SCENARIO
Please use the following to answer the next question:
Javier is a member of the fitness club EVERFIT. This company has branches in many EU member states, but for the purposes of the GDPR maintains its primary establishment in France. Javier lives in Newry, Northern Ireland (part of the U.K.), and commutes across the border to work in Dundalk, Ireland. Two years ago while on a business trip, Javier was photographed while working out at a branch of EVERFIT in Frankfurt, Germany. At the time, Javier gave his consent to being included in the photograph, since he was told that it would be used for promotional purposes only. Since then, the photograph has been used in the club's U.K. brochures, and it features in the landing page of its U.K. website. However, the fitness club has recently fallen into disrepute due to widespread mistreatment of members at various branches of the club in several EU member states. As a result, Javier no longer feels comfortable with his photograph being publicly associated with the fitness club.
After numerous failed attempts to book an appointment with the manager of the local branch to discuss this matter, Javier sends a letter to EVETFIT requesting that his image be removed from the website and all promotional materials. Months pass and Javier, having received no acknowledgment of his request, becomes very anxious about this matter. After repeatedly failing to contact EVETFIT through alternate channels, he decides to take action against the company.
Javier contacts the U.K. Information Commissioner's Office ('ICO' -- the U.K.'s supervisory authority) to lodge a complaint about this matter. The ICO, pursuant to Article 56 (3) of the GDPR, informs the CNIL (i.e. the supervisory authority of EVERFIT's main establishment) about this matter. Despite the fact that EVERFIT has an establishment in the U.K., the CNIL decides to handle the case in accordance with Article 60 of the GDPR. The CNIL liaises with the ICO, as relevant under the cooperation procedure. In light of issues amongst the supervisory authorities to reach a decision, the European Data Protection Board becomes involved and, pursuant to the consistency mechanism, issues a binding decision.
Additionally, Javier sues EVERFIT for the damages caused as a result of its failure to honor his request to have his photograph removed from the brochure and website.
Assuming that multiple EVETFIT branches across several EU countries are acting as separate data controllers, and that each of those branches were responsible for mishandling Javier's request, how may Javier proceed in order to seek compensation?
Answer : B
According to Article 82 of the GDPR1, any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of the GDPR shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor for the damage suffered. Any controller involved in processing shall be liable for the damage caused by processing which infringes the GDPR. Where more than one controller or processor, or both a controller and a processor, are involved in the same processing and where they are responsible for any damage caused by processing, each controller or processor shall be held liable for the entire damage in order to ensure effective compensation of the data subject. Therefore, Javier can sue any one of the EVETFIT branches that were involved in processing his personal data without his consent and in violation of his rights, and he can claim full compensation from that branch.The branch that pays the compensation can then claim back from the other branches involved in the same processing that part of the compensation corresponding to their part of responsibility for the damage.Reference:1Art. 82 GDPR -- Right to compensation and liability - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
Two companies, Gellcoat and Freifish, make plans to launch a co-branded product the prototype of which is called Gellifish 9090. The companies want to organize an event to introduce the new product, so they decide to share data from their client databases and come up with a list of people to invite. They agree on the content of the invitations and together build an app to gather feedback at the event.
In this scenario, Gellcoat and Freifish are considered to be?
Answer : A
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.Reference:
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
What is the consequence if a processor makes an independent decision regarding the purposes and means of processing it carries out on behalf of a controller?
Answer : C
According to the UK GDPR, a processor is a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller1.A processor must act only on the documented instructions of the controller and must not process the data for its own purposes or in a way that is incompatible with the controller's purposes1.If a processor makes an independent decision regarding the purposes and means of processing it carries out on behalf of a controller, it will be considered to be a controller in respect of that processing and will be subject to the same obligations and liabilities as a controller under the UK GDPR1.This means that the processor will have to comply with the data protection principles, ensure the rights of data subjects, implement appropriate technical and organisational measures, report data breaches, conduct data protection impact assessments, appoint a data protection officer if required, and cooperate with the supervisory authority1.The processor will also be exposed to the risk of administrative fines, compensation claims, and reputational damage1.Reference:1
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/controllers-and-processors/controllers-and-processors/what-are-controllers-and-processors/
Which of the following does NOT have to be included in the records most processors must maintain in relation to their data processing activities?
Answer : D
According to the GDPR, processors must maintain records of all categories of processing activities carried out on behalf of each controller, containing the following information12:
the name and contact details of the processor or processors and of each controller on behalf of which the processor is acting, and, where applicable, of the controller's or the processor's representative, and the data protection officer;
the categories of processing carried out on behalf of each controller;
where applicable, transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation, including the identification of that third country or international organisation and, in the case of transfers referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 49(1), the documentation of suitable safeguards;
where possible, a general description of the technical and organisational security measures referred to in Article 32(1).
The records must be in writing, including in electronic form, and must be made available to the supervisory authority on request. The obligation to maintain records does not apply to an enterprise or an organisation employing fewer than 250 persons unless the processing it carries out is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, the processing is not occasional, or the processing includes special categories of data or personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences.
The GDPR does not require processors to include details of any data protection impact assessment (DPIA) conducted in relation to any processing activities carried out by the processor on behalf of each controller for which the processor is acting. A DPIA is a process to help identify and minimise the data protection risks of a project. It is the responsibility of the controller to carry out a DPIA where a type of processing is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons. The processor may assist the controller in carrying out the DPIA, but the processor does not have to document it in its records of processing activities. Therefore, the correct answer is D.Reference:
GDPR, Article 30(2)
GDPR, Article 35
ICO, Documentation1
ICO, Data protection impact assessments1
Which of the following regulates the use of electronic communications services within the European Union?
Answer : C
Directive 2002/58/EC, also known as the ePrivacy Directive, regulates the use of electronic communications services within the European Union. It covers issues such as confidentiality of communications, processing of traffic and location data, spam, cookies, and security breaches. It complements and particularises Directive 95/46/EC, also known as the Data Protection Directive, which sets out the general principles for the protection of personal data in the EU. The ePrivacy Directive was amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, which introduced new provisions on consent, cookies, and breach notification. The ePrivacy Directive is currently under review and will be replaced by a new Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications (ePrivacy Regulation), which is still being negotiated by the EU institutions.Reference:Directive 2002/58/EC,Directive 2009/136/EC, [ePrivacy Regulation]
SCENARIO
Please use the following to answer the next question:
Due to rapidly expanding workforce, Company A has decided to outsource its payroll function to Company B. Company B is an established payroll service provider with a sizable client base and a solid reputation in the industry.
Company B's payroll solution for Company A relies on the collection of time and attendance data obtained via a biometric entry system installed in each of Company A's factories. Company B won't hold any biometric data itself, but the related data will be uploaded to Company B's UK servers and used to provide the payroll service. Company B's live systems will contain the following information for each of Company A's employees:
Name
Address
Date of Birth
Payroll number
National Insurance number
Sick pay entitlement
Maternity/paternity pay entitlement
Holiday entitlement
Pension and benefits contributions
Trade union contributions
Jenny is the compliance officer at Company
A . She first considers whether Company A needs to carry out a data protection impact assessment in relation to the new time and attendance system, but isn't sure whether or not this is required.
Jenny does know, however, that under the GDPR there must be a formal written agreement requiring Company B to use the time and attendance data only for the purpose of providing the payroll service, and to apply appropriate technical and organizational security measures for safeguarding the data. Jenny suggests that Company B obtain advice from its data protection officer. The company doesn't have a DPO but agrees, in the interest of finalizing the contract, to sign up for the provisions in full. Company A enters into the contract.
Weeks later, while still under contract with Company A, Company B embarks upon a separate project meant to enhance the functionality of its payroll service, and engages Company C to help. Company C agrees to extract all personal data from Company B's live systems in order to create a new database for Company B.
This database will be stored in a test environment hosted on Company C's U.S. server. The two companies agree not to include any data processing provisions in their services agreement, as data is only being used for IT testing purposes.
Unfortunately, Company C's U.S. server is only protected by an outdated IT security system, and suffers a cyber security incident soon after Company C begins work on the project. As a result, data relating to Company A's employees is visible to anyone visiting Company C's website. Company A is unaware of this until Jenny receives a letter from the supervisory authority in connection with the investigation that ensues. As soon as Jenny is made aware of the breach, she notifies all affected employees.
Under the GDPR, which of Company B's actions would NOT be likely to trigger a potential enforcement action?
Answer : C
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.
SCENARIO
Please use the following to answer the next question:
Brady is a computer programmer based in New Zealand who has been running his own business for two years. Brady's business provides a low-cost suite of services to customers throughout the European Economic Area (EEA). The services are targeted towards new and aspiring small business owners. Brady's company, called Brady Box, provides web page design services, a Social Networking Service (SNS) and consulting services that help people manage their own online stores.
Unfortunately, Brady has been receiving some complaints. A customer named Anna recently uploaded her plans for a new product onto Brady Box's chat area, which is open to public viewing. Although she realized her mistake two weeks later and removed the document, Anna is holding Brady Box responsible for not noticing the error through regular monitoring of the website. Brady believes he should not be held liable.
Another customer, Felipe, was alarmed to discover that his personal information was transferred to a third- party contractor called Hermes Designs and worries that sensitive information regarding his business plans may be misused. Brady does not believe he violated European privacy rules. He provides a privacy notice to all of his customers explicitly stating that personal data may be transferred to specific third parties in fulfillment of a requested service. Felipe says he read the privacy notice but that it was long and complicated
Brady continues to insist that Felipe has no need to be concerned, as he can personally vouch for the integrity of Hermes Designs. In fact, Hermes Designs has taken the initiative to create sample customized banner advertisements for customers like Felipe. Brady is happy to provide a link to the example banner ads, now posted on the Hermes Designs webpage. Hermes Designs plans on following up with direct marketing to these customers.
Brady was surprised when another customer, Serge, expressed his dismay that a quotation by him is being used within a graphic collage on Brady Box's home webpage. The quotation is attributed to Serge by first and last name. Brady, however, was not worried about any sort of litigation. He wrote back to Serge to let him know that he found the quotation within Brady Box's Social Networking Service (SNS), as Serge himself had posted the quotation. In his response, Brady did offer to remove the quotation as a courtesy.
Despite some customer complaints, Brady's business is flourishing. He even supplements his income through online behavioral advertising (OBA) via a third-party ad network with whom he has set clearly defined roles. Brady is pleased that, although some customers are not explicitly aware of the OBA, the advertisements contain useful products and services.
Based on the scenario, what is the main reason that Brady should be concerned with Hermes Designs' handling of customer personal data?
Answer : C
: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.
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