GPDR is such a revolutionary law because its focus is so heavily on the data subjects and protects personal data not only in the shape of security, but also in privacy. The law actually gives data subjects seven rights, outlines in Chapter 3. These seven rights of data subjects ensure transparency between data subjects and those organizations that are processing their personal data and include:

  1. Right to access
  2. Right to rectification
  3. Right to erasure
  4. Right to restriction
  5. Right to data portability
  6. Right to object
  7. Right in relation to automated decision-making

There are conditions and exceptions to every right, so there’s a lot to learn. Let’s discuss these seven data subject rights and how organizations should respond when a data subject exercises any of those rights.

Right to Access

In Article 15, you’ll find the first data subject right: the right to access. This right gives data subjects the ability to confirm whether or not a controller is processing their personal data. This data subject right also entitles data subjects to obtain the controller’s purposes for processing, categories of the personal data being processed, third parties who receive their personal data, data retention policy, and other information.

Right to Rectification

A key component of GDPR is accuracy. The law requires that controllers and processors maintain the accuracy of personal data, but the data subject right in Article 16 also brings data subjects into this process. The right to rectification gives data subjects the right to dispute the accuracy of their personal data being processed by controllers. Data subjects can request that inaccurate data be corrected, which could require supplementary information to ensure accuracy.

Right to Erasure

The right to erasure, or the right to be forgotten, gives data subjects the right to have a controller delete their personal data. This isn’t an absolute right; just because a data subjects asks that their data be deleted doesn’t mean that a controller has to delete that data. There are five circumstances in which a controller might delete personal data, including:

  1. If the data was processed unlawfully
  2. If the organization no longer needs the data for the purposes that it originally collected the data
  3. If there is a legal requirement to delete the data
  4. If a data subject gave access to their data based on consent and they have withdrawn that consent
  5. If a data subject has objected to the processing of their data and requested that their data be deleted

The right to erasure is tricky, though. If even one of those five conditions exist for deleting personal data, a controller may still have a reason to maintain that data. For example, if there is a requirement from the EU to maintain that data, if there is litigation regarding that data, or if a controller needs to maintain that data for historic or scientific purposes, then a controller may not have to delete that data. So, a controller must first determine if a valid ground exists to delete the data, and determine whether there is an exception.

Right to Restriction

Article 18 outlines a fourth data subject right, the right to restrict processing. Why would a data subject exercise their right to restriction? They may be challenging the controller’s accuracy of their personal data, challenging the lawfulness of the processing activities, or challenging if the controller needs the data for the original purpose.

Restriction may be achieved one of several ways: it can be deleted, restricted, sequestered, or suppressed. If a controller grants a request for restriction, not only does the controller have to restrict the processing, but it should also notify processors and other third parties that a restriction request has been granted.

Right to Data Portability

Data subjects have the right to data portability, meaning that they can obtain their personal data from a controller in a structured, commonly used format, and have the right to transmit that data to another controller without hindrance. There are three conditions that have to be met for a valid portability request, including:

  1. The data subject directly gave their personal data to a controller
  2. The legal basis for processing is consent or performance of a contract
  3. The controller is using automated means to process the personal data

If all three of these conditions are met, then a controller must provide either the data subject or the data subject’s request for another controller with a copy of their personal data in a commonly used format.

Right to Object

Data subjects have the right to object to processing activities. Data subjects may object to any processing of their personal data by a controller if that processing is based on legitimate interest and there are not any overriding reasons to reject the data subject’s request for objection.

Right in Relation to Automated Decision-Making

The final data subject right given by GDPR is the right to object to automated decision-making, including profiling. Data subjects may request human intervention in cases when a controller uses automated processes to make a significant or legal decision, but controllers can reject these requests based on certain conditions. If the objection to automated decision-making is granted, the controller must suppress or restrict the personal data that was used in the automated process.

Responding to Data Subject Rights

When a data subject exercises any of their rights under GDPR, controllers have one month to respond to the request. They can either grant that request or respond by giving the reason for denial. Controllers cannot charge data subjects for exercising their rights unless they find that the request is unfounded or excessive. Controllers should always ensure that they are documenting names, dates, the nature of requests, investigations, and responses to data subjects’ requests so that, at any time, they can demonstrate proof that it was properly received and responded to.

More GDPR Resources

GDPR Readiness: Are You a Data Controller or Data Processor?

What is GDPR Personal Data and Who is a GDPR Data Subject?

The Cost GDPR Non-Compliance: Fines Penalties

[av_toggle_container initial=’1′ mode=’accordion’ sort=” styling=” colors=” font_color=” background_color=” border_color=” custom_class=”]
[av_toggle title=’Video Transcript’ tags=”]

GDPR presents personal data not only in the form of security, but also in the form of privacy. Specifically, GDPR gives data subjects certain rights. We’re going to talk about seven of those rights; both the nature of the rights and the processes that organizations should use to respond to data subjects requesting to exercise one of those rights.

First, the right to access. This right gives data subjects the ability to confirm whether an organization is processing their personal data. It gives data subjects the ability to receive a copy of their personal data and it gives data subjects the right to certain information on processing activities, including the nature of the processing activities, the purposes, third parties who receive their personal data, data retention policies, and other information.

The second right is the right to rectification. This gives data subjects the right to contest the accuracy of their personal data being processed by an organization. One of the processing principles of GDPR is accuracy. The law not only requires organizations to maintain accuracy on their own, but it also allows data subjects to be involved in that process. Data subjects can request that inaccurate data be collected, and data subjects can also provide controllers with supplementary information to ensure that incomplete data is brought to completion or brought to currency.

The third right is the right to erasure. This right is also known as the right to be forgotten and gives data subjects the right to have an organization to delete, in total or in partial, their personal data. This right is not a complete and absolute right, which means that just because a data subjects asks that their data be deleted, doesn’t mean that an organization must delete that data. There are five circumstances in which an organization might delete personal data. 1) If the data was processed unlawfully; 2) If the organization no longer needs the data for the purposes that it originally collected the data; 3) If there is a legal requirement from the EU to delete data; 4) A data subject gave their personal data based on consent and they have withdrawn that consent and requested that their data be deleted; 5) A data subject has objected to the processing of their data and requested that their data be deleted.

However, even if one of those five grounds exist for deleting personal data, an organization still might have reasons to maintain that personal data. One of those reasons is that if there is an EU requirement to maintain that personal data. Another ground is if there is litigation or legal defense regarding that personal data. A third and final reason is if an organization needs to maintain that data for historic or scientific purposes. So, for the right to erasure, an organization must first determine whether or not a valid ground exists to delete the data. Secondly, an organization must determine whether or not there is an exception to the requirement to delete that data.

A fourth right given to data subjects by GDPR is the right to restriction. There are four reasons for an organization to grant a request for restriction. First, if a data subject is challenging the accuracy of their personal data, an organization may also restrict processing that personal data until the issue regarding the accuracy is resolved. Second, if the organization no longer needs the personal data for the original purpose, but they do need that personal data to maintain a legal defense, then they can restrict processing with the exception of using that data for litigation purposes. Third, if the data subject is challenging the lawfulness of the processing, then the organization may restrict the processing until the issue of lawfulness is resolved. Fourth, if a data subject has objected to data processing, the organization may restrict processing until the objection for processing is resolved.

Restriction may be achieved one of several ways: it can be deleted, it can be restricted, sequestered, or suppressed.

As with the other data subject rights, if an organization grants a request for restriction, not only does the organization have to restrict the processing of personal data itself, but it should also notify processors and other third parties who receive the personal data that a restriction request has been granted.

Once an organization has reviewed a request for restriction and determines that it has a valid basis for processing the data, the organization may lift the restriction. Before it does so, it must notify the data subject in writing prior to lifting the request for restriction. There are several grounds for which an organization may lift that restriction: if it determines that that data is accurate, if it determines that it has a lawful basis for processing, if it determines that the objection request is not valid, or if it determines that it does need the data for the original purpose that it was collected.

There are four additional grounds that give an organization the ability to lift a restriction: if the data subject gives consent, if there’s a need to maintain a legal defense, if there’s a need to protect a third party, or if there’s important public grounds for the EU or a member state. It should be noted that data storage processing activities are not subject to restriction request.

A fifth right that GDPR gives data subjects is the right to data portability. There are three conditions that have to be met for a valid portability request: the data subject has to have directly given their personal data to an organization, the legal basis for processing has to be consent or performance of a contract, and the organization has to be using automated means to process the personal data. “Automated” implies anything that’s not paper. If all three of those conditions are met, then an organization must provide either the data subject or the data subject’s request for another controller with a copy of their personal data in a commonly used format. Examples of commonly used formats include: XML, CSV, and JSON.

A sixth right that GDPR gives data subjects is the right to object to processing activities. This right is broken down into both the right to object and the right to object to automated decision-making. First, we’ll talk about the right to object generally. Data subjects may object to any processing of their personal data by an organization if that processing is based on legitimate interest and there are not any overriding reasons to reject the data subject’s request for objection. The easiest right to handle of all is the right to handle the objection to direct marketing. In this case, there are no objections and there are no exceptions. If a controller receives an objection to direct marketing, the controller must – as soon as practically possible and within the required time frame – cease marketing to that data subject. Again, there are no conditions and there are no exceptions.

The final right is the right in relation to automated decision-making, including profiling. GDPR gives data subjects the right to object to automated decision-making and requests for human intervention in cases where an organization uses automated processes to make a significant or legal decision, such as employment or the extension of a loan. In those cases, a data subject can request a human be involved in the decision-making process. Organizations can reject requests for human intervention on automated decision-making if the data subject gave consent for such automated decision-making, if that automated decision-making is based on the performance of a contract, or if there is an EU legal requirement or mandate that gives the organization the ability to process the data automatically. If the objection to automated decision-making is granted, the organization must suppress or restrict the personal data that was used in the automated decision.

Now that we’ve talked about some of the rights that GDPR gives to data subjects, let’s talk about the process of responding to these rights. First, timeframes. Controllers have one month to respond to a data subjects request – either to grant that request or to respond in writing giving the reason for denial. GDPR does give organizations a one-time two-month extension. If organizations are going to use that extension, they must respond to a data subject within one month in writing, giving the data subject the reason for the delay. Additionally, organizations may not charge data subjects for exercising their rights under GDPR unless an organization determines that the request is either unfounded or excessive. In that case, an organization may either deny the request or charge only the administrative costs for responding to such requests. Organizations should ensure that they are documenting names, dates, the nature of requests, investigations, and responses to such requests so that if a data subject challenges their timeliness or a supervisory authority investigates a data subject’s request, an organization can demonstrate proof that it’s properly received and responded to such data subject requests.

[/av_toggle]

[/av_toggle_container]

Have you been clicking “Accept” on a lot more sites asking for consent to use cookies? Did you receive a flood of updated privacy policies from brands you are subscribed to? Have you noticed that companies who’ve been recently breached are giving out a lot more information about the event than they normally would? There is a reason for all of this, and it’s GDPR.

What is GDPR?

Born out of sophisticated cyber threats, technology advances, and concerns about data misuse, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is not just one of many other data protection frameworks or requirements. This law is the top regulatory focus of 2018, even among US companies, and is considered to be one of the most significant information security and privacy laws of our time. The law gives data subjects rights over their personal data and establishes obligations for any organization around the world that is processing the data of an EU data subject, making the applicability of the law follow data rather than following a data subject or physical location.

GDPR requires all data controllers and data processors that handle personal data of data subjects to apply appropriate security and organizational measures in order to safeguard the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of processing services. GDPR was enacted in 2016 and became enforceable on May 25, 2018.

What are the Penalties of Non-Compliance?

Organizations who have grown used to being slapped with minor fines for data breaches or data misuse may be shocked to hear that GDPR sets forth two tiers of fines, with the lower level charging up to €10 million or 2% of a company’s annual global revenue, whichever is greater. The lower level tier is imposed for breaches of controller or processor obligations, and the upper level is imposed for breaches of data subjects’ rights and freedoms. The upper level tier fines up to €20 million for violations or 4% of a company’s annual global revenue, whichever is greater.

Let’s take a look at a few examples of how non-compliance could impact an organization.

  • In 2017, Hilton Hotels & Resorts was fined $700,000 for a data breach that impacted over 350,000 cardholders. That’s a fine of just $2 per person affected by the breach. Considering that Hilton’s annual global turnover for the previous year was $10.5 billion, the company could have been fined a maximum of $420 million for the breach under the GPDR’s harshest fine. That’s a fine of $1,200 per person affected.
  • Between 2013 and 2014, 3 billion Yahoo user accounts were breached. Yahoo did not disclose the severity of the breach until 2017, thus failing to meet the 72-hour notification requirement established by GDPR. Because Yahoo’s revenue exceeded $4 billion in 2012, the company could have been fined between $80 million – $160 million if GDPR was in effect at the time of the breach.

Not only are the requirements and scope for GDPR extremely broad, but the fines and penalties that organizations could face due to non-compliance are unlike any fines and penalties imposed by a regulatory body before. This is why understanding this revolutionary data privacy law is so important.

Have more questions? Watch more from our GDPR Fundamentals series or contact us today to get started on your GDPR compliance journey.

More GDPR Resources

What is GDPR Personal Data and Who is a GDPR Data Subject?

Which GDPR Requirements Do You Need to Meet?

10 Key GDPR Terms You Need to Know

The Cost GDPR Non-Compliance: Fines Penalties

Welcome to the KirkpatrickPrice video series on the General Data Protection Regulation. At KirkpatrickPrice, our vision statement is to educate, empower, and inspire. In this video series, we will educate you regarding the General Data Protection Regulation, empower you to take the actions that your organization needs to become compliant, and inspire you to maintain compliance throughout the duration of your processing activities. The General Data Protection Regulation is a law that was enacted in 2016 and became enforceable on May 25, 2018. The law gives data subjects rights over their personal data and establishes obligations on any organization around the world that is processing the data of an EU data subject. The law sets forth fines of up to €20 million for violations or 4% of a company’s global revenue, whichever is greater. That’s the reason that knowing and following the law is so important. Join us in this series as we help you comply with GDPR.

business people walking

The most frequently asked question I’ve received related to GDPR compliance has to do with data processing roles: is my organization a data controller or data processor? Determining your organization’s data role can be challenging because of textual and practical ambiguity, but identifying your role is the starting point for determining which GDPR requirements your organization must follow. The responsibilities of data controllers are different than responsibilities of data processors. As a result, organizations cannot know their GDPR compliance obligations until they determine whether GDPR defines them as a controller or processor.

GDPR: Responsibilities of Data Controllers

What are the responsibilities of data controllers? The law defines a data controller as the natural or legal person that determines the purpose and means for processing personal data. How much authority and decision-making over personal data does your organization have? The greater the authority, the more likely it is that an organization takes on the responsibilities of a data controller.

So, a controller does at least two things: determines the purpose and means for processing. From my perspective, the ability to determine the purpose of data processing is both easier to identify and a more logical standard for identifying whether an organization is a data controller than whether an entity determines the means of processing.

The UK Supervisory Authority, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), has published guidance related to determining purposes of processing personal data. If you are the decision-maker on any of the following items, then you are subject to the responsibilities of data controllers:

  • Who decides to collect the personal data in the first place and the legal basis for doing so?
  • Who decides which items of personal data to collect?
  • Who decides what methods to use to collect personal data?
  • Who decides the purpose(s) that the data are to be used for?
  • Who decides which individuals to collect data about?
  • Who decides whether to disclose the data, and if so, who to?
  • Who decides whether subject access and other individuals’ rights apply (i.e. the application of exemptions)?
  • Who decides how long to retain the data or whether to make non-routine amendments to the data?

According to the ICO guidance on principles regarding the means of processing personal data, data controllers may determine:

  • What IT systems or other methods to use to collect personal data
  • How to store personal data
  • The detail of security surrounding the personal data
  • The means used to transfer personal data from one organization to another
  • The means used to retrieve personal data about certain individuals
  • The method for ensuring a retention schedule is adhered to
  • The means used to delete or dispose of personal data

GDPR: Responsibilities of Data Processors

What are the responsibilities of data processors?

The law defines a data processor as the natural or legal person that processes personal data on behalf of a data controller. Processing is essentially anything done to the data, including storing, archiving, or reviewing. Data processors cannot process data without the authority of the data controller. They must notify the data controller of any breaches or using/changing of sub-processors.

Data processors must provide sufficient compliance guarantees to data controllers. It’s important to note that based on the ICO guidance, processors may have some authority to determine the “means of processing” without becoming a controller or joint controller.

What Else Should Organizations Consider?

When determining which GDPR data processing role an organization fills, organizations might think a few operational areas are key: organizational size and structure, processing activity, data source, legal/professional and contractual arrangements. In my experience, only three of these areas are fully relevant.

Organizational size and structure are irrelevant when determining your role. Only a small part of GDPR addresses organizations that are less than 250 employees, but that really does not impact whether an organization is a controller or a processor. Additionally, organizational structure (publicly or privately owned, single corporation, parent organization, affiliate, subsidiary, etc.) does not impact whether an organization is a controller or a processor.

Processing activity is only partially relevant in determining whether an organization is a controller or a processor because, ultimately, a controller can perform any activity that a processor performs. It should be noted that, based on practical experience and formal guidance, there are some processing activities that may be considered de facto controller activities. Specifically, payment processing and certain direct marketing activities may be considered activities that, by default, make an organization a controller.

Data source is an incredibly relevant factor in the controller/processor consideration. Where does your data come from? Is your data source the data subject? The more interaction your organization has with a data subject, the more likely that your organization is a data controller.

Specific legal and professional obligations may require organizations to operate as a controller.  For example, accounts and attorneys each have legal and professional obligations to make independent decisions and, occasionally, disclosures regarding personal data that may be outside of the client’s processing authority.

Finally, contractual arrangements are a completely relevant factor in determining whether an organization is a controller or processor. Contracts should explicitly outline the purpose and means for processing data.  The more authority a contract provides an entity with respect to either the purpose or the means of data processing, the more likely that entity is operating as a controller.

Once you determine whether your organization is a controller, processor, or both, your organization can then identify which GDPR requirements apply to you.

Other Data Processing Roles under GDPR

Although GDPR establishes two primary data processing roles, there are several other data processing important roles that have additional compliance considerations, including:

  • Joint Controller: A joint controller exists when two or more controllers jointly have authority and determine the purposes and means for processing personal data. The requirement here is to clearly define the responsibilities among joint controllers. The organizations must share authority over the data, not just share a data pool. For example, if a few organizations make an agreement to collect, use, or combine personal data and have mutual authority over that data, you might have a joint controller relationship.
  • Controller-Processor: You can have situations where a person or organization is both a controller and a processor. A SaaS provider could serve as a data processor based on the data they receive from their clients, but they could also serve as a controller because they employ EU citizens. In this case, two sets of personal data exist, and the SaaS provider has different responsibilities towards the two sets.
  • Data Protection Officer: An individual that has expert knowledge of data protection law, is independent from an organizational reporting perspective, cannot be told how to do their job, and cannot be penalized for their job. This could be a person who’s also fulfilling other roles within an organization (without a conflict of interest), but it could also be an outside contractor.
  • Supervisory Authority: Independent, public authorities for each EU member state. Supervisory authorities are responsible for monitoring the application of GDPR and addressing non-compliance. These are the government organizations that you will be interacting with and they have the authority to create additional GDPR compliance.

Are you subject to the responsibilities of data controllers or the responsibilities of data processors? When determining whether you’re a data controller or a data process, I encourage you to be open-minded for whatever your organization’s processes lead you to. If you haven’t begun preparing for the May 25, 2018 deadline for GDPR enforcement, you should start now. For more information on GDPR readiness, contact us today.

About Mark Hinely

Mark Hinely of KirkpatrickPriceMark Hinely, Esq., is a Regulatory Compliance Specialist with KirkpatrickPrice and a member of the Florida Bar, with 10 years of experience in data privacy, regulatory affairs, and internal regulatory compliance. His specific experiences include performing mock regulatory audits, creating vendor compliance programs and providing compliance consulting. He is also SANS certified in the Law of Data Security and Investigations.

More GDPR Resources

GDPR Readiness: What, Why and Who

What to Ask Vendors About GDPR Compliance

GDPR Readiness: Are You a Data Controller or Data Processor?

ICO’s Data Controllers and Data Processors: What the Difference is and What the Governance Implications Are

10 Key GDPR Terms You Need to Know