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

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 Article 6 of the GDPR, the processing of personal data is only lawful if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:

the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes;

processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;

processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject;

processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person;

processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;

processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.

In this case, the Spanish employer would most likely depend on the legal obligation of the employer as the lawful basis for sending the personal data of its employees to the national tax authority. This is because the employer is subject to the tax laws and regulations of Spain, which require the employer to report the income and deductions of its employees to the tax authority on an annual basis. The employer must comply with this legal obligation, and the processing of the employees’ personal data is necessary for this purpose. The employer does not need to obtain the consent of the employees, as consent is not a valid basis for processing personal data where there is a clear imbalance between the data subject and the controller, such as in the context of employment. The employer also does not need to rely on the legitimate interest of the public administration, as this is not a specific purpose for which the employer is processing the personal data, but rather a general interest that may be served by the tax authority. The employer also does not need to invoke the protection of the vital interest of the employees, as this basis only applies in situations where the processing is necessary to protect someone’s life, such as in a medical emergency. References: Article 6 GDPR - Lawfulness of processing - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Lawful basis for processing | ICO, Legal obligation as a lawful basis for processing personal data under the GDPR, [Consent in the employment context | ICO], [Vital interests | ICO]

The GDPR applies to all personal data, regardless of whether it exists in physical form or not. The GDPR defines personal data as any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, such as names, identification numbers, location data, or online identifiers1. Therefore, any information that can be linked directly or indirectly to a natural person is considered personal data under the GDPR.

However, the GDPR also distinguishes between different types of processing activities and their legal bases. Processing activities are the operations performed on personal data, such as collection, storage, use, disclosure, or deletion. Processing activities can be either automated or manual. Automated processing means using technology to perform processing activities without human intervention. Manual processing means using human intervention to perform processing activities.

The GDPR requires that any processing activity that involves personal data must comply with certain principles and conditions, such as lawfulness, fairness, transparency, purpose limitation, data minimization, accuracy, storage limitation, integrity and confidentiality. These principles and conditions apply to both automated and manual processing activities.

Therefore, the GDPR applies to personal data that exists in physical form only when it is processed by an automated means in some way that affects its rights and freedoms. For example, if a company scans paper documents and stores them electronically in a database without deleting them after a certain period of time or when they are no longer needed for the original purpose for which they were collected (Article 6), then this would be considered an automated processing activity that involves personal data in physical form.

However, the GDPR does not apply to personal data that exists in physical form when it is handled in a sufficiently structured manner so as to form part of a filing system. For example, if a company keeps paper documents in folders labeled with names and dates on their office shelves without scanning them or storing them electronically anywhere else (Article 5), then this would not be considered an automated processing activity that involves personal data in physical form.

References:

Physical Data - GDPR Summary

What GDPR Means for Your Physical Records - Access

Personal Data - Data Protection Act 2018

 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

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 Article 33 of the GDPR, processors must notify controllers without undue delay after becoming aware of a personal data breach1. Even though Leon and Fred did not disclose the data to anyone else, the unauthorized access and copying of the log files still constitutes a personal data breach2. Therefore, Techiva, as a processor, has a legal responsibility to report it to TripBliss Inc., as the controller. The other options are not legal obligations for processors, although they may be good practices or contractual terms. References:

Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 32, section 4.1.2

CIPP/E Certification, page 27, section 4.1.2

Cipp-e Study guides, Class notes & Summaries, page 38, section 4.1.2

New IAPP CIPP-E Exam Practice Questions, question 141

Processors’ responsibilities, paragraph 2

The GDPR defines personal data as “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person” (Article 4(1)). This includes names, quotations, and any other data that can be linked to a specific individual. The GDPR also requires that personal data be processed lawfully, fairly, and transparently, and that it be collected for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes (Article 5(1)). Furthermore, the GDPR grants data subjects the right to object to the processing of their personal data for direct marketing purposes or for the purposes of the legitimate interests of the controller or a third party (Article 21).

In this scenario, Serge may have grounds to object to the use of his quotation on Brady Box’s home webpage, as it constitutes the processing of his personal data outside of the original purpose for which it was collected. Serge posted the quotation on Brady Box’s SNS, which is a separate service from Brady Box’s web page design service. By using the quotation on the home webpage, Brady Box is processing Serge’s personal data for a different purpose than the one for which Serge provided it, and without his consent or a legitimate interest. This may violate the principles of purpose limitation and lawfulness under the GDPR. Moreover, Serge may object to the use of his quotation as it implies his endorsement of Brady Box’s service, which may affect his reputation or interests.

The other options are less likely to be valid grounds for objection, as they are not directly related to the GDPR’s provisions on personal data protection. The misrepresentation of personal data as an endorsement may be a matter of contract law or consumer protection law, but not necessarily a GDPR issue. The juxtaposition of the quotation with others’ quotations may not affect Serge’s rights or interests, unless it creates a false or misleading impression of his views or opinions. The misapplication of the household exception in relation to a SNS may not apply in this case, as the household exception only covers the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity (Article 2(2)©). Serge’s posting of the quotation on a SNS may not qualify as a purely personal or household activity, as it involves the disclosure of personal data to a wider audience.

References:

GDPR

GDPR and social media

How does GDPR affect social media marketing?

Data Protection & Social Media: How GDPR Influences Today’s Social Media Marketing

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

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

References:

Art. 33 GDPR – Notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority

Art. 4 GDPR – Definitions

Art. 3 GDPR – Territorial scope

Guidelines 9/2022 on personal data breach notification under GDPR

Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR

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

 Article 9 of the GDPR prohibits the processing of special categories of personal data, which are data that reveal sensitive information about the data subject and may pose a high risk to their rights and freedoms. The GDPR defines 10 types of personal data as special categories, which are:

personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin;

personal data revealing political opinions;

personal data revealing religious or philosophical beliefs;

personal data revealing trade union membership;

genetic data;

biometric data (where used for identification purposes);

data concerning health;

data concerning a person’s sex life; and

data concerning a person’s sexual orientation.

Among the answer choices, only option C is not one of these categories, as financial data is not considered to reveal any sensitive information about the data subject. However, financial data is still subject to the general principles and rules of the GDPR, such as lawfulness, fairness, transparency, accuracy, security, etc. References:

Special category data | ICO

Art. 9 GDPR Processing of special categories of personal data

Special Categories of Data - International Association of Privacy Professionals

 The GDPR requires that consent must be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous1. This means that app developers must provide clear and transparent information about the purposes and legal basis of the data processing, and allow users to choose which types of processing they agree to and which they do not. For example, users should be able to consent separately to different types of cookies, such as functional, analytical or marketing cookies2. Users should also be able to withdraw their consent at any time as easily as they gave it1. Therefore, app design and implementation must take into account these requirements and provide users with granular and user-friendly consent options, rather than relying on pre-ticked boxes, implied consent or default settings3. References: 1 Art. 4 (11) and Art. 7 GDPR – Definitions and Conditions for consent - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)2 Guidelines 05/2020 on consent under Regulation 2016/679 - European Data Protection Board3 How To Make Compliant GDPR Consent Forms (With Examples) - Termly.

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

 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 Customer for Life plan may conflict with Article 7 of the GDPR, which states that “the data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time” and that “it shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent” 1. The plan violates this principle by stating that customers agree not to withdraw direct marketing consent and that the company can ignore any attempts to do so. This is not a valid way of obtaining or maintaining consent, as consent must be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous 2. Moreover, the plan may also conflict with Article 21 of the GDPR, which gives data subjects the right to object to direct marketing at any time 3. References: 1: Article 7(3) of the GDPR 2: Article 4(11) of the GDPR 3: Article 21(2) of the GDPR

I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. ????

 According to the GDPR, personal data must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject1. The GDPR also recognizes that the processing of special categories of personal data, such as data revealing political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or data concerning health or sex life, may entail a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons2. Therefore, such data can only be processed under certain conditions, such as when the data subject has given explicit consent, or when the processing is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest3.

In this scenario, Ben had the company collect additional data from its customers, including their philosophical beliefs, political opinions and marital status, without a valid legal basis or a legitimate purpose. He also copied the data of the single customers onto a separate database for his own online dating website, without informing them or obtaining their consent. This processing of special categories of personal data created a significant risk to the customers’ fundamental rights and freedoms, such as their right to privacy, dignity, non-discrimination and self-determination. The customers may also suffer from identity theft, fraud, harassment, or unwanted marketing as a result of the unauthorized use of their data. Therefore, Ben’s actions constituted the most serious violation of the GDPR in this scenario.

References:

Art. 5 GDPR – Principles relating to processing of personal data

Recital 51 GDPR – Protecting sensitive personal data

Art. 9 GDPR – Processing of special categories of personal data

[Guidelines 3/2019 on processing of personal data through video devices]

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

Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs) are a data transfer mechanism under the GDPR that allow multinational companies to transfer personal data within their group entities outside the EU, provided that they comply with the data protection principles and rights of the GDPR. BCRs are internal codes of conduct that must be legally binding and enforced by every member of the group.

According to Article 47 of the GDPR, BCRs must be approved by the competent Data Protection Authority (DPA) in the EU, following the consistency mechanism set out in Article 63 of the GDPR. This means that the DPA that receives the application for approval of the BCRs must communicate its draft decision to the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), which will issue its opinion on the BCRs. The EDPB is an independent body composed of representatives of the national DPAs and the European Data Protection Supervisor. The EDPB ensures the consistent application of the GDPR across the EU and issues guidelines, recommendations, and best practices on various aspects of the GDPR.

Therefore, the data transfer mechanism that Alice drafted violates the GDPR because the company did not first get approval from the Data Protection Authority, which is the supervisory authority responsible for authorising and monitoring the BCRs. The company cannot rely on the BCRs as a valid legal basis for transferring personal data from the EU to the US without the DPA’s approval.

The other options are not correct, as they are not the authorities that approve the BCRs under the GDPR. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is the judicial body of the EU that interprets and applies EU law and ensures its uniformity across the EU. The CJEU does not approve the BCRs, but it may rule on the validity or interpretation of the GDPR or other EU laws that affect data protection. The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) is an independent body that ensures the consistent application of the GDPR and issues opinions on the BCRs, but it does not approve them. The EDPB’s opinions are not binding, but they must be taken into account by the DPAs. The European Commission is the executive branch of the EU that proposes and implements EU laws and policies. The European Commission does not approve the BCRs, but it may adopt adequacy decisions that recognise that a third country or an international organisation ensures an adequate level of data protection, which is another data transfer mechanism under the GDPR.

References:

GDPR

Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)

Binding Corporate Rules - PwC

Binding Corporate Rules - GDPR Summary

A Guide for Binding Corporate Rules - Hunton Andrews Kurth

Personal data transfers: binding corporate rules (BCRs) under the GDPR

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

According to the GDPR, personal data must be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes1. This means that data controllers must inform data subjects about the purposes of data processing and obtain their consent or another lawful basis for any new or different purposes2.

In the scenario, Brady transferred his customers’ personal data to Hermes Designs, a third-party contractor, to fulfill a requested service. However, Hermes Designs used the data for a new purpose that was not disclosed to the customers: creating sample customized banner advertisements and conducting direct marketing. This is a violation of the purpose limitation principle and could expose Brady to legal risks and customer complaints.

Therefore, Brady should be concerned with Hermes Designs’ handling of customer personal data and take appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the GDPR.

I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. ????

1: Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR 2: Article 6(4) of the GDPR

 The ePrivacy Directive is a European Union (EU) directive that aims to protect the confidentiality of electronic communications and prevent their indiscriminate interception or monitoring. It was adopted in 2002 and amended in 2009. It applies to all providers of electronic communication services, such as internet service providers, mobile network operators, and online platforms12.

One of the main objectives of the ePrivacy Directive is to ensure that the retention of communications traffic data for law enforcement purposes is subject to strict conditions and safeguards. Communications traffic data refers to any information relating to the transmission or routing of electronic communications, such as IP addresses, timestamps, and metadata3. Such data can be used by competent national authorities for the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences and safeguarding national security4.

However, the ePrivacy Directive does not allow individual EU member states to engage in such data retention without harmonizing their rules. Article 6(1)(b) of the directive states that “Member States shall ensure that any measures taken by them in relation to the retention of traffic data are consistent with this Directive”. Therefore, each EU member state must adopt a national law that complies with the requirements and limitations set by the directive12.

The Data Retention Directive (DRD) was a previous EU directive that aimed to establish a common framework for the retention of communications traffic data for law enforcement purposes across all EU member states. It was adopted in 2006 and amended in 2010. However, it was annulled by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in 2014 on procedural grounds. The CJEU found that some provisions of the DRD were inconsistent with other EU directives and principles, such as Article 8(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR), which protects individuals from arbitrary interference with their privacy56.

The GDPR is a new EU regulation that implements some aspects of the DRD into national law through its provisions on processing personal data. However, it does not address directly the issue of communications traffic data retention for law enforcement purposes. Instead, it requires providers to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk involved in processing personal data. These measures include encryption, pseudonymisation, access control, and accountability7 . The GDPR also grants individuals certain rights regarding their personal data, such as access, rectification, erasure, portability, and objection7 .

Therefore, under current EU law, there is no single legal basis for retaining communications traffic data for law enforcement purposes across all EU member states. Each member state must adopt its own national law that respects the principles and limitations established by the ePrivacy Directive.

References:

ePrivacy Directive

ePrivacy Regulation

What is Communications Traffic Data?

How is Communications Traffic Data Retained?

Data Retention Directive

Data Retention Directive annulled by CJEU

General Data Protection Regulation

What are your rights regarding your personal data?

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

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

whether the processing involves data that is considered personal data;

whether the processing of the data is done through automated means; and

whether the processing is used to predict the behavior of data subjects.

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

The 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

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]

Article 82 of the GDPR introduces a right to compensation for damage caused as a result of an infringement of the GDPR1. Article 82 (1) states that 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 suffered1. Article 82 (2) states that any controller involved in processing shall be liable for the damage caused by processing which infringes the GDPR1. A processor shall be liable for the damage caused by processing only where it has not complied with obligations of the GDPR specifically directed to processors or where it has acted outside or contrary to lawful instructions of the controller1. Article 82 (3) states that a controller or processor shall be exempt from liability under paragraph 2 if it proves that it is not in any way responsible for the event giving rise to the damage1. In this case, Jack is liable for the damage caused by the data breach, as he violated the GDPR by posting the patient’s name and health information, along with disparaging comments, on a social media website. This constitutes an infringement of the GDPR, as it violates the principles of lawfulness, fairness, and transparency (Article 5 (1) (a)), purpose limitation (Article 5 (1) (b)), data minimisation (Article 5 (1) ©), accuracy (Article 5 (1) (d)), integrity and confidentiality (Article 5 (1) (f)), and the rights of the data subject (Articles 12-23)1. The pharmaceutical company is not liable for the damage caused by the data breach, as it can prove that it is not in any way responsible for the event giving rise to the damage. The company provided privacy training to Jack, informed him of the privacy policy, obtained his consent, and dismissed him as soon as the breach was discovered. Therefore, the company complied with the obligations of the GDPR, such as the accountability principle (Article 5 (2)), the data protection by design and by default principle (Article 25), the security of processing principle (Article 32), and the notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority principle (Article 33)1. Therefore, option D is the correct answer. References: Art. 82 GDPR – Right to compensation and liability, Article 82 GDPR - GDPRhub

 The GDPR defines processing as “any operation or set of operations which is performed on personal data or on sets of personal data, whether or not by automated means, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction” (Article 4(2)). This is a broad definition that covers almost any activity involving personal data, regardless of the method or means used. The GDPR also specifies that processing should be lawful, fair and transparent, and should respect the principles of data protection by design and by default (Article 5). References: CIPP/E Certification - International Association of Privacy Professionals, Free CIPP/E Study Guide - International Association of Privacy Professionals, [GDPR - EUR-Lex]

I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, please let me know. ????

 According to the GDPR, the territorial scope of the regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: (a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or (b) the monitoring of their behavior as far as their behavior takes place within the Union1. In this scenario, Bioface is not established in the Union, but it is collecting photographs of data subjects in the Union and using a facial recognition algorithm to identify them. This constitutes monitoring of their behavior within the Union, and therefore triggers the application of the GDPR. The other options are not correct because: (A) Bioface does not have any establishment in the Union, as it only collects data from web-based services, which does not imply the existence of stable arrangements in the Union2; (B) Bioface is not offering services in the Union, as it only targets government agencies and companies in the US and Canada, and does not intend to provide its service to data subjects in the Union3; © Bioface collects data from subjects and uses it for automated processing, but this is not a sufficient criterion to determine the territorial scope of the GDPR, as it does not relate to the offering of goods or services or the monitoring of behavior in the Union4. References: 1: Article 3(2) of the GDPR; 2: EDPB Guidelines, paragraph 20; 3: EDPB Guidelines, paragraph 38; 4: EDPB Guidelines, paragraph 50.

The CJEU ruled that the consent required by the ePrivacy Directive for the use of cookies must comply with the conditions laid down in the GDPR, which means that it must be specific, informed, unambiguous, and freely given. Therefore, pre-checked boxes or implied consent by scrolling are not valid forms of consent for cookies. The CJEU also clarified that the ePrivacy Directive applies to any information stored or accessed on a user’s device, regardless of whether it is personal data or not. Furthermore, the CJEU stated that the information provided to users about cookies must include the duration of the operation of cookies and the possibility of third parties accessing them.

References: CIPP/E Study Guide, page 29; CIPP/E Textbook, page 137; Planet49 case

 The “one-stop-shop” mechanism of the GDPR is a system of co-operation and consistency procedures that aims to ensure that the data protection regulation is enforced uniformly across all member states and calls on the data protection authorities (DPAs) across member states to co-operate with each other and the Commission to ensure consistent application of the GDPR1. The “one-stop-shop” mechanism applies to organisations that conduct cross-border data processing, which means that they process personal data in the context of the activities of their establishments in more than one member state, or that they target or monitor data subjects in more than one member state1. Under the “one-stop-shop” mechanism, such organisations will have to deal primarily with the DPA of the member state where they have their main establishment or their single establishment in the EU, which will act as their lead supervisory authority for all matters related to their cross-border data processing1. The lead supervisory authority will co-ordinate with other concerned supervisory authorities, which are the DPAs of the member states where the data subjects are affected by the data processing1. The lead supervisory authority will have the competence to adopt binding decisions regarding measures to ensure compliance with the GDPR, such as imposing administrative fines or ordering the suspension of data flows1. However, the “one-stop-shop” mechanism does not prevent the concerned supervisory authorities from acting against organisations in exceptional cases, even if they do not have any type of establishment in the member state of the respective authority1. These exceptional cases include the following situations2:

When a complaint is lodged with a supervisory authority, the subject matter relates only to an establishment in its member state or substantially affects data subjects only in its member state;

When a supervisory authority is addressing a possible infringement related to the offering of goods or services to data subjects in its member state or to the monitoring of their behaviour in its member state;

When a supervisory authority adopts provisional measures intended to produce legal effects in its own member state;

When an urgent need to act arises in order to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects. In these cases, the concerned supervisory authority will inform the lead supervisory authority and the other concerned supervisory authorities, and will try to reach a consensus on the action to be taken2. If no consensus is reached, the consistency mechanism will apply, which involves the intervention of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) to issue a binding decision on the matter2. Therefore, option D is the correct answer. References: Art. 60 GDPR – Cooperation between the lead supervisory authority and the other supervisory authorities concerned, Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)

 A data protection impact assessment (DPIA) is a process to identify and minimise the data protection risks of a project that is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals1. The GDPR requires controllers to conduct a DPIA before starting such processing activities1. In this case, Building Block should have done a DPIA before implementing the SecurityScan measure, as it involves the monitoring of employees’ computers, which could affect their privacy and other fundamental rights2. A DPIA would help Building Block to assess the necessity, proportionality and compliance measures of the SecurityScan measure, as well as to identify and mitigate the risks to the employees and to consult with the relevant stakeholders, such as the data protection officer, the employees themselves, and the supervisory authorities12. The other options are not the first step that Building Block should have done, as they either follow or depend on the outcome of the DPIA. References: Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) - GDPR.eu, Data protection impact assessments | ICO

Under the GDPR, the lead supervisory authority is determined by where the main establishment related to the processing activity is located.

In this case, even though the company's headquarters is in Germany, the SaaS application was specifically defined and implemented by the Polish establishment. This indicates that the Polish establishment has the primary role in determining the purposes and means of processing personal data related to that SaaS service. Therefore, the supervisory authority of Poland would be the lead supervisory authority for this specific processing activity.

References:

GDPR Article 56 - Competence of the lead supervisory authority

IAPP CIPP/E textbook, Chapter 3: EU General Data Protection Regulation (specifically, sections on One-Stop Shop mechanism and lead supervisory authority)

Works councils are employee representative bodies that exist in some European countries, such as Germany, France, Spain and Italy. They have various roles and powers depending on the national laws and collective agreements, but generally they aim to protect and promote the interests of the employees in relation to the employer. Some of the common roles of works councils are:

Determining whether to approve or reject certain decisions of the employer that affect employees, such as transfers, dismissals, redundancies, working hours, health and safety, etc.

Determining whether employees’ personal data can be processed or not, based on the principle of co-determination, which means that the employer needs the consent of the works council for any data processing that involves employee monitoring, evaluation or control.

Determining what changes will affect employee working conditions, such as wages, benefits, training, social facilities, etc.

However, works councils do not have the role of determining the monetary fines to be levied against employers for data breach violations of employee data. This is the role of the data protection authorities, which are independent public bodies that supervise, through investigative and corrective powers, the application of the data protection law. Works councils may cooperate with the data protection authorities or file complaints on behalf of the employees, but they do not have the authority to impose sanctions on the employers. References: Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 27; CIPP/E Certification, page 13.

According to the GDPR, consent must be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous1. However, in the context of employment, there is often an imbalance of power between the employer and the employee, which may affect the validity of consent. The employee may feel pressured or coerced to give consent, or may not be able to withdraw it without negative consequences. Therefore, consent is not a reliable or appropriate legal basis for processing employee data in most cases23. The employer should consider other lawful bases, such as contractual necessity, legal obligation, legitimate interests or specific conditions for special category data45. References: 1 Art. 4 (11) GDPR – Definitions - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)2 Can my employer require me to give my consent to use my personal data? | European Commission. 3 When is consent appropriate? | ICO. 4 Art. 6 (1) GDPR – Lawfulness of processing - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)5 Art. 9 (2) GDPR – Processing of special categories of personal data - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

 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

 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.

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

 Under the GDPR, email marketing requires explicit and unambiguous consent from the recipients, meaning that they must actively agree to receive marketing communications, and the process for obtaining this consent must be clear and transparent. A prior opt-in consent is the most common and reliable way to demonstrate compliance with this requirement, as it involves a positive action from the data subject, such as ticking a box, clicking a button, or filling a form. A pre-checked box, a notice, or an opt-out option are not sufficient to obtain valid consent, as they do not indicate a clear expression of the data subject’s will. However, there is an exception to the consent rule for existing customers, known as the “soft opt-in”. This means that a company can send email marketing messages to its customers without prior consent, if the following conditions are met:

The company obtained the customer’s contact details in the course of a sale or negotiations for a sale of a product or service;

The company only sends marketing messages about its own similar products or services;

The company gives the customer a clear opportunity to opt out of receiving such messages both when first collecting the details and in every subsequent message.

References: GDPR Article 4(11), GDPR Article 6(1)(a), GDPR Article 7, GDPR Recital 32, GDPR Recital 47, GDPR for Marketing: The Definitive Guide for 2023 - SuperOffice, A Guide to GDPR Compliance for Email Marketers in 2023

The territorial scope of the GDPR is determined by Article 3 of the Regulation, which sets out two main criteria for applying the GDPR to the processing of personal data: the establishment criterion and the targeting criterion. The establishment criterion 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 targeting criterion 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 EU. In addition, the GDPR applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the EU, but in a place where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law.

Therefore, the territorial scope of the GDPR does not depend on the membership of a country to a particular international agreement or organisation, but on the location and activities of the controller or processor and the data subjects involved in the processing. The Paris Agreement is an international treaty on climate change that aims to limit global warming and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It does not have any direct or indirect relevance to the GDPR or the protection of personal data. Hence, being a party to the Paris Agreement does not affect the applicability of the GDPR to a country or a controller or processor established in that country.

The other options are incorrect because they are either directly or indirectly related to the GDPR or the protection of personal data. The European Economic Area (EEA) consists of all EU member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The EEA Agreement allows these three countries to participate in the EU’s internal market and to adopt most of the EU legislation, including the GDPR. Therefore, the GDPR applies to all EEA countries as if they were EU member states. The Treaty of Lisbon is an international agreement that amends the two treaties which form the constitutional basis of the EU. The Treaty of Lisbon introduces several changes to the EU’s institutional structure, decision-making process, and policy areas, including the recognition of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU as legally binding. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU includes the right to the protection of personal data as a fundamental right, and provides the legal basis for the GDPR. Therefore, the GDPR applies to all EU member states that are parties to the Treaty of Lisbon. The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 27 member states that are located primarily in Europe. The EU has developed an internal single market through a standardised system of laws that apply in all member states, including the GDPR. Therefore, the GDPR applies to all EU member states by virtue of their membership to the EU. References: Art. 3 GDPR – Territorial scope, Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3) - version adopted after public consultation, Paris Agreement - Wikipedia, European Economic Area - Wikipedia, Treaty of Lisbon - Wikipedia, European Union - Wikipedia

 According to the GDPR, consent is one of the six lawful bases for processing personal data. 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. Consent can be withdrawn at any time, and the withdrawal of consent must be as easy as giving it. Therefore, an individual can withdraw her consent for processing when she no longer wishes to be sent marketing materials from an organization, as this is a clear indication of her wishes and does not affect the lawfulness of the processing based on consent before its withdrawal. The other situations are not related to consent, but to other lawful bases such as contract, legitimate interest or legal obligation. References: Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 9; CIPP/E Certification, page 3; GDPR, Article 4(11), Article 6(1)(a), Article 7(3).

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 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

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.

Ben’s collection of additional data from customers, especially sensitive data such as philosophical beliefs and political opinions, created several potential issues for the company, such as:

The risk of violating the data minimization principle, which requires that personal data collected must be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the purposes of the processing1.

The risk of infringing the rights and freedoms of the data subjects, who may not be aware of or consent to the secondary use of their data by Ben Knows Best, or the unauthorized access and copying of their data by Sam.

The risk of non-compliance with the GDPR’s requirements for processing special categories of data, which include data revealing philosophical beliefs and political opinions. Such data can only be processed under certain conditions, such as explicit consent, substantial public interest, or legal claims2.

The risk of data breaches or losses, as the data is transferred to a separate database, copied by Sam, and stored on the company’s servers in Vermont, which may not have adequate security measures or safeguards.

Therefore, the company would most likely require a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) to identify and mitigate these risks. A DPIA is a process that helps assess the impact of the envisaged processing operations on the protection of personal data, and consult with the supervisory authority if the DPIA indicates that the processing would result in a high risk in the absence of measures taken by the controller to mitigate the risk3. The other options are not necessarily required by the GDPR, although they may be good practices or contractual terms. References:

Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 32, section 4.1.2

CIPP/E Certification, page 27, section 4.1.2

The Ultimate CIPP/E Study Guide for 2023, page 36, section 4.1.2

Principles - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 5

Special categories of personal data - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 9

Data protection impact assessment - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 35

According to the GDPR, a transfer of personal data to a third country or an international organisation may take place only if the conditions laid down in Chapter V of the GDPR are complied with by the controller and processor, including for onward transfers of personal data from the third country or an international organisation to another third country or to another international organisation1. A third country is any country outside of the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA)2. Therefore, a transfer impact assessment is only required when personal data is transferred to a third country or an international organisation that does not provide an adequate level of data protection, as recognised by the European Commission3. HRYourWay is a German based company, and Germany is a member state of the EU and the EEA. Thus, HRYourWay is not located in a third country, and no transfer impact assessment is needed for transferring personal data to it. The other options are incorrect, as they are not relevant to the question of whether a transfer impact assessment is required or not. References:

GDPR, Chapter V

GDPR, Article 4 (24)

GDPR, Article 45

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

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

GDPR, Article 77

GDPR, Article 23

Guidelines on restrictions of data subject rights under Art. 23 of the GDPR, page 4, section 2

Statement on restrictions on data subject rights in connection to the COVID-19 pandemic, page 2, section 2

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 the GDPR, legitimate interest is one of the possible legal bases for processing personal data, which means that the data controller has a valid reason to process the data that is not overridden by the interests or rights of the data subject1. The GDPR specifically mentions fraud prevention as a potential legitimate interest of the data controller, as it serves both the interests of the online shop and the data subjects who may be victims of fraud1. However, the data controller must conduct a balancing test to ensure that the legitimate interest is not outweighed by the potential harm or intrusion to the data subject’s privacy1. The data controller must also provide clear and transparent information to the data subject about the processing of their data for fraud prevention purposes, and respect their right to object to such processing1.

The other options are incorrect because:

A. Protection of the interests of the data subjects is not a legal basis for processing personal data, but rather a condition for processing special categories of personal data under Article 9 of the GDPR2. Moreover, fraud prevention does not necessarily protect the interests of the data subjects, but rather the interests of the online shop and the general public.

B. Performance of a contract is a legal basis for processing personal data that is necessary for the execution or fulfilment of a contract between the data controller and the data subject2. However, fraud prevention is not strictly necessary for the performance of a contract, as it is not directly related to the delivery of goods or services that the data subject has purchased from the online shop.

D. Consent is a legal basis for processing personal data that requires the data subject to give their informed, specific, and freely given agreement to the processing of their data for one or more purposes2. However, consent is not the most appropriate legal basis for fraud prevention, as it may not be freely given by the data subject, who may feel pressured to agree to the processing of their data in order to complete their purchase. Moreover, consent may not be reliable or effective for fraud prevention, as it can be withdrawn by the data subject at any time, or may be given by a fraudster who is not the legitimate owner of the data.

References: 2 Article 6 and 9 of the GDPR1 Legitimate interests | ICO1.

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 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.

According to Article 46 of the GDPR, in the absence of an adequacy decision by the European Commission, a controller or processor may transfer personal data to a third country or an international organisation only if the controller or processor has provided appropriate safeguards, and on condition that enforceable data subject rights and effective legal remedies for data subjects are available. One of the possible appropriate safeguards is the use of standard data protection clauses adopted by the Commission or by a supervisory authority. However, Article 46(5) states that the possibility for the controller or processor to use standard data protection clauses adopted by the Commission or by a supervisory authority shall not affect the possibility for the controller or processor to rely upon other appropriate safeguards provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided that they ensure that data subjects have enforceable and effective rights as regards the processing of their data. Therefore, in this case, Jackie’s recommendation of requiring UpFinance to notify ProStorage if it receives a government request for personal data UpFinance processes on its behalf prior to disclosing such data is an additional measure that could be considered as an appropriate safeguard, especially since UpFinance implements several data protection measures, including end-to-end encryption, with encryption keys held by the customer, which would ensure a high level of security and confidentiality of the personal data transferred. References:

Article 46 of the GDPR

IAPP CIPP/E Study Guide, page 67

Article 9 of the GDPR outlines strict conditions for processing special categories of personal data, which includes data revealing racial or ethnic origin. While options B, C, and D might seem relevant, they don't fully align with the core purpose of MagicAI's data collection.

Here's why option A is the most appropriate:

Scientific Research: MagicAI aims to improve the accuracy and fairness of its AI system by understanding how it performs across different ethnicities, nationalities, and genders. This directly ties into scientific research aimed at improving healthcare and reducing bias in medical technology.

It's important to note that even with "scientific research" as the legal basis, MagicAI must still adhere to strict safeguards, such as:

Data Minimization: Collecting only the data absolutely necessary for the research.

Purpose Limitation: Using the data solely for the defined scientific purpose.

Appropriate Security Measures: Protecting the data against unauthorized access or disclosure.

Ethical Review: Ideally, obtaining ethical approval for the research project.

References:

GDPR Article 9 - Processing of special categories of personal data

GDPR Recital 159 - Conditions for processing special categories of data for scientific research purposes

IAPP CIPP/E textbook, Chapter 2: Key Data Protection Principles (specifically, sections on special categories of data)

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

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) introduces a mechanism for personal data transfers to third countries or international organisations that do not ensure an adequate level of data protection, based on approved certifications. According to Article 42 of the GDPR, the European Commission, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the national data protection authorities (DPAs) shall encourage the establishment of data protection certification mechanisms and of data protection seals and marks, for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the GDPR of processing operations by controllers and processors. The specific needs of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises shall be taken into account.

The GDPR also provides that the certification mechanisms shall be voluntary and available via a transparent process. The certification shall be issued by the competent supervisory authority or by the certification bodies accredited by the supervisory authority or by the national accreditation body. The certification shall be valid for a maximum period of three years and may be renewed, under the same conditions, if the relevant requirements continue to be met. The certification shall be withdrawn, as the case may be, by the competent supervisory authority or by the certification bodies, where the requirements for the certification are not or are no longer met.

The GDPR further stipulates that the certification shall be issued to a controller or processor who has demonstrated, in accordance with the approved certification criteria, that the processing of personal data is in compliance with the GDPR. The certification shall specify the scope and purpose of the processing, the criteria applied and the duration of the validity of the certification. The certification shall not reduce the responsibility of the controller or the processor for compliance with the GDPR and shall not be interpreted as an endorsement of the quality or reliability of the products or services of the controller or the processor by the supervisory authority or the certification body.

The GDPR also states that the certification mechanisms shall contribute to the proper application of the GDPR, taking account of the specific features of the various processing sectors and the different risks for the rights and freedoms of data subjects. The certification mechanisms shall allow for the verification of compliance with the GDPR of processing operations by controllers and processors not established in the EU, regardless of the location of the processing. The certification mechanisms shall also provide for the possibility to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR for personal data transfers to third countries or international organisations under Article 46, which sets out the rules and requirements for the transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations based on appropriate safeguards, such as binding corporate rules, standard contractual clauses, codes of conduct or certification mechanisms.

References:

GDPR, Articles 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49.

EDPB Guidelines 1/2018 on certification and identifying certification criteria in accordance with Articles 42 and 43 of the Regulation 2016/679, pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.

Free CIPP/E Study Guide, pages 9, 10, 11 and 12.

 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 the CIPP/E study guide, the Data Protection Law Enforcement Directive (LED) is a piece of EU legislation that ensures the protection of personal data of individuals involved in criminal proceedings, be it as witnesses, victims or suspects1. The LED applies to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties2. Article 4 of the LED sets out the principles relating to the processing of personal data, which include lawfulness, fairness, purpose limitation, data minimisation, accuracy, storage limitation, integrity and confidentiality3. Article 4 (1) (e) of the LED states that personal data shall be processed lawfully, where processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out by a competent authority for the purposes of the LED, and where processing is based on Union or Member State law which shall meet an objective of general interest, respect the essence of the right to the protection of personal data and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued3. Therefore, a government can carry out covert investigations involving personal data, as long as it is set forth by law and constitutes a measure that is both necessary and proportionate to the objective of general interest, such as the prevention or prosecution of criminal offences. References: 1: CIPP/E study guide, page 1; Data protection in law enforcement2: CIPP/E study guide, page 2; Art. 2 LED3: CIPP/E study guide, page 3; Art. 4 LED.

Section: (none)

Explanation

Online Behavioural Advertising (OBA) means the collection of data from a particular computer or device regarding web viewing behaviours over time and across multiple web domains not under Common Control for the purpose of using such data to predict web user preferences or interests to deliver online advertising to that particular computer or device based on the preferences or interests inferred from such web viewing behaviours1. OBA is subject to the EU law on consent to the processing of personal data, which requires a clear affirmative action by the data subject indicating his or her agreement to the processing2. The consent must be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous, and it can be withdrawn at any time2. The consent must also be obtained prior to the collection and use of data for OBA purposes3. Therefore, Brady Box’s OBA practice is most likely to be

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.

Adequacy is a term that the EU uses to describe other countries, territories, sectors or international organisations that it deems to provide an ‘essentially equivalent’ level of data protection to that which exists within the EU. An adequacy decision is a formal decision made by the EU which recognises that another country, territory, sector or international organisation provides an equivalent level of protection for personal data as the EU does. The effect of such a decision is that personal data can flow from the EU (and Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland) to that third country without any further safeguard being necessary12.

The European Commission has so far recognised Andorra, Argentina, Canada (commercial organisations), Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Israel, Isle of Man, Japan, Jersey, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, the United Kingdom under the GDPR and the LED, the United States (commercial organisations participating in the EU-US Data Privacy Framework) and Uruguay as providing adequate protection13. On 28 June 2021, the EU Commission published two adequacy decisions in respect of the UK: one for transfers under the EU GDPR; and the other for transfers under the Law Enforcement Directive (LED)2. These decisions contain the European Commission’s detailed assessment of the UK’s laws and systems for protecting personal data, as well as the legislation designating the UK as adequate. Both adequacy decisions are expected to last until 27 June 20252.

Among the four options given, only Switzerland has been granted an adequacy decision by the EU, which means that it will continue to enjoy adequacy status under the GDPR, pending any future European Commission decision to the contrary. Greece is a member state of the EU, so it does not need an adequacy decision to receive personal data from the EU. Norway is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), which also includes Iceland and Liechtenstein, and has incorporated the GDPR into its national law, so it also does not need an adequacy decision. Australia has not been recognised as adequate by the EU, so transfers of personal data from the EU to Australia require appropriate safeguards or derogations13. Therefore, the correct answer is D. Switzerland. References:

 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 the GDPR, the lead supervisory authority (LSA) is the one located in the EU member state where the controller or processor has its main establishment or single establishment. The main establishment is the place where the decisions on the purposes and means of the processing of personal data are taken. In this case, the SaaS service was defined and implemented by the Polish establishment, so the decisions on the processing of personal data for this service are taken in Poland. Therefore, the LSA for the SaaS service is the supervisory authority of the Republic of Poland.

References:

GDPR Article 4(16): Definition of main establishment

GDPR Article 56: Competence of the lead supervisory authority

GDPR Recital 36: Determination of the main establishment

IAPP CIPP/E Study Guide, Chapter 5, Section 5.1: Lead Supervisory Authority

 According to the UK GDPR, the processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent1. Lawfulness means that there must be a valid legal basis for processing personal data, such as consent, contract, legal obligation, vital interests, public task or legitimate interests1. Fairness means that the processing must not be detrimental, unexpected or misleading to the individuals concerned1. Transparency means that the individuals must be informed about how their data is used, who it is shared with, what rights they have and how they can exercise them1. Therefore, the sentence that best summarizes these concepts is option A, which states that fairness and transparency refer to the communication of key information before collecting data; lawfulness refers to compliance with government regulations. References: 1

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

According to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a data processor is a natural or legal person, agency, public authority, or any other body who processes personal data on behalf of a data controller. A data controller is a natural or legal person, agency, public authority, or any other body who, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data. The GDPR imposes specific obligations and responsibilities on both data controllers and data processors, and requires them to 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.

In this scenario, BHealthy is the data controller, as it determines the purpose and means of collecting and sharing its customer information with Natural Insight. Natural Insight is the data processor, as it processes the customer information on behalf of BHealthy for the purpose of determining the price point for BHealthy’s new sunscreens. However, Natural Insight also intends to use the customer information for its own purpose of improving its algorithms, which may not be aligned with BHealthy’s purpose or instructions. This may constitute a breach of the data processing contract and the GDPR, as the data processor must only process the personal data on documented instructions from the data controller, unless required to do so by EU or member state law (Article 28(3)(a) of the GDPR).

Therefore, the only case in which Natural Insight’s use of BHealthy’s data for improvement of its algorithms would be considered data processor activity is if Natural Insight receives express contractual instructions from BHealthy to use its data for improving its algorithms. This would mean that BHealthy has given its consent and authorization for Natural Insight to process the data for that specific purpose, and that Natural Insight is acting in accordance with BHealthy’s instructions. In this case, Natural Insight would still be bound by the data processing contract and the GDPR, and would have to comply with the other obligations and requirements of a data processor, such as ensuring the security of the data, respecting the conditions for engaging another processor, assisting the data controller in ensuring compliance with the GDPR, and deleting or returning the data to the data controller after the end of the service.

The other options are not valid cases for data processor activity, as they do not involve the data controller’s instructions or consent. If Natural Insight uses BHealthy’s data for improving price point predictions only for BHealthy, it may still be processing the data for a different purpose than the one for which it was collected and shared, and without BHealthy’s knowledge or approval. If Natural Insight agrees to be fully liable for its use of BHealthy’s customer information in its product improvement activities, it may still be violating the data processing contract and the GDPR, as it is not acting on behalf of the data controller, but for its own benefit. If Natural Insight satisfies the transparency requirement by notifying BHealthy’s customers of its plans to use their information for its product improvement activities, it may still be infringing the data controller’s rights and obligations, as it is not the data controller’s role to inform the data subjects of the processing activities, and it may not have a lawful basis for processing the data for its own purpose.

References:

GDPR

Data Controllers and Processors - GDPR EU

Who does the UK GDPR apply to? | ICO

What Activities Count as Processing Under the GDPR?

What constitutes data processing? - European Commission

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 EU Data Act aims to increase access to data generated by connected devices (IoT devices), ensuring fair use and promoting data-driven innovation across the EU.

Key purposes of the EU Data Act:

Granting users access to data generated by their devices (Answer Choice B – Correct Answer)

One of the Act’s primary objectives is to allow users of smart devices, IoT systems, and connected industrial tools to access and control data generated by their devices​.

Improving non-personal data sharing (Answer Choice A – Incorrect)

While the Act does facilitate the transfer of non-personal data, its primary focus is on device-generated data access, rather than simply allowing free movement of non-personal data​.

Encouraging data-sharing frameworks (Answer Choice C – Incorrect)

The Act does promote data-sharing between businesses, but this is not its main goal. It primarily ensures that users retain control over data produced by their devices​.

Not primarily about personal data protection (Answer Choice D – Incorrect)

The GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) is the primary regulation that deals with personal data protection. The Data Act does not introduce new privacy rules but instead focuses on non-personal data management​.

 According to Article 5 of the GDPR, personal data must be 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 measures (‘integrity and confidentiality’)1. The company’s decision to install cameras in the entrance of the building, hallways and offices may violate this principle, as it may expose the personal data of the employees and visitors to unnecessary risks, such as hacking, misuse or disclosure. Moreover, the company must also comply with the other principles of data processing, such as lawfulness, fairness and transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, accuracy and storage limitation1. The company must have a legitimate and specific purpose for installing the cameras, and must inform the data subjects about the processing of their personal data. The company must also ensure that the cameras collect only the minimum amount of data necessary for the purpose, and that the data are accurate and kept for no longer than necessary. The company must also respect the rights and freedoms of the data subjects, and provide them with the means to exercise their rights, such as the right to access, rectify, erase, restrict, object or port2.

The most realistic step the company could take to address their security concerns and comply with the personal data processing principles set out in Article 5 of the GDPR is to restrict the camera placement to building entrances only. This would limit the scope and impact of the data processing, and reduce the risks to the personal data of the employees and visitors. The company would still need to inform the data subjects about the processing, and ensure that the footage is securely stored and transferred, especially if it is monitored by the home office in the United States, which is a third country that may not offer adequate protection for personal data3. The company would also need to consider the possibility of obtaining the consent of the data subjects, or relying on another legal basis for the processing, such as the legitimate interests of the company or the performance of a contract4. References:

Article 5 of the GDPR

[Article 12-23 of the GDPR]

[Article 44-50 of the GDPR]

[Article 6 of the GDPR]

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]

The GDPR allows for derogations for specific situations when a transfer of personal data to a third country or an international organization cannot be based on an adequacy decision, appropriate safeguards, or binding corporate rules1. However, these derogations are exceptions to the general rule and should not become the norm. The EDPB confirmed that derogations should only be used as a last resort and when interpreted restrictively, taking into account the nature of the data, the purpose and duration of the processing, the country of origin and destination, and the rights and freedoms of data subjects23. The EDPB also stressed that the data exporter must assess the level of protection in the third country and ensure that the transfer does not undermine the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects23. References: 1: Article 49 of the GDPR 2: Guidelines 2/2018 on derogations of Article 49 under Regulation 2016/679 3: A guide to international transfers | ICO

According to the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC), the use of cookies or similar devices that store or access information on the user’s device requires the user’s consent, unless the cookie is strictly necessary to enable the use of a service requested by the user. For example, a cookie that remembers the items in a shopping cart does not require consent, but a cookie that tracks the user’s browsing behavior for analytics or advertising purposes does. The consent must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous, and can be obtained through appropriate settings of the browser or other application. The consent must also be separate from other consents, such as the consent to the processing of personal data. The categories of data involved or the recipients of the data do not affect the consent requirement for the use of cookies. The consent must also be obtained before the cookie is placed or accessed, unless the cookie is exempted. Therefore, option A is correct.

Option B is incorrect because explicit consent is not required for the use of cookies, unless the cookie also involves the processing of special categories of personal data under the GDPR. However, in this scenario, there is no indication that the cookies collect or process such data. Therefore, option B is incorrect.

Option C is incorrect because the consent requirement for the use of cookies does not depend on the recipients of the data or the level of aggregation of the data. The consent must be obtained from the user whose device is accessed or stored by the cookie, regardless of who receives the data or how it is processed. Therefore, option C is incorrect.

Option D is incorrect because the consent requirement for the use of cookies does not depend on the potential for location tracking. The consent must be obtained for any cookie that is not strictly necessary to enable the use of a service requested by the user, regardless of the type or purpose of the cookie. Therefore, option D is incorrect.

References:

ePrivacy Directive, Article 5(3)

GDPR, Article 4(11), Article 7, Article 9

CIPP/E Study Guide, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.2

The GDPR is the EU’s general data protection regulation that applies to the processing of personal data by controllers and processors 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 sets out the principles, rights and obligations for the protection of personal data, as well as the enforcement and cooperation mechanisms among the data protection authorities and the European Data Protection Board.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), the Data Governance Act (DGA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) are part of the EU’s digital strategy that aims to create a single market for data and digital services, by supporting responsible access, sharing and re-use of data, while respecting the values of the EU and in particular the protection of personal data. These legal acts do not change or replace the GDPR, but rather complement and reinforce it, by addressing specific issues and challenges related to the digital economy and society. The DSA, the DGA and the DMA explicitly state that they apply without prejudice to the GDPR and that they respect and uphold the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, including the right to the protection of personal data.

The DSA is a proposal for a regulation that seeks to harmonise the rules and responsibilities of online intermediaries, such as platforms, hosting services, cloud providers and online marketplaces, in order to ensure a safe and trustworthy online environment for users and businesses. The DSA introduces a set of obligations for online intermediaries, such as transparency, accountability, due diligence, cooperation and reporting, depending on their size, role and impact. The DSA also establishes a new governance and cooperation system among the national authorities and the European Commission, as well as a mechanism for out-of-court dispute resolution.

The DGA is a proposal for a regulation that aims to foster the availability of data for use by increasing trust in data intermediaries and by strengthening data-sharing mechanisms across the EU. The DGA introduces a new legal framework for data sharing services, such as data brokers, data marketplaces, data trusts and data cooperatives, that facilitate data exchange between data holders and data users. The DGA also sets out rules and requirements for data altruism, which is the voluntary consent of individuals or organisations to share data for the common good. The DGA also establishes a new governance model for data sharing in the EU, involving the European Data Innovation Board, the national competent authorities and the European Commission.

The DMA is a proposal for a regulation that intends to limit the power of large online platforms that act as gatekeepers in the digital market, by imposing a set of obligations and prohibitions to prevent unfair practices and ensure fair and open competition. The DMA defines the criteria and the procedure for identifying the gatekeepers, such as search engines, social networks, online marketplaces, app stores and cloud services, that have a significant impact and influence in the digital economy. The DMA also provides for the supervision and enforcement of the rules by the European Commission, as well as the possibility of imposing fines and sanctions for non-compliance.

References:

GDPR, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

DSA, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

DGA, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

DMA, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

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.

ABC Hotel Chain and XYZ Travel Agency are joint controllers in this relationship, because they jointly determine the purposes and means of the processing of personal data of their customers. According to Article 26 of the GDPR, joint controllers are two or more controllers who jointly participate in the decision-making process regarding the processing of personal data 1. In this scenario, ABC Hotel Chain and XYZ Travel Agency use a common platform for collecting and sharing customer data, and they agree on the data to be stored, how reservations will be booked and confirmed, and who has access to the stored data. Therefore, they have a common influence on the processing of personal data and share a common objective of integrating their marketing efforts. Moreover, they offer a rewards program that allows customers to sign up to accumulate points that can be redeemed for free travel, which implies a joint benefit from the processing of personal data.

The other options are not correct because they do not reflect the actual roles of ABC Hotel Chain and XYZ Travel Agency in this relationship. A controller is a natural or legal person who alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data 2. A processor is a natural or legal person who processes personal data on behalf of the controller 3. In this scenario, neither ABC Hotel Chain nor XYZ Travel Agency act solely or on behalf of the other in processing the personal data of their customers. Rather, they act together in a collaborative manner and share the responsibility and accountability for the processing of personal data. Therefore, they are joint controllers, not independent controllers or controller and processor. References: 1: Article 26 of the GDPR 2: Article 4(7) of the GDPR 3: Article 4(8) of the GDPR

The material scope of the GDPR is outlined in Article 21. The Regulation applies to ‘processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means and 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 system.’1 However, the Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity1. This exemption is meant to protect the privacy of individuals in their private sphere and to exclude activities that have no connection with a professional or commercial activity2. The exemption covers activities such as correspondence, social networking, online publication of photos or videos, and the use of online services for personal purposes2. However, the exemption does not apply if the processing of personal data affects the rights and freedoms of others, such as when the data is made accessible to an indefinite number of people3. Therefore, the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a large-scale but purely personal or household activity is not exempt from the material scope of the GDPR, as it may have an impact on the privacy of other individuals. The other options are exempt from the material scope of the GDPR, as they involve small-scale, purely personal or household activities that do not affect the rights and freedoms of others. References: 1: Article 2 of the GDPR2: Recital 18 of the GDPR3: CJEU, Case C-101/01, Lindqvist, 2003.

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

The steps listed in the question are part of a best practice framework for implementing a secure BYOD program, which allows employees to use their personal devices to access organizational data and applications. A BYOD program poses significant privacy and security risks, such as data leakage, unauthorized access, malware infection, and compliance violations. Therefore, an organization should follow a comprehensive approach to discover, monitor, manage, and secure the devices, apps, and data involved in a BYOD program. This approach can help the organization meet the GDPR requirements for data protection by design and by default, data security, accountability, and data breach notification. References:

Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 15, section 2.3.3

CIPP/E Certification, page 10, section 1.1.2

Cipp-e Study guides, Class notes & Summaries, document “CIPP/E Exam Summary 2023”, page 42, section 2.3.3

 According to the UK GDPR, employees have the right to access and receive a copy of their personal data, and other supplementary information, from their employer. This is known as a data subject access request (DSAR). Employers must respond to a DSAR without delay and within one month of receipt of the request, unless the request is complex or excessive. Employers should perform a reasonable search for the requested information and provide it in an accessible, concise and intelligible format. Employers can only refuse to provide the information if an exemption or restriction applies, or if the request is manifestly unfounded or excessive. Some of the exemptions that may apply in the employment context are: legal privilege, management forecasting, confidential references, negotiations, regulatory functions, and criminal convictions and offences. Employers should disclose the information securely and inform the employee of their rights and the source of the data. References:

Right of access | ICO

Subject access request Q and As for employers | ICO

Data Subject Access Request (Employers’ Guide) | DavidsonMorris

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

(a) Explicit consent

(b) Employment, social security and social protection (if authorised by law)

© Vital interests

(d) Not-for-profit bodies

(e) Made public by the data subject

(f) Legal claims and judicial acts

(g) Substantial public interest conditions

(h) Health or social care

(i) Public health

(j) Archiving, research and statistics

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

References:

4: Art. 9 GDPR Processing of special categories of personal data

6: What are the rules on special category data? | ICO

One of the main differences between a Regulation and a Directive in the EU law is that a Regulation is directly applicable and binding in all EU member states, without the need for national implementing measures, while a Directive sets out the objectives and principles that the member states must achieve, but leaves them the choice of form and methods to transpose it into their national laws. Therefore, by taking the form of a Regulation, the GDPR aims to harmonize and unify the data protection rules across the EU, and to ensure a consistent implementation and enforcement of the data protection laws throughout the EU. The other aspects of the GDPR listed in the question, such as the one-stop shop mechanism, the mandatory notification of large-scale data breaches, and the mandatory appointment of a data protection officer, are also important features of the GDPR, but they do not have the same impact on the consistency of the data protection laws as the form of a Regulation.

References: Difference between A Regulation And Directive (European Law)1; EUR-Lex - 310401_2 - EN - EUR-Lex2; EU GDPR vs. European Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC - Advisera3; Difference between GDPR and Data Protection Directive - Profolus

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

Article 14 of the GDPR, which specifies the information to be provided where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject.

ICO guidance, which explains the requirements and exceptions of Article 14 of the GDPR.

EDPB guidelines, which provide further guidance on the application of Article 14 of the GDPR.