Category: General Data Protection Regulation
31. March 2021
In recent years, Virtual Voice Assistants (VVA) have enjoyed increased popularity among technophile consumers. VVAs are integrated in modern smartphones like Siri on Apple or Google Assistant on Android mobile devices, but can also be found in seperate terminal devices like Alexa on the Amazon Echo device. With Smart Homes trending, VVAs are finding their ways into many homes.
However, in light of their general mode of operation and their specific usage, VVAs potentially have access to a large amount of personal data. They furthermore use new technologies such as machine learning and artificial intelligence in order to improve their services.
As both private households and corporate businesses are increasingly using VVAs and questions on data protection arise, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) sought to provide guidance to the relevant data controllers. Therefore, the EDPB published a guidance on Virtual Voice Assistants earlier this month.
In its guidance, the EDPB specifically addresses VVA providers and VVA application developers. It encourages them to take considerations of data protection into account when designing their VVA service, as layed out by the principle of data protection by design and default under Art. 25 GDPR. The EDPB suggests that, for example, controllers could fulfil their information obligations pursuant to Art. 13/14 GDPR using voice based notifications if the VVA works with a screenless terminal device. VVA designers could also enable users to initiate a data subject request though easy-to-follow voice commands.
Moreover, the EDPB states that in their opinion, providing VVA services will require a Data Protection Impact Assessment according to Art. 35 GDPR. The guidance also gives further advice on complying with general data protection principles and is still open for public consultation until 23 April 2021.
18. March 2021
Personal health data are considered a special category of personal data under Art. 9 of the GDPR and are therefore given special protections. A group of IT experts, including members of the German Chaos Computer Club (CCC), has now revealed security gaps in the software for test centres by which more than 136,000 COVID-19 test results of more than 80,000 data subjects have apparently been unprotected on the internet for weeks.
The IT-Security experts’ findings concern the software “SafePlay” of the Austrian company Medicus AI. Many test centres use this software to allocate appointments and to make test results digitally available to those tested. In fact, more than 100 test centres and mobile test teams in Germany and Austria are affected by the recent data breach. These include public facilities in Munich, Berlin, Mannheim as well as fixed and temporary testing stations in companies, schools and daycare centres.
In order to view the test results unlawfully, one only needed to create an account for a COVID-19 test. The URL for the test result contained the number of the test. If this number was simply counted up or down, the “test certificates” of other people became freely accessible. In addition to the test result, the test certificate also contained the name, date of birth, private address, nationality and ID number of the person concerned.
It remains unresolved whether the vulnerabilities have been exploited prior to the discovery by the CCC. The CCC notified both Medius AI and the Data Protection Authorities about the leak which led to a quick response by the company. However, IT experts and Privacy-focused NGOs commented that Medicus AI was irresponsible and grossly negligent with respect to their security measures leading to the potential disclosure of an enormous amount of sensitive personal health data.
25. February 2021
On February 19th, 2021, the European Commission (EC) has published the draft of two adequacy decisions for the transfer of personal data to the United Kingdom (UK), one under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the second for the Law Enforcement Directive. If approved, the decisions would confer adequacy status on the UK and ensure that personal data from the EU can continue to flow freely to the UK. In the EC’s announcement launching the process to adopt the newly drafted adequacy decisions Didier Reynders, Commissioner for Justice, is quoted:
We have thoroughly checked the privacy system that applies in the UK after it has left the EU. Now European Data Protection Authorities will thoroughly examine the draft texts. EU citizens’ fundamental right to data protection must never be compromised when personal data travel across the Channel. The adequacy decisions, once adopted, would ensure just that.
In the GDPR, this adequacy decision is based on Art. 45 GDPR. Article 45(3) GDPR empowers the EU Commission to adopt an implementing act to determine that a non-EU country ensures an “adequate level of protection”. This means a level of protection for personal data that is substantially equivalent to the level of protection within the EU. Once it has been determined that a non-EU country provides an “adequate level of protection”, transfers of personal data from the EU to that non-EU country can take place without further requirements. In the UK, the processing of personal data is governed by the “UK GDPR” and the Data Protection Act 2018, which are based on the EU GDPR. The UK is and has committed to remain part of the European Convention on Human Rights and “Convention 108” of the Council of Europe. “Convention 108” is a binding treaty under international law to protect individuals from abuses in the electronic processing of personal data, and in particular provides for restrictions on cross-border data flows where data is to be transferred to states where no comparable protection exists.
The GDPR adequacy decision draft addresses several areas of concern. One of these is the power of intelligence services in the UK. In this respect, the draft focuses on legal bases, restrictions and safeguards for the collection of information for national security purposes. It also details the oversight structure over the intelligence services and the remedies available to those affected. Another aspect discussed is the limitation of data subjects’ rights in the context of UK immigration law. The EC concludes that interference with individuals’ fundamental rights is limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose and that there is effective legal protection against such interference. As the UK GDPR is based on the GDPR and therefore the UK privacy laws should provide an adequate level of protection for data subjects, the main risks for EU data subjects do not lie in the current status of these laws but in possible changes of these laws in the future. For this reason, the EU Commission has built a fixed period of validity into the draft adequacy decision. If adopted, this decision would be valid for a period of four years and the adequacy finding could be extended for a further four years if the level of protection in the UK remains adequate. However, this extension would not be automatic, but subject to a thorough review. This draft marks the first time that the EU has imposed a time limit on an adequacy decision. Other adequacy decisions are subject to monitoring and regular review but are not time-limited by default.
The UK government welcomed the EC’s draft in a statement, while also calling on the EU to “swiftly complete” the process for adopting and formalizing the adequacy decisions, as the “bridging mechanism” will only remain in force until June 30th. Under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the EU and UK agreed on a transition period of up to six months from January 1st, 2021, during which the UK is treated as an adequate jurisdiction (please see our blog post). The draft adequacy decisions address the flow of data from the EU to the UK. The flow of data from the UK to the EU is governed by UK legislation that has applied since 1 January 2021. The UK has decided that the EU ensures an adequate level of protection and that data can therefore flow freely from the UK to the EU.
Next, the non-binding opinion of the European Data Protection Board is sought (Art. 70 GDPR). After hearing the opinion of the European Data Protection Board, the representatives of the member states must then confirm the draft in the so-called comitology procedure. This procedure is used when the EC is given the power to implement legal acts that lay down conditions for the uniform application of a law. A series of procedures ensure that EU countries have a say in the implementing act. After the comitology procedure, the EC is free to adopt the drafts.
4. February 2021
The President of the Personal Data Protection Office in Poland (UODO) imposed a fine on the Medical University of Silesia in the amount of PLN 25.000 (approx. EUR 5.600). The university had suffered a data breach of which it should have notified the supervisory authority and the data subjects according to Articles 33, 34 GDPR, but failed to do so.
First indications of the data breach reached UODO in early June 2020. It was related to exams held at the end of May 2020 by videoconference on an e-learning platform. These were also being recorded. Before the exam, students were identified by their IDs or student cards, so a large amount of their personal data was documented on the recordings. After the exam was completed, the recordings were made available on the platform. However, not only the examinees had access to the platform, but also a wider group of people, about which the students had not been informed. In addition, using a direct link, any extern person could access the recordings and therefore the data of the examinees. Many students, fearing that the video would be deleted to cover up the incident, secured the file or took photographs of the computer screens to protect evidence. Eventually, the chancellor (being the decision-making unit) expressed the position that the incident of 200 people viewing the IDs of some 100-150 other people cannot be considered a personal data breach.
The controller, who was requested to clarify the situation by UODO, did not dispute the data breach. In fact, the virtual room of the platform is only available to the exam group and only those people have access to the recordings. The violation occurred because one of the employees did not close access to the virtual room after the exam. Though, the controller stated that no notification was required. In his opinion the risk to the rights or freedoms of the data subjects was low. Moreover, after the incident, the system was modified to prevent students from downloading the exam files. The controller also indicated that he identified the individuals who had done so and informed them about their criminal liability for disseminating the data.
Despite several letters from UODO, the university still omitted to report the data breach and notify the data subjects. Therefore, administrative proceedings were initiated. UODO found that the controller failed to comply with his obligations to notify both the supervisory authority and affected data subjects as well as improperly assessed the risk involved.
When imposing the fine, the President of UODO took into account the duration of the infringement (several months), the intentional action of the controller and his unsatisfactory cooperation with the supervisory authority. The fine will serve not only a repressive but also a preventive function, as it shows that the obligations arisen in connection with data breaches cannot be ignored. All the more so because an inappropriate approach to the obligations imposed by the GDPR may lead to negative consequences for those affected by the breaches.
28. January 2021
Clubhouse is a new social networking app by the US company Alpha Exploration Co. available for iOS devices. Registered users can open rooms for others to talk about various topics. Participation is possible both as a speaker and as a mere listener. These rooms can be available for the public or as closed groups. The moderators speak live in the rooms and the listeners can then join the virtual room. Participants are initially muted and can be unmuted by the moderators to talk. In addition, the moderators can also mute the participants or exclude them from the respective room. As of now, new users need to be invited by other users, the popularity of these invitations started to rise in autumn 2020 when US celebrities started to use the app. With increasing popularity also in the EU, Clubhouse has come under criticism from a data protection perspective.
As mentioned Clubhouse can only be used upon an invitation. To use the option to invite friends, users must share their address book with Clubhouse. In this way, Alpha Exploration can collect personal data from contacts who have not previously consented to the processing of their data and who do not use the app. Not only Alpha Exploration, but also users may be acting unlawfully when they give the app access to their contacts. The user may also be responsible for the data processing associated with the sharing of address books. Therefore, it is not only the responsibility of Alpha Exploration, but also of the user to ensure that consent has been obtained from the contacts whose personal data is being processed. From a data protection perspective, it is advisable not to grant the Clubhouse app access to this data unless the consent of the respective data subjects has been obtained and ideally documented. Currently, this data is transferred to US servers without the consent of the data subjects in the said address books. Furthermore, it is not apparent in what form and for what purposes the collected contact and account information of third parties is processed in the USA.
Under Clubouse’s Terms of Service, and in many cases according to several national laws, users are prohibited from recording or otherwise storing conversations without the consent of all parties involved. Nevertheless, the same Terms of Service include the sentence “By using the service, you consent to having your audio temporarily recorded when you speak in a room.” According to Clubhouse’s Privacy Policy, these recordings are used to punish violations of the Terms of Service, the Community Guidelines and legal regulations. The data is said to be deleted when the room in question is closed without any violations having been reported. Again, consent to data processing should be treated as the general rule. This consent must be so-called informed consent. In view of the fact that the scope and purpose of the storage are not apparent and are vaguely formulated, there are doubts about this. Checking one’s own platform for legal violations is in principle, if not a legal obligation in individual cases, at least a so-called legitimate interest (Art. 6 (1) (f) GDPR) of the platform operator. As long as recordings are limited to this, they are compliant with the GDPR. The platform operator who records the conversations is primarily responsible for this data processing. However, users who use Clubhouse for conversations with third parties may be jointly responsible, even though they do not record themselves. This is unlikely to play a major role in the private sphere, but all the more so if the use is in a business context.
It is suspected that Clubhouse creates shadow profiles in its own network. These are profiles for people who appear in the address books of Clubhouse users but are not themselves registered with Clubhouse. For this reason, Clubhouse considers numbers like “Mobile-Box” to be well-connected potential users. So far, there is no easy way to object to Clubhouse’s creation of shadow profiles that include name, number, and potential contacts.
Clubhouse’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy do not mention the GDPR. There is also no address for data protection information requests in the EU. However, this is mandatory, as personal data of EU citizens is also processed. In addition, according to Art. 14 GDPR, EU data subjects must be informed about how their data is processed. This information must be provided to data subjects before their personal data is processed. That is, before the data subject is invited via Clubhouse and personal data is thereby stored on Alpha Exploration’s servers. This information does not take place. There must be a simple opt-out option, it is questionable whether one exists. According to the GDPR, companies that process data of European citizens must also designate responsible persons for this in Europe. So far, it is not apparent that Clubhouse even has such data controllers in Europe.
The german “Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband” (“VZBV”), the german federate Consumer Organisation, has issued a written warning (in German) to Alpha Exploration, complaining that Clubhouse is operated without the required imprint and that the terms of use and privacy policy are only available in English, not in German as required. The warning includes a penalty-based cease-and-desist declaration relating to Alpha Exploration’s claim of the right to extensive use of the uploaded contact information. Official responses from European data protection authorities regarding Clubhouse are currently not available. The main data protection authority in this case is the Irish Data Protection Commissioner.
So far, it appears that Clubhouse’s data protection is based solely on the CCPA and not the GDPR. Business use of Clubhouse within the scope of the GDPR should be done with extreme caution, if at all.
26. January 2021
The Norwegian Data Protection Authority “Datatilsynet” (in the following “DPA”) announced recently that it intends to fine the online dating provider “Grindr LLC” (in the following “Grindr”) for violations of the GDPR an administrative fine of € 9.6 Mio. (NOK 100 Mio.).
Grindr is a popular and widely used Dating App for gay, bi, trans and queer people and uses a location-based technology to connect the users. Thus, Grindr processes beside personal data also sensitive data like the sexual orientation of the users. The latter are subject to a high level of protection due to the requirements of the GDPR.
The DPA came to the conclusion that Grindr transferred personal data of its users to third parties for marketing purposes without having a legal basis for doing so. In particular, Grindr neither informed the data subjects in accordance with the GDPR nor have obtained consent from the concerned data subject. Datatilsynet considers this case as serious, because the users were not able to exercise real and effective control over the sharing of their data.
Datatilsynet has set a deadline of February 15th, 2021 for Grindr to submit its comments on the case and will afterwards make its final decision.
On January 13, 2021, the Advocate General (“AG”) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) published an opinion in the case of Facebook Ireland Limited, Facebook INC, Facebook Belgium BVBA v the Belgian Data Protection Authority “Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit” (“Belgian DPA”), addressing the General Data Protection Regulation’s (“GDPR”) One-Stop-Shop mechanism.
In 2015, the Belgian DPA initiated several legal proceedings against Facebook Group members in local courts. The allegation was that Facebook placed cookies on devices of Belgian users without their consent, thereby collecting data in an excessive manner. Facebook argued that with the GDPR becoming applicable in 2018, the Belgian DPA lost its competence to continue the legal proceedings, as Facebook’s lead supervisory authority under the GDPR is the Irish Data Protection Commission. The Belgian Court of Appeal referred several questions to the CJEU, including whether the GDPR’s One-Stop-Shop regime prevented national DPA’s from initiating proceedings in the national courts when it is not the lead DPA.
The AG responded that, in his opinion, the lead DPA has the general jurisdiction over cross-border data processing, while a national DPA may exceptionally bring proceedings before its own national courts. The national DPA’s right is subject to the One-Stop-Shop regime and cooperation and consistency mechanism of the GDPR. Thus, each national DPA has the competence to initiate proceedings against possible infringements affecting its territory, the significant regulatory role of the lead DPA limits this competence with respect to cross-border data processing.
One of the concerns expressed by the Belgian DPA was the risk of insufficient enforcement if only lead DPA’s may act against organizations that do not comply with the GDPR. In this regard, the GA emphasizes that Art. 61 GDPR specifically provides for appropriate mechanisms to address such concerns. National DPA’s have the possibility to ask the lead DPA for assistance in investigations, and if such assistance is not provided, the national DPA concerned may take action itself.
In certain circumstances, the AG sees the possibility for national DPAs not acting as lead DPA to initiate proceedings before their national court, if
- the DPA is acting outside of the material scope of the GDPR; e.g., because the processing does not involve personal data;
- cross-border data processing is carried out by public authorities, in the public interest, or to comply with legal obligations;
- the processor is not established in the EU;
- there is an urgent need to act to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects (Art. 66 GDPR);
- the lead DPA has decided not to process a case.
With regards to data subjects, the AG notes that data subjects can bring action against any controller or processor before the court of their Member State and may file a complaint with their Member State’s DPA, regardless of which Member State’s DPA is the lead DPA.
The AG’s opinion is not legally binding on the CJEU, although the CJEU will take it into account. A final judgment of the CJEU is expected in the coming months. Thereafter, the Belgian Court of Appeal will have to decide its case in accordance with the CJEU’s judgment. The CJEU’s decision will most likely have a lasting impact on the division of roles between lead DPAs and other national DPAs, as well as on the ability of national DPAs to take enforcement actions into their own hands.
16. December 2020
The Administrative Court of Stockholm announced on November 23rd, 2020, that it had rejected Google LLC’s appeal against the decision of the Swedish Data Protection Authority (Datainspektionen) determining Google’s violations of the GDPR. Google as a search engine operator had not fulfilled its obligations regarding the right to be forgotten (RTBF). However, the court reduced the fine from a total of SEK 75 million (approx. € 7,344,000) to SEK 52 million (approx. € 5,091,000).
Background to the case was the Swedish DPA’s audit in 2017 concerning Google’s handling of requests on delisting, which means removal of certain results from a search engine. The DPA concluded the inspection by ordering Google to delist certain individuals’ names due to inaccuracy, irrelevance and superfluous information. In 2018 the DPA initiated a follow-up audit because of indications that Google had not fully complied with the previously issued order. It resulted in issuing an administrative fine of SEK 75 million in March 2020.
The DPA raised attention to the fact that the GDPR increases the obligations of data controllers and data processors as well as strengthens the rights of individuals, which include the right to have their search result delisted. Though, Google has not been fully complying with its obligations, as it has not properly removed two of the search result listings that the DPA had ordered to delete. In one case Google has done a too narrow interpretation of what web addresses to remove, in the other case Google has failed to remove it without undue delay.
Moreover, the DPA criticized Google’s procedure of managing delisting requests and found it to be undermining data subjects’ rights. Following the removal of a search result listing, Google notifies the website to which the link is directed. The delisting request form, directed to the data subject raising the request, states that information on the removed web addresses can be provided to the webmaster. This information has to be seen as misleading since the data subject is made to understand that its consent to the notification is required in order to process the request. Therefore, such practice might result in individuals refraining from exercising their right to request delisting, which violates Art. 5 (1) lit. a) GDPR. What’s more, in the opinion of the DPA the delisting notifications to the webmasters are not covered by legal obligations according to Art. 6 (1) lit. c), 17 (2) GDPR, nor legitimate interests pursuant to Art. 6 (1) lit. f) GDPR. Also, Google’s routine of regularly sending information to webmasters constitutes processing of personal data being incompatible with the purpose for which the data was originally collected. This practice infringes Art. 5 (1) lit. b), 6 (4) GDPR.
Google appealed the decision of the DPA. Though, the Swedish Administrative Court of Stockholm reaffirmed the DPA’s opinion and confirmed Google’s violations of the GDPR.
The court stated that the process concerning delisting requests must facilitate for the individual to exercise its rights. That means, any process that restricts the individuals’ rights may violate Art. 15 through 22 GDPR. The court also specified why the personal data had been processed beyond their original purpose. Since the notifications are only sent after Google has removed a search result, the purpose of the processing has already expired when the notification is sent. Thus, the notification cannot be considered effective in achieving the purpose specified by Google.
Google shall now delist specific search results and cease to inform webmasters of requests. Also, Google must adapt its data subject rights procedure within eight weeks after the court’s judgment has gained legal force.
27. November 2020
The President of the Personal Data Protection Office in Poland (UODO) imposed an admonition on a company dealing with waste management liable for a data breach and ordered to notify the concerned data subjects. The admonition is based on a violation of personal data pertaining to data subjects under medical quarantine. The city name, street name, building/flat number and the fact of remaining under quarantine of the affected data subjects have been provided by the company to unauthorized recipients. The various recipients were required to verify whether, in a given period, waste was to be collected from places determined in the above-mentioned list.
The incident already happened in April 2020. Back then, a list of data subjects was made public, containing information on who had been quarantined by the administrative decision of the District Sanitary-Epidemiological Station (PPIS) in Gniezno as well as information on quarantined data subjects in connection with crossing the country border and on data subjects undergoing home isolation due to a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. After becoming aware of the revelation, the Director of PPIS notified the relevant authorities – the District Prosecutor’s Office and the President of UODO – about the incident.
PPIS informed them that it had carried out explanatory activities showing that the source of disclosure of these data was not PPIS. These data were provided to the District Police Headquarters, the Head of the Polish Post Office, Social Welfare Centres and the Headquarters of the State Fire Service. Considering the fact that these data had been processed by various parties involved, it was necessary to establish in which of them the breach may have occurred.
UODO took steps to clarify the situation. In the course of the proceedings, it requested information from a company dealing with waste management being one of the recipients of the personal data. The company, acting as the data controller, had to explain whether, when establishing the procedures related to the processing of personal data, it had carried out an assessment of the impact of the envisaged processing operations on the protection of personal data according to Art. 35 GDPR. The assessment persists in an analysis of the distribution method in electronic and paper form in terms of risks related to the loss of confidentiality. Furthermore, the data controller had to inform UODO about the result of this analysis.
The data controller stated that it had conducted an analysis considering the circumstances related to non-compliance with the procedures in force by data processors and circumstances related to theft or removal of data. Moreover, the data controller expressed the view that the list, received from the District Police Headquarters, only included administrative (police) addresses and did not contain names, surnames and other data allowing the identification of a natural person. Thus, the GDPR would not apply, because the data has to be seen as anonymized. However, from the list also emerged the fact that residents of these buildings/flats were placed in quarantine, which made it possible to identify them. It came out that the confidentiality of the processed data had been violated in the course of the performance of employee duties of the data processor, who had left the printed list on the desk without proper supervision. During this time, another employee had recorded the list in the form of a photo and had shared it with another person.
Following the review of the entirety of the collected material in this case, UODO considered that the information regarding the city name, street name, building/flat number and placing a data subject in medical quarantine, constitute personal data within the meaning of Art. 4 (1) GDPR, while the last comprises a special category of personal data concerning health according to Art. 9 (1) GDPR. Based on the above, it is possible to identify the data subjects, and therefore the data controller is bound to the obligations arising from the GDPR.
In the opinion of UODO, the protective measures indicated in the risk analysis are general formulations, which do not refer to specific activities undertaken by authorized employees. The measures are insufficient and inadequate to the risks of processing special categories of data. In addition, the data controller should have considered factors, such as recklessness and carelessness of employees and a lack of due diligence.
According to Art. 33 (1) GDPR, the data controller shall without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of the data breach, notify it to the competent supervisory authority. Moreover, in a situation of high risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subjects, resulting from the data breach (which undoubtedly arose from the disclosure), the data controller is obliged to inform the data subject without undue delay in accordance with Art. 34 (1) GDPR. Despite this, the company did not report the infringement, neither to the President of UODO nor to the concerned data subjects.
24. November 2020
Microsoft (“MS”) is among the first companies to react to the European Data Protection Board’s data transfer recommendations (please see our article), as the tech giant announced in a blog post on November 19th. MS calls these additional safeguards “Defending Your Data” and will immediately start implementing them in contracts with public sector and enterprise customers.
In light of the Schrems II ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) on June 16th, the EDPB issued recommendations on how to transfer data into non-EEA countries in accordance with the GDPR on November 17th (please see our article). The recommendations lay out a six-step plan on how to assess whether a data transfer is up to GDPR standards or not. These steps include mapping all data transfer, assessing a third countries legislation, assessing the tool used for transferring data and adding supplementary measures to that tool. Among the latter is a list of technical, organizational, and contractual measures to be implemented to ensure the effectiveness of the tool.
Julie Brill, Corporate Vice President for Global Privacy and Regulatory Affairs and Chief Privacy Officer at Microsoft, issued the statement in which she declares MS to be the first company responding to the EDPB’s guidance. These safeguards include an obligation for MS to challenge all government requests for public sector or enterprise customer data, where it has a lawful basis for doing so; to try and redirect data requests; and to notify the customer promptly if legally allowed, about any data request by an authority, concerning that customer. This was one of the main ETDB recommendations and also included in a draft for new Standard Contractual Clauses published by the European Commission on November 12th. MS announces to monetary compensate customers, whose personal data has to be disclosed in response to government requests. These changes are additions to the SCC’s MS is using ever since Schrems II. Which include (as MS states) data encrypted to a high standard during transition and storage, transparency regarding government access requests to data (“U.S. National Security Orders Report” dating back to 2011; “Law Enforcement Requests Report“) .
Recently European authorities have been criticizing MS and especially its Microsoft 365 (“MS 365”) (formerly Office 365) tools for not being GDPR compliant. In July 2019 the Ministry of Justice in the Netherlands issued a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), warning authorities not to use Office 365 ProPlus, Windows 10 Enterprise, as well as Office Online and Mobile, since they do not comply with GDPR standards. The European Data Protection Supervisor issued a warning in July 2020 stating that the use of MS 365 by EU authorities and contracts between EU institutions and MS do not comply with the GDPR. Also, the German Data Security Congress (“GDSC”) issued a statement in October, in which it declared MS 365 as not being compliant with the GDPR. The GDSC is a board made up of the regional data security authorities of all 16 german states and the national data security authority. This declaration was reached by a narrow vote of 9 to 8. Some of the 8 regional authorities later even issued a press release explaining why they voted against the declaration. They criticized a missing involvement and hearing of MS during the process, the GDSC’s use of MS’ Online Service Terms and Data Processing Addendum dating back to January 2020 and the declaration for being too undifferentiated.
Some of the German data protection authorities opposing the GDSC’s statement were quick in welcoming the new developments in a joint press release. Although, they stress that the main issues in data transfer from the EU to the U.S. still were not solved. Especially the CJEU main reserves regarding the mass monitoring of data streams by U.S. intelligence agencies (such as the NSA) are hard to prevent and make up for. Still, they announced the GDSC would resume its talks with MS before the end of 2020.
This quick reaction to the EDPB recommendations should bring some ease into the discussion surrounding MS’ GDPR compliance. It will most likely help MS case, especially with the German authorities, and might even lead to a prompt resolution in a conflict regarding tools that are omnipresent at workplaces all over the globe.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14 15 16 Next 
