Tag: GDPR

Dutch DPA administers record €725 000 fine for GDPR violation

6. May 2020

The Dutch Data Protection Authority, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (Dutch DPA), has issued a EUR 725 000 fine on April 30th to a company for scanning the fingerprints of its employees in order to record attendance.

As fingerprints fall under sensitive data according to Art. 9 GDPR, by being biometric data and therefore can easily identify a data subject, the Dutch DPA has addressed two exceptions in the present case: explicit consent according to Art. 9 II a GDPR, and the necessity of the processing for security reasons, which are related back to Art.9 II g GDPR.

According to the Dutch DPA, none of the two exceptions apply.

In the first case, the Dutch DPA states that the employer has shown no proof of valid explicit consent of the employees. Rather, the Dutch DPA is of the opinion that in an employment relationship, consent cannot be given freely. While it is tricky to ensure freely given consent in situations where one side is dependant on the other, it is possible to ensure such a freely given consent by the means of offering an alternative form of processing, allowing the employee to choose from two options according to their own judgement. In the case brought to the Dutch DPA, this had not been the case. Rather, employees felt obligated to give their consent, especially since the denial resulted in a personal meeting with the director. An alternative option to scanning their fingerprints was not given by the company.

The second exception of the necessity of the processing for security reasons was also dismantled by the Dutch DPA. It reasoned with the fact that such an exception only applies in cases where the security of the systems or the building depend on biometric data, and cannot be done by a less invasive method. While the activities of the company remain confidential, the Dutch DPA has denied them to be of that level of importance that security can only be done through biometrics. Therefore, the fingerprint scanning in the matter was unnecessary and disproportionate to the invasion of the employees’ privacy.

As this case shows, it is recommendable to be careful with the processing of biometric data. In particular, companies should ensure to have valid consent before progressing with the processing of sensitive data to mitigate the risks of a fine.

Belgian DPA releases Guidance and FAQs on Cookies and Trackers

23. April 2020

On Thursday, April 9th 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (Belgian DPA) has issued a guidance along with frequently asked question on the subject of cookies and other tracking technologies.

The key points presented by the guidance revolve around the definitions of cookies, what needs to be presented in a cookie policy, how the consent of data subjects needs to be obtained and which requirements it needs to fulfill, as well as the storage period of a cookie on a user’s device.

The Belgian DPA made it clear that of the utmost importance is the transparency of the cookie usage. That entails that the users need to be informed about the scope of each individual cookie used. This should be done through a cookie policy on the website. The cookie policy needs to be written in a language the targeted users of the website can understand, as well as be easily accessible, e.g. through a hyperlink.

Specifically, these cookie policies need to include and inform about:

  • identification of the cookies used;
  • their purposes and duration;
  • whether third-parties have access to such cookies;
  • information about how to delete cookies;
  • the legal basis relied upon for the use of cookies;
  • information about individuals’ data protection rights and the ability to lodge a complaint to the competent data protection authority;
  • information about any automated decision making, including profiling.

In order to be able to use cookies, the consent of the user needs to be obtained. The Belgian DPA stated in their guidance that the consent has to be obtained for the use of all non-essential cookies, which means all cookies that are not necessary for a user requested function of the website. A necessary cookie would be, for example, the cookie to remember the item in a user’s cart, or cookies that enable booking communication with a user.

The consent especially needs to be:

  • obtained for the use of all non-essential cookies, as well as all social media plugins;
  • informed, specifically, prior to giving their consent to the use of cookies, users must be provided with information regarding the use of cookies: The information that needs to be given to the data subjects are the entity responsible for the use of cookies, the cookies’ purposes,  the data collected through the use of cookies, and their expiration. Users must also be informed about their rights with respect to cookies, including the right to withdraw their consent;
  • granulated, whereas in a first instance, users need to decide between what types of cookies they want to give consent to, and in a second instance, users can decide exactly which cookies they want to give consent to;
  • unambiguous and provided through a clear affirmative action.

Further, it is also important to keep in mind that the Belgian DPA has confirmed that cookie walls are unlawful, and that companies must show proof of obtained consent through keeping logs.

The Belgian DPA has also given guidance on the lifespan of cookies. Cookies should not have unlimited lifespans, but rather follow basic data protection rules: once a cookie is no longer necessary for the purpose or it has fulfilled its determined purpose, it needs to be removed. If the cookie cannot be deleted from the controller’s side, it is important to give the users the information on how to do it themselves.

Overall, the Belgian DPA’s guidance has given controllers a clear way to maneuvering their cookie usage, and has provided a new list of FAQs in case of further questions. In this regard, the Belgian DPA has made sure that cookies and their use are easy to comprehend and handle, hopefully helping data protection compliance within the subject.

CNIL announces focus for Control Procedures in 2020

16. March 2020

The french Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) has announced their focus in regards to the Control Procedures they intend to take in 2020.

Out of 300 Control Procedures done in one year, in 2020 at least 50 of those are going to be focused on three prioritized themes: health data security, geolocation and cookies compliance. The CNIL decided on prioritizing these areas because of the high relevance all of them have on the daily life of the french citizens.

Especially in regards to health data because of the sensitive nature of the data collected, as well as geological data, due to the never ending new solutions to transportation or enhancements to daily life, it is important to keep an eye on the scope of the data processing and the private sphere which is affected.

Regarding cookies and other tracers, CNIL continues to underline the importance in regards to profiled advertisement. On top of the planned Control Procedures, the CNIL intends to publish a recommendation in the spring of 2020 with regards to cookies. It will keep an eye on the implementation of the recommendation, and give companies a 6 months period to adjust and implement them.

The CNIL also stated that in addition they will continue to work together with other national Data Protection Authorities, in order to ensure the regulation of transnational data processing.

Greek Data Protection Authority releases Guidance on Cookies

On 25 February 2020, the Hellenic Data Protection Authority (DPA) published a guidance on Cookies and other tracking tools. Previously, the Authority had found that Greek websites and service providers have been largely failing to comply with the rules on the use of Cookies and other trackers set out by the ePrivacy Directive and the GDPR, and reaffirmed by the European Court of Justice’s ruling on Planet 49.

The guidance states that it will be relevant to HTTP/S Cookies, Flash Cookies, local storage applying to HTML 5, device fingerprinting, OS identifiers, and material identifiers.

The Greek DPA reiterated that, generally, providers are obliged to obtain the user’s consent if they are using any tracking tools – irrespective of whether the processing of personal data is taking place. It also outlined that technically necessary trackers are exempt from the obligation to consent. Furthermore, the guidance goes into detail on how information and consent can be made available on websites specifically.

Lastly, the Authority has given Greek website providers a grace period of two months to implement the provisions of this guidance and thereby become compliant with the European rules on tracking tools.

EDPB publishes GDPR Implementation Review

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) released a review dated from February 18th, in a contribution to the evaluation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which has reached its 20th month of being in effect.

Overall, the EDPB stated that it has a positive view of the implementation of the legislation in the different European Countries over the past 20 months. Furthermore, it deems a revision of the legislative text as likely, but not yet necessary in the near future.

The EDPB praised the Data Protection Authorities and their work up til now, saying it hopes that the cooperation between them will create a common data protection culture and consistent monitoring practices. But the report also mentioned that Supervisory Authorities in the countries face restrictions due to different national procedures and practices, which can hinder the cooperation. Furthermore, the EDPB sees a need to increase the funding for Supervisory Authorities to improve and support their duties.

On another note, the EDPB has acknowledged the challenges of implementation for Small to Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs). It says it is aware of these challenges, and works together with Supervisory Authorities to facilitate the supporting tools they have put out in order to support SMEs.

Lastly, it raised concerns about the timeframe of the new ePrivacy Regulation, and urged lawmakers to bundle their focus and efforts to carry on with its development.

Belgian DPA releases Direct Marketing Recommendation

4. March 2020

On February 10, 2020, Belgium’s Data Protection Authority (the Belgian DPA) has released their first recommendation of 2020 in relation to data processing activities for direct marketing purposes.

In the recommendation the Belgian DPA addressed issues and action proposals in regards to the handling of direct marketing and the personal data which is used in the process. It emphasized the importance of direct marketing subjects in the upcoming years, and stated that the DPA will have a special priority in regards to issues on the matter.

In particular, the recommendation elaborates on the following points, in order to help controllers navigate through the different processes:

  • The processing purposes must be specific and detailed. A simple mention of “marketing purposes” is not deemed sufficient in light of Art. 13 GDPR.
  • It is important to guarantee data minimization, as the profiling that accompanies direct marketing purposes calls for a careful handling of personal data.
  • The right to object does not only affect the direct marketing activities, but also the profiling which takes places through them. Furthermore, a simple “Unsubscribe” button at the end of a marketing E-Mail is not sufficient to withdraw consent, it is rather recommended to give the data subject the opportunity to a granular selection of which direct marketing activities they object to.
  • Consent cannot be given singularly for all channels of direct marketing. A declaration for each channel has to be obtained to ensure specification towards content and means used for direct marketing.

The Belgian DPA also stated that there are direct marketing activities which require special attention in the future, namely purchasing, renting and enriching personal data, e.g. via data brokers. In such cases, it is necessary to directly provide appropriate information to the data subject in regards to the handling of their data.

Further topics have been brought forth in the recommendation, which overall represents a thorough proposal on the handling of direct marketing activities for controller entities.

CNIL publishes recommendations on how to get users’ cookie consent

21. January 2020

On 14 January 2020, the French data protection authority (“CNIL”) published recommendations on practical modalities for obtaining the consent of users to store or read non-essential cookies and similar technologies on their devices. In addition, the CNIL also published a series of questions and answers on the recommendations.

The purpose of the recommendations is to help private and public organisations to implement the CNIL guidelines on cookies and similar technologies dated 4 July 2019. To this end, CNIL describes the practical arrangements for obtaining users’ consent, gives concrete examples of the user interface to obtain consent and presents “best practices” that also go beyond the rules.

In order to find pragmatic and privacy-friendly solutions, CNIL consulted with organisations representing industries in the ad tech ecosystem and civil society organisations in advance and discussed the issue with them. The recommendations are neither binding or prescriptive nor exhaustive. Organisations may use other methods to obtain user consent, as long as these methods are in accordance with the guidelines.

Among the most important recommendations are:

Information about the purpose of cookies
First, the purposes of the cookies should be listed. The recommendations contain examples of this brief description for the following purposes or types of cookies:
(1) targeted or personalised advertising;
(2) non-personalized advertising;
(3) personalised advertising based on precise geolocation;
(4) customization of content or products and services provided by the Web Publisher;
(5) social media sharing;
(6) audience measurement/analysis.
In addition, the list of purposes should be complemented by a more detailed description of these purposes, which should be directly accessible, e.g. via a drop-down button or hyperlink.

Information on the data controllers
An exhaustive list of data controllers should be directly accessible, e.g. via a drop-down button or hyperlink. When users click on this hyperlink or button, they should receive specific information on data controllers (name and link to their privacy policy). However, web publishers do not have to list all third parties that use cookies on their website or application, but only those who are also data controllers. Therefore, the role of the parties (data controller, joint data controller, or data processor) has to be assessed individually for each cookie. This list should be regularly updated and should be permanently accessible (e.g. through the cookie consent mechanism, which would be available via a static icon or hyperlink at the bottom of each web page). Should a “substantial” addition be made to the list of data controllers, users’ consent should be sought again.

Real choice between accepting or rejecting cookies
Users must be offered a real choice between accepting or rejecting cookies. This can be done by means of two (not pre-ticked) checkboxes or buttons (“accept” / “reject”, “allow” / “deny”, etc.) or equivalent elements such as “on”/”off” sliders, which should be disabled by default. These checkboxes, buttons or sliders should have the same format and be presented at the same level. Users should have such a choice for each type or category of cookie.

The ability for users to delay this selection
A “cross” button should be included so that users can close the consent interface and do not have to make a choice. If the user closes the interface, no consent cookies should be set. However, consent could be obtained again until the user makes a choice and accepts or rejects cookies.

Overall consent for multiple sites
It is acceptable to obtain user consent for a group of sites rather than individually for each site. However, this requires that users are informed of the exact scope of their consent (i.e., by providing them with a list of sites to which their consent applies) and that they have the ability to refuse all cookies on those sites altogether (e.g., if there is a “refuse all” button along with an “accept all” button). To this end, the examples given in the recommendations include three buttons: “Personalize My Choice” (where users can make a more precise selection based on the purpose or type of cookies), “Reject All” and “Accept All”.

Duration of validity of the consent
It is recommended that users re-submit their consent at regular intervals. CNIL considers a period of 6 months to be appropriate.

Proof of consent
Data controllers should be able to provide individual proof of users’ consent and to demonstrate that their consent mechanism allows a valid consent to be obtained.

The recommendations are open for public consultation until 25 February 2020. A new version of the recommendations will then be submitted to the members of CNIL for adoption during a plenary session. CNIL will carry out enforcement inspections six months after the adoption of the recommendations. The final recommendations may also be updated and completed over time to take account of new technological developments and the responses to the questions raised by professionals and individuals on this subject.

Advocate General releases opinion on the validity of SCCs in case of Third Country Transfers

19. December 2019

Today, Thursday 19 of December, the European Court of Justice’s (CJEU) Advocate General Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe released his opinion on the validity of Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) in cases of personal data transfers to processors situated in third countries.

The background of the case, on which the opinion builds on, originates in the proceedings initiated by Mr. Maximillian Schrems, where he stepped up against Facebook’s business practice of transferring the personal data of its European subscribers to servers located in the United States. The case (Schrems I) led the CJEU on October 6, 2015, to invalidate the Safe Harbor arrangement, which up to that point governed data transfers between the EU and the U.S.A.

Following the ruling, Mr. Schrems decided to challenge the transfers performed on the basis of the EU SCCs, the alternative mechanism Facebook has chosen to rely on to legitimize its EU-U.S. data flows, on the basis of similar arguments to those raised in the Schrems I case. The Irish DPA brought proceedings before the Irish High Court, which referred 11 questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, the Schrems II case.

In the newly published opinion, the Advocate General validates the established SCCs in case of a commercial transfer, despite the possibility of public authorities in the third country processing the personal data for national security reasons. Furthermore, the Advocate General states that the continuity of the high level of protection is not only guaranteed by the adequacy decision of the court, but just as well by the contractual safeguards which the exporter has in place that need to match that level of protection. Therefore, the SCCs represent a general mechanism applicable to transfers, no matter the third country and its adequacy of protection. In addition, and in light of the Charter, there is an obligation for the controller as well as the supervisory authority to suspend any third country transfer if, because of a conflict between the SCCs and the laws in the third country, the SCCs cannot be complied with.

In the end, the Advocate General also clarified that the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield decision of 12 July 2016 is not part of the current proceedings, since those only cover the SCCs under Decision 2010/87, taking the questions of the validity of the Privacy Shield off the table.

While the Advocate General’s opinion is not binding, it represents the suggestion of a legal solution for cases for which the CJEU is responsible. However, the CJEU’s decision on the matter is not expected until early 2020, setting the curiosity on the outcome of the case high.

Irish DPC updates Guidance on Data Processing’s Legal Bases

17. December 2019

The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) has updated their guidance on the legal bases for personal data processing. It focuses on data processing under the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as well as data processing requirements under the European Law Enforcement Directive.

The main points of the updates to the guidance are to make companies more sensitive of their reasons for processing personal data and choosing the right legal basis, as well as ensure that data subjects may be able to figure out if their data is being processed lawfully.

The guidance focuses on the different legal bases in Art.6 GDPR, namely consent, contracts, legal obligation, vital interests, public task or legitimate interests. The Irish DPC states that controllers do not only have to choose the right legal basis, but they also have to understand the obligations that come with the chosen one, which is why they wanted to go into further detail.

Overall, the guidance is made to aid both controllers and data subjects. It consists of a way to support a better understanding of the terminology, as well as the legal requirements the GDPR sets out for processing personal data.

Dutch DPA issued a statement regarding cookie consent

12. December 2019

The Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens) has recently issued a statement regarding compliance with the rules on cookie consent. According to the statement the DPA has reviewed 175 websites and e-commerce platforms to see if they meet the requirements for the use of cookies. They found that almost half of the websites and nearly all e-commerce platforms do not meet the requirements for cookie consent.

The data protection authority has contacted the companies concerned and requested them to adjust their cookie usage.

In its statement, the Data Protection Authority also refers to the “Planet49case” of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) and clarifies that boxes that have already been clicked do not comply with the obligation to obtain the user’s consent. In addition, it is not equivalent to obtaining consent to the use of cookies if the user merely scrolls down the website. Cookies, which enable websites to track their users, always require explicit consent.

Lastly, the DPA recalls that cookie walls that prevent users, who have not consented to the use of cookies from accessing the website are not permitted.

Category: EU · GDPR · The Netherlands
Tags: ,
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
1 2 3 7