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

 According to Article 60 of the GDPR, the lead authority (the CNIL in this case) shall cooperate with the other concerned supervisory authorities (the ICO and any other authority where EVERFIT has an establishment or where data subjects are affected) to reach a consensus on the case. The lead authority shall submit a draft decision to the other authorities for their opinion and take due account of their views. If the other authorities agree with the draft decision, the lead authority shall adopt and notify it to the controller (EVERFIT) and the complainant (Javier). If the other authorities object to the draft decision, they shall express their objections within a specified period and try to reach a consensus with the lead authority. If no consensus is reached, the matter shall be referred to the EDPB for a binding decision under the consistency mechanism (Article 65 of the GDPR). References: GDPR Cooperation and Enforcement, First overview on the implementation of the GDPR and the roles and means of the national supervisory authorities, Data protection: Commission adopts new rules to ensure stronger cooperation and enforcement, Article 65 FAQ

According to Articles 33 and 34 of the GDPR, the Gummy Bear Company potentially violated its breach notification obligations by allowing Sam to copy and use the personal data of its customers in Ireland without their consent or authorization. A personal data breach is defined as a breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed (Article 4(12)). The Gummy Bear Company, as a data controller, is required to notify the competent supervisory authority of the personal data breach without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of it, unless the personal data breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons (Article 33(1)). The notification should include the nature of the personal data breach, the categories and approximate number of data subjects and personal data records concerned, the likely consequences of the personal data breach, and the measures taken or proposed to address the personal data breach (Article 33(3)). The Gummy Bear Company is also required to communicate the personal data breach to the affected data subjects without undue delay, if the personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons (Article 34(1)). The communication should describe the nature of the personal data breach and the measures taken or proposed to address the personal data breach (Article 34(2)).

Therefore, the Gummy Bear Company should analyze and evaluate all of its breach notification obligations, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the personal data breach, the type and sensitivity of the personal data involved, the potential impact and harm to the data subjects, and the applicable laws and regulations of the jurisdictions where the data subjects reside. The Gummy Bear Company should also document the personal data breach and the remedial actions taken, and cooperate with the supervisory authorities and the data subjects as required by the GDPR.

References: GDPR, Articles 4(12), 33, 341; EDPB Guidelines 01/2021 on Examples regarding Data Breach Notification2

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

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 the GDPR (Article 4(12)), a personal data breach is defined as:

"A breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored, or otherwise processed"​.

Why Answer Choice D is Correct

Loss of Encryption Key = Loss of Data Availability

The loss of the decryption key means that the bank can no longer access customer transaction data.

Availability is a fundamental aspect of data security (Article 32). Loss of availability constitutes a breach under GDPR​.

Loss of Confidentiality & Integrity

If the encryption key is lost, data cannot be decrypted, meaning it is effectively destroyed or altered.

This qualifies as a data breach under GDPR since data integrity and confidentiality are compromised​.

Why Other Answer Choices Are Incorrect:

A (No Breach Because No Hacking):

GDPR does not require hacking for a breach to occur. A loss of access alone can qualify​.

B (No Breach Because No Unauthorized Access):

Unauthorized disclosure is one type of breach, but GDPR also covers loss and destruction of personal data​.

C (Data Breach Due to Inaccessibility):

Partially correct but does not fully explain the GDPR criteria. GDPR defines breaches in terms of confidentiality, integrity, and availability—all of which are affected​.

Conclusion:

This incident is a data breach under GDPR, as it impacts data confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

The correct answer is D, because losing the decryption key compromises data integrity and availability, qualifying as a data breach under GDPR Article 4(12)​.

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​.

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. 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 such data subjects in the EU or the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the EU1. Therefore, after leaving the EU under the terms of Brexit, the UK became a third country for the purposes of the GDPR, meaning that personal data transfers from the EU to the UK are subject to the rules on international data transfers under Chapter V of the GDPR2. In order to ensure the continuity and stability of data flows between the EU and the UK, the UK sought an adequacy decision from the European Commission, which is a formal recognition that a third country provides an equivalent level of data protection to that of the EU3. On 28 June 2021, the European Commission adopted two adequacy decisions in respect of the UK: one for transfers under the GDPR and the other for transfers under the Law Enforcement Directive (LED)4. These decisions allow personal data to flow freely from the EU to the UK without any further safeguard being necessary, and are expected to last until 27 June 2025, unless they are amended, suspended or repealed earlier5. References:

GDPR, Article 3

GDPR, Chapter V

Data protection adequacy for non-EU countries, section “Adequacy decisions”

UK government welcomes the European Commission’s draft data adequacy decisions

Adequacy, section “What does the EU GDPR adequacy decision say?”

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]