IAPP CIPP-E - Certified Information Privacy Professional/Europe (CIPP/E)

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

cloud computing services are defined as the on-demand availability of computing resources (such as storage and infrastructure), as services over the internet. Cloud computing services share certain characteristics, such as on-demand self-service, broad network access, resource pooling, rapid elasticity, measured service, multi-tenancy, virtualization, resilient computing, flexible pricing models, security, automation, and sustainability234.

One of the characteristics that is not recognized as a common characteristic of cloud computing services is that the supplier assumes the vendor’s business risk associated with data processed by the supplier. This is not a characteristic of cloud computing services, but rather a contractual or legal issue that depends on the agreement between the supplier and the vendor. The supplier and the vendor may have different roles and responsibilities regarding the data processed by the supplier, such as controller, processor, or sub-processor, and they may have different obligations and liabilities under the applicable data protection laws, such as the GDPR. Therefore, the supplier does not necessarily assume the vendor’s business risk associated with data processed by the supplier, unless it is explicitly agreed by the parties or required by the law.

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)

According to Article 32 of the GDPR, the controller and the processor must implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk of the processing, including the ability to restore the availability and access to personal data in a timely manner in the event of a physical or technical incident1. A personal data breach is defined as 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. Therefore, a power outage that results in the loss of availability of customer data for six hours is considered a personal data breach under the GDPR.

Based on the WP 29’s February, 2018 guidance, which was endorsed by the European Data Protection Board, company Z should document the loss of availability to demonstrate accountability3. The guidance states that controllers must document any personal data breaches, comprising the facts relating to the personal data breach, its effects and the remedial action taken, regardless of whether the breach needs to be notified to the supervisory authority or the data subjects. This documentation must enable the supervisory authority to verify compliance with the GDPR and must be made available to the supervisory authority on request4.

The other options (A, C, and D) are not required by the GDPR or the guidance, although they may be advisable or beneficial depending on the circumstances. Option A is not mandatory, as the GDPR only requires the controller to communicate the personal data breach to the data subject when the breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons5. A temporary loss of availability may not pose such a high risk, unless it affects the data subject’s essential services or activities. Option C is also not obligatory, as the GDPR only requires the controller to notify the supervisory authority of the personal data breach within 72 hours unless the breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons6. A short-term loss of availability may not entail such a risk, unless it affects a large number of data subjects or sensitive data. Option D is not specified by the GDPR or the guidance, although it may be a good practice to conduct a thorough audit of all security systems after a personal data breach to identify and address any vulnerabilities or weaknesses that may have contributed to the incident or may lead to future incidents. References:

1: Article 32 of the GDPR

2: Article 4 (12) of the GDPR

3: Endorsed WP29 Guidelines

4: Article 33 (5) of the GDPR

5: Article 34 (1) of the GDPR

6: Article 33 (1) of the GDPR

7: Guidelines on Personal data breach notification under Regulation 2016/679, WP250 rev.01

8: 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)

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

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

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

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

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

The other options are incorrect because:

A. Conducting analysis only on anonymized personal data would not be feasible or effective for Market4U, as anonymization is a very difficult and complex process that requires the removal or alteration of any information that can identify an individual, directly or indirectly. Anonymization may also result in the loss of accuracy, quality, and utility of the data, which would undermine the value and purpose of the analysis. Moreover, anonymization is irreversible, which means that Market4U would not be able to restore the original data if needed2.

C. Deleting all data collected prior to May 2018 after conducting the trend analysis would not be compliant with the GDPR, as it would violate the principle of storage limitation, which requires that personal data should be kept only for as long as necessary for the purposes for which it is processed. Market4U cannot justify the retention of the data for longer than needed, especially if the data is outdated, irrelevant, or excessive. Moreover, deleting the data after the analysis would not eliminate the risks associated with the processing of the data, such as data breaches or unauthorized access4.

D. Procuring a third party to conduct the analysis and delete the data from Market4U’s systems would not be a good solution for Market4U, as it would involve the transfer of personal data to another data controller or processor, which would require additional safeguards and obligations under the GDPR. Market4U would still be responsible for ensuring the compliance and security of the data, and would have to enter into a data processing agreement with the third party, as well as inform and obtain the consent of the data subjects, if applicable. Furthermore, procuring a third party would entail additional costs and risks for Market4U, such as losing control and visibility over the data, or exposing the data to unauthorized or unlawful processing by the third party7.

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

Cross-border processing is defined in Article 4(23) of the GDPR as either:

•processing of personal data which takes place in the context of the activities of establishments in more than one Member State of a controller or processor in the Union where the controller or processor is established in more than one Member State; or

•processing of personal data which takes place in the context of the activities of a single establishment of a controller or processor in the Union but which substantially affects or is likely to substantially affect data subjects in more than one Member State.

Therefore, the factors that are relevant for identifying whether the processing could be considered a cross-border processing are:

•the location and number of establishments of the controller or processor in the EU;

•the connection between the processing and the activities of the establishments;

•the substantial effect or likelihood of substantial effect on data subjects in more than one Member State.

The total number of the data subjects interested is not necessarily a factor, as the processing could affect only a few data subjects but still have a substantial impact on them. For example, a processing that involves the disclosure of sensitive personal data of a small group of data subjects in different Member States could be considered a cross-border processing.

References:

•GDPR Article 4 - Definitions1

•Guidelines 8/2022 on identifying a controller or processor’s lead supervisory authority2

The Convention 108+ is the modernized version of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, which was opened for signature on 10 October 20181. The Convention 108+ aims to reinforce the individuals’ protection, strengthen the implementation of the Convention, and promote it as a universal standard for data protection2. The Convention 108+ reflects the same principles as those enshrined in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which applies from 25 May 20183. Therefore, the Convention 108+ and the GDPR are largely consistent and coherent in their provisions and objectives.

However, one of the principles of the Convention 108+ that is not consistent with a principle found in the GDPR is the necessity of the bulk collection of personal data by the government. The Convention 108+ allows for the possibility of bulk collection of personal data by the government for national security purposes, subject to certain safeguards and oversight mechanisms. The GDPR, on the other hand, does not regulate the processing of personal data by the government for national security purposes, as this falls outside the scope of EU law. The GDPR also does not explicitly endorse the bulk collection of personal data by the government, but rather requires that any processing of personal data must be based on a legal basis, respect the principles of data protection, and ensure the rights and freedoms of data subjects. Therefore, the correct answer is C.

References:

Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data

Convention 108+ and the GDPR

General Data Protection Regulation

[Convention 108+: the consultative committee of the convention for the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data (T-PD) publishes its guidelines on artificial intelligence and data protection]

[Article 3 GDPR – Territorial scope]

[Article 5 GDPR – Principles relating to processing of personal data]

I hope this helps you understand the Convention 108+ and the GDPR better. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me. 😊