Question 91
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 92
What must a data controller do in order to make personal data pseudonymous?
Question 93
SCENARIO
Please use the following to answer the next question:
Anna and Frank both work at Granchester University. Anna is a lawyer responsible for data protection, while Frank is a lecturer in the engineering department. The University maintains a number of types of records:
Student records, including names, student numbers, home addresses, pre-university information, university attendance and performance records, details of special educational needs and financial information.
Staff records, including autobiographical materials (such as curricula, professional contact files, student evaluations and other relevant teaching files).
Alumni records, including birthplaces, years of birth, dates of matriculation and conferrals of degrees. These records are available to former students after registering through Granchester's Alumni portal. Department for Education records, showing how certain demographic groups (such as first-generation students) could be expected, on average, to progress. These records do not contain names or identification numbers.
Under their security policy, the University encrypts all of its personal data records in transit and at rest.
In order to improve his teaching, Frank wants to investigate how his engineering students perform in relational to Department for Education expectations. He has attended one of Anna's data protection training courses and knows that he should use no more personal data than necessary to accomplish his goal. He creates a program that will only export some student data: previous schools attended, grades originally obtained, grades currently obtained and first time university attended. He wants to keep the records at the individual student level. Mindful of Anna's training, Frank runs the student numbers through an algorithm to transform them into different reference numbers. He uses the same algorithm on each occasion so that he can update each record over time.
One of Anna's tasks is to complete the record of processing activities, as required by the GDPR.
After receiving her email reminder, as required by the GDPR. After receiving her email reminder, Frank informs Anna about his performance database.
Ann explains to Frank that, as well as minimizing personal data, the University has to check that this new use of existing data is permissible. She also suspects that, under the GDPR, a risk analysis may have to be carried out before the data processing can take place. Anna arranges to discuss this further with Frank after she has done some additional research.
Frank wants to be able to work on his analysis in his spare time, so he transfers it to his home laptop (which is not encrypted). Unfortunately, when Frank takes the laptop into the University he loses it on the train. Frank has to see Anna that day to discuss compatible processing. He knows that he needs to report security incidents, so he decides to tell Anna about his lost laptop at the same time.
Anna will find that a risk analysis is NOT necessary in this situation as long as?
Please use the following to answer the next question:
Anna and Frank both work at Granchester University. Anna is a lawyer responsible for data protection, while Frank is a lecturer in the engineering department. The University maintains a number of types of records:
Student records, including names, student numbers, home addresses, pre-university information, university attendance and performance records, details of special educational needs and financial information.
Staff records, including autobiographical materials (such as curricula, professional contact files, student evaluations and other relevant teaching files).
Alumni records, including birthplaces, years of birth, dates of matriculation and conferrals of degrees. These records are available to former students after registering through Granchester's Alumni portal. Department for Education records, showing how certain demographic groups (such as first-generation students) could be expected, on average, to progress. These records do not contain names or identification numbers.
Under their security policy, the University encrypts all of its personal data records in transit and at rest.
In order to improve his teaching, Frank wants to investigate how his engineering students perform in relational to Department for Education expectations. He has attended one of Anna's data protection training courses and knows that he should use no more personal data than necessary to accomplish his goal. He creates a program that will only export some student data: previous schools attended, grades originally obtained, grades currently obtained and first time university attended. He wants to keep the records at the individual student level. Mindful of Anna's training, Frank runs the student numbers through an algorithm to transform them into different reference numbers. He uses the same algorithm on each occasion so that he can update each record over time.
One of Anna's tasks is to complete the record of processing activities, as required by the GDPR.
After receiving her email reminder, as required by the GDPR. After receiving her email reminder, Frank informs Anna about his performance database.
Ann explains to Frank that, as well as minimizing personal data, the University has to check that this new use of existing data is permissible. She also suspects that, under the GDPR, a risk analysis may have to be carried out before the data processing can take place. Anna arranges to discuss this further with Frank after she has done some additional research.
Frank wants to be able to work on his analysis in his spare time, so he transfers it to his home laptop (which is not encrypted). Unfortunately, when Frank takes the laptop into the University he loses it on the train. Frank has to see Anna that day to discuss compatible processing. He knows that he needs to report security incidents, so he decides to tell Anna about his lost laptop at the same time.
Anna will find that a risk analysis is NOT necessary in this situation as long as?
Question 94
When does the GDPR provide more latitude for a company to process data beyond its original collection purpose?
Question 95
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.
Under the cooperation mechanism, what should the lead authority (the CNIL) do after it has formed its view on the matter?
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.
Under the cooperation mechanism, what should the lead authority (the CNIL) do after it has formed its view on the matter?