CIPP-E Dumps with Practice Exam Questions Answers

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

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

References:

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

Art. 4 GDPR – Definitions

Art. 3 GDPR – Territorial scope

Guidelines 9/2022 on personal data breach notification under GDPR

Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR

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

 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 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

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) does not prohibit surveillance of employees in the workplace. Still, it requires employers to follow special rules to ensure that the rights and freedoms of employees are protected when processing their personal data. The GDPR applies to any processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the EU, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the EU or not. The GDPR also applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the EU by a controller or processor not established in the EU, where the processing activities are related to the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EU or the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the EU.

The GDPR requires that any processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent, and based on one of the six legal grounds specified in the regulation. The most relevant legal grounds for employee surveillance are the legitimate interests of the employer, the performance of a contract with the employee, or the compliance with a legal obligation. The GDPR also requires that any processing of personal data must be limited to what is necessary for the purposes for which they are processed, and that the data subjects must be informed of the purposes and the legal basis of the processing, as well as their rights and the safeguards in place to protect their data.

The GDPR also imposes specific obligations and restrictions on the processing of special categories of personal data, such as biometric data, which reveal racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, or which are processed for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person. The processing of such data is prohibited, unless one of the ten exceptions listed in the regulation applies. The most relevant exceptions for employee surveillance are the explicit consent of the data subject, the necessity for the purposes of carrying out the obligations and exercising specific rights of the controller or of the data subject in the field of employment and social security and social protection law, or the necessity for reasons of substantial public interest.

The GDPR also sets out the rules and requirements for the transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations, which do not ensure an adequate level of data protection. The transfer of such data is only allowed if the controller or processor has provided appropriate safeguards, such as binding corporate rules, standard contractual clauses, codes of conduct or certification mechanisms, and if the data subjects have enforceable rights and effective legal remedies.

Based on the scenario, the primary privacy risks of the planned surveillance system are the excessive scope of monitoring and the lack of legitimate purpose for data collection. The surveillance system involves the collection and processing of a large amount of personal data, including special categories of personal data, such as biometric data and data revealing political opinions or trade union membership, from the employees’ devices and communications. The surveillance system also involves the transfer of personal data to a third country, China, which does not provide an adequate level of data protection. The surveillance system does not seem to have a clear and specific purpose that is necessary and proportionate to the legitimate interests of the employer, such as preventing fraud, ensuring network security, or complying with legal obligations. The surveillance system also does not seem to respect the principles of data minimisation, purpose limitation, transparency, and accountability. The surveillance system may infringe the rights and freedoms of the employees, such as the right to privacy, the right to data protection, the right to non-discrimination, the right to dignity, and the right to freedom of expression and association.

References:

GDPR, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49.

EDPB Guidelines 3/2019 on processing of personal data through video devices, pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.

EDPB Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR, pages 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28.

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.

EDPB Guidelines 2/2018 on derogations of Article 49 under Regulation 2016/679, pages 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.

Data protection: GDPR and employee surveilance | Feature | Law Gazette, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.