Asia. National jurisdiction.

South Korea KR

EU adequacy decisionPrimary authority: Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC)
Part I

Domestic law

Comprehensive data protection2

  • PIPA Amendment 2026Personal Information Protection Act Amendment (March 2026)Raises the penalty ceiling to 10% of total revenue for repeat wilful violations, breaches affecting 10 million or more people or ignoring PIPC orders. It widens the breach definition, triggers notice on possible breaches, makes the representative ultimately responsible and requires board approval of the CPO at larger controllers.
    Synopsis

    Raises the penalty ceiling to 10% of total revenue for repeat wilful violations, breaches affecting 10 million or more people or ignoring PIPC orders. It widens the breach definition, triggers notice on possible breaches, makes the representative ultimately responsible and requires board approval of the CPO at larger controllers.

    Key themes
    • higher surcharges
    • CEO accountability
    • CPO board approval
    • breach definition
    • ISMS-P certification
    Unique features

    10% of revenue cap exceeds GDPR's 4%; mandatory ISMS-P certification for qualifying private entities.

    SaaS relevance

    Large SaaS platforms serving Korea face greater penalty exposure and governance duties from September 2026.

    Extraterritorial
    Yes
    Breach notification
    Expanded to forgery/alteration/damage and possible breaches
    DPO
    Yes
    Maximum penalty
    10% of total revenue (aggravated cases)
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • Mandatory ISMS-P for qualifying private entities from 2027-07-01
    Text
    Authority
    Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC)
    Verification

    Medium confidence.

    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. Some provisions may have later dates; thresholds set by Presidential Decree. [Link: official Korean current PIPA (law.go.kr); KLRI English is the Apr 2025 version, pre-2026 amendment]

    Record
    Full record for PIPA Amendment 2026
    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. Some provisions may have later dates; thresholds set by Presidential Decree. [Link: official Korean current PIPA (law.go.kr); KLRI English is the Apr 2025 version, pre-2026 amendment]
  • PIPAPersonal Information Protection Act (개인정보 보호법)Korea's comprehensive privacy law, consent-heavy and highly prescriptive, enforced by an independent PIPC. Since 2023 it applies one rule set online and offline, includes rights against automated decisions and imposes revenue-based penalty surcharges.
    Synopsis

    Korea's comprehensive privacy law, consent-heavy and highly prescriptive, enforced by an independent PIPC. Since 2023 it applies one rule set online and offline, includes rights against automated decisions and imposes revenue-based penalty surcharges.

    Key themes
    • consent
    • CPO
    • pseudonymised data
    • automated decisions
    • data portability
    • breach notification
    • cross-border transfers
    • domestic representative
    • ISMS-P
    Unique features

    Very granular consent requirements; 2026 amendment raises surcharges to 10% of revenue for aggravated cases and names the CEO as ultimately responsible.

    SaaS relevance

    Applies to foreign SaaS processing Koreans' data; larger foreign providers must appoint a domestic representative, and overseas storage/processing needs consent or another lawful transfer basis.

    Extraterritorial
    Yes
    Breach notification
    Individuals within 72h; PIPC within 72h where >1,000 people, sensitive/unique IDs, or external hacking; 2026 amendment extends to 'possible' breaches
    DPO
    Yes
    Cross-border transfers
    Consent, or contract necessity with disclosure, certification, or PIPC adequacy (EU recognised 2025-09-03)
    Maximum penalty
    Up to 3% of total revenue (10% for aggravated cases from 2026-09-11)
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • 2020 'data 3 laws' amendment (PIPC unified, pseudonymised data); major 2023 amendment (in force 2023-09-15; ADM rights 2024-03-15; portability phased); 2026-03-10 amendment mostly effective 2026-09-11; ISMS-P mandatory 2027-07-01; further AI-related amendment passed 2026-08-27
    Text
    Authority
    Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC)
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    High confidence.

    2023 amendment dates from general knowledge. Contents of the Aug 2026 AI-related amendment not reviewed.

    Record
    Full record for PIPA

ePrivacy / marketing1

  • Network ActAct on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (정보통신망법)Korea's main online services law; after the 2020 reform moved its personal data rules into PIPA, it still governs electronic advertising consent, information security and incident reporting for ICT service providers.
    Synopsis

    Korea's main online services law; after the 2020 reform moved its personal data rules into PIPA, it still governs electronic advertising consent, information security and incident reporting for ICT service providers.

    Key themes
    • advertising consent
    • opt-out
    • sender identification
    • information security
    • incident reporting
    • ISMS
    Unique features

    Explicit prior consent for commercial electronic messages, with periodic consent re-confirmation.

    SaaS relevance

    SaaS sending marketing to Korean users or operating ICT services in Korea must follow its ad consent and security incident rules.

    Breach notification
    Security incidents reported to MSIT/KISA
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    Text
    Authority
    Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) / Korea Communications Commission (KCC)
    Verification

    Medium confidence.

    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. Enactment form/date (renamed 2001 from earlier 1987 law) from general knowledge. [Link: official Korean (law.go.kr); KLRI official English (Jan 2023 version)]

    Record
    Full record for Network Act
    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. Enactment form/date (renamed 2001 from earlier 1987 law) from general knowledge. [Link: official Korean (law.go.kr); KLRI official English (Jan 2023 version)]

Financial data1

  • Credit Information ActAct on the Use and Protection of Credit Information (신용정보법)Governs personal credit information held by financial companies and credit bureaus, overriding PIPA in that field. It sets consent, use limits and the MyData portability framework for financial data.
    Synopsis

    Governs personal credit information held by financial companies and credit bureaus, overriding PIPA in that field. It sets consent, use limits and the MyData portability framework for financial data.

    Key themes
    • credit information
    • financial data
    • MyData
    • consent
    • data portability
    Unique features

    Underpins Korea's licensed MyData financial data-portability ecosystem.

    SaaS relevance

    Fintech SaaS handling Korean credit data must comply and may need MyData licensing.

    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • 2020 amendment created MyData (personal credit information management) business
    Text
    Authority
    Financial Services Commission (FSC)
    Verification

    Low confidence.

    Partly verifiedLow confidence. Sources read only name the Act; details from general knowledge. [Link: official Korean (law.go.kr); KLRI official English (Feb 2024 version)]

    Record
    Full record for Credit Information Act
    Partly verifiedLow confidence. Sources read only name the Act; details from general knowledge. [Link: official Korean (law.go.kr); KLRI official English (Feb 2024 version)]

AI / automated decisions1

  • AI Basic ActFramework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trust (AI Basic Act)Korea's horizontal AI law, combining promotion with duties on providers of high-impact and generative AI. It requires user notice and AI-output labelling, risk management for high-impact systems and a domestic representative for qualifying foreign providers.
    Synopsis

    Korea's horizontal AI law, combining promotion with duties on providers of high-impact and generative AI. It requires user notice and AI-output labelling, risk management for high-impact systems and a domestic representative for qualifying foreign providers.

    Key themes
    • high-impact AI
    • generative AI labelling
    • transparency notice
    • risk management
    • human oversight
    • domestic representative
    • compute thresholds
    Unique features

    Extraterritorial reach covers foreign acts that indirectly affect the Korean market; fines are modest compared with EU AI Act.

    SaaS relevance

    Foreign AI SaaS serving Korean users above thresholds must appoint a Korean representative and label generative outputs.

    Extraterritorial
    Yes
    Maximum penalty
    KRW 30m administrative fine
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • Passed 2024-12-26; promulgated 2025-01-21; in force 2026-01-22
    Text
    Authority
    Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT)
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    High confidence.

    A grace period on fines has been reported; not verified. [Link: official Korean (law.go.kr); KLRI official English (Jan 2026 version)]

    Record
    Full record for AI Basic Act
Part II

Regional & international frameworks

Membership-based — check ratification status in the instrument record. 12 instruments from 4 bodies.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

  • OECD AI PrinciplesRecommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (OECD AI Principles)Five values-based principles for trustworthy AI: inclusive growth and wellbeing; human rights and democratic values including privacy and fairness; transparency and explainability; robustness, security and safety; and accountability. These are paired with five recommendations to governments. The definition of an 'AI system' it contains was adopted in the EU AI Act.
    Synopsis

    Five values-based principles for trustworthy AI: inclusive growth and wellbeing; human rights and democratic values including privacy and fairness; transparency and explainability; robustness, security and safety; and accountability. These are paired with five recommendations to governments. The definition of an 'AI system' it contains was adopted in the EU AI Act.

    Key themes
    • trustworthy AI
    • human rights
    • privacy
    • transparency
    • explainability
    • robustness
    • accountability
    Unique features

    It was the first intergovernmental AI standard. Its AI-system definition was taken up in the EU AI Act and the CoE AI Convention.

    SaaS relevance

    Soft-law benchmark for AI governance in SaaS products, and the source of definitions used in binding laws.

    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    None
    Maximum penalty
    None
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • OECD/LEGAL/0449; adopted 2019-05-22; updated 2024-05-03 (generative AI, the definition of an AI system, safety, information integrity); G20 AI Principles (2019) draw on it
    Text
    Authority
    OECD Working Party on AI Governance / OECD.AI
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    High confidence.

    Record
    Full record for OECD AI Principles
  • OECD Trusted Government Access DeclarationDeclaration on Government Access to Personal Data Held by Private Sector EntitiesThe first intergovernmental statement of shared principles for government access to personal data held by private companies for law enforcement and national security. It covers seven principles: legal basis, legitimate aims, approvals, data handling, transparency, oversight and redress.
    Synopsis

    The first intergovernmental statement of shared principles for government access to personal data held by private companies for law enforcement and national security. It covers seven principles: legal basis, legitimate aims, approvals, data handling, transparency, oversight and redress.

    Key themes
    • government access
    • national security
    • law enforcement
    • legal basis
    • oversight
    • redress
    • transparency
    Unique features

    It codifies democratic safeguards on compelled access. It was cited in the context of the EU–US Data Privacy Framework and in transfer impact assessments.

    SaaS relevance

    Useful reference for transfer impact assessments and for policies on responding to government data demands.

    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    Supports trusted data flows between adherents
    Maximum penalty
    None
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • OECD/LEGAL/0487; adopted at the Digital Economy Ministerial meeting on 2022-12-14; the EU also adhered
    Text
    Authority
    None designated
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    High confidence.

    Record
    Full record for OECD Trusted Government Access Declaration
  • OECD Privacy Guidelines 2013Recommendation of the Council concerning Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (revised 2013)Keeps the eight 1980 principles and adds new implementation ideas: privacy management programmes, breach notification to authorities and individuals, national privacy strategies, privacy enforcement authorities with adequate powers, and interoperability between privacy frameworks.
    Synopsis

    Keeps the eight 1980 principles and adds new implementation ideas: privacy management programmes, breach notification to authorities and individuals, national privacy strategies, privacy enforcement authorities with adequate powers, and interoperability between privacy frameworks.

    Key themes
    • accountability
    • privacy management programmes
    • breach notification
    • enforcement cooperation
    • interoperability
    • transborder flows
    Unique features

    It made the controller's accountability programme concrete and introduced breach notification into an intergovernmental instrument. It favours a risk-based approach to transborder restrictions.

    SaaS relevance

    It informs accountability-programme expectations in many OECD countries' laws that apply to SaaS providers.

    Breach notification
    Recommended: authority and affected individuals for significant breaches
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    Restrictions should be proportionate to risk
    Maximum penalty
    None
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • OECD/LEGAL/0188; first adopted 1980-09-23; revised 2013-07-11; implementation reviews continue
    Text
    Authority
    OECD Working Party on Data Governance and Privacy
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    High confidence.

    Record
    Full record for OECD Privacy Guidelines 2013
  • OECD Guidelines 1980OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (1980)A non-binding OECD Council Recommendation that set out eight basic principles: collection limitation, data quality, purpose specification, use limitation, security safeguards, openness, individual participation and accountability. It also encouraged free transborder flows between member countries.
    Synopsis

    A non-binding OECD Council Recommendation that set out eight basic principles: collection limitation, data quality, purpose specification, use limitation, security safeguards, openness, individual participation and accountability. It also encouraged free transborder flows between member countries.

    Key themes
    • eight fair information principles
    • accountability
    • transborder flows
    Unique features

    These eight principles became the global baseline that APEC, Canadian PIPEDA, Australian law and many others draw on. It was adopted at about the same time as Convention 108.

    SaaS relevance

    Historical baseline; its principles are reflected in most national laws a SaaS provider meets.

    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    Free flow encouraged; restrictions only where proportionate
    Maximum penalty
    None
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • Ended
    • Revised 2013-07-11 (see separate row)
    Text
    Authority
    None designated
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    High confidence.

    The 1980 text was replaced by the 2013 revision of the same instrument (OECD/LEGAL/0188).

    Record
    Full record for OECD Guidelines 1980

Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules Forum

  • Global CBPR / Global PRPGlobal Cross-Border Privacy Rules (Global CBPR) and Global Privacy Recognition for Processors (Global PRP) SystemsAn international certification system that takes the APEC CBPR and PRP model outside APEC, open to any jurisdiction that joins the Forum. Companies are certified by Forum-recognised Accountability Agents against Global CBPR (controller) or Global PRP (processor) requirements.
    Synopsis

    An international certification system that takes the APEC CBPR and PRP model outside APEC, open to any jurisdiction that joins the Forum. Companies are certified by Forum-recognised Accountability Agents against Global CBPR (controller) or Global PRP (processor) requirements.

    Key themes
    • certification
    • interoperability
    • accountability agents
    • processors
    • data flows
    Unique features

    The Forum is independent of APEC. Its systems started out the same as APEC's but are expected to diverge over time, and it admits non-APEC Associates such as the UK, Bermuda, DIFC and Mauritius.

    SaaS relevance

    A SaaS provider acting as processor can get Global PRP certification to show baseline controls to customers in member jurisdictions.

    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    Certification-based transfer mechanism
    Maximum penalty
    Decertification; enforcement under local law
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • Global CBPR Forum declaration April 2022; the Global CBPR and Global PRP certifications launched in 2025 (Forum news items dated 2025-05-28 and 2025-06-09 announce launch and 'now live')
    Text
    Authority
    Global CBPR Forum; Accountability Agents
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    Medium confidence.

    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. The exact go-live day in 2025 is unclear (late May or early June 2025). The founding members are understood to be the US, Canada, Japan, Korea, Singapore, the Philippines and Chinese Taipei, but I did not open the membership page.

    Record
    Full record for Global CBPR / Global PRP
    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. The exact go-live day in 2025 is unclear (late May or early June 2025). The founding members are understood to be the US, Canada, Japan, Korea, Singapore, the Philippines and Chinese Taipei, but I did not open the membership page.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

  • APEC CBPR / PRPAPEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System and Privacy Recognition for Processors (PRP) SystemVoluntary, enforceable certification schemes. CBPR certifies that a controller's privacy policies meet the APEC Privacy Framework, and PRP certifies a processor's ability to help controllers comply. Recognised Accountability Agents assess companies, and local privacy enforcement authorities back up enforcement.
    Synopsis

    Voluntary, enforceable certification schemes. CBPR certifies that a controller's privacy policies meet the APEC Privacy Framework, and PRP certifies a processor's ability to help controllers comply. Recognised Accountability Agents assess companies, and local privacy enforcement authorities back up enforcement.

    Key themes
    • certification
    • accountability agents
    • cross-border enforcement
    • processors
    Unique features

    It is one of the few certification-based transfer tools recognised by several national laws (e.g. Japan, Singapore).

    SaaS relevance

    PRP is designed for SaaS and other processors, and CBPR or PRP certification can support transfers and customer due diligence in participating economies.

    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    Certification-based transfer mechanism
    Maximum penalty
    Decertification; enforcement under local law
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • CBPR endorsed by APEC Leaders in 2011, first certifications 2013; PRP launched 2015. Since 2022–25 the systems have been mirrored by the separately administered Global CBPR and Global PRP (see separate row).
    Text
    Authority
    Participating economies' privacy enforcement authorities; APEC-recognised Accountability Agents
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    Medium confidence.

    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. The years are from established references. I did not check whether APEC is winding down its own system in favour of the Global systems.

    Record
    Full record for APEC CBPR / PRP
    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. The years are from established references. I did not check whether APEC is winding down its own system in favour of the Global systems.
  • APEC Privacy FrameworkAPEC Privacy FrameworkA non-binding set of nine information privacy principles for the 21 APEC economies, adapted from the OECD Guidelines: preventing harm, notice, collection limitation, uses, choice, integrity, security safeguards, access and correction, and accountability. It aims to protect privacy while keeping information flowing across the region.
    Synopsis

    A non-binding set of nine information privacy principles for the 21 APEC economies, adapted from the OECD Guidelines: preventing harm, notice, collection limitation, uses, choice, integrity, security safeguards, access and correction, and accountability. It aims to protect privacy while keeping information flowing across the region.

    Key themes
    • preventing harm
    • notice
    • choice
    • accountability
    • cross-border privacy enforcement
    • interoperability
    Unique features

    Its harm-based, accountability-led model contrasts with the rights-based European approach. It is the basis of the CBPR and PRP certification systems.

    SaaS relevance

    It underpins CBPR and PRP certifications, which SaaS providers can use to show compliance and support transfers in participating economies.

    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    Accountability-based; CBPR system
    Maximum penalty
    None
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • Endorsed by APEC Ministers in 2004 and published in 2005; updated in 2015 (endorsed 2016)
    Text
    Authority
    APEC Digital Economy Steering Group (DESG) Data Privacy Subgroup
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    Medium confidence.

    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. I did not re-check the publication URL this session.

    Record
    Full record for APEC Privacy Framework
    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. I did not re-check the publication URL this session.

United Nations

  • UN Cybercrime ConventionUnited Nations Convention against Cybercrime; Strengthening International Cooperation for Combating Certain Crimes Committed by Means of Information and Communications Technology Systems and for the Sharing of Evidence in Electronic Form of Serious CrimesThe first global UN treaty on cybercrime. It requires states to criminalise a set of computer-related offences and to provide procedural powers, such as preserving and producing stored data and collecting traffic and content data, and it sets up channels for cross-border e-evidence cooperation on serious crimes. It includes a general human rights clause and conditions and safeguards on these powers.
    Synopsis

    The first global UN treaty on cybercrime. It requires states to criminalise a set of computer-related offences and to provide procedural powers, such as preserving and producing stored data and collecting traffic and content data, and it sets up channels for cross-border e-evidence cooperation on serious crimes. It includes a general human rights clause and conditions and safeguards on these powers.

    Key themes
    • cybercrime offences
    • e-evidence
    • production orders
    • data preservation
    • mutual legal assistance
    • human rights safeguards
    Unique features

    It is broader than the Budapest Convention in that evidence sharing covers any 'serious crime'. Rights groups and industry have criticised its safeguards as weak.

    SaaS relevance

    Once in force and implemented, it could widen the range of states able to issue preservation and production orders to cloud and SaaS providers.

    Extraterritorial
    Limited
    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    Cooperation channels for electronic evidence
    Maximum penalty
    Set by national law
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • Adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2024; opened for signature in Hanoi on 2025-10-25; enters into force 90 days after the 40th ratification. About 3 ratifications (Qatar, Azerbaijan, Viet Nam) as of mid-2026.
    Text
    Authority
    UNODC (secretariat); Conference of the States Parties once in force
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    Medium confidence.

    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. The ratification count comes from secondary sources as of mid-2026. The convention is not in force (it needs 40 ratifications). The exact GA adoption date (24 Dec 2024, A/RES/79/243) comes from established references and I did not re-verify it.

    Record
    Full record for UN Cybercrime Convention
    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. The ratification count comes from secondary sources as of mid-2026. The convention is not in force (it needs 40 ratifications). The exact GA adoption date (24 Dec 2024, A/RES/79/243) comes from established references and I did not re-verify it.
  • Right to privacy in the digital ageUN General Assembly resolutions on the right to privacy in the digital age (series)This is a recurring series of non-binding General Assembly resolutions. They confirm that people have the same privacy rights online as offline, and they ask states to review surveillance, interception and bulk data collection against international human rights law. Later resolutions also cover AI, biometrics, encryption and data brokers.
    Synopsis

    This is a recurring series of non-binding General Assembly resolutions. They confirm that people have the same privacy rights online as offline, and they ask states to review surveillance, interception and bulk data collection against international human rights law. Later resolutions also cover AI, biometrics, encryption and data brokers.

    Key themes
    • surveillance
    • interception
    • AI and privacy
    • encryption
    • business responsibility
    • remedies
    Unique features

    The series grew out of the 2013 Snowden revelations. It led to OHCHR reports and, through the Human Rights Council, to the Special Rapporteur on privacy.

    SaaS relevance

    These are soft-law expectations on business respect for privacy (UN Guiding Principles), which are relevant to transparency reporting and to how a provider handles government data requests.

    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    None
    Maximum penalty
    None
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • First resolution A/RES/68/167 (2013-12-18); renewed roughly every two years; latest verified A/RES/79/175 adopted 2024-12-17
    Text
    Authority
    Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reports; UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    Medium confidence.

    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. Treated as one row for the whole series. I did not check whether a newer resolution was adopted at the 80th session in late 2025.

    Record
    Full record for Right to privacy in the digital age
    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. Treated as one row for the whole series. I did not check whether a newer resolution was adopted at the 80th session in late 2025.
  • ICCPR Art 17International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 17This is a binding treaty. Article 17 bans arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence, and requires states parties to protect people from such interference by law. The Human Rights Committee monitors compliance through state reports and, for states that accept it, individual complaints.
    Synopsis

    This is a binding treaty. Article 17 bans arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence, and requires states parties to protect people from such interference by law. The Human Rights Committee monitors compliance through state reports and, for states that accept it, individual complaints.

    Key themes
    • right to privacy
    • state obligations
    • legality
    • arbitrariness
    • individual communications
    Unique features

    It is the main binding global privacy guarantee and has about 170+ parties. General Comment 16 reads it as covering the gathering and holding of personal information, including by private bodies.

    SaaS relevance

    It binds states, not companies, but it shapes national privacy laws and the rules on government access to the data SaaS providers hold.

    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    None
    Maximum penalty
    None (treaty-body views; no fines)
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • Adopted by GA resolution 2200A (XXI) on 1966-12-16; in force 1976-03-23. Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 16 on Article 17 was issued in 1988.
    Text
    Authority
    UN Human Rights Committee (treaty body)
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    High confidence.

    The party count is approximate and was not re-checked against the UN Treaty Collection.

    Record
    Full record for ICCPR Art 17
  • UDHR Art 12Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12Article 12 says no one may be subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence, and that everyone is entitled to legal protection against such interference. It is a declaration rather than a treaty, but it is the starting point for privacy as an international human right.
    Synopsis

    Article 12 says no one may be subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence, and that everyone is entitled to legal protection against such interference. It is a declaration rather than a treaty, but it is the starting point for privacy as an international human right.

    Key themes
    • right to privacy
    • correspondence
    • reputation
    • protection of the law
    Unique features

    Not legally binding in itself, though many of its provisions are treated as customary international law. Every later privacy instrument, from the ECHR to the ICCPR, builds on this text.

    SaaS relevance

    Gives no direct obligations to a SaaS business; it is useful as the human rights background for policies and DPIAs.

    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    None
    Maximum penalty
    None
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • Proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948
    Text
    Authority
    None designated
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    High confidence.

    The CIPP/E project holds a copy (1948UDHR.pdf).

    Record
    Full record for UDHR Art 12
  • UN Guidelines 1990Guidelines for the Regulation of Computerized Personal Data FilesNon-binding guidelines from the General Assembly that set minimum guarantees for national laws on computerised personal data files, covering both public and private files. They list principles such as lawfulness and fairness, accuracy, purpose specification, interested-person access, non-discrimination, security and independent supervision.
    Synopsis

    Non-binding guidelines from the General Assembly that set minimum guarantees for national laws on computerised personal data files, covering both public and private files. They list principles such as lawfulness and fairness, accuracy, purpose specification, interested-person access, non-discrimination, security and independent supervision.

    Key themes
    • fair information principles
    • sensitive data
    • access
    • security
    • supervisory authority
    • transborder flows
    Unique features

    Separate provisions extend the principles to files held by international governmental organisations. They also have an early non-discrimination rule on sensitive data and allow transfers to countries with comparable safeguards.

    SaaS relevance

    Gives no direct obligations; it is historical background to UN-system data protection policies.

    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    Free flow to states with comparable safeguards
    Maximum penalty
    None
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    Text
    Authority
    None designated
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    Medium confidence.

    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. I did not open the resolution text in this session. The resolution number and date come from established references. Refworld is a UNHCR mirror; the official text is in the UN Digital Library under A/RES/45/95.

    Record
    Full record for UN Guidelines 1990
    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. I did not open the resolution text in this session. The resolution number and date come from established references. Refworld is a UNHCR mirror; the official text is in the UN Digital Library under A/RES/45/95.