. Shortly thereafter, La Quadrature du Net (LQDN), a French advocacy group that Invalidly obtaining user consent for ads personalization promotes digital rights, filed similar complaints against some The GDPR requires companies to have a lawful basis for of the same defendants.4 processing personal data (see Art. 6(1)). One such way to meet The complaints generally alleged that the large tech this obligation is for a company to obtain a data subject’s companies violated the GDPR by failing to disclose to users consent to process his or her data (see Art. 6(1)(a)). how their personal information is collected and processed, by The CNIL found that the consent that Google obtained from forcing customers to agree to their privacy terms or not use users was not validly obtained because: their services, and by not having a valid legal basis to process the personal data of the users of its services (particularly for • Users were not “sufficiently informed” about Google’s ads personalization purposes).5 processing activities because the information that Google provided was diluted in several documents Notably, in response to the complaints NOYB and LQDN and did not effectively enable a user to be aware of the filed against Google with the CNIL, the CNIL initiated an extent of the processing activities and the “plurality of investigation. The CNIL’s investigation analyzed the browsing services, websites and applications involved in [Google’s] pattern of users and the documents that users can access processing operations.”11 when creating a Google account during the configuration of mobile equipment using the Android operating system.6 • User consent to Google’s processing was not “unambiguous” because users have to click on a “more On January 21, the CNIL announced that it had fined Google options” button to access the company’s personal ads €50 million for failing to disclose to users how their personal configuration, and the display of the ads personalization information is collected and processed.7 The CNIL also found is a pre-ticked box.12 that Google did not properly obtain users’ consent for data collection or processing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Making the Cut? | SPECIAL REPORT | Sept
    DATA PRIVACY & SECURITY SPECIAL REPORT SEPT. 24, 2020 After EU judges struck down the Privacy Shield data-transfer agreement, what’s next for US tech Making giants, thousands of other companies and regulatory the Cut? regimes around the world? INSIGHT | COMMENTARY | ANALYSIS Editor’s Letter Lewis Crofts MLex Editor-in-Chief We have arranged it in three thematic sections to reflect the multiple moving parts of the topic: 1) the EU court’s decision and immediate effects on Facebook and other companies; 2) the scramble by the US and EU to work out what to do about replacing the binned agreement and making SCCs more robust; and headache. A bombshell. A seismic shift. 3) the concerns and responses by other affected However dramatic you might like your countries around the world — including the UK, A metaphors, there is little doubt that EU Japan and Australia. judges delivered an extraordinarily significant We trust you enjoy reading this report and ruling on July 16. In striking down Privacy Shield, find it a useful guide to a complex, evolving issue. the EU-US data-transfer framework, they instantly The reporting here is a brief example of the threw into doubt the operations of more than insight and predictive analysis that MLex brings 5,000 US companies that relied on it. subscribers to our data privacy and security The ruling — essentially based on the failure service every day. of the mechanism to protect EU citizens’ data The stories included were all published from US government snooping — doesn’t as events unfolded, bringing our subscribers prevent companies transferring data between unrivalled insight into the significance of the EU and other foreign countries under developments and the likely next steps in an issue “standard contractual clauses.” But these can’t that will affect the operations of many thousands protect data in countries, including the US, that of businesses around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law, Practice, Remedies, and Oversight
    ___________________________ SUMMARY OF U.S. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE LAW, PRACTICE, REMEDIES, AND OVERSIGHT ASHLEY GORSKI AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION AUGUST 30, 2018 _________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS QUALIFICATIONS AS AN EXPERT ............................................................................................. iii INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 I. U.S. Surveillance Law and Practice ................................................................................... 2 A. Legal Framework ......................................................................................................... 3 1. Presidential Power to Conduct Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ....................... 3 2. The Expansion of U.S. Government Surveillance .................................................. 4 B. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ..................................................... 5 1. Traditional FISA: Individual Orders ..................................................................... 6 2. Bulk Searches Under Traditional FISA ................................................................. 7 C. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ........................................... 8 D. How The U.S. Government Uses Section 702 in Practice ......................................... 12 1. Data Collection: PRISM and Upstream Surveillance ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • CJEU Gives Green Light for Facebook Lawsuit in Vienna
    This is version 2 of this first statement. Get the latest version of this update here. 25.1.2018 CJEU gives Green Light for Facebook Lawsuit in Vienna The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirms that Max Schrems can litigate in Vienna against Facebook for violation of EU privacy rules. Facebook’s attempt to block the privacy lawsuit was not successful. However, today the CJEU gave a very narrowly definition of the notion of a “consumer” which deprives many consumer from consumer protection and also makes an Austrian-style “class action” impossible. Max Schrems: „For three years Facebook has been fighting nail and toe against the Courts jurisdiction in Austria and lost. Now, we can finally go ahead with the case. Facebook will now have to explain to a neutral Court whether its business model is in line with stringent European privacy laws. This is a huge blow for them. Unfortunately the Court of Justice has not taken up the golden opportunity to finally establish collective redress options in Europe, but kicked the ball back to the legislator.“ Short Summary: In the “Facebook-Lawsuit” (C-498/16, FBclaim.com) the CJEU has decided on national jurisdiction in consumer matters. Vienna Courts have jurisdiction to hear Schrems v. Facebook Case “Model Case” on Facebook’s misuse of personal data is admissible in Vienna, according to CJEU. For the first time a broad review of Facebook’s compliance with EU data protection laws will be possible (e.g. illegal privacy policies, online tracking, sharing of data with US authorities and alike).
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Bruno Gencarelli Head of Unit for International Data Flows and Protection European Commission [email protected]
    Mr. Bruno Gencarelli Head of Unit for International Data Flows and Protection European Commission [email protected] 26 July 2019 Re: Access Now Responds to Privacy Shield Review Questionnaire - Third review Dear Mr. Gencarelli, Thank you for your invitation to provide information and observations on the European Commission’s third annual review of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield arrangement, the mechanism to facilitate the transfer and processing of the personal data of individuals from the European Union to and within the United States. Access Now is an international organisation that defends and extends the digital rights of users at risk around the world.1 By combining innovative policy, user engagement, and direct technical support, we fight for open and secure communications for all. Access Now maintains a presence in 13 locations around the world, including in the policy centers of Washington, DC and Brussels.2 Access Now regularly analyzes data transfer arrangements under EU law, including the Safe Harbor arrangement that was invalidated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015, and the Privacy Shield which replaced it.3 Users benefit from a free, open, and secure internet that is enabled by legal certainty for stakeholders to operate. Robust data transfer frameworks which ensure a high level of data protection in the free flow of data are key to deliver these benefits for all actors. The Privacy Shield continues to be inadequate to protect fundamental rights. Since negotiations began in 2016, Access Now has provided detailed analysis and recommendations to the EU Commission on how to improve the Privacy Shield.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Privacy and Data Security
    TRENDS IN PRIVACY AND DATA SECURITY JEFFREY D. NEUBURGER PARTNER PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Jeff is co-head of the firm’s Technology, Media & Telecommunications Group, head of the firm’s Blockchain Group, and a member of the firm’s Privacy & Cybersecurity Group. His practice focuses on technology, media, and intellectual property-related transactions, counseling, and dispute resolution. 24 April/May 2019 | Practical Law © 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved. As large-scale data breaches and other cyber incidents continue to pose significant threats worldwide, privacy and cybersecurity remain top priorities for regulators and companies alike. To minimize risks and reduce potential liability, companies and their counsel should stay updated on privacy and data security-related enforcement activity, notable litigation, new regulations, and key emerging issues. the-lightwriter /iStock photo © 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved. The Journal | Litigation | April/May 2019 25 ompanies must keep up with the dynamic legal Children’s privacy practices. The FTC approved obligations governing privacy and data security, modifications to the Entertainment Software Rating Board’s understand how these obligations apply in practice, (ESRB’s) COPPA safe harbor program. The ESRB is a self- improve their cyber intelligence, and manage their regulatory organization for the video game industry. Ccompliance to minimize risks. This article reviews important Mobile device security. The FTC issued a report titled FTC privacy and data security developments over the past year and Recommends Steps to Improve Mobile Device Security highlights key issues for 2019. Specifically, it addresses recent: Update Practices (available at ftc.gov), which makes several Federal regulation and enforcement actions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications of the Schrems Judgment of the European Court for Data Transfers to the U.S
    The implications of the Schrems judgment of the European Court for data transfers to the U.S. Prof. Lokke Moerel1 In the Schrems judgment the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) invalidates the EU- US Safe Harbor Framework for data transfers to the US, but does this judgement also have consequences for the alternative data transfer instruments, like the EU Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) and so-called Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)? Are data transfers to other countries outside the EU like China and India now also at risk? Does the new EU-US Privacy Shield agreement solve the data transfer issues to the US? 1. Summary findings The Schrems judgment relates to an ‘adequacy decision’ of the European Commission based on Article 25 of the European Privacy Directive (Directive). These adequacy decisions are of a completely different nature than the decisions of the Commission or national Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) based on Article 26 Directive, authorizing alternative data transfer instruments, such as SCCs and BCR. In the first case, the Commission evaluates whether the legal regime of the country of destination is adequate, as a result whereof data transfers can take place without implementing additional contractual safeguards. In the second case, the Commission or national DPA evaluates whether a set of contractual measures/BCR provide for sufficient safeguards in case the legal regime of the country of destination is not adequate. These two assessments: (1) whether the law is adequate or (2) whether contractual measures can provide sufficient safeguards when the law is not adequate, are different assessments based on different criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Fake News Policy in Slovakia
    European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Fake News Policy in Slovakia Europe has the toughest privacy laws in the world; one’s right to privacy is a fundamental right under European law. However, many corporations largely ignore it by using private information for their financial gain. This led to the application of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is a European privacy and security law. It had been put into effect on May 25, 2018. Viennese activist Max Schrems asserted the rights it gives people over the data that companies want to collect about them. It is valid in EU countries today. With the significant development of social media, we tend to give out personal information, sometimes without any hesitation. In terms of accessing the use of a significant social networking app, we give permission to collect data about ourselves that the companies keep. This can turn into a risk circle that some may or may not know about. These companies such as Google, Facebook, Instagram and many more act illegally by forcing users to accept intrusive terms of service, or lose access. According to this Max Schrems stated that there needs to be an option to make a choice. Therefore he filed all the complaints and started working on this big project dedicated to data protection. As it was slowly getting the attention of important authorities, Andrea Jelinek, who leads Austria’s and European Data Protection Board, expressed interest in Schrems´s idea. Jelinek very clearly stated: “If there is forced consent, there is no consent.” Max Schrems showed that a pop up message on Facebook gets the approval to use our data.
    [Show full text]
  • US Surveillance on Trial in Europe: Will Transatlantic Digital Commerce Be Collateral Damage?
    Atlantic Council FUTURE EUROPE INITIATIVE ISSUE BRIEF US Surveillance on Trial in Europe: Will Transatlantic Digital Commerce be Collateral Damage? SEPTEMBER 2019 KENNETH PROPP INTRODUCTION In mid-July, an army of lawyers representing European Union (EU) in- stitutions, six EU member states, and the US government convened in the ornate, gold-leaf courtroom of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg to argue a case with major implications for privacy, na- tional security, and the transatlantic digital economy. In a challenge brought by Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems, the question before the court was whether the laws governing how US intelligence agen- cies access personal data from Facebook users in Europe are consistent with European privacy laws. If they are not, transatlantic data-trans- fer mechanisms relied upon by the social network, and thousands of other companies, may be invalidated.1 The transatlantic digital economy could suffer a nasty shock. For more than two decades, the United States and the EU have strug- gled to reconcile privacy rights with the protection of national security, while sustaining digital commerce. The existing transfer arrangements reflect a fragile balance among these equities.2 But, the tenor of the court’s questioning during the July hearing suggests that this balance is at serious risk. The ECJ’s judgment in the Schrems case, expected early next year, could lead to a diplomatic and legal confrontation between the EU’s new leadership and a Donald Trump administration not well The Atlantic Council’s Transatlan- tic Digital Marketplace Initiative disposed toward the EU. seeks to foster greater US-EU un- derstanding and collaboration on digital policy matters and makes recommendations for building 1 Data Protection Commissioner v.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Response
    October 6th 2015 V 1.1 Initial Response This is an initial response to the decision by the CJEU, after a first review of the judgement. Please check twitter (@maxschrems) and europe-v-facebook.org for further updates. Schrems: “I very much welcome the judgement of the Court, which will hopefully be a milestone when it comes to online privacy. This judgement draws a clear line. It clarifies that mass surveillance violates our fundamental rights. Reasonable legal redress must be possible. The decision also highlights that governments and businesses cannot simply ignore our fundamental right to privacy, but must abide by the law and enforce it. This decision is a major blow for US global surveillance that heavily relies on private partners. The judgement makes it clear that US businesses cannot simply aid US espionage efforts in violation of European fundamental rights. At the same time this case law will be a milestone for constitutional challenges against similar surveillance conducted by EU member states. There are still a number of alternative options to transfer data from the EU to the US. The judgement makes it clear, that now national data protection authorities can review data transfers to the US in each individual case – while ‘safe harbor’ allowed for a blanket allowance. Despite some alarmist comments I don’t think that we will see mayor disruptions in practice.” Irish DPC The judgment is also a victory against the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC), who has maintained until the end of the procedure, that this case should not be dealt with because it was ‘frivolous’.
    [Show full text]
  • Apple to Tighten App Privacy, Remove Apps That Don't Comply 8 December 2020, by Kelvin Chan
    Apple to tighten app privacy, remove apps that don't comply 8 December 2020, by Kelvin Chan "Its aim is to empower our users to decide when or if they want to allow an app to track them in a way that could be shared across other companies' apps or websites," Senior Vice President of Software Engineering Craig Federighi said. "Developers who fail to meet the standard can have their apps taken down from the app store," Federighi said in an subject of complaints by European privacy activists who say the company uses software that tracks the behavior of iPhone users. Vienna-based group NOYB, founded by lawyer and activist Max Schrems, last month asked data protection authorities in Germany and Spain to examine the legality of unique codes that they say In this Sunday, Dec. 6, 2020 file photo, the logo of Apple amount to tracking without users' knowledge or is illuminated at a store in the city center of Munich, consent, a practice banned under strict European Germany. Apple is stepping up privacy for app users, Union privacy rules. forcing developers to be more transparent about data collection and warning they could be removed if they In a separate policy update, apps in the App Store don't comply with a new anti-tracking measure, a will soon start giving users more details about the company executive and regulators said Tuesday Dec. 8, personal data they use, Britain's apnews.com/apf- 2020. (AP Photo/Matthias Schrader, File) technology © 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. Apple is stepping up privacy for app users, forcing This material may not be published, broadcast, developers to be more transparent about data rewritten or redistributed without permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Bachelor Thesis an Analysis of the EU Data Protection Policy and The
    Bachelor Thesis An analysis of the EU data protection policy and the significance of the Maximillian Schrems case July 2019 words:18190 Harpo Vogelsang (s1834371) Faculty of Behavioural management and Social Science Public Governance across Borders First Supervisor: Dr. Claudio Matera Second Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ramses A. Wessel Abstract The transfer of personal data from EU citizens to third countries requires an adequate level of data protection. In 2013, the revelations by Edward Snowden about mass surveillance practices by US intelligence services attracted a lot of attention. Subsequently, the Austrian privacy activist Maximillian Schrems did not believe that an adequate level of protection of his personal data transferred to the US could be longer guaranteed. Thus, he demanded the suspension of the transfer of his data to the US. The following trial went through all judicial instances, before the European Court of Justice. Ultimately, the Court supported Schrems opinion, declaring the legal basis for the transfer of personal data from the EU to the US invalid. The judgement and its underlying principles directly challenged the EU data protection frame work. Since the judgement in 2015, the Data Protection Directive got replaced by the General Data Protection Regulation and the Commission has announced further policy changes. The purpose of this study is to answer the research question: To what extent do the EU data protection policies reflect the principles upheld in the judgement of the Schrems case? Therefore, a systematic overview of the European data protection framework is given. Initially, the framework before the trial is presented. Afterwards, the judgement and its underlying principles are analyzed.
    [Show full text]
  • Updata Your Quarterly Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Update
    formatti ng. Updata Your quarterly Data Privacy and Cybersecurity update July to September 2020 Executive summary Welcome to the ninth edition of Updata! Updata is an international report produced by Eversheds Sutherland’s dedicated Privacy and Cybersecurity General EU and International team – it provides you with a compilation of key privacy and cybersecurity regulatory and legal Austria developments from the past quarter. This edition covers July to September 2020 and is full of newsworthy items from our team members China around the globe, including: France − not surprisingly, the Schrems II court decision which invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield and requires additional due diligence before using the Standard Contractual Clauses, dominates. There are Germany indications that the EU and US will work towards a new Privacy Shield framework and some data protection authorities (particularly in Germany) have published guidance following the Schrems II Hong Kong decision. In Austria Max Schrems’ NGO filed complaints against a large number of websites following Hungary Schrems II although the Austrian Courts denied most of his previous claim against Facebook; − the data privacy ramifications of COVID-19 continue to develop, with a new Teleworking Law in Ireland Spain, and in Germany the Data Protection Conference discussed the use of imaging cameras or electronic temperature recording in the context of COVID-19; Italy − new laws have been published in Switzerland (finally!) and China (draft); Lithuania − in the UK, recent statements have
    [Show full text]