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

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.

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

Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 17, section 2.3.2

CIPP/E Certification, page 12, section 2.3.2

Cipp-e Study guides, Class notes & Summaries, page 23, section 2.3.2

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.

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 CJEU, the ePrivacy Directive does not define the concept of consent, but refers to the GDPR for its interpretation1. Therefore, the GDPR standard of consent applies to the use of cookies and similar technologies that require consent under the ePrivacy Directive. The GDPR defines consent as any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her2. The CJEU also clarified that the consent requirements apply regardless of whether the cookies constitute personal data or not, as the ePrivacy Directive covers any information stored or accessed on the user’s device1. The other options are incorrect, as the CJEU ruled that pre-checked boxes, implicit consent by scrolling, and insufficient information on the cookies do not meet the GDPR standard of consent1. References:

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

GDPR, Article 4 (11)

ePrivacy Directive, Article 5 (3)

Planet49: CJEU Rules on Cookie Consent

CURIA - List of results

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

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 the EU glossary1, a directive is a legal act that sets out a goal that EU countries must achieve, but leaves them the choice of form and methods to reach it. A directive is binding on the EU countries to which it is addressed, but it does not apply directly at the national level. Instead, it has to be transposed into national law by the national authorities, usually within a specified time limit. This allows for some flexibility and adaptation to the specific circumstances of each country. A directive is different from a regulation, which is a legal act that applies automatically and uniformly to all EU countries as soon as it enters into force, without needing to be transposed into national law. References:

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

Types of legislation, section 2

What are EU directives?

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

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

References:

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

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

 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.

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

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

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

Section: (none)

Explanation

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

Sandy should give this feedback to Dan and the marketing team, as it reflects the principle of data minimization, which requires that personal data collected must be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the purposes of the processing1. Collecting birth date and salary information from customers who want to download white papers or register for events is not necessary for those purposes, and may pose risks for data protection and security. Moreover, such information may fall under the category of special data, which requires explicit consent from the data subjects and can only be processed under certain conditions2. The other options do not comply with the principle of data minimization, as they still involve collecting more data than needed, even if they are optional or in brackets. References:

Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 23, section 3.1

CIPP/E Certification, page 18, section 3.1

The Ultimate CIPP/E Study Guide for 2023, page 16, section 3.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

Risks and data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) | ICO

What Are GDPR Risk Assessments and Why Are They Important?

GDPR Compliance Risk Assessment Best Practices | Accountable

Why risk assessments are essential for GDPR compliance

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

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

The e-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC, also known as the Directive on privacy and electronic communications, is a specific directive that complements and particularises the GDPR for the electronic communications sector. It was amended in 2009 by the Directive 2009/136/EC, which introduced several changes to enhance the protection of personal data and privacy in the electronic communications sector. One of these changes was the introduction of a mandatory notification for personal data breaches applicable to providers of publicly available electronic communications services, such as telecom providers and internet service providers. According to Article 4 of the amended e-Privacy Directive, these providers must notify the competent national authority of any breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed in connection with the provision of a publicly available electronic communications service in the Community. The notification must be made without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 24 hours after the provider has become aware of the breach. The notification must include information such as the nature and content of the personal data concerned, the circumstances and consequences of the breach, and the measures taken or proposed by the provider to address the breach. The provider must also notify the affected data subjects of the breach, unless the provider has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the competent authority that it has implemented appropriate technological protection measures that render the data unintelligible to any person who is not authorised to access it. The notification to the data subjects must describe the nature of the breach and the contact points where more information can be obtained, and must recommend measures to mitigate the possible adverse effects of the breach. The purpose of this mandatory notification is to ensure that the authorities and the data subjects are informed of the risks and the remedies related to the breach, and to encourage the providers to improve their security measures and prevent further breaches. References: e-Privacy Directive, Changes to e-Privacy Directive Approved by European Parliament, Article 2 Amendments to Directive 2002/58/EC (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), Personal data breaches

The GDPR applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the EU, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the EU or not. The GDPR also applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the EU by a controller or processor not established in the EU, where the processing activities are related to the offering of goods or services to such data subjects in the EU or the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the EU1. Therefore, after leaving the EU under the terms of Brexit, the UK became a third country for the purposes of the GDPR, meaning that personal data transfers from the EU to the UK are subject to the rules on international data transfers under Chapter V of the GDPR2. In order to ensure the continuity and stability of data flows between the EU and the UK, the UK sought an adequacy decision from the European Commission, which is a formal recognition that a third country provides an equivalent level of data protection to that of the EU3. On 28 June 2021, the European Commission adopted two adequacy decisions in respect of the UK: one for transfers under the GDPR and the other for transfers under the Law Enforcement Directive (LED)4. These decisions allow personal data to flow freely from the EU to the UK without any further safeguard being necessary, and are expected to last until 27 June 2025, unless they are amended, suspended or repealed earlier5. References:

GDPR, Article 3

GDPR, Chapter V

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

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

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

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

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

What does it mean if you are joint controllers?

What’s New in the EDPB’s Draft Guidelines on Controllers and Processors under the GDPR

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

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

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

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

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

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

 According to Recital 51 of the GDPR, photographs are not automatically considered as biometric data, unless they are processed by a specific technical means that allows the unique identification or authentication of a natural person1. This means that printing employees’ photographs on building passes does not necessarily involve biometric data, as long as the photographs are not used for facial recognition or other similar purposes. The other options are incorrect, as they do not reflect the definition of biometric data or the conditions for processing special categories of personal data under the GDPR2. References:

Recital 51 of the GDPR

ICO guidance on special category data

Reference https://ess.csa.canon.com/rs/206-CLL-191/images/IAPP-Top-10-Operational-Impacts-of- GDPR.pdf?TC=DM &CN=CSA_OMNIA_Partners&CS=CSA&CR=T1_Gov%20GenNonProfit (11)

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

Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR

Article 13 of the GDPR

Article 14 of the GDPR

IAPP CIPP/E Study Guide, page 31

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 Article 17 of the GDPR, the data subject has the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller has the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay where one of the following grounds applies: (a) the personal data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed; (b) the data subject withdraws consent on which the processing is based and where there is no other legal ground for the processing; © the data subject objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21(1) and there are no overriding legitimate grounds for the processing, or the data subject objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21(2); (d) the personal data have been unlawfully processed; (e) the personal data have to be erased for compliance with a legal obligation in Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject; (f) the personal data have been collected in relation to the offer of information society services referred to in Article 8(1). However, Article 17(3) provides that the right to erasure does not apply to the extent that processing is necessary for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information. Therefore, this would not be a valid ground for data subject delisting requests. References:

Article 17 of the GDPR

EDPB Guidelines 5/2019 on the criteria of the Right to be Forgotten in the search engines cases under the GDPR (part 1)

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

Here's why the other options are incorrect:

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

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

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

References:

GDPR Article 35 - Data protection impact assessment

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

WP29 Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

 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

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

According to Article 49 of the GDPR, transfers of personal data to third countries or international organisations may take place in the absence of an adequacy decision or appropriate safeguards, such as standard contractual clauses or binding corporate rules, only if one of the derogations listed in that article applies1. One of the derogations is when the transfer is necessary for the protection of the vital interests of the data subject or of other persons, where the data subject is physically or legally incapable of giving consent1. This derogation is intended to cover only urgent situations, such as medical emergencies, where the transfer is essential for the data subject’s life or health2.

In this scenario, ProStorage most likely relied on this derogation to transfer Ruth’s medical information to the hospital in India, where she suffered a medical emergency and was hospitalized. The transfer was necessary for the protection of Ruth’s vital interests, as she was in a critical condition and needed urgent medical care. Ruth was also physically or legally incapable of giving consent, as she was unconscious or incapacitated. Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

Option A is incorrect because Ruth’s implied consent is not a valid transfer mechanism under the GDPR. Consent must be explicit, informed, specific, and freely given for the transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations1. Ruth did not give any explicit consent for the transfer of her medical information to the hospital, nor was she informed or asked about it. Moreover, consent cannot be relied on as a transfer mechanism when the data subject is in a situation of distress or dependence, such as a medical emergency, as it would not be considered freely given2.

Option C is incorrect because the performance of a contract with Ruth is not a valid transfer mechanism under the GDPR. The transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations on the basis of a contract with the data subject is only allowed if the transfer is necessary for the performance of that contract or for the implementation of pre-contractual measures taken at the data subject’s request1. In this scenario, there is no contract between ProStorage and Ruth that requires or justifies the transfer of her medical information to the hospital. The transfer is not necessary for the performance of Ruth’s employment contract with ProStorage, nor for any pre-contractual measures taken by Ruth.

Option D is incorrect because the protection against legal liability from Ruth is not a valid transfer mechanism under the GDPR. The transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations on the grounds of legal claims or defence is only allowed if the transfer is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims1. In this scenario, there is no legal claim or defence involved in the transfer of Ruth’s medical information to the hospital. The transfer is not necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of any legal claim by or against ProStorage or Ruth.

References:

Derogations for specific situations

Guidelines 2/2018 on derogations of Article 49 under Regulation 2016/679

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

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

References:

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

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

 According to the GDPR, a controller is the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data1. A processor is a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller1. The controller and the processor must enter into a contract or other legal act that sets out the subject-matter and duration of the processing, the nature and purpose of the processing, the type of personal data and categories of data subjects and the obligations and rights of the controller2.

In this scenario, BHealthy is the controller for the personal data of its customers, as it determines the purposes and means of the processing, such as conducting research to decide how to market its new line of sunscreens across Europe. Natural Insight is the processor for the personal data that BHealthy shares with it, as it processes the data on behalf of BHealthy for the purpose of determining the price point for the new sunscreens. However, Natural Insight is also a controller for the same personal data when it uses it for its own purpose of improving its machine learning algorithms, which is not part of the contract or legal act with BHealthy. Therefore, Natural Insight is a controller and a processor for the same personal data, depending on the purpose of the processing3.

References:

Art. 4 GDPR – Definitions

Art. 28 GDPR – Processor

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

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

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

Systematic and extensive evaluation of personal aspects relating to natural persons which is based on automated processing, including profiling, and on which decisions are based that produce legal effects concerning the natural person or similarly significantly affect the natural person.

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 18, section 3.4.2

Standard contractual clauses for international transfers, section 1.1

Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC), section 2.1

Decision 2007/72/EC

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

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

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

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

According to Article 45 of the GDPR, the European Commission has the power to determine whether a third country, a territory or one or more specified sectors within a third country, or an international organisation ensures an adequate level of protection of personal data. This means that personal data can flow from the EU and the EEA to that third country without any further safeguard being necessary. The adequacy decision is based on an assessment of the legal framework, the enforcement mechanisms, the access by public authorities, the international commitments and the cooperation with the EU of the third country or organisation. The European Commission also monitors the functioning of the adequacy decisions and can repeal, amend or suspend them if the level of protection is no longer ensured. The European Commission has so far recognised several countries and organisations as providing adequate protection, such as Japan, Canada, Switzerland, the UK and the EU-US Data Privacy Framework. References: GDPR Article 45, Data protection adequacy for non-EU countries, Adequacy decisions | European Data Protection Board

 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

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)

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

GDPR Article 4(5), which defines pseudonymisation.

GDPR Recital 26, which explains the difference between pseudonymisation and anonymisation.

EDPS blog post, which provides an overview of pseudonymisation and its benefits.

ICO guidance, which gives practical advice on how to implement pseudonymisation.

According to the Article 29 Working Party, a just-in-time notice is a type of privacy notice that provides processing information at specific points of data collection, such as when the user clicks on a certain feature or enters personal data1. This kind of notice is commonly recommended for AI-based technologies because it allows the user to receive relevant and timely information about the processing of their data, without being overwhelmed by lengthy and complex privacy statements1. A just-in-time notice can also be combined with other types of notices, such as layered notices or privacy dashboards, to provide a more comprehensive and user-friendly transparency framework1. Therefore, option C is the correct answer. Option A is incorrect because a privacy dashboard notice is a type of notice that provides the user with a centralised and interactive overview of the processing of their data, and allows them to manage their privacy settings and preferences1. Option B is incorrect because a visualization notice is a type of notice that uses graphical elements, such as icons, symbols, colours, or animations, to convey the processing information in a more intuitive and engaging way1. Option D is incorrect because a layered notice is a type of notice that provides the processing information in a hierarchical and modular way, starting with the most essential information and allowing the user to access more details if they wish1. References:

What’s new in WP29’s final guidelines on transparency?

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

According to 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

While Company B made several mistakes in handling Company A's employee data, not all of them would likely trigger a potential enforcement action under the GDPR. Here's an analysis of each option:

A. Omission of data protection provisions in the contract with Company C: This is a clear violation of the GDPR. Company B, as the data controller, is responsible for ensuring that any third-party processors comply with data protection requirements. By omitting data protection provisions in the contract, Company B failed to take appropriate steps to ensure the security and privacy of the personal data. This would be a likely trigger for an enforcement action.

B. Failure to provide sufficient security safeguards to Company A's data: This is another violation of the GDPR. Company B has a legal obligation to implement appropriate technical and organizational security measures to protect personal data from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, alteration, or destruction. The outdated IT security system at Company C's U.S. server demonstrates a failure to meet this obligation. This would also be a likely trigger for an enforcement action.

C. Engagement of Company C to improve their payroll service: While outsourcing certain aspects of data processing is permitted under the GDPR, the data controller remains ultimately responsible for compliance. However, simply engaging another company to improve a service itself isn't necessarily a violation. As long as the proper safeguards are in place and the data processing is carried out in accordance with the GDPR, this action alone would not likely trigger an enforcement action.

D. Decision to operate without a data protection officer: The GDPR requires certain organizations to appoint a data protection officer (DPO). While Company B may be required to have a DPO depending on its size and activities, the absence of a DPO wouldn't automatically trigger an enforcement action. However, it could indicate a lack of compliance culture and contribute to other violations, increasing the likelihood of an enforcement action.

Therefore, while Company B made several mistakes, only the ones that directly violate specific data protection requirements, such as omitting data protection provisions in contracts or failing to implement appropriate security measures, are likely to trigger an enforcement action. Engaging a third-party to improve a service, as long as it's done in a compliant manner, isn't a violation in itself.

 The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) are derived from the e-privacy Directive 2002/58/EC, which aims to protect the privacy and confidentiality of users of electronic communications services. The PECR cover various aspects of electronic marketing, such as the use of cookies, unsolicited communications, and traffic and location data. According to the PECR, the following marketing-related activities require the consent of the user or subscriber, unless certain exemptions apply:

The use of cookies or similar technologies to store or access information on the user’s device (Regulation 6).

The sending of electronic mail for direct marketing purposes to individual subscribers who have not given their prior consent (Regulation 22).

The making of unsolicited calls for direct marketing purposes to individual subscribers who have registered their number with the Telephone Preference Service or who have objected to such calls from a specific caller (Regulation 21).

The sending of unsolicited communications for direct marketing purposes by means of electronic mail, fax, or automated calling systems to corporate subscribers, unless they have indicated that they do not wish to receive such communications (Regulation 23).

Therefore, among the four options, the one that is least likely to be covered by the provisions of the PECR is the advertisements passively displayed on a website, as they do not involve the use of cookies, the sending of unsolicited communications, or the processing of traffic or location data. However, such advertisements may still be subject to other data protection laws, such as the GDPR, if they involve the processing of personal data of the users.

References:

PECR

e-privacy Directive

ICO guide to PECR

The Data Retention Directive was a EU law that required providers of electronic communications services to retain certain data, such as traffic and location data, for a period of between six months and two years, for the purpose of preventing, investigating, detecting and prosecuting serious crime1. However, in 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared the Directive invalid, because it violated the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU2. The Court found that the Directive entailed a wide-ranging and particularly serious interference with those rights, without being limited to what is strictly necessary3. One of the reasons for this finding was that the Directive applied to all individuals, all means of electronic communication and all traffic data without any differentiation, limitation or exception, thus affecting the entire population of the EU4. The Court also noted that the Directive did not provide sufficient safeguards to ensure effective protection of the data against the risk of abuse and unlawful access, and did not require the data to be retained within the EU5. References: 1 Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC2 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union3 Press release No 54/14 - Judgment in Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others4 Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 April 2014. Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Others and Kärntner Landesregierung and Others. Requests for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) and the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Austria). Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/125 Ibid.

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 CIPP/E study guide, data controllers should use the least intrusive means of verifying the identity of data subjects who make requests under the GDPR. Asking for a copy of an ID document or a bank account statement may be disproportionate and excessive, as they contain more personal data than necessary for authentication. Asking for the bank account number may not be sufficient, as it may be easily obtained by third parties. Therefore, the most appropriate way to confirm the identity of the customer is to ask additional security questions that only the customer would know, such as the date of the last transaction, the amount of the last deposit, or the name of the beneficiary of a recurring payment.

References: CIPP/E Study Guide, page 28; CIPP/E Textbook, page 136.

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

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

Convention 108 was the first legally binding international instrument in the data protection field, adopted by the Council of Europe in 19811. However, it had some limitations that led to the creation of the Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC) by the European Union in 19952. One of the main failings of Convention 108 was that it was implemented in a fragmented manner by a small number of states, resulting in divergent and inconsistent national laws and practices3. The Data Protection Directive aimed to harmonize the data protection rules within the EU and to ensure a high level of protection for individuals’ rights and freedoms2. Therefore, option C is the correct answer. Option A is incorrect because Convention 108 did account for the rapid growth of the Internet by allowing for amendments and protocols to adapt to technological developments1. Option B is incorrect because Convention 108 did include protections for sensitive personal data, such as those revealing racial origin, political opinions, religious beliefs, health, or sexual life1. Option D is incorrect because Convention 108 did not prescribe specific penalties for violations of data protection rights, but left it to the Parties to adopt appropriate sanctions and remedies1. References:

Convention 108 and Protocols

CIPP/E Certification

Convention 108+ and the Data Protection Framework of the EU

According to the GDPR, consent is one of the lawful bases for processing personal data1. 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 her2. Therefore, consent must be specific to each purpose of processing and cannot be bundled with other purposes3. If a company wants to use personal data for a new purpose that is not compatible with the original purpose for which consent was given, it must obtain a new consent from the data subjects for the new processing4. Simply informing the data subjects of the new purpose or updating the privacy notice is not sufficient, as it does not imply the data subject’s agreement to the new processing. Proceeding with the new processing without obtaining a new consent would be unlawful and could result in fines and sanctions5. References:

Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 23, section 4.1.1

GDPR, Article 4 (11)

GDPR, Recital 32

GDPR, Article 6 (4)

GDPR, Article 83 (5) (a)

 The GDPR applies to the 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 system1. However, the GDPR does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity2. This means that individuals can process personal data without being subject to the GDPR, as long as the processing is not related to a professional or commercial activity. For example, the GDPR does not apply to an individual who keeps a personal address book or who posts photos of their family and friends on a social media platform, as long as the platform is not used for business purposes3. References: 1: Article 2(1) of the GDPR 2: Article 2(2)© of the GDPR 3: Recital 18 of the GDPR

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

According to Article 37(2) of the GDPR, a group of undertakings may appoint a single data protection officer (DPO) provided that the DPO is easily accessible from each establishment12. This means that the DPO should be able to communicate effectively with the data subjects and the supervisory authorities in the relevant languages and jurisdictions, and to perform the tasks referred to in Article 39 of the GDPR34. The accessibility of the DPO does not necessarily depend on the physical location of the DPO, but rather on the availability of the DPO to the relevant stakeholders via various means of communication34. Therefore, the DPO does not have to be located in the country where the data controller has its main establishment, nor does the group of undertakings have to obtain approval from a supervisory authority or be comprised of organizations of similar sizes and functions to appoint a single DPO. References: CIPP/E Certification - International Association of Privacy Professionals, Free CIPP/E Study Guide - International Association of Privacy Professionals, GDPR - EUR-Lex, What’s different about a group data protection officer?, Data Protection Officers: What US Companies Need to Know - Cooley

After determining the scope of a ransomware attack, the organization should assess the risks associated with the breach. This risk assessment will help determine whether notification of affected individuals and regulatory bodies is required. If notification is required, it should be done within the relevant timeframes.

References:

IAPP CIPP/E textbook, Chapter 5: Data Breach Notification

IAPP CIPP/E Study Guide, Domain 3: Incident Response

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

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

 According to the Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 16, “the GDPR provides for a one-stop-shop mechanism, which means that a controller or processor with establishments in several Member States will have only one supervisory authority as its interlocutor, which will act as the lead authority. However, this does not mean that the lead authority has exclusive competence to supervise all processing activities of the controller or processor throughout the EU. The GDPR also allows for the possibility of a relevant and reasoned objection by a concerned supervisory authority, which may trigger the consistency mechanism and the involvement of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB). Moreover, the GDPR recognizes the right of any supervisory authority to adopt urgent measures on its own territory or to commence legal proceedings before a court in its Member State in order to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects.” Therefore, the lead regulator should accept the Spanish supervisory authority’s notice that it plans to take action regarding Sofia’s complaint, as the GDPR permits non-lead authorities to take action for such complaints, especially when they involve urgent measures or legal proceedings to protect the data subjects’ rights and freedoms. The other options are incorrect, as they do not reflect the GDPR’s provisions on the one-stop-shop mechanism and the cooperation and consistency mechanisms. References:

Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 16

GDPR, Articles 56, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 and 66

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

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

Performing a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) is a mandatory requirement for any type of processing that is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals, such as large-scale or systematic monitoring of public areas. A DPIA is a process that helps identify and mitigate the potential privacy risks of using CCTV, and document the measures taken to address them. A DPIA should include a description of the processing, its purpose and necessity, its risks and benefits, the safeguards and security measures, and the consultation with stakeholders. A DPIA should be carried out before the CCTV system is installed or upgraded, and reviewed regularly or whenever there is a significant change in the processing.

Creating an information retention policy for those who operate the system is a good practice to ensure that the personal data collected by CCTV is not kept longer than necessary for the purpose for which it was collected, and that it is securely deleted or anonymised when no longer needed. The retention period should be determined by the specific purpose and context of using CCTV, and take into account any legal or contractual obligations, as well as the expectations and rights of the data subjects. The retention policy should also specify who is responsible for managing and deleting the CCTV footage, and how the deletion process is verified and documented.

Ensuring that safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorized access to the footage is an essential requirement to comply with the GDPR principle of integrity and confidentiality, which states that personal data must be processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the data, including protection against unauthorized or unlawful processing and accidental loss, destruction or damage. The safeguards may include technical and organisational measures, such as encryption, access control, logging, audit, training, policies and procedures, that aim to protect the CCTV footage from unauthorized or unlawful access, disclosure, alteration, or destruction, both during transmission and storage. References: GDPR Article 35, GDPR Article 36, GDPR Article 5, CCTV and video surveillance | ICO, 5 Step Guide to Check if Your CCTV is GDPR Compliant

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

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

The purpose and legal basis of the data processing, which should be clearly defined and documented in a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) or a similar document12.

The nature and extent of the personal data involved, which should be limited to what is necessary for the purpose and not retained longer than necessary12.

The measures taken to ensure the security and confidentiality of the personal data, such as encryption, pseudonymization, access control, etc12.

The rights and interests of the data subjects, such as their right to access, rectify, erase or restrict their personal data, as well as their right to object or withdraw consent12.

The potential risks and consequences of the data processing for the rights and freedoms of the data subjects, such as identity theft, discrimination, reputational damage, etc12.

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

The purpose of using student records for research purposes is not clear from Frank’s description. He does not specify whether he has obtained consent from the students or their parents/guardians, or whether he has informed them about his research objectives and methods.

The nature and extent of using student records for research purposes is not clear from Frank’s description. He does not specify which student records he is using (e.g., by name or by reference number), how many records he is using (e.g., by cohort or by class), or how long he will keep them (e.g., until graduation or indefinitely).

The measures taken to ensure the security and confidentiality of using student records for research purposes are not clear from Frank’s description. He does not specify whether he has encrypted his program or his laptop before transferring it to his home device, whether he has backed up his program or his laptop before losing it on the train, or whether he has reported his lost laptop to his IT department.

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

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

 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 https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations-2/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/lawfulness-fairness-and-transparency/

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

According to the ePrivacy Directive, which regulates direct electronic marketing in the EU, consent is generally required before sending marketing emails or texts. However, there is an exception known as the ‘soft opt-in’, which allows marketing emails or texts to be sent on an opt-out basis if the recipient’s details were collected “in the context of the sale of a product or a service” and the marketing is for “similar products or services” provided by the same organisation12. Therefore, WonderKids can send direct marketing information by email without prior consent of the person booking the childcare, as long as the information is about similar products or services to those purchased from WonderKids, and the person is given a clear and easy way to opt out of receiving such emails. The other options are not allowed under the ePrivacy Directive, unless the person has given explicit consent to receive them. References:

Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 33, section 4.1.3

CIPP/E Certification, page 28, section 4.1.3

Cipp-e Study guides, Class notes & Summaries, page 39, section 4.1.3

Direct marketing rules and exceptions under the GDPR, paragraph 5

Marketing | ICO, section “What does the ‘soft opt-in’ mean?”

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

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

References:

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

Convention 108+ and the GDPR

General Data Protection Regulation

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

[Article 3 GDPR – Territorial scope]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

•GDPR Article 4 - Definitions1

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

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.

 According to the Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 14, “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 risk, the controller shall consult the supervisory authority prior to the processing.” This means that the controller must seek the advice of the supervisory authority when the DPIA identifies high risks that cannot be sufficiently reduced by the controller’s own measures. The other options are not necessarily cases where the consultation is required, although they may trigger other obligations under the GDPR, such as obtaining a valid legal basis, providing adequate safeguards, or informing the data subjects. References:

Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 14

GDPR, Article 36

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]