CIPP-E Exam Dumps - Certified Information Privacy Professional/Europe (CIPP/E)

 According to the GDPR, personal data must be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes1. This means that data controllers must inform data subjects about the purposes of data processing and obtain their consent or rely on another lawful basis for processing. Data controllers must also respect the principle of data minimisation, which means that they should only collect and process personal data that is adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the purposes for which they are processed2.

In the scenario, Brady transfers his customers’ personal data to Hermes Designs, a third-party contractor, for the purpose of providing web page design services. However, Hermes Designs uses the data for a new purpose, which is creating sample customized banner advertisements and conducting direct marketing to the customers. This new purpose is not compatible with the original purpose for which the data was collected and transferred, and it is not likely that the customers have consented to it or that there is another lawful basis for it. Moreover, Hermes Designs may be processing more personal data than what is necessary for the original purpose, such as the customers’ business plans and preferences. Therefore, Brady should be concerned with Hermes Designs’ handling of customer personal data, as it may violate the GDPR and expose him to legal risks and reputational damages.

References:

• 1: Art. 5(1)(b) GDPR Principles relating to processing of personal data
• 2: Art. 5(1)© GDPR Principles relating to processing of personal data

Louis has the right to object at any time to the use of his data and Bedrock must honor his request to cease use.

The GDPR states that “where personal data are processed for direct marketing purposes, the data subject shall have the right to object at any time to processing of personal data concerning him or her for such marketing” and that “where the data subject objects to processing for direct marketing purposes, the personal data shall no longer be processed for such purposes.”3

This right applies regardless of whether the data subject has previously consented to the use of his or her data, or whether the data are required for a legal claim or a legitimate interest. The data subject must be informed of this right clearly and separately from any other information at the time of the first communication with him or her, and must be provided with an easy way to exercise it.2

Therefore, Louis can object to the use of his data by Bedrock and Accidentable for direct marketing purposes, and they must stop processing his data for such purposes as soon as they receive his objection. Louis can also withdraw his consent for any other processing of his data that he has previously agreed to, such as sharing his data with Bedrock’s affiliates.4

 A lead supervisory authority (LSA) is the main point of contact for organisations that process personal data across multiple EU member states. The LSA is responsible for coordinating cross-border investigations, issuing binding decisions, and enforcing GDPR compliance1. Cross-border processing is the main concern of the LSA, as it involves data processing activities that affect data subjects in more than one member state, or that take place in more than one member state2. The other options are not the main concern of the LSA, as they are either covered by the national supervisory authorities of each member state, or are not specific to cross-border processing. References: Is it possible to choose your lead supervisory authority under the GDPR?, Art. 56 GDPR – Competence of the lead supervisory authority, Navigating GDPR Compliance with a Lead Supervisory Authority, Guidelines 8/2022 on identifying a controller or processor’s lead supervisory authority

 According to Article 14 of the GDPR, when a controller collects personal data from a source other than the data subject, the controller must provide the data subject with certain information, such as the identity and contact details of the controller, the purposes and legal basis of the processing, the categories of personal data concerned, the recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data, and the rights of the data subject. This information must be provided within a reasonable period after obtaining the personal data, but at the latest within one month, or at the time of the first communication with the data subject, or before disclosing the data to another recipient. The purpose of this provision is to ensure fair and transparent processing of personal data and to respect the right of the data subject to be informed. References:

• Article 14 of the GDPR, which specifies the information to be provided where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject.
• ICO guidance, which explains the requirements and exceptions of Article 14 of the GDPR.
• EDPB guidelines, which provide further guidance on the application of Article 14 of the GDPR.

The GDPR requires that data subjects are provided with certain information when their personal data are collected, either from the data subject themselves or from another source12. This information includes, among other things, the identity and contact details of the controller (and, where applicable, of the controller’s representative and the data protection officer), and the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the processing34. This information is necessary to ensure fair and transparent processing of personal data, and to enable data subjects to exercise their rights under the GDPR5. Therefore, option C is the correct answer, as it contains two of the essential pieces of information that must be provided to data subjects before collecting their personal data. Options A, B and D are incorrect, as they do not include all the required information or include information that is not mandatory. References: 1: Article 13 of the GDPR 2: Article 14 of the GDPR 3: Article 13(1)(a) and © of the GDPR 4: Article 14(1)(a) and © of the GDPR 5: Recital 60 of the GDPR

This is not a common characteristic of cloud-computing services, as the supplier usually does not assume the vendor’s business risk. In fact, the supplier often limits its liability for data breaches or losses, and the vendor remains responsible for complying with data protection laws and regulations. The other options are common characteristics of cloud-computing services, as they reflect the nature of cloud computing as a flexible, scalable, and cost-effective way of processing data, but also pose challenges for data protection and security. References:

• Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 17, section 2.3.2
• CIPP/E Certification, page 12, section 2.3.2
• Cipp-e Study guides, Class notes & Summaries, page 23, section 2.3.2

According to the CIPP/E study guide, Article 33 of the GDPR requires data controllers to notify the supervisory authority of a personal data breach without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after becoming aware of it, unless the breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons1. Article 34 of the GDPR requires data controllers to communicate the personal data breach to the data subject without undue delay when the breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons2. Both articles specify the minimum information that the data controller must provide to the supervisory authority and the data subject, which includes: the nature of the breach, the categories and approximate number of data subjects and personal data records concerned, the name and contact details of the data protection officer or other contact point, the likely consequences of the breach, and the measures taken or proposed to address the breach and mitigate its possible adverse effects12. However, neither article requires the data controller to disclose the type of security safeguards used to protect the data, as this information is not relevant for the purposes of notification and may even compromise the security of the data further3. References: 1: CIPP/E study guide, page 84; Art. 33 GDPR; Guidelines 01/2021 on Examples regarding Data Breach Notification2: CIPP/E study guide, page 85; [Art. 34 GDPR]; Guidelines 01/2021 on Examples regarding Data Breach Notification3: Personal Data Breach | European Data Protection Supervisor; What is a data breach and what do we have to do … - European Commission.

According to the GDPR, pseudonymization is a technique that replaces or removes information in a data set that identifies an individual. Pseudonymized data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, which is kept separately and subject to technical and organizational measures to ensure non-attribution1. Pseudonymization is not a method of anonymization, which means that the data is irreversibly altered in such a way that a data subject can no longer be identified2. Pseudonymized data is still considered personal data and subject to the GDPR, but it benefits from some relaxations of the rules, such as the possibility of further processing for compatible purposes, the exemption from some data subject rights, and the facilitation of data transfers3.

In this scenario, Market4U is an advertising technology company that collects and processes a large amount of personal data from its contacts, including sensitive data such as birth date and salary. This data can be used to gain insights into the preferences and behavior of its potential customers, as well as to identify trends and opportunities in different industry verticals. However, this data also poses significant risks for Market4U, such as data breaches, non-compliance, reputational damage, and legal liability. Therefore, Market4U needs to apply the principle of data minimization, which means that it should only collect and process the data that is necessary and relevant for its purposes, and delete the data that is no longer needed4.

One of the ways that Market4U can achieve data minimization is by pseudonymizing the personal data that it uses for analysis. By doing so, Market4U can reduce the risks associated with the processing of personal data, while still retaining the utility and value of the data for its purposes. Pseudonymization can also help Market4U to comply with other GDPR principles, such as purpose limitation, storage limitation, and integrity and confidentiality5. Pseudonymization can also enable Market4U to rely on legitimate interests as a legal basis for the processing of personal data for analysis, as long as it conducts a balancing test and respects the rights and interests of the data subjects6.

Therefore, the best way that Sandy can gain the insights that Dan seeks while still minimizing risks for Market4U is to conduct analysis only on pseudonymized personal data. This option would allow Market4U to use the data for its legitimate business purposes, without compromising the privacy and security of the data subjects.

The other options are incorrect because:

• A. Conducting analysis only on anonymized personal data would not be feasible or effective for Market4U, as anonymization is a very difficult and complex process that requires the removal or alteration of any information that can identify an individual, directly or indirectly. Anonymization may also result in the loss of accuracy, quality, and utility of the data, which would undermine the value and purpose of the analysis. Moreover, anonymization is irreversible, which means that Market4U would not be able to restore the original data if needed2.
• C. Deleting all data collected prior to May 2018 after conducting the trend analysis would not be compliant with the GDPR, as it would violate the principle of storage limitation, which requires that personal data should be kept only for as long as necessary for the purposes for which it is processed. Market4U cannot justify the retention of the data for longer than needed, especially if the data is outdated, irrelevant, or excessive. Moreover, deleting the data after the analysis would not eliminate the risks associated with the processing of the data, such as data breaches or unauthorized access4.
• D. Procuring a third party to conduct the analysis and delete the data from Market4U’s systems would not be a good solution for Market4U, as it would involve the transfer of personal data to another data controller or processor, which would require additional safeguards and obligations under the GDPR. Market4U would still be responsible for ensuring the compliance and security of the data, and would have to enter into a data processing agreement with the third party, as well as inform and obtain the consent of the data subjects, if applicable. Furthermore, procuring a third party would entail additional costs and risks for Market4U, such as losing control and visibility over the data, or exposing the data to unauthorized or unlawful processing by the third party7.

References: 1 Article 4(5) of the GDPR2 Anonymisation | ICO23 Pseudonymisation | ICO34 Data minimisation | ICO45 Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection by Design and by Default | European Data Protection Board56 Legitimate interests | ICO67 Contracts | ICO7.

The GDPR applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not1. This means that the GDPR applies to any controller or processor that has a branch, office, subsidiary, or other stable arrangement in the EU, even if the data processing occurs outside the EU. However, the GDPR also applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: (a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or (b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union1. This means that the GDPR applies to any controller or processor that targets or tracks EU data subjects, even if they do not have a presence in the EU. In this case, the website operator is not required to comply with the GDPR because it does not have an establishment in the EU (option B), and it does not offer goods or services or monitor the behaviour of EU data subjects. The website operator reports primarily on North American events, does not block connections from outside the U.S., and only accepts payments in U.S. dollars, which indicate that it does not intend to target or track EU data subjects. Therefore, option B is the correct answer. References: Art. 3 GDPR – Territorial scope, Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3), [What does territorial scope mean under the GDPR?]

 Under the GDPR, the processing of personal data of a child on the basis of consent requires the consent of the holder of parental responsibility over the child, unless the child is at least 16 years old or the applicable national law provides for a lower age (not below 13 years). However, there are some situations where the processing of personal data of a child without parental consent may be justified by other lawful grounds, such as the performance of a contract, the compliance with a legal obligation, the protection of vital interests, the performance of a task carried out in the public interest, or the legitimate interests of the controller or a third party. One of these situations is when the processing is necessary for providing preventive or counselling services to the child, especially in the context of information society services. This is recognised by Recital 38 of the GDPR, which states that:

“Children merit specific protection with regard to their personal data, as they may be less aware of the risks, consequences and safeguards concerned and their rights in relation to the processing of personal data. Such specific protection should, in particular, apply to the use of personal data of children for the purposes of marketing or creating personality or user profiles and the collection of personal data with regard to children when using services offered directly to a child. The consent of the holder of parental responsibility should not be necessary in the context of preventive or counselling services offered directly to a child.”

Therefore, the processing of personal data of a child without parental consent may be lawful if it is necessary for providing preventive or counselling services to the child, such as health, education, social or legal services, that are offered directly to the child and that aim to protect the child’s well-being, safety, development or rights. This may include, for example, online counselling platforms, sexual health advice services, anti-bullying or mental health support services, or child protection helplines. In such cases, the controller should ensure that the processing is fair, transparent, proportionate and respectful of the child’s best interests, and that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the child’s personal data and rights.

The other options are not likely to justify the processing of personal data of a child without parental consent, as they do not meet the criteria of necessity, proportionality or legitimacy. The processing of personal data of a child for market research purposes is not necessary for the performance of a contract, the compliance with a legal obligation, the protection of vital interests, the performance of a task carried out in the public interest, or the legitimate interests of the controller or a third party, and may pose significant risks to the child’s privacy and autonomy. Therefore, such processing requires the consent of the holder of parental responsibility over the child, unless the child is old enough to give their own consent. The provision of materials purely for educational use to a child may not require the processing of personal data of the child at all, or may only require the processing of minimal personal data, such as the child’s name or email address. In such cases, the processing may be based on the consent of the child, if the child is old enough to understand the implications of their consent, or on the legitimate interests of the controller, if the processing is necessary for the provision of the educational materials and does not override the interests or rights of the child. However, the controller should still inform the child and the holder of parental responsibility about the processing and provide them with the opportunity to object or withdraw their consent. The existence of a legitimate business interest does not automatically justify the processing of personal data of a child without parental consent, as the controller must also consider the impact of the processing on the rights and freedoms of the child, and whether the processing is necessary and proportionate for the pursuit of that interest. Moreover, the controller must balance the legitimate business interest against the interests or rights of the child, and ensure that the processing does not cause any harm or disadvantage to the child. If the processing involves the use of personal data of a child for the purposes of marketing or creating personality or user profiles, the controller must obtain the consent of the holder of parental responsibility over the child, unless the child is old enough to give their own consent, as these purposes pose a high risk to the child’s privacy and autonomy. References: GDPR Article 6, GDPR Article 8, GDPR Recital 38, Children and the UK GDPR | ICO, Guidelines on consent under Regulation 2016/679 - European Data Protection Board

According to Article 13 of the GDPR, the controller (in this case, the electricity supplier) has the obligation to provide the data subject (in this case, the customer) with information about the processing of their personal data, including the recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data, if any. However, before providing such information, the controller must verify the identity of the data subject, to ensure that the information is not disclosed to unauthorized persons. This verification can be done by other means than the personal data already collected, such as asking for additional information, sending a verification code, or using a secure online portal. The other options (A, B, and C) are not relevant for this verification, as they do not relate to the identity of the data subject, but to the scope, purpose, and history of the processing. References:

• Article 13 of the GDPR
• The right to be informed (transparency) (Article 13 & 14 GDPR)
• Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)

Convention 108+ is the modernised version of Convention 108, which was the first legally binding international instrument on data protection. The main purpose of Convention 108+ is to update and enhance the protection of personal data in light of the technological developments and the new challenges posed by the globalisation of data processing. Convention 108+ also aims to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of data protection principles and rules, as well as to facilitate the free flow of data between the parties to the Convention.

References:

•Convention 108+ : the modernised version of a landmark instrument1

•Convention 108 and Protocols - Data Protection - The Council of Europe2

•Convention 108 - Council of Europe3

According to the EDPB Guidelines 01/2021 on Examples regarding Personal Data Breach Notification, a confidentiality breach occurs when personal data is disclosed or made available to unauthorized persons. This is the case when exfiltration of job application data from a website results in personal information being accessible to unauthorized persons, such as hackers or competitors. This type of breach may pose a high risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subjects, as it may lead to identity theft, fraud, discrimination, or reputational damage. Therefore, the data controller should notify the data subjects without undue delay, unless the data is encrypted or anonymized, or the controller has taken subsequent measures to ensure that the high risk is no longer likely to materialize.

References: EDPB Guidelines 01/2021 on Examples regarding Personal Data Breach Notification, page 151; CIPP/E Textbook, page 136.

Article 80(1) of the GDPR states that the data subject shall have the right to mandate a not-for-profit body, organisation or association which has been properly constituted in accordance with the law of a Member State, has statutory objectives which are in the public interest, and is active in the field of the protection of data subjects’ rights and freedoms with regard to the protection of their personal data to lodge the complaint on his or her behalf, to exercise the rights referred to in Articles 77, 78 and 79 on his or her behalf, and to exercise the right to receive compensation referred to in Article 82 on his or her behalf1. These not-for-profit bodies, organisations or associations are commonly referred to as civil society organizations, as they represent the interests of citizens and groups in the public sphere2. The other options are not correct because: (A) Law firm organizations are not necessarily not-for-profit or active in the field of data protection; © Human rights organizations are a subset of civil society organizations, but not all civil society organizations are focused on human rights; (D) Constitutional rights organizations are also a subset of civil society organizations, but not all civil society organizations are concerned with constitutional rights. References: 1: Article 80(1) of the GDPR; 2: Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 48.

Pseudonymisation is a technique that replaces, removes or transforms information that identifies individuals, and keeps that information separate from the rest of the data. Pseudonymised data is still personal data under the GDPR, because it can be re-identified with the use of additional information. However, pseudonymisation can reduce the risks of processing personal data and help comply with data protection principles and obligations. Pseudonymisation is different from anonymisation, which is the process of irreversibly transforming personal data so that the data subject is no longer identifiable. References:

• GDPR Article 4(5), which defines pseudonymisation.
• GDPR Recital 26, which explains the difference between pseudonymisation and anonymisation.
• EDPS blog post, which provides an overview of pseudonymisation and its benefits.
• ICO guidance, which gives practical advice on how to implement pseudonymisation.

 The accountability principle found in Article 5, Section 2 of the GDPR requires data controllers to take responsibility for complying with the GDPR and to be able to demonstrate their compliance1. This means that data controllers must implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and show that they process personal data in accordance with the GDPR2. One of the measures that can demonstrate compliance with the accountability principle is conducting regular audits of the data protection program. Audits are systematic and independent assessments of the data processing activities and the data protection policies and procedures of an organisation3. They can help to identify and address any gaps or risks in the data protection program, as well as to verify the effectiveness and efficiency of the data protection measures3. Audits can also provide evidence of compliance to the supervisory authorities and the data subjects, as well as to enhance the trust and reputation of the organisation3. Therefore, conducting regular audits of the data protection program is a way to demonstrate compliance with the accountability principle. References: 1: CIPP/E study guide, page 15; Art. 5 GDPR; Accountability principle | ICO2: CIPP/E study guide, page 16; Art. 24 GDPR; [Guide to accountability and governance | ICO]3: CIPP/E study guide, page 91; [Auditing | ICO]; [GDPR Audits: What You Need to Know - IT Governance Blog].

 According to Article 13 of the GDPR, when personal data are collected from the data subject, the data controller must provide the data subject with the following information, among others1:

• The identity and the contact details of the controller and, where applicable, of the controller’s representative;
• The contact details of the data protection officer, where applicable;
• The purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the processing;
• The recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data, if any;
• Where applicable, the fact that the controller intends to transfer personal data to a third country or international organisation and the existence or absence of an adequacy decision by the Commission, or in the case of transfers referred to in Article 46 or 47, or the second subparagraph of Article 49(1), reference to the appropriate or suitable safeguards and the means by which to obtain a copy of them or where they have been made available.

In the scenario, Wonderkids provides some of this information in their Privacy Statement, but not all. They do not specify the categories of recipients with whom they will share the personal data of their customers and their children. They only state that they will share the data with businesses that they see as adding real value to the customers, which is vague and ambiguous. This does not comply with the GDPR requirement to inform the data subjects about the recipients or categories of recipients of their personal data, if any. Therefore, Wonderkids must provide this additional information in their Privacy Statement.

References:

• 1: Art. 13 GDPR Information to be provided where personal data are collected from the data subject

According to Article 21 of the GDPR, the data subject has the right to object at any time to the processing of his or her personal data for direct marketing purposes, which includes profiling related to such marketing. When the data subject exercises this right, the controller must stop processing the personal data for that purpose, unless it can demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds for the processing that override the interests, rights, and freedoms of the data subject, or for the establishment, exercise, or defense of legal claims. The controller must also inform the data subject of this right before the first communication with him or her, and in a clear and separate manner from other information. The controller must also provide the data subject with a simple and effective way to opt out of receiving direct marketing communications, such as an unsubscribe link or a STOP text message. The controller must respect the data subject’s choice and refrain from sending any further direct marketing messages of the relevant type (e.g., email, phone, post, etc.) to the data subject, unless he or she opts in again. The controller does not need to delete the personal data of the data subject who opts out, unless the data subject also requests the erasure of his or her data under Article 17 of the GDPR, or the data is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected or processed. The controller may also retain some minimal information about the data subject (such as name and email address) to ensure that his or her opt-out request is honored and that he or she is not contacted again for direct marketing purposes. The controller must also ensure that any third parties to whom it has disclosed the personal data of the data subject for direct marketing purposes are informed of the opt-out request and comply with it, unless this proves impossible or involves disproportionate effort. References: Direct marketing rules and exceptions under the GDPR, Direct marketing and privacy and electronic communications, Marketing and advertising: the law: Direct marketing, Direct Marketing - What you need to know about direct marketing

One of the main reasons why the CJEU invalidated the Privacy Shield was that it found that the US surveillance programs were not limited to what is strictly necessary and proportionate, as required by the EU law. The CJEU also criticized the lack of effective judicial remedies for EU data subjects whose data was accessed by US authorities. The Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework is intended to address these issues by introducing new safeguards to ensure that signals intelligence activities are necessary and proportionate in the pursuit of defined national security objectives, and by creating a new mechanism for EU individuals to seek redress if they believe they are unlawfully targeted by signals intelligence activities. The Framework also enhances the oversight and transparency of US surveillance practices.

References: EU–US Data Privacy Framework - Wikipedia; FACT SHEET: United States and European Commission Announce Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework | The White House; United States and European Commission Joint Statement on Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework; European Commission and United States Joint Statement on Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework; A practical approach to the new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework.

 The GDPR requires that the processor only processes personal data on behalf of the controller and according to the controller’s instructions12. The agreement between the controller and the processor must include provisions that ensure that the processor does not process personal data for any other purposes or in a manner that is inconsistent with the controller’s instructions34. Therefore, if the processor stores personal data that is not necessary for the performance of the contract with the controller, such as the social network followers of the client, this is a breach of the GDPR and the processor may be fined2. The fact that the data base is password-protected does not affect the applicability of the GDPR or the security principle, as the data is still personal data that can identify data subjects. The storage limitation principle also requires that personal data be kept for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed, so deleting the data base after the audit does not make the situation compliant. References: 1: Article 28 of the GDPR 2: Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR 3: Understanding Controller-to-Processor Agreements - GDPR Advisor 4: New Guidelines on Data Controllers and Processors: Time to Review Data Processing Agreements : Article 4 of the GDPR : Article 5 of the GDPR

According to Article 3(1) of the GDPR1, personal data shall be processed in any member state only on the basis of a decision taken at a Union level that is binding for that member state, unless it is derogated from by national law. This means that the GDPR applies to any processing of personal data within the EU, regardless of where the controller or processor is located, as long as it is based on a decision made at a Union level that is binding for that member state.

Therefore, option B would most likely trigger the extraterritorial effect of the GDPR, as it involves personal data of EU citizens being processed by a controller or processor based outside the EU, which may be subject to a decision made at a Union level that is binding for that member state.

Option A would not trigger the extraterritorial effect of the GDPR, as it involves monitoring suspected terrorists, which is not considered processing under Article 4(1) and (2) of the GDPR1. Monitoring may fall under other legal frameworks, such as national security or counter-terrorism laws.

Option C would not trigger the extraterritorial effect of the GDPR, as it involves monitoring EU citizens outside the EU by non-EU law enforcement bodies, which may not be subject to any decision made at a Union level that is binding for that member state.

Option D would not trigger the extraterritorial effect of the GDPR, as it involves processing personal data of EU residents by a non-EU business that targets EU customers, which may not be subject to any decision made at a Union level that is binding for that member state.

References: 1: Free CIPP/E Study Guide - International Association of Privacy Professionals.

Under the GDPR, using CCTV on business premises involves the processing of personal data, which requires compliance with the data protection principles and obligations. However, notifying the appropriate data protection authority (DPA) is not one of the steps that a company should take before using CCTV, unless the DPA has specifically requested it or the CCTV involves high-risk processing that requires prior consultation. The other steps are necessary to ensure GDPR compliance, as explained below:

• Performing a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) is a mandatory requirement for any type of processing that is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals, such as large-scale or systematic monitoring of public areas. A DPIA is a process that helps identify and mitigate the potential privacy risks of using CCTV, and document the measures taken to address them. A DPIA should include a description of the processing, its purpose and necessity, its risks and benefits, the safeguards and security measures, and the consultation with stakeholders. A DPIA should be carried out before the CCTV system is installed or upgraded, and reviewed regularly or whenever there is a significant change in the processing.
• Creating an information retention policy for those who operate the system is a good practice to ensure that the personal data collected by CCTV is not kept longer than necessary for the purpose for which it was collected, and that it is securely deleted or anonymised when no longer needed. The retention period should be determined by the specific purpose and context of using CCTV, and take into account any legal or contractual obligations, as well as the expectations and rights of the data subjects. The retention policy should also specify who is responsible for managing and deleting the CCTV footage, and how the deletion process is verified and documented.
• Ensuring that safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorized access to the footage is an essential requirement to comply with the GDPR principle of integrity and confidentiality, which states that personal data must be processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the data, including protection against unauthorized or unlawful processing and accidental loss, destruction or damage. The safeguards may include technical and organisational measures, such as encryption, access control, logging, audit, training, policies and procedures, that aim to protect the CCTV footage from unauthorized or unlawful access, disclosure, alteration, or destruction, both during transmission and storage. References: GDPR Article 35, GDPR Article 36, GDPR Article 5, CCTV and video surveillance | ICO, 5 Step Guide to Check if Your CCTV is GDPR Compliant

The GDPR applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the EU, regardless of their nationality or residence. This means that non-EU residents who are physically located in the EU are protected by the GDPR, and EU residents who are outside the EU are not. However, this does not mean that non-EU residents who are outside the EU can be asked to waive their GDPR rights by a company that is subject to the GDPR. The GDPR does not allow such waivers, as they would undermine the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects. The GDPR also requires that data subjects are provided with clear and transparent information about the processing of their personal data, and that they give their consent freely, specifically, informedly and unambiguously. A blanket waiver of GDPR rights does not meet these criteria, and would therefore be invalid and unenforceable.

References:

•GDPR Article 3 - Territorial scope1

•GDPR Article 7 - Conditions for consent2

•GDPR Article 25 - Data protection by design and by default3

•GDPR Recital 171 - Relationship with previously concluded agreements4

Before Anna determines whether Frank’s performance database is permissible, she needs to know more information about the following aspects of the data processing:

• The purpose and legal basis of the data processing, which should be clearly defined and documented in a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) or a similar document12.
• The nature and extent of the personal data involved, which should be limited to what is necessary for the purpose and not retained longer than necessary12.
• The measures taken to ensure the security and confidentiality of the personal data, such as encryption, pseudonymization, access control, etc12.
• The rights and interests of the data subjects, such as their right to access, rectify, erase or restrict their personal data, as well as their right to object or withdraw consent12.
• The potential risks and consequences of the data processing for the rights and freedoms of the data subjects, such as identity theft, discrimination, reputational damage, etc12.

In this case, Anna needs to know more information about what students have been told and how the research will be used. This is because:

• The purpose of using student records for research purposes is not clear from Frank’s description. He does not specify whether he has obtained consent from the students or their parents/guardians, or whether he has informed them about his research objectives and methods.
• The nature and extent of using student records for research purposes is not clear from Frank’s description. He does not specify which student records he is using (e.g., by name or by reference number), how many records he is using (e.g., by cohort or by class), or how long he will keep them (e.g., until graduation or indefinitely).
• The measures taken to ensure the security and confidentiality of using student records for research purposes are not clear from Frank’s description. He does not specify whether he has encrypted his program or his laptop before transferring it to his home device, whether he has backed up his program or his laptop before losing it on the train, or whether he has reported his lost laptop to his IT department.

Therefore, Anna needs more information about these aspects before she can determine whether Frank’s performance database is permissible under the GDPR.

References: 1: Free CIPP/E Study Guide - International Association of Privacy Professionals 2: CIPP/E Certification - International Association of Privacy Professionals

The right to data portability only applies when the processing is based on the data subject’s consent or on a contract with the data subject12. Therefore, if the processing is necessary for a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller, the right to data portability does not apply12. This is because the data subject does not have a direct influence on the purpose or the means of the processing in such cases3. References: 1: Article 20 of the GDPR 2: Right to data portability | ICO 3: The right to data portability (Article 20 of the GDPR)

 A dynamic IP address is a unique numerical label for a device on the internet that changes every time the device connects to the internet. A dynamic IP address by itself is not personal data, as it does not directly identify the person who owns or uses the device. However, a dynamic IP address can become personal data when it is combined with other data held by the controller, such as the web pages accessed by the device, the time and duration of the visit, the location of the device, or the user’s preferences and interests. In this case, the controller can use the additional data to identify the data subject, either directly or indirectly, by linking the dynamic IP address to a specific person or a profile. This was confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the case of Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, where the CJEU ruled that a dynamic IP address registered by a website provider constitutes personal data in relation to that provider, where the latter has the legal means to obtain the identity of the data subject from the internet service provider (ISP) that assigned the dynamic IP address. Therefore, option B is the correct answer. References: Directive 95/46/EC, Directive 2002/58/EC, Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Case C-582/14, Dynamic IP Addresses can be Personal Data

According to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the European Parliament shall, jointly with the Council, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall also exercise functions of political control and consultation as laid down in the Treaties1. The Council of the European Union, also known as the Council, is the institution that represents the governments of the Member States. Together with the European Parliament, it adopts European legislation and coordinates the policies of the Member States2. The other options are not correct because: (A) The European Commission is the institution that proposes and implements EU policies, ensures the application of EU law, and represents the Union in international affairs3; (B) The Article 29 Working Party was an advisory body composed of representatives of the national data protection authorities, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Commission. It was replaced by the European Data Protection Board in 20184; (D) The European Data Protection Board is an independent body that ensures the consistent application of the General Data Protection Regulation and promotes cooperation among the national data protection authorities5. References: 1: Article 14(1) of the TEU; 2: The Council of the European Union; 3: The European Commission; 4: Article 29 Working Party; 5: [European Data Protection Board].

 According to the GDPR, data controllers must respond to a data access request (also known as a subject access request or SAR) without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of the request. This time limit can be extended by a further two months if the request is complex or if the controller receives a number of requests from the same individual. However, the controller must still inform the individual within one month of receipt of the request and explain why the extension is necessary. The time limit is calculated from the day after the request is received (whether it is a working day or not) until the corresponding calendar date in the next month. If there is no corresponding calendar date, the deadline is the last day of the next month. If the deadline falls on a weekend or public holiday, the response must be provided on the next working day. References:

• GDPR, Article 12(3)
• ICO, Right of access1
• ICO, Time limits for responding to data protection rights requests2

According to the Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 12, “the GDPR requires data controllers to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures to ensure and to be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with the GDPR. These measures should take into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risks of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons.” The GDPR also requires data controllers to ensure the security of personal data, to notify data breaches to the supervisory authorities and data subjects, and to cooperate with the supervisory authorities in providing any information necessary for the performance of their tasks. Therefore, the GDPR requirement that data controllers must be in control of the data they hold at all times will present the most significant challenges for organizations with BYOD programs, as they will have to deal with the increased risks of data loss, theft, unauthorized access, or misuse that may arise from the use of personal devices by employees or contractors. The other options are not necessarily more challenging for organizations with BYOD programs, although they may involve other obligations under the GDPR, such as obtaining a valid legal basis, providing adequate safeguards, or informing the data subjects. References:

• Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 12
• GDPR, Articles 24, 25, 28, 32, 33, 34 and 58

 According to the GDPR, the lead supervisory authority is the supervisory authority with the primary responsibility for dealing with a cross-border processing activity, for example when a data subject makes a complaint about the processing of his or her personal data. The lead supervisory authority is determined according to the location of the main establishment or the single establishment of the controller or processor in the EU. The main establishment is the place where the decisions about the purposes and means of the processing are taken, or where the controller has its central administration in the EU. The single establishment is the only place where the controller or processor is established in the EU. Therefore, in this scenario, T-Craze’s lead supervisory authority is Germany, because that is where T-Craze is headquartered and where it has its main product-design office, which implies that the decisions about the processing of personal data are taken there. The other options are not correct, because the location of the processing, the market or the affiliates are not relevant for determining the lead supervisory authority. References: Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 39; CIPP/E Certification, page 19; GDPR, Article 4(16), Article 4(22), Article 56, Recital 36.

 According to the EDPB guidelines on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR1, joint controllers are entities that jointly determine the purposes and means of the processing of personal data. Joint controllership can result from a common decision or from converging decisions that are necessary for the processing to take place. Joint controllers must have a transparent arrangement that sets out their respective roles and responsibilities, and must ensure that individuals can exercise their rights against each controller. In this scenario, Gellcoat and Freifish are joint controllers with respect to the personal data related to the event, because they both decided to share data from their client databases, to come up with a list of people to invite, to agree on the content of the invitations, and to build an app to gather feedback. These decisions are joint and inseparable, and they have a tangible impact on the determination of the purposes and means of the processing. However, Gellcoat and Freifish are separate controllers for their other purposes, such as maintaining their own client databases, marketing their own products, or complying with their own legal obligations. These purposes are independent and separate from the joint purpose of organizing the event. Therefore, option A is the correct answer. Option B is incorrect because joint controllership does not depend on the merging of databases or the ownership of data, but on the joint determination of purposes and means. Option C is incorrect because joint controllership does not require a written designation in a contract, but can be inferred from the factual circumstances. Option D is incorrect because separate controllers and processors have different roles and responsibilities under the GDPR, and Gellcoat and Freifish do not act as processors for each other. References:

• Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR
• What does it mean if you are joint controllers?
• What’s New in the EDPB’s Draft Guidelines on Controllers and Processors under the GDPR

According to Article 23 of the GDPR, the scope of the obligations and rights provided for in Articles 12 to 22 and Article 34, as well as Article 5 in so far as its provisions correspond to the rights and obligations provided for in Articles 12 to 22, may be restricted by a legislative measure of a Member State or the Union, when such a restriction respects the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms and is a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society to safeguard certain public interests or the rights and freedoms of others1. However, Article 23 does not include Article 77, which grants the data subject the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority if the data subject considers that the processing of personal data relating to him or her infringes the GDPR2. Therefore, this right cannot be restricted by any legislative measure, as it is essential for the effective judicial protection of the data subject and the enforcement of the GDPR3. References:

• Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 14, section 2.3
• GDPR, Article 77
• GDPR, Article 23
• Guidelines on restrictions of data subject rights under Art. 23 of the GDPR, page 4, section 2
• Statement on restrictions on data subject rights in connection to the COVID-19 pandemic, page 2, section 2

A risk analysis is a process of identifying, assessing and mitigating the potential threats and vulnerabilities that may affect the personal data processing activities of an organization. A risk analysis is not a one-time activity, but a continuous and dynamic process that requires regular monitoring and updating. A risk analysis is also not a substitute for compliance with the GDPR, but a tool to help ensure compliance by identifying and addressing the legal obligations and best practices.

According to the GDPR, an organization must conduct a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) before starting any new or significantly increased processing activity that may pose a high risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subjects. A DPIA is a systematic and documented process that aims to identify, evaluate and mitigate the risks associated with such processing activities. A DPIA must be carried out by or on behalf of the controller (the person or entity that determines the purposes and means of processing) or by another person acting on their behalf.

In this scenario, Frank is conducting a DPIA for his new processing activity of analyzing his students’ performance data in relation to Department for Education expectations. This processing activity poses a high risk to the rights and freedoms of his students, as it involves collecting, storing, using and transferring their personal data without their explicit consent or knowledge. Therefore, Frank must conduct a DPIA before starting this processing activity.

However, there are some exceptions to this requirement. One of them is when the processing activity involves personal data that are no longer relevant for the original purpose for which they were collected or otherwise processed. In this case, Frank can use existing personal data without conducting a DPIA, as long as he ensures that they are adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for his new purpose.

Therefore, in this situation, Anna will find that a risk analysis is NOT necessary in this situation as long as the data subjects are no longer current students of Frank’s. This means that Frank can use his existing student records without conducting a DPIA, as long as he ensures that they are adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for his new purpose.

References:

• Risks and data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) | ICO
• What Are GDPR Risk Assessments and Why Are They Important?
• GDPR Compliance Risk Assessment Best Practices | Accountable
• Why risk assessments are essential for GDPR compliance

 According to the GDPR, the right of access by the data subject is one of the rights granted to individuals to obtain information about the processing of their personal data by a data controller1. The data controller must provide a copy of the personal data undergoing processing and additional information, such as the purposes, the categories, the recipients, the retention period, the rights, the source, and the automated decision-making of the processing1. The data controller must also inform the data subject of the existence of the right to access and the means to exercise it2.

The GDPR also specifies the time limit for responding to a data subject access request. The data controller must provide the information without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of the request1. This period may be extended by two further months where necessary, taking into account the complexity and number of the requests, but the data controller must inform the data subject of any such extension within one month of receipt of the request, together with the reasons for the delay1. The data controller must also verify the identity of the data subject before providing the information, but this verification should not extend the time limit for responding to the request3.

In this scenario, Mike is an EU resident who has booked travel itineraries through XYZ Travel Agency and stayed at ABC Hotel Chain’s locations. Both companies are U.S.-based multinational companies that use a common platform for collecting and sharing their customer data. Mike has signed the agreement to be a rewards program member of XYZ Travel Agency. Mike wants to know what personal information the company holds about him and sends an email requesting access to his data.

Assuming that both companies are subject to the GDPR, either because they offer goods or services to individuals in the EU or because they monitor the behavior of individuals in the EU4, they must comply with the right of access by the data subject and provide Mike with the information he requests. The time period in which Mike should receive a response to his request is not more than one month of receipt of his request, unless there are grounds for extending the period by two further months. The companies must also verify Mike’s identity before providing the information, but this verification should not affect the time limit for responding to the request.

Therefore, the correct answer is A. Not more than one month of receipt of Mike’s request.

References: 1 Article 15 of the GDPR2 Article 13 and 14 of the GDPR3 Guidelines on the right to data portability | European Data Protection Board34 Article 3 of the GDPR.

ISO 31700 is an international standard that provides high-level requirements and recommendations for organizations that use privacy by design (PbD) in the development, maintenance and operation of consumer goods and services. PbD is a concept that aims to integrate privacy into products, services and systems by default, following seven main principles: proactive not reactive, privacy as the default, privacy embedded into design, full functionality, end-to-end security, visibility and transparency, and respect for user privacy. PbD is also a legal requirement under many prominent privacy regulations across the world, such as the GDPR. ISO 31700 is based on a consumer-centric approach, where the consumer’s privacy rights and preferences are placed at the center of product development and operation.

References: Meet the new ISO 31700 standard for Privacy by Design (PbD); 7 Steps to Comply with ISO 31700-1:2023; Privacy by Design: Embracing ISO 31700-1:2023’s Consumer Protection Guidelines.

According to Article 14 of the GDPR, where personal data is not obtained directly from the data subject, the controller must provide the data subject with certain information about the processing, such as the identity of the controller, the purposes and legal basis of the processing, the categories of personal data concerned, the recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data, and the rights of the data subject12. However, there are some exceptions to this obligation, as specified in Article 14(5). One of them is when the provision of such information proves impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort, in particular for processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes, subject to the conditions and safeguards referred to in Article 89(1) or in so far as the obligation is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing12. In such cases, the controller must take appropriate measures to protect the data subject’s rights and freedoms and legitimate interests, including making the information publicly available12. References: CIPP/E Certification - International Association of Privacy Professionals, Free CIPP/E Study Guide - International Association of Privacy Professionals, GDPR - EUR-Lex, Right to be Informed - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

According to the Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 14, “the GDPR requires controllers to carry out a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) prior to processing where a type of processing, in particular using new technologies, and taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing, is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons.” The GDPR also provides a list of examples of processing operations that require a DPIA, such as “a systematic and extensive evaluation of personal aspects relating to natural persons which is based on automated processing, including profiling, and on which decisions are based that produce legal effects concerning the natural person or similarly significantly affect the natural person” (Article 35(3)(a)). Therefore, the fact that Dynaroux plans to undertake profiling of its customers through analysis of their purchasing patterns would trigger a DPIA under the GDPR, as it involves a systematic and extensive evaluation of personal aspects based on automated processing that may significantly affect the customers. The other options are not necessarily cases where a DPIA is required, although they may involve other obligations under the GDPR, such as obtaining a valid legal basis, providing adequate safeguards, or informing the data subjects. References:

• Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 14
• GDPR, Article 35

Hello, this is Bing. I can help you with your question by providing you with some relevant information from the web. However, I cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information, and I cannot verify the answer for you. You should always consult the official sources and documents for the CIPP/E certification exam.

Based on my web search results, the most likely answer is B. E-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC. Here is a summary of why:

• The E-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC1 is a specific legal framework that complements and particularizes the general data protection principles set out in the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC1 (which has been replaced by the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/6792).
• The E-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC1 covers the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, including the use of cookies and similar technologies3.
• Article 5.3 of the E-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC1 states that the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information14.
• Therefore, an entity’s website that stores text files (such as cookies) on EU users’ computer and mobile device browsers must comply with the E-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC1 and provide users with notices containing information and consent before doing so45.

According to Article 82 of the GDPR1, any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of the GDPR shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor for the damage suffered. Any controller involved in processing shall be liable for the damage caused by processing which infringes the GDPR. Where more than one controller or processor, or both a controller and a processor, are involved in the same processing and where they are responsible for any damage caused by processing, each controller or processor shall be held liable for the entire damage in order to ensure effective compensation of the data subject. Therefore, Javier can sue any one of the EVETFIT branches that were involved in processing his personal data without his consent and in violation of his rights, and he can claim full compensation from that branch. The branch that pays the compensation can then claim back from the other branches involved in the same processing that part of the compensation corresponding to their part of responsibility for the damage. References: 1 Art. 82 GDPR – Right to compensation and liability - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

According to the GDPR, one of the legal bases for transferring personal data to a third country or an international organization is when the transfer is necessary for the protection of the vital interests of the data subject or of another person, where the data subject is physically or legally incapable of giving consent (Article 49(1)©). This exception applies only in very limited and exceptional situations, such as life-threatening medical emergencies. In this scenario, ProStorage most likely relied on this legal basis to transfer Ruth’s medical information to the hospital in India, where she suffered a medical emergency and was hospitalized. Ruth was presumably unable to give her consent due to her health condition, and the transfer of her medical information was necessary to protect her vital interests, such as her life or health. Therefore, this transfer mechanism was more appropriate than the other options, which either require consent or are not relevant to the situation.

References: GDPR, Article 49(1)©1; EDPB Guidelines 2/2018 on derogations of Article 49 under Regulation 2016/6792, page 9.

Consent is one of the legal bases for processing personal data under the GDPR, but it must meet certain conditions to be valid. According to Article 4(11) of the GDPR, consent means “any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her.” In this scenario, consent would not be considered an adequate legal basis for accessing the party zone, because it is not freely given. Freely given consent means that the data subject has a genuine and free choice to agree or disagree to the processing, and that there is no detriment, coercion, or significant negative consequences if the data subject does not consent. However, in this case, the consent is conditional on accessing the party zone, which is the main purpose of the event. Therefore, the data subject does not have a real choice, and may feel pressured or obliged to consent in order to participate in the event. This violates the principle of free consent, and could invalidate the consent as a legal basis.

References:

•GDPR Article 4 - Definitions1

•GDPR Article 7 - Conditions for consent2

•Guidelines 05/2020 on consent under Regulation 2016/6793

The GDPR imposes several obligations on data controllers when they engage data processors to process personal data on their behalf. One of these obligations is to ensure that the contract or other legal act between the controller and the processor stipulates that the processor must assist the controller in complying with its obligations under the GDPR, including the obligation to notify personal data breaches to the competent supervisory authority and, where applicable, to the affected data subjects1. However, this does not mean that the processor can directly notify the supervisory authority without the involvement of the controller. The GDPR clearly states that it is the controller’s responsibility to notify the supervisory authority without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of the breach2. The processor must only notify the controller without undue delay after becoming aware of the breach3. Therefore, requiring that the processor directly notify the appropriate supervisory authority is not an action that a data controller can depend upon to avoid liability in the event of a security breach, as it would be contrary to the GDPR and the controller’s own obligation. Options A, B and D are actions that a data controller can take to reduce the risk of liability, as they demonstrate that the controller has exercised due diligence, assessed the potential impact of outsourcing, and chosen a reliable and compliant processor. References: 1: Article 28(3)(f) of the GDPR 2: Article 33(1) of the GDPR 3: Article 33(2) of the GDPR

According to the UK GDPR, the controller and the processor must support the data protection officer in performing the tasks referred to in Article 39 by providing resources necessary to carry out those tasks and access to personal data and processing operations, and to maintain his or her expert knowledge1. The controller and the processor must also ensure that the data protection officer does not receive any instructions regarding the exercise of those tasks and that he or she reports directly to the highest management level of the controller or the processor1. 

Section: (none)

Explanation

 The European Council and the Council of the European Union are two different EU institutions that have similar names but distinct roles and memberships. The European Council is the body of leaders (heads of state or government) of the 27 EU member states that defines the EU’s general political direction and priorities1. The European Council does not adopt EU legislation, but rather sets the agenda and gives guidance to the other EU institutions1. The Council of the European Union, informally known as the Council, is composed of national ministers from each EU member state, grouped by policy area1. The Council is one of the two legislative bodies of the EU, along with the European Parliament, and negotiates and adopts EU laws, coordinates member states’ policies, and develops the EU’s common foreign and security policy1. The key difference between the two institutions is that the European Council is comprised of the heads of each EU member state, while the Council of the European Union is comprised of the ministers of each EU member state12. References: European Council | Council of the European Union, What is the difference between EU Council, Council of the European Union, and Council of Europe?

According to the transparency principle, data controllers must provide clear and transparent information to data subjects about how their personal data is processed. This information must be easily accessible and easy to understand. Providing a hyperlink to the organization’s home page, in a hard copy application form, is not considered a fair processing practice in relation to the transparency principle, because it does not directly inform the data subject about the specific purposes and legal basis of the processing, the data protection rights and obligations, and the contact details of the data controller and the data protection officer. This information should be provided in a concise, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, in a way that is appropriate to the means of communication. Providing a hyperlink to the organization’s home page, in a hard copy application form, does not meet these criteria and may also be inaccessible to some data subjects who do not have internet access or are not familiar with the use of hyperlinks. Therefore, this option is not a fair processing practice in relation to the transparency principle. References: 1234 https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-privacy-and-electronic-communications/guidance-for-the-use-of-personal-data-in-political-campaigning-1/lawful-fair-and-transparent-processing/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-privacy-and-electronic-communications/guidance-for-the-use-of-personal-data-in-political-campaigning-1/lawful-fair-and-transparent-processing/

According to the GDPR, any transfer of personal data to a third country or an international organisation must be based on an adequacy decision by the Commission, appropriate safeguards by the data exporter and importer, or derogations for specific situations1. In this scenario, InstaHR is an Australian based company that processes personal data on behalf of ProStorage, a Dutch based company. Australia is not recognised by the Commission as a country that provides an adequate level of data protection2, so the adequacy option is not available. Binding corporate rules (BCRs) are internal rules adopted by multinational groups of companies or organisations that define their global policy with regard to the international transfers of personal data within the same corporate group to entities located in countries that do not provide an adequate level of protection3. However, BCRs are not applicable in this case, as InstaHR is not part of the same corporate group as ProStorage. Explicit consent of employees is a possible derogation for specific situations, but it is not a reliable or practical transfer mechanism, as it must be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous, and it can be withdrawn at any time4. Therefore, the most suitable transfer mechanism for using InstaHR is standard contractual clauses (SCCs). SCCs are contractual clauses that have been pre-approved by the Commission and that provide appropriate safeguards for data protection when transferring personal data from the EU/EEA to third countries. SCCs are legally binding and enforceable by data subjects, and they impose obligations on both the data exporter and the data importer. SCCs are widely used by data controllers and processors as a transfer mechanism under the GDPR. References: 1: Art. 44 GDPR - General principle for transfers22: Adequacy decisions - European Commission13: Binding corporate rules - European Commission14: Article 7 of the GDPR. : Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC) - European Commission1.

According to Article 32 of the GDPR, the controller and the processor must implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk of the processing1. The GDPR does not prescribe specific security measures, but rather provides a list of factors to consider when determining the appropriate level of security, such as:

• The state of the art and the costs of implementation;
• The nature, scope, context and purposes of processing;
• The risk of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons.

Therefore, the level of security required by the GDPR is not absolute, but relative to the specific circumstances of each processing activity. The GDPR also encourages the use of codes of conduct and certification mechanisms to demonstrate compliance with the security requirements1.

In the scenario, Natural Insight is a processor who receives customer information from BHealthy, a controller, for the purpose of providing pricing services. Natural Insight has a contractual obligation to implement technical and organisational measures to ensure the security of the data, as well as to comply with the GDPR. Natural Insight’s security obligations are not limited to the measures assessed by BHealthy prior to entering into the contract, nor to the level of security that a reasonable data subject would expect. Rather, Natural Insight must take into account the industry practices for protecting customer contact information and purchase history, as well as the potential risks that may arise from the processing, such as data breaches, identity theft, fraud, or discrimination. Natural Insight must also keep up with the state of the art and the costs of implementation, and adjust its security measures accordingly.

References:

• 4: Art. 32 GDPR Security of processing

According to the GDPR, the material scope of the regulation covers the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means, or by non-automated means if the data forms part of a filing system or is intended to form part of a filing system (Article 2(1)). Personal data is defined as any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (data subject) (Article 4(1)). An identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person (Article 4(1)). Therefore, pseudonymous data, such as blockchain transactions that use public keys or other identifiers, may still fall within the definition of personal data if the data subject can be identified or re-identified by using additional information or means (Recital 26).

The GDPR also applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the European Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the European Union or not (Article 3(1)). The GDPR also applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the European Union by a controller or processor not established in the European Union, where the processing activities are related to the offering of goods or services to such data subjects in the European Union or the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the European Union (Article 3(2)). Therefore, the territorial scope of the GDPR covers both controllers and processors established in the European Union, and controllers and processors not established in the European Union but targeting or monitoring data subjects in the European Union.

In this scenario, blockchain transactions are classified as pseudonymous data, which may still be considered as personal data under the GDPR if the data subjects can be identified or re-identified. Therefore, such transactions are within the material scope of the GDPR, as they involve the processing of personal data by automated means. However, the GDPR only applies to such transactions to the extent that they include data subjects in the European Union, either by having a controller or processor established in the European Union, or by offering goods or services to or monitoring the behaviour of such data subjects. Therefore, the answer is C.

References: GDPR, Articles 2, 3, 4, Recital 261; EDPB Guidelines 05/2020 on consent under Regulation 2016/6792, page 17; Blockchain and the GDPR: Solutions for a responsible use of the blockchain in the context of personal data - CNIL3

 The Individual Participation Principle is one of the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) that are not part of any legal framework, but are widely adopted by many data privacy regulations in force today1. The FIPPs are a set of guidelines for fair information practices that aim to protect the privacy and security of personal information. The Individual Participation Principle holds that individuals have a number of rights, including the right to have their personal data corrected or erased, the right to access and obtain confirmation of their personal data, the right to be informed about how their personal data is used and who it is shared with, and the right to object or withdraw consent for certain purposes2.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a legal framework that implements the European Union’s (EU) Data Protection Directive and provides comprehensive protection for all individuals within the EU regarding their personal data. The GDPR grants individuals a number of rights, such as the right to access, rectify, erase, restrict, port, object, or not be subject to automated decision-making based on their personal data. These rights are similar to those under the FIPPs and can be found in Articles 12 to 22 of the GDPR.

Therefore, the parts of the GDPR that provide the closest equivalent to the Individual Participation Principle are Articles 12 to 22.

References:

• OECD Privacy Principles
• What are the 7 main principles of GDPR?
• Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs)
• Individual Participation - International Association of Privacy Professionals
• What is the right to be forgotten? | Right to erasure | Cloudflare
• General Data Protection Regulation - Wikipedia

According to the UK GDPR, consent means “any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her” 1. One of the requirements for consent to be informed is that the data subject should be aware of the identity of the controller who is processing the personal data 2. In this scenario, Ms. Iman only gave consent to Liem to process her personal data for marketing purposes, but she was not informed that JaphSoft, a third-party controller, would also access and process her personal data. Therefore, her consent was not valid in regard to JaphSoft, as she did not know who was processing her personal data and for what purposes. References:

• UK GDPR Article 4 (11)
• UK GDPR Recital 42

Article 9 of the GDPR prohibits the processing of special category data, which includes biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person1. However, there are 10 exceptions to this general prohibition, usually referred to as ‘conditions for processing special category data’2. These are:

• (a) Explicit consent
• (b) Employment, social security and social protection (if authorised by law)
• © Vital interests
• (d) Not-for-profit bodies
• (e) Made public by the data subject
• (f) Legal claims and judicial acts
• (g) Substantial public interest conditions
• (h) Health or social care
• (i) Public health
• (j) Archiving, research and statistics

Option A is not one of these exceptions, and therefore it is not a valid reason to process biometric data under Article 9. Option B, C and D are all valid exceptions, as they correspond to conditions ©, (f) and (a) respectively. Therefore, the correct answer is A.

References:

• 4: Art. 9 GDPR Processing of special categories of personal data
• 6: What are the rules on special category data? | ICO

 This is not a valid set of standard contractual clauses because it does not correspond to any of the decisions adopted by the European Commission under the GDPR or the previous Data Protection Directive 95/46. The correct decision for EU processor to non-EU or EEA controller is Decision 2010/87/EU, which was amended by Decision 2004/915/EC. Decision 2007/72/EC is actually related to the recognition of the adequacy of the protection of personal data in Switzerland. References:

• Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 18, section 3.4.2
• Standard contractual clauses for international transfers, section 1.1
• Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC), section 2.1
• Decision 2007/72/EC

The GDPR defines profiling as any form of automated processing of personal data consisting of the use of personal data to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to a natural person, in particular to analyse or predict aspects concerning that natural person’s performance at work, economic situation, health, personal preferences, interests, reliability, behaviour, location or movements12. Therefore, the relevant factors when determining if a processing activity would be considered profiling are:

• whether the processing involves data that is considered personal data;
• whether the processing of the data is done through automated means; and
• whether the processing is used to predict the behavior of data subjects.

The identity of the processor, whether it is the controller or a third-party vendor, is not relevant for the definition of profiling. However, it may have implications for the accountability and responsibility of the parties involved, as well as the data protection rights of the data subjects34. References: CIPP/E Certification - International Association of Privacy Professionals, Free CIPP/E Study Guide - International Association of Privacy Professionals, GDPR - EUR-Lex, What is automated individual decision-making and profiling? | ICO, WP29 releases guidelines on profiling under the GDPR, UK: A Guide To GDPR Profiling And Automated Decision-Making - Mondaq

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) is a proposed regulation that aims to establish harmonised rules on the development and use of artificial intelligence in the EU. The AI Act classifies AI systems according to their level of risk and imposes various requirements and obligations on providers and users of such systems. The AI Act also provides for the enforcement of its rules by national competent authorities and the European Commission. According to Article 71 of the AI Act, the sanctions for non-compliance with the AI Act depend on the type and severity of the infringement. The maximum fine for the most serious infringements, such as placing on the market or putting into service prohibited AI systems, or failing to comply with the data and data governance requirements for high-risk AI systems, is the higher of up to 30 million Euro or up to 6% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year of the legal entity concerned. This is the same level of fine as for the most serious infringements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

References:

•EUR-Lex - 52021PC0206 - EN - EUR-Lex1

•European Parliament Adopts Negotiating Position on the AI Act2

According to the GDPR, the territorial scope of the regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: (a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or (b) the monitoring of their behavior as far as their behavior takes place within the Union1. In this scenario, Who-R-U is not established in the Union, but it is collecting location information of its Canadian customers who use the app while traveling abroad, including in the EU. This constitutes monitoring of their behavior within the Union, and therefore triggers the application of the GDPR. The other options are not correct because: (A) Who-R-U does not have any establishment in the Union, as the naming-rights deal does not involve any technology or infrastructure; (B) Who-R-U is not offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union, as it only targets Canadian customers and blocks internet traffic from outside of Canada; © Who-R-U is not engaging in commercial activities conducted in the Union, as it only accepts Canadian currency and does not process orders that request the DNA report to be sent outside of Canada. References: 1: Article 3(2) of the GDPR; Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 11.

According to the GDPR, a data breach must be notified to the supervisory authority of the member state where the controller or processor is established, unless the breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons1. The GDPR defines a controller as "the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data"2. The GDPR also specifies that a controller or processor is considered to be established in the Union if it has “an effective and real exercise of activity through stable arrangements” in the Union, regardless of its legal form or location of its headquarters3.

In this scenario, Who-R-U is not a controller established in the Union, because it does not have any stable arrangements in the Union that involve the processing of personal data. The company only offers its services to Canadians, and does not target or monitor individuals in the Union. The fact that it has purchased the naming rights for a building in Germany, which comes with a few offices, does not constitute an effective and real exercise of activity in the Union, as the offices do not include any technology or infrastructure for processing personal data, and are only used by executives while traveling internationally. Therefore, Who-R-U is not subject to the GDPR’s data breach notification obligation, and is not required to notify the local German DPA about the laptop theft.

References:

• Art. 33 GDPR – Notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority
• Art. 4 GDPR – Definitions
• Art. 3 GDPR – Territorial scope
• Guidelines 9/2022 on personal data breach notification under GDPR
• Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR

I hope this helps you understand the GDPR and data breach notification better. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me. 😊

The GDPR requires that in the case of a personal data breach, the controller shall without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of it, notify the personal data breach to the supervisory authority competent in accordance with Article 55, unless the personal data breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons1. A personal data breach means a breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed2. In this scenario, the company ABCD is the controller of the client data, and the loss of the memory stick containing unencrypted and clear text personal data is a personal data breach that may pose a risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subjects, such as identity theft, fraud, financial loss, or reputational damage. Therefore, the company ABCD should notify the data protection supervisory authority as soon as possible, and provide the information specified in Article 33(3) of the GDPR, such as the nature of the breach, the categories and number of data subjects and personal data records concerned, the likely consequences of the breach, and the measures taken or proposed to address the breach1. Option A is the correct answer, as it reflects the obligation of the controller under the GDPR. Options B, C and D are incorrect, as they do not comply with the GDPR requirements. Option B would delay the notification beyond the 72-hour deadline, which could result in administrative fines or other sanctions3. Option C would misuse the “disproportionate effort” exception, which only applies to the communication of the breach to the data subjects, not to the notification to the supervisory authority, and only when the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational protection measures, such as encryption, that render the personal data unintelligible to any person who is not authorised to access it4. Option D would prematurely notify the customers of the company without first notifying the supervisory authority, and without assessing the level of risk and the necessity of such communication, which should be done in consultation with the supervisory authority5. References: 1: Article 33(1) of the GDPR 2: Article 4(12) of the GDPR 3: Article 83(4)(a) of the GDPR 4: Article 34(3)(a) of the GDPR 5: Article 34(1) and (2) of the GDPR

According to the WP29’s “Guidelines on Personal data breach notification under Regulation 2016/679’’, the communication of a personal data breach to the data subjects should be clear, concise, transparent, easily accessible and understandable, and use clear and plain language. The communication should also be made as soon as reasonably feasible and in close cooperation with the supervisory authority. The guidelines provide some examples of methods that may be effective for communicating a breach to data subjects, such as a direct electronic message (e.g. email, SMS, direct message), a postal notification, a prominent advertisement in print media, or a notice on the homepage of the affected website. However, the guidelines also state that a notice on a corporate blog or social media would not be an effective method of communication, as it would not reach all the affected data subjects and would not allow them to take immediate action to protect themselves. Therefore, the correct answer is C. A notice on a corporate blog. References:

• WP29’s “Guidelines on Personal data breach notification under Regulation 2016/679’’, pages 20-211

According to Article 8 of the GDPR, where the processing of personal data is based on consent and the offer of an information society service (ISS) is directly made to a child, the processing is lawful only if the child is at least 16 years old, or if the consent is given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility over the child. The GDPR allows EU member states to lower the age threshold to a minimum of 13 years. The data controller must make reasonable efforts to verify that the consent is given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility, taking into account available technology. An ISS is any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services. Examples of ISS include online marketplaces, social media platforms, and online games.

In this scenario, the company is offering an ISS to children, as the connected toys can talk and interact with children via the internet. The company is also processing personal data of the children, such as their voice, questions, preferences, and location. Therefore, the company must obtain parental consent for the use of the action figures before any data can be collected, unless the child is above the age threshold set by the relevant EU member state. The company must also inform the parents and the children about the nature and purpose of the data processing, the data transfers to South Africa, and the rights of the data subjects. The company must also ensure that the data processing is fair, lawful, transparent, and in accordance with the data protection principles and the children’s best interests.

The other options are incorrect because:

• A. The child cannot provide consent himself, regardless of the purpose of the data processing, unless he is above the age threshold set by the relevant EU member state. The GDPR does not make any distinction between data processing for marketing or non-marketing purposes when it comes to children’s consent.
• B. The company does not need to obtain written authorization from the supervisory authority to process children’s data, as long as it complies with the GDPR requirements and obtains parental consent. The supervisory authority is the independent public authority responsible for monitoring the application of the GDPR in each EU member state, and it can intervene only in cases of non-compliance or complaints.
• C. Consent for data collection cannot be implied through the parent’s purchase of the action figure for the child. The GDPR requires that consent must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous, and that it must be expressed by a clear affirmative action. The purchase of a product does not meet these criteria, and it does not indicate the parent’s agreement to the data processing. Moreover, the packaging of the toy does not provide sufficient information about the data processing, nor does it mention that an internet connection is required.

References: Article 8 and Recitals (38) and (58) of the GDPR, Can personal data about children be collected?, Children and the UK GDPR, CIPP/E Certification

 The GDPR requires that personal data be kept for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed1. However, the GDPR also allows member states to provide for more specific rules on the processing of employees’ personal data in the employment context, including the retention periods for erasure and deletion of categories of personal data2. Therefore, the employer should securely store the data that is required to be kept under local law, such as tax records, pension records, or health and safety records34. The employer should also ensure that the data is protected from unauthorized or unlawful access, accidental loss, destruction, or damage1. The employer should not store the data for longer than necessary or for purposes other than those for which the data was collected, unless the employee has given consent or there is another legal basis for doing so13. References: 1: Article 5 of the GDPR 2: Article 88 of the GDPR 3: Data Protection and GDPR in the Workplace | Factsheets | CIPD 4: How to Manage the Retention of Employee Data | GDPR Blog

The ECHR and the CJEU are part of two different legal systems: the Council of Europe and the European Union, respectively. The ECHR is a treaty that guarantees human rights and fundamental freedoms to individuals within the jurisdiction of its 47 member states. The CJEU is the judicial branch of the EU that ensures the uniform interpretation and application of EU law within its 27 member states. The ECHR can only hear complaints from individuals or states alleging violations of the rights enshrined in the convention, and it can only issue judgments that are binding on the respondent state. The CJEU, on the other hand, can hear cases from individuals, states, EU institutions, or national courts on any matter of EU law, and it can issue rulings that are binding on all EU member states and institutions. The CJEU can also impose sanctions or penalties on states that fail to comply with its judgments or EU law in general. Therefore, the CJEU has more power and authority to enforce EU law than the ECHR has to enforce human rights law. References: CIPP/E Certification, ECHR and the CJEU, The UK, the EU and a British Bill of Rights

According to Article 33 of the GDPR, in the case of a personal data breach, the processor (Provider Y) shall notify the controller (Company X) without undue delay after becoming aware of the breach. The processor does not have the obligation to notify the supervisory authority, the public, or law enforcement, unless otherwise required by law. The controller is responsible for notifying the supervisory authority and, where necessary, the data subjects, unless the breach is unlikely to result in a risk to their rights and freedoms. References:

• Article 33 of the GDPR, which regulates the notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority.
• [Article 34 of the GDPR], which regulates the communication of a personal data breach to the data subject.
• ICO guidance, which explains the roles and responsibilities of controllers and processors in relation to data breach notification.

The GDPR requires that the information provided to data subjects about the processing of their personal data must be concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible, using clear and plain language1. However, this can be challenging when the processing activities are complex, diverse or voluminous. Therefore, a good practice is to use a layered privacy notice, which consists of providing a short notice with the key elements of the privacy information, such as the identity of the controller, the purposes and legal basis of the processing, the recipients of the data, the data subject’s rights, and the contact details of the data protection officer or the supervisory authority. The short notice can then contain links to more detailed information, either by expanding each section or by directing the user to a separate page or document. This way, the user can easily access the information that is most relevant or important to them, without being overwhelmed by a long and complex notice23. A layered privacy notice can be used on websites, in emails, in mobile apps, or in any other medium where space or attention span is limited4. References: 1 Art. 12 GDPR – Transparent information, communication and modalities for the exercise of the rights of the data subject - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)2 Layered Notice - International Association of Privacy Professionals3 What methods can we use to provide privacy information? | ICO. 4 Layered Notice - West Virginia.

• Article 82 of the GDPR1234 regulates the right to compensation and liability for any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of the GDPR.
• Paragraph 4 of Article 821234 states that a controller or processor shall be exempt from liability under paragraph 2 (which holds them liable for the damage caused by processing which infringes the GDPR) if it proves that it is not in any way responsible for the event giving rise to the damage.
• Therefore, the right to compensation and liability under the GDPR provides for an exemption from liability if the data controller (or data processor) proves that it is not in any way responsible for the event giving rise to the damage.

References:

1: Art. 82 GDPR – Right to compensation and liability - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

2: Art. 82 GDPR - Right to compensation and liability - GDPR.eu

3: GDPR Article 82: Right to compensation and liability - Advisera

4: Article 82 GDPR | Right to compensation and liability

According to Article 28(2) of the GDPR, the processor may not engage another processor (sub-processor) without the prior specific or general written authorization of the controller. In the case of general written authorization, the processor must inform the controller of any intended changes concerning the addition or replacement of other processors, thereby giving the controller the opportunity to object to such changes. Furthermore, Article 28(4) of the GDPR states that where a processor engages another processor for carrying out specific processing activities on behalf of the controller, the same data protection obligations as set out in the contract or other legal act between the controller and the processor shall be imposed on that other processor by way of a contract or other legal act under Union or Member State law, in particular providing sufficient guarantees to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures in such a manner that the processing will meet the requirements of the GDPR. Therefore, the processor must ensure that the sub-processor complies with data processing obligations that are equivalent to those that apply to the processor. References:

• Article 28 of the GDPR
• European Data Protection Law & Practice textbook, Chapter 6: Data Processing Obligations, Section 6.3: Processor Obligations, Subsection 6.3.2: Sub-processors