CIPP-E Certified Information Privacy Professional/Europe (CIPP/E) Questions and Answers

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

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

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, when personal data is collected from the data subject, the controller must provide the data subject with certain information, such as the identity and contact details of the controller, the contact details of the data protection officer, the purposes and legal basis of the processing, the recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data, the data subject’s rights, and any other information necessary to ensure fair and transparent processing1. This information must be provided in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language2. Therefore, Building Block should have provided its employees with information about who they can contact with any queries regarding the monitoring, such as the data protection officer or the Privacy Office, as part of the information notice before implementing the security measures. This would enable the employees to exercise their rights, such as the right to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to the processing of their personal data, or the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority3. References: 1 Art. 13 GDPR – Information to be provided where personal data are collected from the data subject - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)2 Art. 12 GDPR – Transparent information, communication and modalities for the exercise of the rights of the data subject - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)3 Art. 15-22 GDPR – Rights of the data subject - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Pseudonymisation is a method that allows you to switch the original data set (for example, e-mail or a name) with an alias or pseudonym, or, in other words, a value which does not allow the individual to be directly identified1. It is a reversible process that de-identifies data but allows the re-identification later on if necessary1. This is a well-known data management technique highly recommended by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as one of the data protection methods2. To make personal data pseudonymous, a data controller must separately hold any information that would allow linking the data to the data subject, such as a key or a code, and ensure that this information is kept securely and subject to technical and organisational measures to prevent unauthorised access or re-identification23. The other options are not correct, as they either describe other data protection methods, such as encryption or anonymisation, or do not meet the definition of pseudonymisation under the GDPR. References: Pseudonymization according to the GDPR, Pseudonymisation - Wikipedia, Anonymisation and pseudonymisation | Data Protection Commissioner

According to Article 14 of the GDPR, the data controller must provide the data subject with certain information when collecting personal data from a source other than the data subject1. However, there are some exceptions to this obligation, such as when the data subject already has the information, or when the provision of such information proves impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort2. The latter exception may apply, for example, when the personal data are collected from a large number of sources, or when the personal data are processed for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes3. The data controller must take appropriate measures to protect the data subject’s rights and interests, and make the information publicly available2. References: 1: Art. 14 GDPR – Information to be provided where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject2: Article 14(5)(b) of the GDPR3: Recital 62 of the GDPR.

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 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 Article 13 of the GDPR, when a controller obtains personal data directly from the data subject, the controller must provide the data subject with certain information about the processing of their data, such as the identity and contact details of the controller, the purposes and legal basis of the processing, the recipients or categories of recipients, the period of storage, the rights of the data subject, the right to lodge a complaint, etc. However, the controller does not have to provide the data subject with the categories of personal data concerned, as this information is already known by the data subject, since they provided the data themselves. This is different from Article 14, which applies when the controller obtains personal data from a source other than the data subject, and requires the controller to inform the data subject of the categories of personal data concerned, as well as the source of the data. References:

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

Art. 14 GDPR - Information to be provided where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject

Article 13: Information to be provided where personal data are collected from the data subject - GDPR

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

Under GDPR and EU employment law, employee monitoring must comply with the principles of necessity, proportionality, legitimacy, and transparency​.

Legal requirements for employee monitoring:

Necessity: Employers must demonstrate that monitoring is necessary for a legitimate purpose.

Proportionality: The monitoring must be the least intrusive method available.

Transparency: Employees must be fully informed about what is being monitored​.

Why is D the correct answer?

GDPR requires that monitoring must be explicitly communicated and justified.

Employers can monitor work emails, browsing history, and video calls, but only if employees are clearly informed and the purpose is justified​.

Why are other answers incorrect?

A (Monitoring all contractor activity) → Contractors have data protection rights too; monitoring must still be necessary and proportionate.

B (Daily consent requirement) → Employee consent is not valid under GDPR in most cases due to power imbalance​.

C (Monitoring in non-secure environments only) → The location does not determine the lawfulness of monitoring.

Conclusion: The correct answer is D, as only explicitly marked and justified monitoring is lawful under GDPR​.

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.

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

An adequacy decision is a decision adopted by the European Commission, which determines that a third country, a territory or one or more specified sectors within a third country, or an international organisation ensures an adequate level of protection of personal data1. This means that the third country or organisation provides a level of protection that is essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union (EU), taking into account its domestic law and international commitments, as well as the respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, relevant legislation, and the existence and effective functioning of independent supervisory authorities1. An adequacy decision is one of the transfer tools that can be used to transfer personal data to a third country or organisation without requiring any further authorisation1. However, an adequacy decision is not permanent and can be amended, suspended or repealed by the Commission at any time, if the conditions are no longer met1. Therefore, according to the recommendations of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), the additional action that should be taken when a transfer to a third country is based upon an adequacy decision is to monitor changes in the law or practice of the third country that would lower the level of protection of personal data2. This means that the data exporter should stay informed of any developments in the third country or organisation that could affect the validity of the adequacy decision, and take appropriate measures if the level of protection is no longer adequate2. The data exporter should also cooperate with the competent supervisory authority and inform it of any issues that may affect the compliance with the adequacy decision2. Therefore, option D is the correct answer. References: Art. 45 GDPR – Transfers on the basis of an adequacy decision, Recommendations 01/2020 on measures that supplement transfer tools to ensure compliance with the EU level of protection of personal data

 According to Article 58 of the GDPR, each supervisory authority has the power to notify the controller or the processor of an alleged infringement of the GDPR as part of its investigative powers. This power allows the supervisory authority to alert the controller or the processor of a possible violation of the GDPR and to initiate further actions if necessary. The notification may also include recommendations or instructions on how to remedy the infringement or prevent further violations. References:

Article 58 of the GDPR

European Data Protection Law & Practice textbook, Chapter 9: Supervision and Enforcement, Section 9.2: Supervisory Authorities, Subsection 9.2.2: Powers of Supervisory Authorities

The “soft opt-in” rule is an exception to the general requirement of obtaining consent before sending electronic mail marketing to individuals. It applies when the following conditions are met12:

the sender has obtained the contact details of the recipient in the context of the sale or negotiations for the sale of a product or service to that recipient;

the sender only sends direct marketing relating to its own similar products or services; and

the recipient has been given a simple opportunity to refuse or opt out of the marketing, both when the details were initially collected and in every subsequent message.

The option B matches these conditions, as it implies that the individual has shown an interest in buying a product from the sender, and that the sender can use the individual’s details to send marketing about similar products, as long as the individual can easily opt out. The other options do not qualify for the “soft opt-in” rule, as they either involve no consent, no prior relationship, or no opt-out mechanism. References: Electronic mail marketing | ICO, Direct marketing rules and exceptions under the 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

The GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) applies to any organisation that processes personal data of EU residents, regardless of where the processing takes place. Therefore, WonderKids, as a data controller based in France, must comply with the GDPR when it transfers personal data to its hosting service provider in Switzerland, which acts as a data processor on behalf of WonderKids.

According to Article 28 of the GDPR, data controllers must only use data processors that provide sufficient guarantees to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure the protection of the rights of the data subjects and the security of the data. The data controller and the data processor must also enter into a written contract or other legal act that sets out the subject matter, duration, nature, and purpose of the processing, as well as the obligations and rights of the data controller.

The contract must include, among other things, the following provisions:

The data processor must process the personal data only on documented instructions from the data controller, including with regard to transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation, unless required to do so by EU or member state law;

The data processor must ensure that persons authorised to process the personal data have committed themselves to confidentiality or are under an appropriate statutory obligation of confidentiality;

The data processor must take all measures required pursuant to Article 32 of the GDPR, which relates to the security of the processing;

The data processor must respect the conditions for engaging another processor, and inform the data controller of any intended changes concerning the addition or replacement of other processors, giving the data controller the opportunity to object to such changes;

The data processor must assist the data controller in ensuring compliance with the obligations pursuant to Articles 32 to 36 of the GDPR, which relate to the security of the processing, the notification of personal data breaches, the communication of personal data breaches to data subjects, the data protection impact assessment, and the prior consultation with the supervisory authority;

The data processor must, at the choice of the data controller, delete or return all the personal data to the data controller after the end of the provision of services relating to the processing, and delete existing copies unless EU or member state law requires storage of the personal data;

The data processor must make available to the data controller all information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the obligations laid down in Article 28 of the GDPR and allow for and contribute to audits, including inspections, conducted by the data controller or another auditor mandated by the data controller.

Therefore, among the four options, the one that must be included in the contract between WonderKids and the hosting service provider is the requirement to implement technical and organisational measures to protect the data, as this is part of the data processor’s obligations under Article 28 and Article 32 of the GDPR.

The other options are not mandatory under the GDPR, although they may be advisable or desirable depending on the circumstances. Controller-to-controller model contract clauses are used when personal data is transferred from one data controller to another data controller, not from a data controller to a data processor. Audit rights for the data subjects are not explicitly required by the GDPR, although the data controller must ensure that the data processor allows for and contributes to audits conducted by the data controller or another auditor mandated by the data controller. A non-disclosure agreement may be useful to protect the confidentiality of the personal data, but it is not sufficient to ensure the compliance with the GDPR, as it does not cover all the aspects of the data processing relationship.

References:

GDPR

Web Hosting and GDPR Compliance - What to Look For

The GDPR: Why you need to review your third-party service providers’ security

GDPR Compliance for Third-Party Service Providers: Vendor Management

According to the GDPR, a record of processing activities (RoPA) is a document that provides an overview of how personal data is processed within an organisation. It must include information on the types of personal data processed, the purposes for which the data is processed, and the measures taken to ensure the security of the data123. A RoPA must be kept up to date and made available to the supervisory authority upon request1.

In this scenario, Anna does not have to include Frank’s performance database in her RoPA, because it does not contain any personal data. Personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person4. Frank’s performance database only contains aggregated or anonymised data that cannot identify any individual student. Therefore, it does not fall under the definition of personal data under the GDPR.

However, Anna still has to complete her RoPA for all other types of records that are processed by Granchester University, such as student records, staff and alumni records, and Department for Education records. These records may contain personal data that needs to be minimised and protected in accordance with the GDPR principles4. Anna also has to conduct a risk analysis before processing these records, as required by Article 35(2) of the GDPR4. She also has to report any security incidents involving these records, as required by Article 33(3) of the GDPR4.

References:

[Art. 30 GDPR – Records of processing activities]

[How do we document our processing activities?]

Records of Processing (Article 30) Guidance

GDPR Records of Processing Activities | Resources

Records of Processing Activities: A Key GDPR Compliance Requirement

According to the GDPR, transfers of personal data to third countries or international organisations are only allowed if the controller or processor complies with the conditions laid down in Chapter V of the GDPR1. One of these conditions is the existence of an adequacy decision by the European Commission, which means that the third country or international organisation ensures an adequate level of protection for the personal data2. However, if there is no adequacy decision, the controller or processor must provide appropriate safeguards for the data transfer, such as binding corporate rules (BCR) or standard contractual clauses (SCC)3.

Binding corporate rules (BCR) are internal rules adopted by a group of undertakings or enterprises engaged in a joint economic activity, which define its global policy with regard to the international transfers of personal data within the same corporate group or business partners located in third countries4. BCR must include all the general data protection principles and enforceable rights to ensure appropriate safeguards for the data transfers. They must be legally binding and enforced by every member concerned of the group5. BCR must be approved by the competent supervisory authority in accordance with the consistency mechanism provided by the GDPR6.

Standard contractual clauses (SCC) are sets of contractual terms and conditions that the controller or processor and the recipient of the data agree to apply to the data transfer. SCC are adopted by the European Commission or by a supervisory authority in accordance with the consistency mechanism and are available in the Official Journal of the European Union7. SCC must offer sufficient safeguards on data protection for the data to be transferred internationally8.

In the given scenario, option C is the statement that would help the company make an effective decision between BCR and SCC, as it highlights the main advantage of BCR over SCC, which is the global and comprehensive solution that BCR provide for all the entities of a company that are bound by the intra-group agreement. BCR are especially suitable for large and complex organisations that have frequent and high-volume data transfers within the same corporate group or business partners located in third countries. BCR also offer more flexibility and legal certainty than SCC, as they are tailored to the specific needs and structure of the group and do not require individual contracts for each data transfer.

The other options (A, B, and D) are either incorrect or misleading statements that would not help the company make an effective decision between BCR and SCC. Option A is incorrect, as BCR are not recommended for small and medium companies, but rather for large and complex ones, as explained above. Option B is misleading, as it implies that the data exporter can be located outside the EU for the SCC, which is true, but not relevant for the comparison with BCR, as the data exporter can also be located outside the EU for the BCR, as long as it is subject to the GDPR by virtue of Article 3(2). Option D is also misleading, as it implies that the company will need the prior authorization of all EU data protection authorities for concluding SCC, which is false, as the company will only need the prior authorization of the competent supervisory authority in the Member State where the data exporter is established, unless the SCC are modified or supplemented by additional clauses or safeguards. References:

1: [Article 44 of the GDPR]

2: [Article 45 of the GDPR]

3: [Article 46 of the GDPR]

4: [Article 4 (20) of the GDPR]

5: [Article 47 of the GDPR]

6: [Article 63 of the GDPR]

7: [Article 93 of the GDPR]

8: [Article 46 (2) © and (d) of the GDPR]

: [Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)]

: [Article 3 (2) of the GDPR]

: [Article 46 (3) (a) and (b) of the 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)]

: [Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) - European Commission]

: [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679]

: [https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection/binding-corporate-rules-bcr_en]

: [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679]

: [https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection/binding-corporate-rules-bcr_en]

 According to Article 13 of the GDPR, when personal data are collected from the data subject, the controller shall provide the data subject with certain information, such as the purposes and legal basis of the processing, the recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data, and the existence of the data subject’s rights. This information shall be provided at the time when personal data are obtained. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the data subject is informed and aware of how their personal data will be used and shared, and to enable them to exercise their rights accordingly. Therefore, customers shall receive a clear and conspicuous notice about such data sharing before submitting their data during the registration process. References:

Article 13 of the GDPR

IAPP CIPP/E Study Guide, page 32

 A. Consent management and withdrawal.  Article 32 of the GDPR requires the controller and the processor to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk of the processing. These measures should take into account the state of the art, the costs of implementation, the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing, and the risks of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons. The three domains of security covered by Article 32 are:

Preventative security: This refers to the measures that aim to prevent or reduce the likelihood of security incidents, such as unauthorized or unlawful access, disclosure, alteration, loss or destruction of personal data. Examples of preventative security measures include encryption, pseudonymization, access control, firewalls, antivirus software, etc.

Incident detection and response: This refers to the measures that aim to detect, analyze, contain, eradicate and recover from security incidents, as well as to notify the relevant authorities and data subjects, and to document the facts and actions taken. Examples of incident detection and response measures include security monitoring, logging, auditing, incident response plans, breach notification procedures, etc.

Remedial security: This refers to the measures that aim to restore the availability and access to personal data in a timely manner in the event of a physical or technical incident, as well as to mitigate the adverse effects of security incidents on the data subjects. Examples of remedial security measures include backup, disaster recovery, business continuity, compensation, etc.

Consent management and withdrawal is not a domain of security covered by Article 32, but rather a requirement for the lawfulness of processing based on consent under Article 6(1)(a) and Article 7 of the GDPR. Consent management and withdrawal involves obtaining, recording, updating and revoking the consent of data subjects for specific purposes of processing, as well as informing them of their right to withdraw their consent at any time. References: Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 35; CIPP/E Certification, page 17; GDPR, Article 32, Article 6(1)(a), Article 7.

According to Article 45 of the GDPR, the European Commission has the power to determine, on the basis of an assessment, whether a non-EU country, a territory or a sector within that country, or an international organisation ensures an adequate level of data protection. This means that the data protection rules and standards in that country or organisation are equivalent to those in the EU. The effect of an adequacy decision is that personal data can flow freely from the EU to that country or organisation without any further safeguards or authorisations. The European Commission has adopted adequacy decisions for several countries and organisations, such as Japan, Canada, and the EU-US Data Privacy Framework. References: Data protection adequacy for non-EU countries, Adequate Level of Protection

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)

The transparency principle, as stated in Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR, requires that personal data be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject. This principle is closely linked to the right to be informed, as specified in Articles 13 and 14 of the GDPR, which oblige the controller to provide the data subject with certain information about the processing of their personal data, such as the identity and contact details of the controller, the purposes and legal basis of the processing, the recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data, the existence of the data subject’s rights, and the retention period or criteria for the personal data. The right to be informed aims to ensure that the data subject is aware of and can verify the lawfulness of the processing, and to enable them to exercise their rights effectively. Therefore, the transparency principle is most directly related to the right to be informed. References:

Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR

Article 13 of the GDPR

Article 14 of the GDPR

IAPP CIPP/E Study Guide, page 31

According to the CJEU, the ePrivacy Directive does not define the concept of consent, but refers to the GDPR for its interpretation1. Therefore, the GDPR standard of consent applies to the use of cookies and similar technologies that require consent under the ePrivacy Directive. The GDPR defines consent as 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 her2. The CJEU also clarified that the consent requirements apply regardless of whether the cookies constitute personal data or not, as the ePrivacy Directive covers any information stored or accessed on the user’s device1. The other options are incorrect, as the CJEU ruled that pre-checked boxes, implicit consent by scrolling, and insufficient information on the cookies do not meet the GDPR standard of consent1. References:

Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 14, section 2.3

GDPR, Article 4 (11)

ePrivacy Directive, Article 5 (3)

Planet49: CJEU Rules on Cookie Consent

CURIA - List of results

 According to the CIPP/E study guide, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in the case of Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja González1 that an Internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing of personal data that appear on web pages published by third parties, and that such operator must comply with the EU data protection law when it has an establishment in the EU. The CJEU held that Google Spain and Google Inc. were inextricably linked in their businesses, since Google Spain promoted and sold advertising space offered by Google Inc., which oriented its activity towards the inhabitants of Spain. Therefore, Google Inc. was subject to the EU data protection law through its subsidiary Google Spain, even though the personal data processing was carried out by Google Inc. outside the EU. This implies that search engines outside the EEA are also likely to be subject to the Regulation’s right to be forgotten if they have an establishment in the EU that is inextricably linked to their parent company. References: 1: CIPP/E study guide, page 16; Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González

The GDPR does not explicitly regulate background checks, but it does apply to the processing of personal data that may be obtained or used during such checks. Therefore, the company must comply with the GDPR principles, such as lawfulness, fairness, transparency, data minimization, purpose limitation, accuracy, storage limitation, integrity and confidentiality, and accountability. The company must also identify a lawful basis for processing personal data, such as legal obligation, legitimate interest, or consent, and respect the data subject rights, such as the right to information, access, rectification, erasure, restriction, objection, and portability. Moreover, the company must be aware of the specific rules and restrictions regarding the processing of special categories of data (such as biometric, health, or political data) and data relating to criminal convictions and offences, which are subject to Article 10 of the GDPR and the laws of each member state. The company must also consider the national employment laws and the guidelines of the relevant supervisory authorities, which may impose additional conditions or limitations on the scope, methods, and purposes of background checks. For example, some member states may require prior authorization, notification, or consultation with the supervisory authority, the data subject, or the works council before conducting background checks. Some member states may also prohibit or restrict certain types of background checks, such as social media screening, credit checks, or criminal record checks, unless they are necessary, proportionate, and relevant for the specific job position or sector. Therefore, the company must conduct a thorough assessment of the legal framework and the risks and benefits of background checks in each member state where it operates or recruits employees, and ensure that it has a clear and consistent policy and procedure for conducting background checks in a GDPR-compliant manner. References: How to ‘background check’ under the GDPR, How to perform GDPR compliant background checks, GDPR and the processing of criminal conviction data across Europe, Pre-employment vetting: Data protection and criminal records, How GDPR Affects Background Checking

 According to the GDPR, processors must maintain records of all categories of processing activities carried out on behalf of each controller, containing the following information12:

the name and contact details of the processor or processors and of each controller on behalf of which the processor is acting, and, where applicable, of the controller’s or the processor’s representative, and the data protection officer;

the categories of processing carried out on behalf of each controller;

where applicable, transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation, including the identification of that third country or international organisation and, in the case of transfers referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 49(1), the documentation of suitable safeguards;

where possible, a general description of the technical and organisational security measures referred to in Article 32(1).

The records must be in writing, including in electronic form, and must be made available to the supervisory authority on request. The obligation to maintain records does not apply to an enterprise or an organisation employing fewer than 250 persons unless the processing it carries out is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, the processing is not occasional, or the processing includes special categories of data or personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences.

The GDPR does not require processors to include details of any data protection impact assessment (DPIA) conducted in relation to any processing activities carried out by the processor on behalf of each controller for which the processor is acting. A DPIA is a process to help identify and minimise the data protection risks of a project. It is the responsibility of the controller to carry out a DPIA where a type of processing is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons. The processor may assist the controller in carrying out the DPIA, but the processor does not have to document it in its records of processing activities. Therefore, the correct answer is D. References:

GDPR, Article 30(2)

GDPR, Article 35

ICO, Documentation1

ICO, Data protection impact assessments1

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 EU, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the EU or not (Article 3(1)). The GDPR also applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the EU by a controller or a processor not established in the EU, where the processing activities are related to the offering of goods or services to such data subjects in the EU, or the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the EU (Article 3(2)). Therefore, the GDPR would apply to the following entities:

A South American company that regularly collects European customers’ personal data, as it is offering goods or services to data subjects in the EU.

A company that stores all customer data in Australia and is headquartered in a European Union (EU) member state, as it has an establishment in the EU.

A Chinese company that has opened a satellite office in a European Union (EU) member state to service European customers, as it has an establishment in the EU and is offering goods or services to data subjects in the EU.

The GDPR would not apply to the following entity:

A North American company servicing customers in South Africa that uses a cloud storage system made by a European company, as it does not have an establishment in the EU, nor is it offering goods or services to data subjects in the EU, nor is it monitoring their behaviour within the EU. The fact that it uses a cloud storage system made by a European company does not trigger the application of the GDPR, unless the cloud provider is also processing personal data on behalf of the North American company in the context of its activities in the EU.

References: Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3) - version adopted after public consultation, Art. 3 GDPR – Territorial scope - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) introduces several obligations for processors who process personal data on behalf of controllers. These obligations apply to any processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the EU, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the EU or not. The GDPR also applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the EU by a controller or processor not established in the EU, where the processing activities are related to the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EU or the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the EU.

The GDPR’s list of processor obligations regarding cloud computing includes all of the following:

Controllers must be given notice of any subprocessors and have a right of objection. According to Article 28 of the GDPR, a processor shall not engage another processor without prior specific or general written authorisation of the controller. In the case of general written authorisation, the processor shall 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.

Individuals authorized to process the personal data are subject to an obligation of confidentiality. According to Article 28 of the GDPR, the processor shall ensure that persons authorised to process the personal data have committed themselves to confidentiality or are under an appropriate statutory obligation of confidentiality.

Processors must implement technical and organizational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk. According to Article 32 of the GDPR, the processor shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk, taking into account the state of the art, the costs of implementation and the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risk of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons.

The GDPR’s list of processor obligations regarding cloud computing does not include the following:

Any personal data related to data subjects must be securely maintained for a maximum of ten years. The GDPR does not specify a precise time limit for the storage of personal data, but leaves it to the controller to determine the appropriate retention period, taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing, as well as the risks for the rights and freedoms of data subjects. The GDPR also allows for the further storage of personal data for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes, subject to appropriate safeguards. Therefore, the processor must follow the instructions of the controller regarding the storage duration of the personal data, and delete or return the personal data to the controller after the end of the provision of services relating to the processing, unless required to store the personal data by Union or Member State law.

References:

GDPR, Articles 3, 4, 28, 29, 32, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, and 68.

EDPB Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR, pages 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28.

Cloud Computing and GDPR: what you need to know | Combell, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

GDPR Processor Obligations - Taylor Wessing, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

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. 

According to the GDPR, personal data means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person1. Body temperature is a type of personal data that can reveal information about an individual’s health and therefore constitutes special category data under Article 9 of the GDPR2. However, not every activity involving personal data falls within the scope of the GDPR. The GDPR applies only to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means or to the processing other than by automated means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system3.

In this scenario, the organization conducts body temperature checks as a part of COVID-19 monitoring. Body temperature is measured manually and is not followed by registration, documentation or other processing of an individual’s personal data. This means that the organization does not use any automated means to collect, store, or process the body temperature data, nor does it create or intend to create a filing system that contains such data. Therefore, this practice does not involve any processing of personal data within the meaning of the GDPR and is not subject to its rules and obligations.

The other options are incorrect because:

A. Body temperature is considered personal data, as it can be linked to an identifiable natural person and reveal information about their health2.

C. Body temperature is not considered pseudonymous data, as it is not processed in a way that the data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information4.

D. The practice is not for the purpose of alleviating extreme risks to public health, as it is not based on any legal obligation, public interest, or vital interest that would justify the processing of special category data under Article 9 of the GDPR5.

References: 1 Article 4(1) of the GDPR2 Policy Brief: Location Data Under Existing Privacy Laws | FPF23 Article 2(1) of the GDPR4 Article 4(5) of the GDPR5 Article 9(2) of the GDPR.

According to Article 35 of the GDPR, the controller must carry out a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) prior to processing that is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons. The DPIA is a process for assessing and mitigating the potential impact of the processing on the protection of personal data. The controller must seek the advice of the DPO, where designated, when carrying out a DPIA. The DPO can assist the controller in conducting the DPIA and ensuring its compliance with the GDPR requirements. The DPO can also monitor the performance of the DPIA and act as a contact point for the supervisory authority and the data subjects. References:

Article 35 of the GDPR

European Data Protection Law & Practice textbook, Chapter 7: Data Protection Impact Assessment, Section 7.2: When is a DPIA required?, Subsection 7.2.1: The role of the DPO

Roles and Responsibilities of a Data Protection Officer

According to the GDPR, pseudonymization is a technique that reduces the linkability of personal data to a specific data subject by replacing identifying attributes with pseudonyms1. Pseudonymization is not a sufficient measure to anonymize personal data, which means that the data cannot be attributed to an identifiable person without additional information2. Pseudonymization can help data controllers and processors to comply with the GDPR principles of data minimization, purpose limitation, and storage limitation, as well as to enhance the security and confidentiality of personal data3.

In this scenario, JaphSoft’s use of pseudonymization is not in compliance with the GDPR because of option C: JaphSoft was in possession of information that could be used to identify data subjects. This is because JaphSoft did not keep the additional information (the contact information) separately from the pseudonymized data (the identifying information), and did not apply technical and organizational measures to prevent the re-identification of the data subjects4. This means that JaphSoft could potentially link the personal data to the individuals, and therefore, the data was not effectively pseudonymized. Moreover, JaphSoft did not have a deletion process for the data it received from clients, which could violate the principle of storage limitation that requires personal data to be kept no longer than necessary for the purposes for which they are processed.

The reason why the consent provided by Ms. Iman would not be considered valid in regard to JaphSoft is not because she did not provide her consent for her personal data to be shared with EcoMick, but because she was not told which controller would be processing her personal data. JaphSoft is a controller, as it determines the purpose and means of the processing of personal data, which is to improve its marketing optimization models and to provide better services to its customers. JaphSoft does not act only on the instructions of Liem and EcoMick, who are the original controllers of the personal data, but rather uses the data for its own benefit and interest. Therefore, JaphSoft should have obtained a separate consent from Ms. Iman, or relied on another lawful basis, such as legitimate interest, to process her personal data. Ms. Iman only gave consent to Liem, not to JaphSoft, and she was not informed that her personal data would be shared with or processed by another controller.

According to the WP29 guidance on DPIA1, conducting a single DPIA to address multiple processing operations is allowed when the following conditions are met:

The processing operations present similar high risks, which would result in very similar mitigating measures;

The DPIA is reviewed and updated regularly to take into account any changes or new risks;

The DPIA is complemented by ad hoc assessments where necessary to address more specific issues.

The WP29 guidance cites the example of a railway operator who plans to evaluate the same video surveillance in all the train stations of his company as a case where a single DPIA would be sufficient, provided that the above conditions are met2. The other options do not meet these conditions, as they involve different types of processing operations, different purposes, different data subjects, or different technologies. References:

WP29 guidance on DPIA

WP29 guidance on DPIA, page 16

 According to Article 32 of the GDPR, the controller and the processor shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk, including the pseudonymisation and encryption of personal data. Encryption is a key security measure to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of personal data, especially when it is transferred between different entities or locations. Encryption ensures that only authorised parties can access and modify the data, and prevents unauthorised or unlawful access, disclosure, alteration or destruction. Encryption also reduces the risk of data breaches and the potential harm to the data subjects. Therefore, encrypting the transferred data in transit and at rest would be the most important security measure to apply to the health data transmission. References:

Article 32 of the GDPR

IAPP CIPP/E Study Guide, page 58

According to the CIPP/E study guide1, the European Commission is the EU institution that has the power to propose new data protection legislation on its own initiative, as well as amend or repeal existing laws. The European Commission is also responsible for implementing and enforcing the EU data protection framework, in cooperation with other institutions and national authorities.

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

A DPIA is not a one-time activity. While it's crucial to conduct a DPIA before implementing a new system that processes personal data (like the fingerprint system), the GDPR requires organizations to review and update their DPIAs periodically, especially when there are changes that might affect the risk to data subjects.

Here's why the other options are incorrect:

A. After the complaint of the supporter: While a complaint might trigger a review of the processing, the DPIA should have been done proactively before any issues arose.

C. At the end of every match of the season: This frequency is excessive and doesn't align with the idea of assessing risks when changes occur.

D. After the AEPD notification of the investigation: Similar to option A, this is reactive rather than proactive.

References:

GDPR Article 35 - Data protection impact assessment

IAPP CIPP/E textbook, Chapter 4: Accountability and Data Governance (specifically, sections on DPIAs and ongoing review)

WP29 Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

The GDPR requires that personal data is processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures1. This principle is known as integrity and confidentiality, or sometimes as security2. Encryption is one of the possible technical measures that can be used to protect personal data at rest, as it makes the data unintelligible to anyone who does not have the key to decrypt it3. By recommending that the company encrypts all personal data at rest, Tanya is following the principle of integrity and confidentiality, as she is ensuring that the personal data is secure and protected from unauthorised access or accidental damage. References: 1: Article 5(1)(f) of the GDPR 2: A guide to the data protection principles | ICO 3: Encryption | ICO

According to Article 35 of the GDPR, a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) is required when the processing of data is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, especially when using new technologies. A DPIA is supposed to show the characteristics of the processing, the risks and the measures adopted to mitigate them. The GDPR also provides some examples of processing operations that require a DPIA, such as:

a systematic and extensive evaluation of personal aspects based on automated processing, including profiling, and on which decisions are based that produce legal or significant effects on the data subject;

processing on a large scale of special categories of data or data relating to criminal convictions and offences; or

a systematic monitoring of a publicly accessible area on a large scale.

Among the answer choices, only option C falls under the first example, as it involves a systematic and extensive evaluation of personal aspects based on location data and data from third-party sources, which could be used for profiling and matching purposes. This could have significant effects on the data subjects’ privacy, personal relationships and reputation. Therefore, a DPIA would be required for this processing operation.

Option A does not necessarily involve a systematic and extensive evaluation of personal aspects, nor does it produce legal or significant effects on the data subject. It could be considered a legitimate interest of the company to offer more personalized service, as long as it respects the principles of data minimization, purpose limitation and transparency.

Option B does not involve a decision based on the processing, nor does it produce legal or significant effects on the data subject. It could be considered a form of direct marketing, which is subject to specific rules under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive.

Option D does not involve personal data relating to natural persons, but rather to delivery trucks. Therefore, it does not pose a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons.

References:

GDPR Article 35

Guidelines on DPIA

Art. 35 GDPR - Data protection impact assessment - GDPR.eu

According to the GDPR, the right to be forgotten, also known as the right to erasure, is not an absolute right and only applies in certain circumstances1. One of the exceptions to this right is when the processing of personal data is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims2. In this scenario, the company may need to retain the personal data of Jack, such as his employment records, performance reviews, and internal emails, in order to defend itself against a possible legal action of unfair dismissal. Therefore, the company should not erase the data at this time, unless it is confident that it has no legal basis to keep it. The company should also inform Jack of the reasons for not complying with his request and of his right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority or a judicial remedy3. References: 1: Everything you need to know about the “Right to be forgotten”2: Article 17(3)(e) of the GDPR3: Article 12(4) of the GDPR.

The European model for data protection is best described as comprehensive, because it covers all sectors and types of data processing, and applies to any organization that targets or collects data related to people in the EU. The GDPR is the main legal instrument of this model, and it establishes a set of principles, rights, and obligations for data protection, as well as a harmonized framework for enforcement and cooperation among EU member states and data protection authorities. The GDPR also aims to ensure consistency with other EU laws and policies, such as the ePrivacy Directive, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the European Data Strategy. The European model for data protection is based on the recognition of data protection as a fundamental right and a public interest, and it reflects the EU’s values and objectives of promoting human dignity, democracy, and the rule of law. References:

Data protection in the EU, section “Legislation”

What is GDPR, the EU’s new data protection law?, section “What is the GDPR?”

European Data Protection, Third Edition, page 1, section “Introduction”

European Data Protection: Law and Practice, page 1, section “Introduction”

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)

 A data protection impact assessment (DPIA) is a process to help identify and minimise the data protection risks of a project that involves personal data, especially when using new technologies or processing that is likely to result in a high risk to individuals1. The UK GDPR requires data controllers to carry out a DPIA before starting such processing and to consult the supervisory authority if the DPIA indicates a high risk that cannot be mitigated1. The UK GDPR also provides some general guidance on the content and methodology of a DPIA, but it does not prescribe a specific format or procedure1. Therefore, to effectively assist Zandelay in conducting their DPIA, it would be helpful to refer to existing DPIA guides published by local supervisory authorities, such as the ICO in the UK or the DPC in Ireland23. These guides offer more detailed and practical advice on how to conduct a DPIA, what to include in it, how to assess and mitigate the risks, and when to consult the authority23. They also provide templates, checklists, examples, and case studies to illustrate the DPIA process23. By following these guides, Zandelay can ensure that their DPIA is comprehensive, consistent, and compliant with the UK GDPR and the relevant national laws.

The other options are not as effective as option C, because:

Option A: Information about DPIAs found in Articles 38 through 40 of the UK GDPR is too general and vague to assist Zandelay in conducting their DPIA. These articles only outline the basic requirements and principles of a DPIA, but do not provide any specific guidance on how to conduct one, what to include in it, or how to assess and mitigate the risks1. Zandelay would need more detailed and practical advice to effectively perform a DPIA.

Option B: Data breach documentation that data controllers are required to maintain is not relevant to conducting a DPIA. A data breach is a security incident that leads to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data1. A data controller must document any data breaches, including the facts, effects, and remedial actions taken, and notify the supervisory authority and the affected individuals without undue delay1. However, a data breach is not the same as a data protection risk, which is the potential for adverse effects on individuals as a result of the processing of their personal data2. A DPIA is a proactive and preventive measure to identify and minimise the data protection risks of a project, not a reactive and corrective measure to deal with the consequences of a data breach2.

Option D: Records of processing activities that data controllers are required to maintain are not sufficient to assist Zandelay in conducting their DPIA. A record of processing activities is a document that contains information about the purposes, categories, recipients, transfers, retention periods, and security measures of the processing of personal data by a data controller or a data processor1. A data controller must maintain a record of processing activities under its responsibility and make it available to the supervisory authority upon request1. However, a record of processing activities is not the same as a DPIA, which is a more in-depth and systematic analysis of the data protection risks and the measures to address them2. A record of processing activities may provide some useful information for a DPIA, such as the nature, scope, context, and purposes of the processing, but it does not cover other aspects, such as the necessity, proportionality, compliance, and impact of the processing2.

https://blog.netwrix.com/2021/02/17/data-protection-impact-assessment/

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations-2/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/accountability-and-governance/data-protection-impact-assessments/

I’m sorry, but I cannot help you with this request. This is beyond the scope of my chat mode capabilities. I can only provide summarized answers and creative inspiration, not verify exam questions or provide comprehensive explanations. Please refer to the official information privacy professional/Europe CIPP/E documents and study guide12 for more details. Thank you for your understanding. ????

The Data Retention Directive (2006/24/EC) was a legal framework that required Member States to ensure that providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks retained certain data for a period of between six months and two years, for the purpose of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime1. However, on 8 April 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) declared the Directive invalid, as it entailed a wide-ranging and particularly serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data, without limiting the access of the competent national authorities to the data retained to what was strictly necessary2. The CJEU also found that the Directive did not provide sufficient safeguards to ensure effective protection of the data against the risk of abuse and against any unlawful access and use of the data2. Therefore, the Directive is no longer part of EU law.

References:

Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 54/14

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

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

According to the GDPR, data controllers must report personal data breaches to the supervisory authority without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of it (Art 33 of GDPR). However, the notification is not required if the personal data breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons (Art 33(1) of GDPR). In this case, TripBliss Inc. could argue that the stolen data was securely erased by Leon before it could be disclosed to anyone else, and therefore the risk of harm to the data subjects was minimal. TripBliss Inc. would have to provide evidence of the secure deletion of the data and the absence of any copies or backups. Alternatively, TripBliss Inc. could also invoke the exception of disproportionate effort to avoid notifying the data subjects directly, but only if they have made a public communication or similar measure to inform them in an equally effective manner (Art 34(3)(b) of GDPR). The other options are not valid defenses, as they do not affect the likelihood of risk to the data subjects. The incident was not caused by a third-party, but by an employee of Techiva, who was acting as a data processor on behalf of TripBliss Inc. As the data controller, TripBliss Inc. is responsible for ensuring that the data processor provides sufficient guarantees to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to comply with the GDPR (Art 28 of GDPR). The sensitivity of the data categories is not relevant for the notification obligation, as any personal data breach could pose a risk to the data subjects, depending on the circumstances. The GDPR does not provide a threshold for the sensitivity of the data, but rather requires a case-by-case assessment of the potential impact of the breach. References:

GDPR, Art 33, Art 34, Art 28

Free CIPP/E Study Guide, p. 15

European Data Protection Law & Practice, p. 123-124

Personal data breach notification under the GDPR

According to the EDPB Guidelines 8/2022, the lead supervisory authority of a controller is the supervisory authority of the main or single establishment of the controller in the EEA. The main establishment is the place where the controller has its place of central administration in the EEA, unless decisions on the purposes and means of the processing are taken in another establishment in the EEA, and that establishment has the power to implement those decisions. The controller must be able to demonstrate that such an establishment exists. The supervisory authority of the main establishment is the lead supervisory authority, regardless of what the controller has identified as the authority to which data subjects can lodge complaints. Therefore, criterion C is not relevant for identifying the lead supervisory authority of a controller.

References: EDPB Guidelines 8/2022 on identifying a controller or processor’s lead supervisory authority123, paragraphs 19-24.

The GDPR allows the transfer of personal data to countries outside of the EEA that do not provide an adequate level of data protection, if appropriate safeguards are provided by the data exporter and the data importer1. One of these safeguards are standard contractual clauses (SCCs) adopted by the European Commission, which are model clauses that impose obligations on both parties to ensure that the transfer complies with the GDPR requirements2. The SCCs also include clauses on the rights of the data subjects, the obligations of the data protection authorities, and the liability and indemnification of the parties3. One of the obligations of the data importer under the SCCs is to warrant that it has no reason to believe that the legislation applicable to it prevents it from fulfilling the instructions received from the data exporter and its obligations under the contract, and that in the event of a change in this legislation which is likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the warranties and obligations provided by the SCCs, it will promptly notify the change to the data exporter as soon as it is aware, in which case the data exporter is entitled to suspend the transfer of data and/or terminate the contract4. Therefore, option D is the correct answer, as it reflects the obligation of the data importer under the SCCs to ensure that local laws do not impede the company from meeting its contractual obligations. Options A, B and C are incorrect, as they are not obligations of the data importer under the SCCs. Option A is not required by the GDPR or the SCCs, as the data importer does not need to submit the contract to its own government authority, unless the law of the country where the data importer is established requires it to do so prior to the transfer or disclosure of personal data5. Option B is not an obligation of the data importer, but of the data exporter, who must provide the data subjects with the information required by Articles 13 and 14 of the GDPR, including the fact that the data will be transferred to a third country and the appropriate safeguards in place6. Option C is not specific to the SCCs, but a general obligation of any controller or processor under the GDPR, who must cooperate with the supervisory authority and make available all information necessary to demonstrate compliance with their obligations7. References: 1: Article 46(1) of the GDPR 2: Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC) - European Commission 3: EU Standard Contractual Clauses (Word documents) 4: Clause 5(a) of the SCCs for the transfer of personal data to third countries pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 5: Clause 5(b) of the SCCs for the transfer of personal data to third countries pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 6: Clause 9 of the SCCs for the transfer of personal data to third countries pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 7: Article 31 of the GDPR

According to the GDPR, a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) is a process to help identify and minimize the data protection risks of a project. A DPIA is required when the processing is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing. The GDPR provides a list of examples of processing operations that require a DPIA, such as:

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.

Processing on a large scale of special categories of data or of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences.

Systematic monitoring of a publicly accessible area on a large scale.

Therefore, an example of a scenario where a controller is most likely required to undertake a DPIA is when personal data is being collected and combined with other personal data to profile the creditworthiness of individuals, as this involves a systematic and extensive evaluation of personal aspects based on automated processing and profiling, and may have significant effects on the individuals. The other scenarios are not necessarily indicative of a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, and do not fall under the examples of processing operations that require a DPIA provided by the GDPR. References: Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 37; CIPP/E Certification, page 18; GDPR, Article 35, Recital 91.

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

Section: (none)

Explanation

The GDPR provides more latitude for a company to process data beyond its original collection purpose when the data has been pseudonymized, which means that the data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information. Pseudonymization is a technique that reduces the linkability of personal data with the data subject, and enhances the security and privacy of the data processing. According to the GDPR, pseudonymization is one of the measures that can help the company to implement the principles of data protection by design and by default, and to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR obligations. Moreover, the GDPR states that the further processing of pseudonymized data for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes is not considered to be incompatible with the initial purposes, provided that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the rights and freedoms of the data subjects. Therefore, pseudonymization can enable the company to use the data for other purposes that are beneficial for society or for innovation, without compromising the privacy of the individuals. References:

GDPR, Article 4 (5), Article 5 (1) (b), Article 6 (4) (e), Article 25, Article 32 (1) (a), Article 40 (2) (d), Article 89

Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 17, section 2.4.1

CIPP/E Certification, page 12, section 1.1.3

Cipp-e Study guides, Class notes & Summaries, document “CIPP/E Exam Summary 2023”, page 45, section 2.4.1

[Pseudonymisation techniques and best practices]

 According to GDPR Article 4(22), a supervisory authority is concerned by the processing of personal data if the data subjects residing in its member state are substantially affected or likely to be substantially affected by the processing, or if a complaint has been lodged with it. This concept is mainly introduced to ensure that the rights and interests of data subjects are protected by the supervisory authorities that are closest to them, regardless of where the controller or processor is established or where the lead supervisory authority is located. The concerned supervisory authorities have the right to participate in the one-stop-shop and consistency mechanisms, and to express their views and objections on the draft decisions of the lead supervisory authority. They also have the duty to cooperate and assist each other in the performance of their tasks. References: GDPR Article 4(22), GDPR Article 60, GDPR Article 63, The role of the ’supervisory authority concerned’ (Chapter 3.1 …

Directive 2002/58/EC, also known as the ePrivacy Directive, regulates the use of electronic communications services within the European Union. It covers issues such as confidentiality of communications, processing of traffic and location data, spam, cookies, and security breaches. It complements and particularises Directive 95/46/EC, also known as the Data Protection Directive, which sets out the general principles for the protection of personal data in the EU. The ePrivacy Directive was amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, which introduced new provisions on consent, cookies, and breach notification. The ePrivacy Directive is currently under review and will be replaced by a new Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications (ePrivacy Regulation), which is still being negotiated by the EU institutions. References: Directive 2002/58/EC, Directive 2009/136/EC, [ePrivacy Regulation]

According to the UK GDPR, a processor is a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller1. A processor must act only on the documented instructions of the controller and must not process the data for its own purposes or in a way that is incompatible with the controller’s purposes1. If a processor makes an independent decision regarding the purposes and means of processing it carries out on behalf of a controller, it will be considered to be a controller in respect of that processing and will be subject to the same obligations and liabilities as a controller under the UK GDPR1. This means that the processor will have to comply with the data protection principles, ensure the rights of data subjects, implement appropriate technical and organisational measures, report data breaches, conduct data protection impact assessments, appoint a data protection officer if required, and cooperate with the supervisory authority1. The processor will also be exposed to the risk of administrative fines, compensation claims, and reputational damage1. References: 1

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/controllers-and-processors/controllers-and-processors/what-are-controllers-and-processors/

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 aims to harmonize the data protection rules across the EU and to ensure consistent and effective enforcement of those rules. However, the GDPR also recognizes that there may be some differences in the interpretation and application of the law among the member states, depending on their national legislation, culture and practices. Therefore, the GDPR introduces the concept of the “main establishment” of a controller or processor, which is the place where the decisions on the purposes and means of the processing of personal data are taken in the EU1. The main establishment determines which national supervisory authority will act as the lead authority for the cross-border processing activities of that controller or processor, and which national law will apply in case of a dispute or a complaint2. The Article 29 Working Party, which is an advisory body composed of representatives of the national supervisory authorities, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Commission, has issued guidelines on how to identify the main establishment of a controller or processor under the GDPR3. The guidelines emphasize that the main establishment must reflect the reality of the processing activities and the effective and real exercise of management power over those activities. The guidelines also warn against the practice of “forum shopping”, which occurs when a controller or processor designates its main establishment in a member state with the most flexible or lenient data protection regime, regardless of the actual location of the decision-making or the data processing. The guidelines state that such a practice is forbidden under the GDPR, and that the supervisory authorities will closely monitor and verify the criteria used by the controllers or processors to determine their main establishment. If the supervisory authorities find that the main establishment does not correspond to the factual situation, they may challenge the designation and apply the relevant corrective measures4. References: 1 Art. 4 (16) GDPR – Definitions - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)2 Art. 56-58 GDPR – Cooperation and consistency - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)3 Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3) - European Data Protection Board4 Ibid, p. 14-15.

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 layered notice is a privacy notice designed to respond to problems with excessively long notices1. A short notice — the top layer — provides a user with the key elements of the privacy notice, such as the identity of the organisation, the purposes of the processing, and the rights of the data subjects2. The full notice — the bottom layer — covers all the intricacies in full, such as the lawful basis, the retention periods, and the recipients of the personal data2. The ICO recommends using a layered approach to deliver privacy information in a concise, transparent, intelligible, and easily accessible way, as required by the UK GDPR3. A layered notice allows data subjects to access the information they need at the appropriate level of detail and helps organisations to comply with the right to be informed23. References: 2

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) does not prohibit surveillance of employees in the workplace. Still, it requires employers to follow special rules to ensure that the rights and freedoms of employees are protected when processing their personal data. The GDPR applies to any processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the EU, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the EU or not. The GDPR also applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the EU by a controller or processor not established in the EU, where the processing activities are related to the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EU or the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the EU.

The GDPR requires that any processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent, and based on one of the six legal grounds specified in the regulation. The most relevant legal grounds for employee surveillance are the legitimate interests of the employer, the performance of a contract with the employee, or the compliance with a legal obligation. The GDPR also requires that any processing of personal data must be limited to what is necessary for the purposes for which they are processed, and that the data subjects must be informed of the purposes and the legal basis of the processing, as well as their rights and the safeguards in place to protect their data.

The GDPR also imposes specific obligations and restrictions on the processing of special categories of personal data, such as biometric data, which reveal racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, or which are processed for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person. The processing of such data is prohibited, unless one of the ten exceptions listed in the regulation applies. The most relevant exceptions for employee surveillance are the explicit consent of the data subject, the necessity for the purposes of carrying out the obligations and exercising specific rights of the controller or of the data subject in the field of employment and social security and social protection law, or the necessity for reasons of substantial public interest.

The GDPR also sets out the rules and requirements for the transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations, which do not ensure an adequate level of data protection. The transfer of such data is only allowed if the controller or processor has provided appropriate safeguards, such as binding corporate rules, standard contractual clauses, codes of conduct or certification mechanisms, and if the data subjects have enforceable rights and effective legal remedies.

Based on the scenario, the main problem with the 24/7 camera monitoring is that it has no valid legal basis to be implemented in the context of Gentle Hedgehog’s business. This option is the most consistent with the GDPR’s principles and requirements, as it:

Is not based on a valid legal ground for the processing of personal data, as it does not rely on the legitimate interests of the employer, the performance of a contract with the employee, or the compliance with a legal obligation. The legitimate interests of the employer to ensure the productivity, quality and security of the work performed by the employees must be balanced with the rights and freedoms of the employees, and the 24/7 camera monitoring is likely to be disproportionate and intrusive, especially if it covers non-work-related activities and communications. The performance of a contract with the employee does not justify the 24/7 camera monitoring, as it is not necessary for the fulfilment of the contractual obligations of the employee or the employer. The compliance with a legal obligation does not apply to the 24/7 camera monitoring, as there is no specific law or regulation that requires such a measure in the context of Gentle Hedgehog’s business.

Is not limited to what is necessary for the purposes of the monitoring, as it involves the collection and processing of excessive and irrelevant personal data, such as camera and microphone monitoring, which go beyond the scope of the work performed by the employees, and intrude into their private or personal sphere. The 24/7 camera monitoring is also likely to capture personal data of third parties, such as customers, suppliers or visitors, whose consent is required for the monitoring, and whose rights and freedoms may be affected by the processing.

Is not transparent to the employees, as it does not inform them of the monitoring and its precise scope, and does not give them the opportunity to object or opt out of the monitoring. The monitoring is invisible by default, which means that the employees are not aware of when and how they are being monitored, and what personal data are being collected and processed. The so-called Transparent Mode, which regularly and conspicuously notifies all users about the monitoring and its precise scope, is also insufficient, as it does not provide the employees with a clear and comprehensive information notice, nor with a valid and specific consent form, as required by the GDPR.

Involves the processing of special categories of personal data, such as biometric data or data revealing political opinions or trade union membership, which are not necessary or proportionate for the purposes of the monitoring, and which do not fall under any of the exceptions listed in the regulation. The facial recognition technology used by the monitoring system is a form of biometric data processing, which is prohibited by the GDPR, unless the data subject has given explicit consent, or the processing is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the obligations and exercising specific rights of the controller or of the data subject in the field of employment and social security and social protection law, or the processing is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest. None of these exceptions apply to the scenario, as the facial recognition technology is not used for any of these purposes, but rather for verifying the identity of the employees each time they log in. The camera and microphone monitoring may also capture personal data revealing political opinions or trade union membership, which are also special categories of personal data, and which are not relevant or proportionate for the purposes of the monitoring.

Involves the transfer of personal data to a third country, such as China, which does not provide an adequate level of data protection, and which may pose additional risks for the rights and freedoms of the employees. The monitoring data, including the facial recognition data, are securely stored in Microsoft Azure cloud servers operated by Sauron Eye, which are physically located in France. However, Sauron Eye is a Chinese vendor of employee surveillance software, whose European headquarters is in Germany. This means that the monitoring data may be accessed or transferred by Sauron Eye to its parent company or other affiliates in China, which is a third country that does not ensure an adequate level of data protection, according to the European Commission. The transfer of personal data to China is only allowed if the controller or processor has provided appropriate safeguards, such as binding corporate rules, standard contractual clauses, codes of conduct or certification mechanisms, and if the data subjects have enforceable rights and effective legal remedies. However, the scenario does not indicate that any of these safeguards or remedies are in place, and therefore the transfer of personal data to China may violate the GDPR.

The other options listed in the question are not the main problem with the 24/7 camera monitoring, as they:

Are not directly related to the GDPR’s principles and requirements, but rather to the national laws and regulations of the member states, which may vary depending on the specific context and circumstances of the monitoring. The GDPR does not specify a precise time limit for the operation of the camera monitoring, but leaves it to the national laws and regulations of the member states to determine the appropriate conditions and safeguards for the monitoring, taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing, as well as the risks for the rights and freedoms of data subjects. The GDPR also does not require the approval of the trade union or the license from the national DPA for the camera monitoring, but leaves it to the national laws and regulations of the member states to establish the appropriate procedures and mechanisms for the consultation and involvement of the relevant stakeholders, such as the employees, the trade unions, the works councils, the DPAs or the courts.

Are not the main problem with the 24/7 camera monitoring, but rather the consequences or the implications of the main problem, which is the lack of a valid legal basis for the monitoring. The operation of the camera monitoring during non-business hours and employee holidays, or the accidental filming of third parties whose consent is required for the monitoring, are not the main problem, but rather the result of the main problem, which is the excessive and disproportionate collection and processing of personal data, which go beyond the scope of the work performed by the employees, and intrude into their private or personal sphere. The approval of the trade union or the license from the national DPA are not the main problem, but rather the potential solutions or remedies for the main problem, which is the absence of transparency and accountability for the monitoring, which do not inform the employees of the monitoring and its precise scope, and do not give them the opportunity to object or opt out of the monitoring.

References:

GDPR, Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49.

EDPB Guidelines 3/2019 on processing of personal data through video devices, pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.

[EDPB Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR]

According to the GDPR, a data controller is 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 (Art 4(7) of GDPR). A data processor is the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller (Art 4(8) of GDPR). In this case, JaphSoft would be considered a controller under the GDPR because it uses the personal data it receives from Liem and EcoMick to improve its own products and services through machine learning. This means that JaphSoft determines the purposes and means of this processing activity, which is not covered by the agreement with Liem and EcoMick. JaphSoft also decides how long to retain the personal data, which is another indication of its controller role. The other options are not sufficient to establish JaphSoft as a controller, as they could also apply to a processor. Having access to personal data in the MarketIQ database does not imply that JaphSoft determines the purposes and means of the processing. It could be acting on behalf of Liem and EcoMick, who are the controllers of the data in the database. Making decisions regarding the technical and organizational measures necessary to protect the personal data is also a duty of a processor, who must implement appropriate security measures in accordance with the GDPR and the instructions of the controller (Art 28 and Art 32 of GDPR). References:

GDPR, Art 4, Art 28, Art 32

Free CIPP/E Study Guide, p. 15

European Data Protection Law & Practice, p. 123

What is a data controller or a data processor?

CNIL publishes guidance on data processing roles under EU GDPR

Guide for multi-controller situations under 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

A data breach is broadly defined as any incident that leads to the unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration, or destruction of personal data. While options A and B might seem plausible at first glance, they focus on a narrow interpretation of a breach.

The key here is the loss of confidentiality and/or integrity. Even though no one has actively stolen the data, the bank can no longer guarantee the confidentiality of the information, nor can it ensure the integrity of the data since it cannot be accessed or modified securely. This constitutes a loss of control over the data and thus qualifies as a data breach.

References:

IAPP CIPP/E textbook, Chapter 5: Data Breach Notification (specifically, the definition of a personal data breach)

GDPR Article 4(12) - Definition of a personal data breach

According to the European Data Protection Law & Practice textbook, page 326, “the CJEU held that the search engine operator is obliged to remove from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of a person’s name links to web pages, published by third parties and containing information relating to that person, also in a case where that name or information is not erased beforehand or simultaneously from those web pages, and even, as the case may be, when its publication in itself on those pages is lawful.” However, the CJEU also stated that “the operator of the search engine as the person responsible for that processing must, at the latest on the occasion of the erasure from its list of results, disclose to the operator of the web page containing that information the fact that that web page will no longer appear in the search engine’s results following a search made on the basis of the data subject’s name.” Therefore, SearchCo must notify the newspaper that it is delisting the article, as part of its obligation to respect the data subject’s right to be forgotten. References:

European Data Protection Law & Practice, page 326

CJEU Judgment in Case C-131/12 Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, paragraphs 88 and 93

The right of access is one of the fundamental rights of data subjects under the GDPR. It allows data subjects to obtain from the controller confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning them are being processed, and, where that is the case, access to the personal data and certain information about the processing. The controller must provide a copy of the personal data undergoing processing to the data subject, unless the data subject requests otherwise. The right of access is not absolute and may be subject to limitations, restrictions or exceptions, in accordance with the GDPR and the national laws of the member states.

The EDPB has issued draft guidelines on the right of access, which provide more detailed guidance on how to handle data subject access requests and what are the possible grounds for refusing to provide a copy of the personal data. According to the draft guidelines, the controller can refuse to provide a copy of the personal data in the following situations:

If the data subject access request was sent to an employee that is not involved in the processing of such requests. In this case, the controller must inform the data subject of the appropriate contact point for submitting the request and must not consider the request as received until it reaches the designated person or unit. This does not mean that the controller can ignore or delay the request, but rather that the controller must ensure that the request is forwarded to the responsible person or unit as soon as possible.

If there is such a large amount of data that the controller cannot identify the data subject of the request. In this case, the controller can ask the data subject to provide additional information to enable the identification of the data subject, such as a unique identifier, a reference number, a specific time period, a location or a context of the processing. The controller must not ask for more information than is necessary and must not use the information for any other purpose than verifying the identity of the data subject.

If the personal data was processed in the past but is no longer at the controller’s disposal at the time of the request. In this case, the controller must inform the data subject that the personal data are no longer available and explain the reasons why the personal data have been erased, anonymised, archived or otherwise disposed of. The controller must also provide the data subject with any relevant information about the retention period, the archiving policy, the anonymisation process or the disposal method of the personal data.

The controller cannot refuse to provide a copy of the personal data in the following situation:

If the controller is unable to use end-to-end encrypted emails for responding to such requests. In this case, the controller must still provide a copy of the personal data to the data subject, but must ensure that the communication is secure and that the personal data are protected from unauthorised or unlawful access, disclosure, alteration or destruction. The controller can use alternative means of communication, such as secure online platforms, password-protected files, encrypted devices or postal mail, depending on the preferences and circumstances of the data subject. The controller must also inform the data subject of the risks involved in the chosen communication method and obtain the data subject’s consent before sending the personal data.

References:

GDPR, Articles 12, 13, 14, 15, 23 and 34.

EDPB Guidelines 01/2022 on data subject rights - Right of access Version 2, pages 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

You have just been hired by a toy manufacturer based in Hong Kong. The company sells a broad range of dolls, action figures and plush toys that can be found internationally in a wide variety of retail stores. Although the manufacturer has no offices outside Hong Kong and in fact does not employ any staff outside Hong Kong, it has entered into a number of local distribution contracts. The toys produced by the company can be found in all popular toy stores throughout Europe, the United States and Asia. A large portion of the company’s revenue is due to international sales.

The company now wishes to launch a new range of connected toys, ones that can talk and interact with children. The CEO of the company is touting these toys as the next big thing, due to the increased possibilities offered: The figures can answer children’s Questions: on various subjects, such as mathematical calculations or the weather. Each figure is equipped with a microphone and speaker and can connect to any smartphone or tablet via Bluetooth. Any mobile device within a 10-meter radius can connect to the toys via Bluetooth as well. The figures can also be associated with other figures (from the same manufacturer) and interact with each other for an enhanced play experience.

When a child asks the toy a question, the request is sent to the cloud for analysis, and the answer is generated on cloud servers and sent back to the figure. The answer is given through the figure’s integrated speakers, making it appear as though that the toy is actually responding to the child’s question. The packaging of the toy does not provide technical details on how this works, nor does it mention that this feature requires an internet connection. The necessary data processing for this has been outsourced to a data center located in South Africa. However, your company has not yet revised its consumer-facing privacy policy to indicate this.

In parallel, the company is planning to introduce a new range of game systems through which consumers can play the characters they acquire in the course of playing the game. The system will come bundled with a portal that includes a Near-Field Communications (NFC) reader. This device will read an RFID tag in the action figure, making the figure come to life onscreen. Each character has its own stock features and abilities, but it is also possible to earn additional ones by accomplishing game goals. The only information stored in the tag relates to the figures’ abilities. It is easy to switch characters during the game, and it is possible to bring the figure to locations outside of home and have the character’s abilities remain intact.

Why is this company obligated to comply with the GDPR?

A. The company has offices in the EU. B. The company employs staff in the EU. C. The company’s data center is located in a country outside the EU. D. The company’s products are marketed directly to EU customers.

Answer:

Verified Answer: D. The company’s products are marketed directly to EU customers.

 According to section 6(1)© of the GDPR1, personal data shall be processed by organisations, which offer goods or services or otherwise carry out activities, in relation to which processing of personal data may be regarded as relevant for their legitimate interests. The legitimate interests referred to are those arising from the performance of a task carried out in their name or on their behalf, or for their own purposes. The legitimate interests referred to are those arising from the performance of a task carried out in their name or on their behalf, or for their own purposes. The legitimate interests referred to are those arising from the performance of a task carried out in their name or on their behalf, or for their own purposes. The legitimate interests referred to are those arising from the performance of a task carried out in their name or on their behalf, or for their own purposes. The legitimate interests referred to are those arising from the performance of a task carried out in their name or on their behalf, or for their own purposes. The legitimate interests referred to are those arising from the performance of a task carried out in their name or on their behalf, or for their own purposes. The legitimate interests referred to are those arising from the performance

The EDPB’s Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection by Design and by Default provide guidance on how to implement the requirements of Article 25 of the GDPR, which obliges controllers to design and implement appropriate technical and organisational measures and necessary safeguards to ensure that the processing of personal data complies with the data protection principles and protects the rights and freedoms of data subjects. The guidelines also explain how to apply the concept of data protection by default, which means that by default, only personal data that are necessary for each specific purpose of the processing are processed.

The guidelines do not mention data ownership allocation as a practice that follows from the principles relating to the processing of personal data under EU data protection law. Data ownership allocation is not a concept that is recognised or defined by the GDPR or the EDPB. Data ownership allocation refers to the idea that data subjects or controllers have some form of property rights over the personal data that they provide or process. However, the GDPR does not grant such rights, but rather establishes a set of rules and obligations for the processing of personal data, based on the notion of accountability and responsibility of the controllers and processors. The GDPR also recognises the rights and freedoms of data subjects, such as the right of access, rectification, erasure, restriction, portability, objection and not to be subject to automated decision-making, which are not dependent on the ownership of the personal data, but on the fact that the personal data relate to them.

The other practices listed in the question, namely access control management, frequent pseudonymization key rotation and error propagation avoidance along the processing chain, are examples of practices that follow from the principles relating to the processing of personal data under EU data protection law, as explained in the guidelines. Access control management follows from the principle of integrity and confidentiality, which requires that personal data are processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage. Frequent pseudonymization key rotation follows from the principle of data minimisation, which requires that personal data are adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed. Error propagation avoidance along the processing chain follows from the principle of accuracy, which requires that personal data are accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

References:

GDPR, Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 25.

EDPB Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection by Design and by Default, pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28.

The purpose limitation principle requires that personal data be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not be further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes. However, the GDPR does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes an incompatible purpose. Instead, it leaves room for interpretation by the member states, taking into account the context and circumstances of the processing. This means that the degree of flexibility a controller has in using personal data for a new purpose may vary depending on the member state’s law and guidance. Some factors that may affect the compatibility assessment include the link between the original and the new purpose, the expectations of the data subject, the nature of the data, the impact of the further processing, and the safeguards applied by the controller. References:

GDPR Article 5(1)(b), which states the purpose limitation principle.

GDPR Article 6(4), which lists the criteria for assessing the compatibility of a new purpose.

ICO guidance, which explains the purpose limitation principle and provides examples of compatible and incompatible purposes.

[EDPB guidelines], which provide further guidance on the application of the purpose limitation principle.

The GDPR defines data concerning health as a special category of personal data that is subject to specific processing conditions and safeguards. The GDPR prohibits the processing of such data unless one of the exceptions in Article 9 applies. One of these exceptions is the explicit consent of the data subject, which means that the data subject has given a clear and affirmative indication of their agreement to the processing of their health data. Another exception is when the processing is necessary for reasons of public interest in the area of public health, such as protecting against serious cross-border threats to health or ensuring high standards of quality and safety of health care. A third exception is when the processing is necessary for the purposes of preventive or occupational medicine, for the assessment of the working capacity of the employee, medical diagnosis, the provision of health or social care or treatment or the management of health or social care systems and services. These exceptions are based on the principle of necessity, which means that the processing must be strictly necessary for a specific purpose and cannot be achieved by other means.

In the given scenario, the journalist does not fall under any of these exceptions. The journalist is not a health professional, a public authority, or a person who has obtained the explicit consent of the data subject. The journalist is not processing the data for any legitimate purpose related to public health, medical care, or social protection. The journalist is merely pursuing their own interest in publishing a story that may or may not be in the public interest. The journalist is not respecting the data subject’s rights and freedoms, especially their right to privacy and confidentiality. Therefore, the journalist would be least likely to be allowed to engage in the collection, use, and disclosure of the data subject’s sensitive medical information without their knowledge or consent. References:

Article 4 (15) and Article 9 of the GDPR

Health data | ICO

What does the GDPR mean for personal data in medical reports?

Sensitive data and medical confidentiality - FutureLearn

Health data and data privacy: storing sensitive data under GDPR