Pass the IAPP Certified Information Privacy Professional CIPP-E Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

The GDPR allows for derogations for specific situations when a transfer of personal data to a third country or an international organization cannot be based on an adequacy decision, appropriate safeguards, or binding corporate rules1. However, these derogations are exceptions to the general rule and should not become the norm. The EDPB confirmed that derogations should only be used as a last resort and when interpreted restrictively, taking into account the nature of the data, the purpose and duration of the processing, the country of origin and destination, and the rights and freedoms of data subjects23. The EDPB also stressed that the data exporter must assess the level of protection in the third country and ensure that the transfer does not undermine the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects23. References: 1: Article 49 of the GDPR 2: Guidelines 2/2018 on derogations of Article 49 under Regulation 2016/679 3: A guide to international transfers | ICO

 According to GDPR Article 4(22), a supervisory authority is concerned by the processing of personal data if the data subjects residing in its member state are substantially affected or likely to be substantially affected by the processing, or if a complaint has been lodged with it. This concept is mainly introduced to ensure that the rights and interests of data subjects are protected by the supervisory authorities that are closest to them, regardless of where the controller or processor is established or where the lead supervisory authority is located. The concerned supervisory authorities have the right to participate in the one-stop-shop and consistency mechanisms, and to express their views and objections on the draft decisions of the lead supervisory authority. They also have the duty to cooperate and assist each other in the performance of their tasks. References: GDPR Article 4(22), GDPR Article 60, GDPR Article 63, The role of the ’supervisory authority concerned’ (Chapter 3.1 …

Before Anna determines whether Frank’s performance database is permissible, she needs to know more information about the following aspects of the data processing:

The purpose and legal basis of the data processing, which should be clearly defined and documented in a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) or a similar document12.

The nature and extent of the personal data involved, which should be limited to what is necessary for the purpose and not retained longer than necessary12.

The measures taken to ensure the security and confidentiality of the personal data, such as encryption, pseudonymization, access control, etc12.

The rights and interests of the data subjects, such as their right to access, rectify, erase or restrict their personal data, as well as their right to object or withdraw consent12.

The potential risks and consequences of the data processing for the rights and freedoms of the data subjects, such as identity theft, discrimination, reputational damage, etc12.

In this case, Anna needs to know more information about what students have been told and how the research will be used. This is because:

The purpose of using student records for research purposes is not clear from Frank’s description. He does not specify whether he has obtained consent from the students or their parents/guardians, or whether he has informed them about his research objectives and methods.

The nature and extent of using student records for research purposes is not clear from Frank’s description. He does not specify which student records he is using (e.g., by name or by reference number), how many records he is using (e.g., by cohort or by class), or how long he will keep them (e.g., until graduation or indefinitely).

The measures taken to ensure the security and confidentiality of using student records for research purposes are not clear from Frank’s description. He does not specify whether he has encrypted his program or his laptop before transferring it to his home device, whether he has backed up his program or his laptop before losing it on the train, or whether he has reported his lost laptop to his IT department.

Therefore, Anna needs more information about these aspects before she can determine whether Frank’s performance database is permissible under the GDPR.

References: 1: Free CIPP/E Study Guide - International Association of Privacy Professionals 2: CIPP/E Certification - International Association of Privacy Professionals

 The accountability principle found in Article 5, Section 2 of the GDPR requires data controllers to take responsibility for complying with the GDPR and to be able to demonstrate their compliance1. This means that data controllers must implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and show that they process personal data in accordance with the GDPR2. One of the measures that can demonstrate compliance with the accountability principle is conducting regular audits of the data protection program. Audits are systematic and independent assessments of the data processing activities and the data protection policies and procedures of an organisation3. They can help to identify and address any gaps or risks in the data protection program, as well as to verify the effectiveness and efficiency of the data protection measures3. Audits can also provide evidence of compliance to the supervisory authorities and the data subjects, as well as to enhance the trust and reputation of the organisation3. Therefore, conducting regular audits of the data protection program is a way to demonstrate compliance with the accountability principle. References: 1: CIPP/E study guide, page 15; Art. 5 GDPR; Accountability principle | ICO2: CIPP/E study guide, page 16; Art. 24 GDPR; [Guide to accountability and governance | ICO]3: CIPP/E study guide, page 91; [Auditing | ICO]; [GDPR Audits: What You Need to Know - IT Governance Blog].

According to Article 28(2) of the GDPR, the processor may not engage another processor (sub-processor) without the prior specific or general written authorization of the controller. In the case of general written authorization, the processor must inform the controller of any intended changes concerning the addition or replacement of other processors, thereby giving the controller the opportunity to object to such changes. Furthermore, Article 28(4) of the GDPR states that where a processor engages another processor for carrying out specific processing activities on behalf of the controller, the same data protection obligations as set out in the contract or other legal act between the controller and the processor shall be imposed on that other processor by way of a contract or other legal act under Union or Member State law, in particular providing sufficient guarantees to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures in such a manner that the processing will meet the requirements of the GDPR. Therefore, the processor must ensure that the sub-processor complies with data processing obligations that are equivalent to those that apply to the processor. References:

Article 28 of the GDPR

European Data Protection Law & Practice textbook, Chapter 6: Data Processing Obligations, Section 6.3: Processor Obligations, Subsection 6.3.2: Sub-processors

 According to the GDPR, the territorial scope of the regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: (a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or (b) the monitoring of their behavior as far as their behavior takes place within the Union1. In this scenario, Bioface is not established in the Union, but it is collecting photographs of data subjects in the Union and using a facial recognition algorithm to identify them. This constitutes monitoring of their behavior within the Union, and therefore triggers the application of the GDPR. The other options are not correct because: (A) Bioface does not have any establishment in the Union, as it only collects data from web-based services, which does not imply the existence of stable arrangements in the Union2; (B) Bioface is not offering services in the Union, as it only targets government agencies and companies in the US and Canada, and does not intend to provide its service to data subjects in the Union3; © Bioface collects data from subjects and uses it for automated processing, but this is not a sufficient criterion to determine the territorial scope of the GDPR, as it does not relate to the offering of goods or services or the monitoring of behavior in the Union4. References: 1: Article 3(2) of the GDPR; 2: EDPB Guidelines, paragraph 20; 3: EDPB Guidelines, paragraph 38; 4: EDPB Guidelines, paragraph 50.

According to the CIPP/E study guide1, the European Commission is the EU institution that has the power to propose new data protection legislation on its own initiative, as well as amend or repeal existing laws. The European Commission is also responsible for implementing and enforcing the EU data protection framework, in cooperation with other institutions and national authorities.

References: 1: Free CIPP/E Study Guide - International Association of Privacy Professionals

According to the GDPR, transfers of personal data to third countries or international organisations are only allowed if the controller or processor complies with the conditions laid down in Chapter V of the GDPR1. One of these conditions is the existence of an adequacy decision by the European Commission, which means that the third country or international organisation ensures an adequate level of protection for the personal data2. However, if there is no adequacy decision, the controller or processor must provide appropriate safeguards for the data transfer, such as binding corporate rules (BCR) or standard contractual clauses (SCC)3.

Binding corporate rules (BCR) are internal rules adopted by a group of undertakings or enterprises engaged in a joint economic activity, which define its global policy with regard to the international transfers of personal data within the same corporate group or business partners located in third countries4. BCR must include all the general data protection principles and enforceable rights to ensure appropriate safeguards for the data transfers. They must be legally binding and enforced by every member concerned of the group5. BCR must be approved by the competent supervisory authority in accordance with the consistency mechanism provided by the GDPR6.

Standard contractual clauses (SCC) are sets of contractual terms and conditions that the controller or processor and the recipient of the data agree to apply to the data transfer. SCC are adopted by the European Commission or by a supervisory authority in accordance with the consistency mechanism and are available in the Official Journal of the European Union7. SCC must offer sufficient safeguards on data protection for the data to be transferred internationally8.

In the given scenario, option C is the statement that would help the company make an effective decision between BCR and SCC, as it highlights the main advantage of BCR over SCC, which is the global and comprehensive solution that BCR provide for all the entities of a company that are bound by the intra-group agreement. BCR are especially suitable for large and complex organisations that have frequent and high-volume data transfers within the same corporate group or business partners located in third countries. BCR also offer more flexibility and legal certainty than SCC, as they are tailored to the specific needs and structure of the group and do not require individual contracts for each data transfer.

The other options (A, B, and D) are either incorrect or misleading statements that would not help the company make an effective decision between BCR and SCC. Option A is incorrect, as BCR are not recommended for small and medium companies, but rather for large and complex ones, as explained above. Option B is misleading, as it implies that the data exporter can be located outside the EU for the SCC, which is true, but not relevant for the comparison with BCR, as the data exporter can also be located outside the EU for the BCR, as long as it is subject to the GDPR by virtue of Article 3(2). Option D is also misleading, as it implies that the company will need the prior authorization of all EU data protection authorities for concluding SCC, which is false, as the company will only need the prior authorization of the competent supervisory authority in the Member State where the data exporter is established, unless the SCC are modified or supplemented by additional clauses or safeguards. References:

1: [Article 44 of the GDPR]

2: [Article 45 of the GDPR]

3: [Article 46 of the GDPR]

4: [Article 4 (20) of the GDPR]

5: [Article 47 of the GDPR]

6: [Article 63 of the GDPR]

7: [Article 93 of the GDPR]

8: [Article 46 (2) © and (d) of the GDPR]

: [Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)]

: [Article 3 (2) of the GDPR]

: [Article 46 (3) (a) and (b) of the GDPR]

: [Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)]

: [Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) - European Commission]

: [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679]

: [https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection/binding-corporate-rules-bcr_en]

: [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679]

: [https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection/binding-corporate-rules-bcr_en]