Protecting Personal Data – the New Normal

Published: 30 Jun 2020
Type: Insight

One unanticipated consequence of the COVID pandemic has been the huge increase in the collection of personal data.

With much of the world’s population working remotely for extended periods, people have had to quickly sign up to digital tools and communications platforms often without fully understanding how those tools may be collecting their personal data, or worse, knowing that the companies behind those platforms will harvest their data, but having no alternative but to accept. At the same time, their smart home devices are capable of recording confidential conversations and their phones are able to track their movements with increasingly accurate precision. Should these workers venture outside their temporary home offices, new surveillance and tracking measures to monitor “lockdowns” and public health authorities are increasingly sharing medical data, all in an attempt to keep the virus under control.


The invasiveness of these measures varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. While governments may be able to rely on national security or public interest exemptions under local data protection laws to collect and share personal data during times of crisis, individuals are increasingly concerned about how their personal data may be used, with whom it may be shared and the impact on their rights. The spectre of stigmatisation has already been evident. There is also a longer-term concern around how some of these increased collection measures will be “rolled back” once the crisis ends or if they will be reduced at all.

Data Protection Rights and Obligations

Under Cayman’s Data Protection Law (DPL), personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully and used for a legitimate purpose that has been notified to the individual. Personal data holdings should not be excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and should be securely purged once those purposes have been fulfilled. If personal data is processed for any new purposes, this processing can only be undertaken if there is a legitimate purpose for doing so which has been notified to the affected individual.

The DPL gives individuals the right to access personal data held about them and to request that any inaccurate data is corrected or deleted. Businesses are obliged to cease processing personal data once the purposes for which that data has been collected have been exhausted. Data retention periods are not prescriptive but each data controller must determine for how long data should be kept and ascertain how it might be securely deleted once the purposes for holding it have been satisfied, in this case, once the crisis ends.

Where personal data is shared between parties, contractual or other provisions should be put in place between the data controller and the third party processor to ensure that any personal data is processed only for authorised purposes, that all data is stored and transmitted securely and that incident response plans are in place in the event of a data breach. Use of subcontractors by the service provider should be prohibited without the prior approval of the data controller, particularly where international transfers of data are involved.

Post-Lockdown Considerations

As lockdown restrictions are eased and workplaces and other locations begin to reopen, employers and organisations will need to put appropriate measures in place to keep people safe. Those measures are likely to further impact the use of personal data. Some of the most frequently asked scenarios are considered below.

Can I use temperature checks or thermal cameras to monitor staff and members of the public for symptoms?

The DPL does not prevent you from taking steps to keep your employees and the public safe but it does require you to be responsible with people’s personal data and ensure it is handled with care. As you will be processing information that relates to an identified or identifiable individual, you need to comply with the DPL. Personal data that relates to health is classed as ‘sensitive personal data’ so it must be even more carefully protected.

When considering the use of more intrusive technologies, especially for capturing health information, you need to give thought to the purpose and context of its use and be able to make the case for using it. Any monitoring of employees needs to be necessary and proportionate, and in keeping with their reasonable expectations. You should also think about whether you can achieve the same results through other less privacy intrusive means. If so, then the monitoring may not be considered proportionate.

Protecting legitimate business interests and providing a safe working environment for employees are likely to be appropriate legal grounds for carrying out testing as long as you are not collecting or sharing irrelevant or unnecessary data.

How often should I check for symptoms?

This will depend on the social distancing and other measures that your organisation needs to put in place. Any testing of your staff, and subsequent processing of their health information, should be reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances including their role.

As an employer, and a data controller for your employees’ health information, you will need to decide the appropriate timescale between tests. For front line staff who interact with the public, more regular testing may be appropriate.

You also have a responsibility to ensure that you hold accurate personal data. The health status of an individual may change over time, so if you record the test results, you should ensure those records are accurate by including the date and time of the result. Any decisions to send staff home or otherwise impact their employment should be based on factually accurate information.

Can I keep lists of employees who have symptoms or have been tested as positive?

Yes. If you need to collect specific health data about employees, you need to ensure the use of the data is actually necessary and relevant for your stated purpose. You should also ensure that the data processing is secure, and consider any duty of confidentiality owed to employees.

As an employer, you must also ensure that such lists do not result in any unfair or harmful treatment of employees. For example, this could be due to inaccurate information being recorded, or a failure to acknowledge an individual’s health status changing over time.

These lists should only be retained for a short period and should not be used for any other purposes.

How do I ensure I don’t collect too much data?

For sensitive personal data, such as health data, it is particularly important to only collect and retain the minimum amount of information you need to fulfil your purpose.

In order to not collect too much data, you must ensure that it is:

  • enough to properly fulfil your stated purpose;
  • relevant and has a sensible link to that stated purpose; and
  • limited to what is necessary – you should not hold more data than you need to fulfil that purpose.

Can I use recorded CCTV footage to assist with contact tracing?

The analysis of CCTV footage could assist with contact tracing. You should assess whether this is necessary in the specific circumstances and consider speaking to the individuals who would be affected and to provide advice on appropriate measures such as self-isolation. Analysis of CCTV footage could reveal sensitive aspects of an individual’s behaviours and relationships. Employees have legitimate expectations that they can keep their personal lives private. This approach for employees should therefore be considered in the context of your existing employee monitoring policy.

Privacy should not be a casualty

As a result of the coronavirus, most people accept and appreciate the need for extraordinary measures to protect the vulnerable. The measures being developed in response to the virus must take privacy issues into account, have one eye on the long term use of the data being collected, and ensure privacy is not another casualty of the crisis.

Appleby will launch its Offshore Data Protection Guide on July 8th, providing a detailed overview of the data protection and cyber security regimes in eight of the world’s largest offshore jurisdictions. As the first dedicated offshore data protection publication, this guide will provide quick linked answers to some of the most business critical issues. For more information on the guide, or to be added to the distribution list, contact us.

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
23 Apr 2026

ReConnect 2026: Practical takeaways for Reinsurers, Cedants and Investors doing business in the Cayman Islands

The Cayman International Reinsurance Commercial Association (CIRCA) held its annual conference, [Re]Connect, last week at the Ritz-Carlton, Grand Cayman. This year’s [Re]Connect has once again demonstrated Cayman’s growing influence in global reinsurance and the strength of the jurisdiction’s regulatory, professional and commercial ecosystem. The event brought together 675 registered delegates, including reinsurers, cedants, major US law firms, audit firms, tax practices, asset managers, overseas regulators, industry leaders and rating agencies – as well as Appleby Cayman’s [Re]Insurance Team, with Miriam Smyth, Regulatory Counsel, speaking on a panel of experts on structuring, licensing and operating a Cayman insurer.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
23 Apr 2026

FamilyMart and Beyond: The Continuing Influence of the Privy Council’s Landmark Decision on Shareholder Litigation

The Privy Council's decision in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp [2023] UKPC 33 is a landmark ruling that distinguishes the arbitrability of underlying shareholder disputes from the court's exclusive jurisdiction over just and equitable winding-up of a Cayman company.

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

The article discusses updates to global trust guidance and regulation, as well as beneficial ownership and the regulatory burden on trustees that comes with increased transparency.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Prospects of Asian Companies in U.S. Listings in 2026

Nasdaq introduced a series of rule changes in 2025 to raise minimum requirements for public float and offering size for certain new listings.

Website-Code-Cayman
20 Apr 2026

Avoiding The Nuclear Option: Buyout Orders In Just And Equitable Winding Up Proceedings

With the Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for the incorporation of investment vehicles, inevitably cases will arise where non-controlling shareholders complain that they are being unfairly prejudiced by conduct of those in control, and necessarily pursue those complaints by way of proceedings to wind up the subject company on the just and equitable ground. Where such complaints are well-founded, the outcome will often be an order putting the subject company into official liquidation.  But the Cayman courts also have the jurisdiction in such cases to make a range of other orders as alternatives to taking that nuclear option, and are indeed obliged to consider whether any of those alternative orders would provide a more appropriate solution to the complaints.[1] The Grand Court was recently required to conduct that analysis in the case of Re Position Mobile Ltd SEZC.[2]  The petitioning shareholder in that case had satisfied the Court that it would be just and equitable to wind up the company – since it had justifiably lost confidence in the probity of those in control, due to their serious and sustained misconduct and mismanagement – but positively sought a buyout order[3] as an alternative to a winding up.  The Court thus proceeded to consider whether the buyout order, or any other alternative order, would be more appropriate than ordering a winding up, and concluded that a buyout order was the fairest and most appropriate form of relief in the circumstances of that case. The authors will discuss the guidance which the Position Mobile case provides in that regard below, which should be considered together with the guidance provided by Re Madera Technology Fund (CI) Ltd,[4] particularly in respect of the approach that the Cayman courts can be expected to take when setting the appropriate valuation date for a buyout order, with a view to ensuring that the valuation is fair to each side.[5] [1] See Re Virginia Solution SPC Ltd (unrep. 28 July 2023, CICA) at [61]. [2] [2026] CIGC (FSD) 10 [3] Requiring the respondent shareholders to purchase its shares at a fair price. [4] (unrep. 21 Aug. 2024, Richards J). [5] For further detail, see the authors’ article on the Madera Technology case at https://www.applebyglobal.com/publications/no-looking-back-investor-held-to-buyout-at-current-value-of-shares/.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
7 Apr 2026

No Claim, No Injunction: What Does a Limited Partner Actually Own?

What equitable proprietary interest, if any, does a limited partner hold in the assets of a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership, and is that interest is sufficient to ground a proprietary injunction? These questions lie at the heart of Parker J’s recent judgment in the matter of Charitable DAF HoldCo, Ltd (in Official Liquidation), in which the Grand Court refused proprietary injunctive relief sought by joint official liquidators against former directors and associated entities. The judgment holds that the Company, as a limited partner in a Cayman ELP, had no equitable proprietary interest in the Fund’s underlying assets of the quality required to found the relief sought. While the court did not exclude the possibility of an LP having proprietary rights in an ELP’s assets, it held that on the particular facts of the case such rights were excluded.

Appleby-Website-Cayman2
30 Mar 2026

The Regulation of Cayman Islands Tokenised Funds – Clear Rules Now in Place

On 5 March 2026 the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment Bill), 2026, the Mutual Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and the Private Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 were passed by the Parliament of the Cayman Islands with unanimous support, providing welcome clarity that Cayman Islands tokenised funds are regulated within Cayman’s existing Mutual Funds Act (MFA) and Private Funds Act (PFA) framework and do not fall within the scope of the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act (VASPA).

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
19 Mar 2026

Key Regulatory Requirements of SIBA Registered Persons in the Cayman Islands

Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA) attract regulatory requirements including annual reporting requirements with key filing deadlines falling in January and, typically, December each year. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA)’s recently issued General Industry Notice to the effect that all SIBA Registered Persons will be additionally required to submit a Prudential Information Survey for the 2025 calendar year (by 31 March 2026) has signaled CIMA's continued focus on enhancing the resilience, transparency and prudential soundness of the securities investment business (SIB) sector in the Cayman Islands. Accordingly, this briefing reviews some of the other key regulatory and reporting obligations that attach to Registered Persons under SIBA, CIMA’s associated Rules and Statements of Guidance (SOG), the applicable Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (Cayman AML Regulations) the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) Regulations (Revised) (Cayman CRS Regulations) and, where applicable, The International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Act (Revised) (ES Act).

IWD website preview
9 Mar 2026

International Women’s Day 2026 Roundtable: Rights. Justice. Action. For all women and girls.

As we recognise International Women’s Day 2025, we are reminded that gender equality is not just a vision – it’s a call to action.