Question 98
SCENARIO
Please use the following to answer the next question:
Louis, a long-time customer of Bedrock Insurance, was involved in a minor car accident a few months ago. Although no one was hurt, Louis has been plagued by texts and calls from a company called Accidentable offering to help him recover compensation for personal injury. Louis has heard about insurance companies selling customers' data to third parties, and he's convinced that Accidentable must have gotten his information from Bedrock Insurance.
Louis has also been receiving an increased amount of marketing information from Bedrock, trying to sell him their full range of their insurance policies.
Perturbed by this, Louis has started looking at price comparison sites on the internet and has been shocked to find that other insurers offer much cheaper rates than Bedrock, even though he has been a loyal customer for many years. When his Bedrock policy comes up for renewal, he decides to switch to Zantrum Insurance.
In order to activate his new insurance policy, Louis needs to supply Zantrum with information about his No Claims bonus, his vehicle and his driving history. After researching his rights under the GDPR, he writes to ask Bedrock to transfer his information directly to Zantrum. He also takes this opportunity to ask Bedrock to stop using his personal data for marketing purposes.
Bedrock supplies Louis with a PDF and XML (Extensible Markup Language) versions of his No Claims Certificate, but tells Louis it cannot transfer his data directly to Zantrum as this is not technically feasible. Bedrock also explains that Louis's contract included a provision whereby Louis agreed that his data could be used for marketing purposes; according to Bedrock, it is too late for Louis to change his mind about this. It angers Louis when he recalls the wording of the contract, which was filled with legal jargon and very confusing.
In the meantime, Louis is still receiving unwanted calls from Accidentable Insurance. He writes to Accidentable to ask for the name of the organization that supplied his details to them. He warns Accidentable that he plans to complain to the data protection authority, because he thinks their company has been using his data unlawfully. His letter states that he does not want his data being used by them in any way.
Accidentable's response letter confirms Louis's suspicions. Accidentable is Bedrock Insurance's wholly owned subsidiary, and they received information about Louis's accident from Bedrock shortly after Louis submitted his accident claim. Accidentable assures Louis that there has been no breach of the GDPR, as Louis's contract included, a provision in which he agreed to share his information with Bedrock's affiliates for business purposes.
Louis is disgusted by the way in which he has been treated by Bedrock, and writes to them insisting that all his information be erased from their computer system.
After Louis has exercised his right to restrict the use of his data, under what conditions would Accidentable have grounds for refusing to comply?
Please use the following to answer the next question:
Louis, a long-time customer of Bedrock Insurance, was involved in a minor car accident a few months ago. Although no one was hurt, Louis has been plagued by texts and calls from a company called Accidentable offering to help him recover compensation for personal injury. Louis has heard about insurance companies selling customers' data to third parties, and he's convinced that Accidentable must have gotten his information from Bedrock Insurance.
Louis has also been receiving an increased amount of marketing information from Bedrock, trying to sell him their full range of their insurance policies.
Perturbed by this, Louis has started looking at price comparison sites on the internet and has been shocked to find that other insurers offer much cheaper rates than Bedrock, even though he has been a loyal customer for many years. When his Bedrock policy comes up for renewal, he decides to switch to Zantrum Insurance.
In order to activate his new insurance policy, Louis needs to supply Zantrum with information about his No Claims bonus, his vehicle and his driving history. After researching his rights under the GDPR, he writes to ask Bedrock to transfer his information directly to Zantrum. He also takes this opportunity to ask Bedrock to stop using his personal data for marketing purposes.
Bedrock supplies Louis with a PDF and XML (Extensible Markup Language) versions of his No Claims Certificate, but tells Louis it cannot transfer his data directly to Zantrum as this is not technically feasible. Bedrock also explains that Louis's contract included a provision whereby Louis agreed that his data could be used for marketing purposes; according to Bedrock, it is too late for Louis to change his mind about this. It angers Louis when he recalls the wording of the contract, which was filled with legal jargon and very confusing.
In the meantime, Louis is still receiving unwanted calls from Accidentable Insurance. He writes to Accidentable to ask for the name of the organization that supplied his details to them. He warns Accidentable that he plans to complain to the data protection authority, because he thinks their company has been using his data unlawfully. His letter states that he does not want his data being used by them in any way.
Accidentable's response letter confirms Louis's suspicions. Accidentable is Bedrock Insurance's wholly owned subsidiary, and they received information about Louis's accident from Bedrock shortly after Louis submitted his accident claim. Accidentable assures Louis that there has been no breach of the GDPR, as Louis's contract included, a provision in which he agreed to share his information with Bedrock's affiliates for business purposes.
Louis is disgusted by the way in which he has been treated by Bedrock, and writes to them insisting that all his information be erased from their computer system.
After Louis has exercised his right to restrict the use of his data, under what conditions would Accidentable have grounds for refusing to comply?
Question 99
SCENARIO
Please use the following to answer the next question:
Building Block Inc. is a multinational company, headquartered in Chicago with offices throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe (including Germany, Italy, France and Portugal). Last year the company was the victim of a phishing attack that resulted in a significant data breach. The executive board, in coordination with the general manager, their Privacy Office and the Information Security team, resolved to adopt additional security measures. These included training awareness programs, a cybersecurity audit, and use of a new software tool called SecurityScan, which scans employees' computers to see if they have software that is no longer being supported by a vendor and therefore not getting security updates. However, this software also provides other features, including the monitoring of employees' computers.
Since these measures would potentially impact employees, Building Block's Privacy Office decided to issue a general notice to all employees indicating that the company will implement a series of initiatives to enhance information security and prevent future data breaches.
After the implementation of these measures, server performance decreased. The general manager instructed the Security team on how to use SecurityScan to monitor employees' computers activity and their location.
During these activities, the Information Security team discovered that one employee from Italy was daily connecting to a video library of movies, and another one from Germany worked remotely without authorization.
The Security team reported these incidents to the Privacy Office and the general manager. In their report, the team concluded that the employee from Italy was the reason why the server performance decreased.
Due to the seriousness of these infringements, the company decided to apply disciplinary measures to both employees, since the security and privacy policy of the company prohibited employees from installing software on the company's computers, and from working remotely without authorization.
What would be the MOST APPROPRIATE way for Building Block to handle the situation with the employee from Italy?
Please use the following to answer the next question:
Building Block Inc. is a multinational company, headquartered in Chicago with offices throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe (including Germany, Italy, France and Portugal). Last year the company was the victim of a phishing attack that resulted in a significant data breach. The executive board, in coordination with the general manager, their Privacy Office and the Information Security team, resolved to adopt additional security measures. These included training awareness programs, a cybersecurity audit, and use of a new software tool called SecurityScan, which scans employees' computers to see if they have software that is no longer being supported by a vendor and therefore not getting security updates. However, this software also provides other features, including the monitoring of employees' computers.
Since these measures would potentially impact employees, Building Block's Privacy Office decided to issue a general notice to all employees indicating that the company will implement a series of initiatives to enhance information security and prevent future data breaches.
After the implementation of these measures, server performance decreased. The general manager instructed the Security team on how to use SecurityScan to monitor employees' computers activity and their location.
During these activities, the Information Security team discovered that one employee from Italy was daily connecting to a video library of movies, and another one from Germany worked remotely without authorization.
The Security team reported these incidents to the Privacy Office and the general manager. In their report, the team concluded that the employee from Italy was the reason why the server performance decreased.
Due to the seriousness of these infringements, the company decided to apply disciplinary measures to both employees, since the security and privacy policy of the company prohibited employees from installing software on the company's computers, and from working remotely without authorization.
What would be the MOST APPROPRIATE way for Building Block to handle the situation with the employee from Italy?
Question 100
Which of the following is NOT recognized as being a common characteristic of cloud-computing services?
Question 101
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?
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?