We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
What policies, processes, and procedures do companies need
to have in place in order to protect the fundamental human rights
of freedom of expression and privacy?
Foley Hoag is very pleased to have been selected as one of the
three assessors for this first round of independent assessments,
which focused on the three founding GNI companies - Google,
Microsoft, and Yahoo!.
Balancing rights to free expression
and privacy with government requests is no easy task for ICT
companies. These assessments are an important milestone
demonstrating the value of a collaborative, but rigorous
approach.
The independent assessments focused on each company's
policies, processes, and procedures to protect freedom of
expression and privacy rights, with specific focus on the following issues:
Responsible Company Decision-Making
Board review, oversight, and leadership - To what
extent does the Board of Directors review the impact of the
company's operations on freedom of expression and privacy?
Human rights impact assessments - How does the company
utilize human rights impact assessments to identify circumstances
in which freedom of expression and/or privacy rights might be
jeopardized?
Partners, suppliers, distributors - How does the
company seek to ensure that its partners, suppliers, and
distributors operate in a manner consistent with the
Principles?
Integration into Business Operations
Structure - What internal structures help ensure that
the company's commitments are integrated into its
decision-making and operations?
Procedures - What procedures help ensure consistent
implementation of corporate policies intended to protect freedom of
expression and privacy?
Employees- How does the company communicate
its commitments to employees?
Complaints and assistance- Does the company
have grievance procedures to response to employees and other
stakeholders can raise concerns about the company's
implementation of the GNI Principles?
Freedom of Expression
Government demands, laws, and regulations-
What policies and procedures guide the company's response to
government demands, laws, and regulations that might infringe on
users' freedom of expression rights?
Communication with users- How does the
company communicate with users regarding its policies and
procedures for responding to government demands to remove or limit
access to content or to restrict communications? How does the
company disclose to users when content has been restricted or
blocked by the company in response to government restrictions?
Privacy
Data collection- How does the company assess
the human rights risks associated with the collection, storage, and
retention of users' personal information in the jurisdictions
in which it operates?
Government demands, laws, and regulations-
What policies and procedures guide the company's response to
government demands, laws, and regulations that might infringe on
users' privacy rights?
Communication with users- How does the
company communicate to users what personal information it collects?
How does the company communicate to users its procedures for
responding to government demands for users' personal
information?
These questions, central to the GNI's implementation
guidelines, reflect the fundamental importance of supporting a
company's external commitments with strong internal management
systems.
Ultimately, there is no "one size fits all" approach
to managing these issues responsibly. Each company must assess the
specific risks associated with its activities and determine how
best to avoid, mitigate, and manage those risks in the context of
its own internal structures, its external relationships, and the
nature and location of its operations.
The GNI Principles allow for this flexibility. As Susan Morgan,
Executive Director of GNI, observed in conjunction with the
report's release, "[e]ach company is taking its own
approach to implementation and we're starting to see some
different examples of how the companies are meeting their
commitments."
Through our own involvement in the assessment process, it was
clear that each of the three companies involved faced different
challenges and that addressing these challenges effectively
required approaches that were both specific to each company's
internal management systems and guided by commitments to
internationally-recognized human rights.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Now that the Final Omnibus Rule under HIPAA, originally published on January 25, 2013, is in full force, covered entities (CEs) and their continuing business associates (BAs) should be examining their existing pre-Final Omnibus Rule HIPAA Business Associate Agreements (BAAs).
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the question of whether the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 protect employees of private contractors of publicly traded companies from retaliation for reporting potential fraud.
NY Tech Industries And Trends – What Investors Really Care About (Video Content)
