The
General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 ("GDPR") is a
regulation in
EU law on
data protection and privacy for all individuals within the
European Union (EU) and the
European Economic Area
(EEA). It also addresses the export of personal data outside the EU and
EEA areas. The GDPR aims primarily to give control to individuals over
their personal data and to simplify the regulatory environment for
international business by unifying the regulation within the EU.
[1]
Superseding the
Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, the regulation contains provisions and requirements pertaining to the processing of
personal data of individuals (formally called
data subjects
in the GDPR) inside the European Union, and applies to an enterprise
established in the EU or—regardless of its location and the data
subjects' citizenship—that is processing the personal data of people
inside the EU. Controllers of personal data must put in place
appropriate technical and organisational measures to implement the data protection principles.
"Data protection by design and by default", means that business
process that handle personal data must be designed and built with
consideration of the principles and provide safeguards to protect data
(for example, using
pseudonymization or full
anonymization
where appropriate), and use the highest-possible privacy settings by
default, so that the data is not available publicly without explicit,
informed
consent,
and cannot be used to identify a subject without additional information
stored separately. No personal data may be processed unless it is done
under a lawful basis specified by the regulation or unless the data
controller or processor has received an unambiguous and individualized
affirmation of consent from the data subject. The data subject has the
right to revoke this consent at any time.
A processor of personal data must clearly disclose any data
collection, declare the lawful basis and purpose for data processing,
and state how long data is being retained and if it is being shared with
any third parties or outside of the EU. Data subjects have the right to
request a
portable
copy of the data collected by a processor in a common format, and the
right to have their data erased under certain circumstances. Public
authorities, and businesses whose core activities centre around regular
or systematic processing of personal data, are required to employ a
data protection officer (DPO), who is responsible for managing compliance with the GDPR. Businesses must report any
data breaches within 72 hours if they have an adverse effect on user privacy.
The GDPR was adopted on 14 April 2016, and became enforceable beginning 25 May 2018. As the GDPR is a regulation, not a
directive, it does not require national governments to pass any enabling legislation and is directly binding and applicable.
[2]
In some cases, violators of the GDPR may be fined up to €20 million or
up to 4% of the annual worldwide turnover of the preceding financial
year in case of an enterprise, whichever is greater.
Scope
The
regulation applies if the data controller (an organisation that collects
data from EU residents), or processor (an organisation that processes
data on behalf of a data controller like
cloud service providers), or the data subject (person) is based in the EU. Under certain circumstances,
[3]
the regulation also applies to organisations based outside the EU if
they collect or process personal data of individuals located inside the
EU. The regulation does not apply to the processing of data by a person
for a "purely personal or household activity and thus with no connection
to a professional or commercial activity." (Recital 18)
According to the
European Commission,
"personal data is any information relating to an individual, whether it
relates to his or her private, professional or public life. It can be
anything from a name, a home address, a photo, an email address, bank
details, posts on
social networking websites, medical information, or a computer's
IP address."
[4]
The precise definitions of terms such as "personal data", "processing",
"data subject", "controller" and "processor", are stated in Article 4
of the Regulation
[5].
The regulation does not purport to apply to the processing of
personal data for national security activities or law enforcement of the
EU; however, industry groups concerned about facing a potential
conflict of laws have questioned whether Article 48
[6]
of the GDPR could be invoked to seek to prevent a data controller
subject to a third country's laws from complying with a legal order from
that country's law enforcement, judicial, or national security
authorities to disclose to such authorities the personal data of an EU
person, regardless of whether the data resides in or out of the EU.
Article 48 states that any judgement of a court or tribunal and any
decision of an administrative authority of a third country requiring a
controller or processor to transfer or disclose personal data may not be
recognised or enforceable in any manner unless based on an
international agreement, like a
mutual legal assistance treaty
in force between the requesting third (non-EU) country and the EU or a
member state. The data protection reform package also includes a
separate Data Protection Directive for the police and criminal justice
sector
[7] that provides rules on personal data exchanges at national, European, and international levels.
A single set of rules will apply to all EU member states. Each
member state will establish an independent supervisory authority (SA) to
hear and investigate complaints, sanction administrative offences, etc.
SAs in each member state will co-operate with other SAs, providing
mutual assistance and organising joint operations. If a business has
multiple establishments in the EU, it will have a single SA as its "lead
authority", based on the location of its "main establishment" where the
main processing activities take place. The lead authority will act as a
"
one-stop shop" to supervise all the processing activities of that business throughout the EU
[8][9] (Articles 46–55 of the GDPR). A
European Data Protection Board (EDPB) will co-ordinate the SAs. EDPB will replace the
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party.
There are exceptions for data processed in an employment context or in
national security that still might be subject to individual country
regulations (Articles 2(2)(a) and 88 of the GDPR).
Lawful basis for processing
Unless
a data subject has provided informed consent to data processing for one
or more purposes, personal data may not be processed unless there is at
least one legal basis to do so. According to Article 6, the lawful
puposes are:
[10]
- (a) If the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data;
- (b) To fulfill contractual obligations with a data subject, or for
tasks at the request of a data subject who is in the process of entering
into a contract;
- (c) To comply with a data controller's legal obligations;
- (d) To protect the vital interests of a data subject or another individual;
- (e) To perform a task in the public interest or in official authority;
- (f) For the legitimate interests of a data controller or a third
party, unless these interests are overridden by interests of the data
subject or her or his rights according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (especially in the case of children).
If informed consent is used as the lawful basis for processing,
consent must have been explicit for data collected and each purpose data
is used for (Article 7; defined in Article 4). Consent must be a
specific, freely-given, plainly-worded, and unambiguous affirmation
given by the data subject; an online form which has consent options
structured as an opt-out selected by default is a violation of the GDPR,
as the consent is not unambiguously affirmed by the user. In addition,
multiple types of processing may not be "bundled" together into a single
affirmation prompt, as this is not specific to each use of data, and
the individual permissions are not freely-given. (Recital 32)
Data subjects must be allowed to withdraw this consent at any
time, and this process must be as easy as it was to originally opt in.
(Article 7(3)) A data controller may not refuse service to users who
decline consent to processing that is not strictly necessary in order to
use the service. (Article 7(4)) Consent for children, defined in the
regulation as being less than 16 years old (although with the option for
member states to individually make it as low as 13 years old (Article
8(1)),
[11] must be given by the child's parent or custodian, and verifiable (Article 8).
[12]
If consent to processing was already provided under the Data
Protection Directive, a data controller does not have to re-obtain
consent if the processing is documented and obtained in compliance with
the GDPR's requirements (Recital 171).
[13]
Responsibility and accountability
To
be able to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR, the data controller
must implement measures which meet the principles of data protection by
design and by default. Data protection by design and by default (Article
25) require data protection measures to be designed into the
development of business processes for products and services. Such
measures include
pseudonymising
personal data, by the controller, as soon as possible (Recital 78). It
is the responsibility and the liability of the data controller to
implement effective measures and be able to demonstrate the compliance
of processing activities even if the processing is carried out by a data
processor on behalf of the controller (Recital 74).
When data is collected, data subjects must be clearly
informed
about the extent of data collection, the legal basis for processing of
personal data, how long data is retained, if data is being transferred
to a third-party and/or outside the EU, and disclosure of any automated
decision-making that is made on a solely
algorithmic
basis. Data subjects must be provided with contact details for the data
controller and their designated data protection officer, where
applicable. Data subjects must also be informed of their privacy rights
under the GDPR, including their right to revoke consent to data
processing at any time, their right to
view their personal data and access an overview of how it is being processed, their right to obtain a
portable copy of the stored data, the right to
erasure of data under certain circumstances, the right to contest any automated decision-making that was made on a solely
algorithmic basis, and the right to file complaints with a
Data Protection Authority.
[14][15]
Data protection impact assessments (Article 35) have to be
conducted when specific risks occur to the rights and freedoms of data
subjects. Risk assessment and mitigation is required and prior approval
of the data protection authorities is required for high risks.
Data protection by design and by default
Data
protection by design and by default (Article 25) requires data
protection to be designed into the development of business processes for
products and services. Privacy settings must therefore be set at a high
level by default, and technical and procedural measures should be taken
by the controller to make sure that the processing, throughout the
whole processing lifecycle, complies with the regulation. Controllers
should also implement mechanisms to ensure that personal data is not
processed unless necessary for each specific purpose.
A report
[16] by the
European Union Agency for Network and Information Security
elaborates on what needs to be done to achieve privacy and data
protection by default. It specifies that encryption and decryption
operations must be carried out locally, not by remote service, because
both keys and data must remain in the power of the data owner if any
privacy is to be achieved. The report specifies that outsourced data
storage on remote clouds is practical and relatively safe if only the
data owner, not the cloud service, holds the decryption keys.
Pseudonymisation
The GDPR refers to
pseudonymisation as a process that is required when data is stored (as an alternative to the other option of complete
data anonymisation)
[17]
to transform personal data in such a way that the resulting data cannot
be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional
information. An example is
encryption, which renders the original data unintelligible and the process cannot be reversed without access to the correct
decryption key.
The GDPR requires for the additional information (such as the
decryption key) to be kept separately from the pseudonymised data.
Another example of pseudonymisation is
tokenisation, which is a non-mathematical approach to protecting
data at rest
that replaces sensitive data with non-sensitive substitutes, referred
to as tokens. The tokens have no extrinsic or exploitable meaning or
value. Tokenisation does not alter the type or length of data, which
means it can be processed by legacy systems such as databases that may
be sensitive to data length and type.
That requires much fewer computational resources to process and
less storage space in databases than traditionally-encrypted data. That
is achieved by keeping specific data fully or partially visible for
processing and analytics while sensitive information is kept hidden.
Pseudonymisation is recommended to reduce the risks to the
concerned data subjects and also to help controllers and processors to
meet their data protection obligations (Recital 28).
[18]
Right of access
The right of access (Article 15) is a data subject right.
[19]
It gives citizens the right to access their personal data and
information about how this personal data is being processed. A data
controller must provide, upon request, an overview of the categories of
data that are being processed (Article 15(1)(b)) as well as a copy of
the actual data (Article 15(3)). Furthermore, the data controller has to
inform the data subject on details about the processing, such as the
purposes of the processing (Article 15(1)(a)), with whom the data is
shared (Article 15(1)(c)), and how it acquired the data (Article
15(1)(g)).
A data subject must be able to transfer personal data from one
electronic processing system to and into another, without being
prevented from doing so by the data controller. Data that has been
sufficiently anonymised is excluded, but data that has been only
de-identified but remains possible to link to the individual in
question, such as by providing the relevant identifier, is not.
[20] In practice however providing such identifiers can be challenging, such as in the case of Apple's
Siri, where voice and transcript data is stored with a personal identifier which the manufacturer restricts access to,
[21] or in online behavioural targeting, which relies heavily on
device fingerprints that can be challenging to capture, send and verify.
[22]
Both data being 'provided' by the data subject and data being
'observed', such as about behaviour, are included. In addition, the data
must be provided by the controller in a structured and commonly used
standard electronic format. The right to
data portability is provided by Article 20 of the GDPR.
[23]
Legal experts see in the final version of this measure a "new right"
created that "reaches beyond the scope of data portability between two
controllers as stipulated in [Article 20]".
[24]
Right to erasure
A
right to be forgotten was replaced by a more limited
right of erasure in the version of the GDPR that was adopted by the European Parliament in March 2014.
[25][26]
Article 17 provides that the data subject has the right to request
erasure of personal data related to them on any one of a number of
grounds, including noncompliance with Article 6(1) (lawfulness) that
includes a case (f) if the legitimate interests of the controller are
overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the
data subject, which require protection of personal data (see also
Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González).
Records of processing activities
Records
of processing activities must be maintained that include purposes of
the processing, categories involved and envisaged time limits. The
records must be made available to the supervisory authority on request
(Article 30).
[27]
Data protection officer
If processing is carried out by a public authority (except for courts
or independent judicial authorities when acting in their judicial
capacity), or if processing operations involve regular and systematic
monitoring of data subjects on a large scale, or if processing on a
large scale of special categories of data and personal data relating to
criminal convictions and offences (Articles 9 and Article 10,
[28])
a data protection officer (DPO)—a person with expert knowledge of data
protection law and practices—must be designated to assist the controller
or processor in monitoring their internal compliance with the
Regulation.
A designated DPO can be a current member of staff of a controller
or processor, or the role can be outsourced to an external person or
agency through a service contract. In any case, the processing body must
make sure that there is no conflict of interest in other roles or
interests that a DPO may hold. The contact details for the DPO must be
published by the processing organisation (for example, in a privacy
notice) and registered with the supervisory authority.
The DPO is similar to a compliance officer and is also expected to be proficient at managing IT processes,
data security (including dealing with
cyberattacks) and other critical
business continuity
issues around the holding and processing of personal and sensitive
data. The skill set required stretches beyond understanding legal
compliance with data protection laws and regulations. More details on
the function and the role of data protection officer were given on 13
December 2016 (revised 5 April 2017) in a guideline document.
[29]
Organisations based outside the EU must also appoint an EU-based
person as a representative and point of contact for their GDPR
obligations (Article 27). This is a distinct role from a DPO, although
there is overlap in responsibilities that suggest that this role can
also be held by the designated DPO.
[30]
Data breaches
Under
the GDPR, the data controller is under a legal obligation to notify the
supervisory authority without undue delay unless the breach is unlikely
to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of the individuals.
There is a maximum of 72 hours after becoming aware of the data breach
to make the report (Article 33). Individuals have to be notified if
adverse impact is determined (Article 34). In addition, the data
processor will have to notify the controller without undue delay after
becoming aware of a personal data breach (Article 33).
However, the notice to data subjects is not required if the data
controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational
protection measures that render the personal data unintelligible to any
person who is not authorised to access it, such as encryption (Article
34).
Sanctions
The following sanctions can be imposed:
- a warning in writing in cases of first and non-intentional noncompliance
- regular periodic data protection audits
- a fine up to €10 million or up to 2% of the annual worldwide
turnover of the preceding financial year in case of an enterprise,
whichever is greater, if there has been an infringement of the following
provisions: (Article 83, Paragraph 5 & 6[31])
- the obligations of the controller and the processor pursuant to Articles 8, 11, 25 to 39, and 42 and 43
- the obligations of the certification body pursuant to Articles 42 and 43
- the obligations of the monitoring body pursuant to Article 41(4)
- a fine up to €20 million or up to 4% of the annual worldwide
turnover of the preceding financial year in case of an enterprise,
whichever is greater, if there has been an infringement of the following
provisions: (Article 83, Paragraph 4[31])
- the basic principles for processing, including conditions for consent, pursuant to Articles 5, 6, 7, and 9
- the data subjects' rights pursuant to Articles 12 to 22
- the transfers of personal data to a recipient in a third country or an international organisation pursuant to Articles 44 to 49
- any obligations pursuant to member state law adopted under Chapter IX
- noncompliance with an order or a temporary or definitive limitation
on processing or the suspension of data flows by the supervisory
authority pursuant to Article 58(2) or failure to provide access in
violation of Article 58(1)
B2B marketing
Within the GDPR there is a distinct difference between business to consumer (
B2C) and business to business (
B2B)
marketing. Under the GDPR, there are six equally valid grounds to
process personal data. There are two of these which are relevant to
direct B2B marketing, they are
consent or
legitimate interest.
Recital 47 of the GDPR states that "The processing of personal data for
direct marketing purposes may be regarded as carried out for a
legitimate interest."
[32]
Using
legitimate interest as the basis for B2B marketing involves ensuring key conditions are met:
- "The processing must relate to the legitimate interests of your
business or a specified third party, providing that the interests or
fundamental rights of the data subject do not override the business'
legitimate interest."
- "The processing must be necessary to achieve the legitimate interests of the organisation."[33]
Additionally, Article 6.1(f) of the GDPR states that the processing
is lawful if it is "Necessary for the purposes of the legitimate
interests pursued by the controller or by a third-party, except where
such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and
freedoms of the individual which require protection of personal
information, in particular where the individual is a child".
[33]
Therefore, companies can continue to use marketing data for the
purposes of B2B engagement as long as the appropriate steps are taken to
ensure the data is aligned to a specific objective or campaign. One
phrase that is now being used is "Correct Marketing to the Correct
Person". As part of this companies will need to keep their marketing
databases and CRM up to date in order to carry out valid Legitimate
Balance Checks.
[34]
The EU Commission stated that, "Unified data
privacy laws
will create extraordinary opportunities and motivating innovation for
businesses not only within Europe but also for the organization who are
willing to do business with European states or already running their
business in European states." The commission aims for companies to
maintain communications and build regulation supporting relationships
with each other to ensure best data practices through
legitimate balance checks[34]
Reception
The proposal for the new regulation gave rise to much discussion and controversy.
[36][37] Thousands of amendments were proposed.
[38]
The area of GDPR consent has a number of implications for
businesses who record calls as a matter of practice. A typical
disclaimer is not considered sufficient to gain assumed consent to
record calls. Additionally, when recording has commenced, should the
caller withdraw their consent, then the agent receiving the call must be
able to stop a previously started recording and ensure the recording
does not get stored.
[39]
IT professionals expect that compliance with the GDPR will
require additional investment overall: over 80 percent of those surveyed
expected GDPR-related spending to be at least USD $100,000.
[40] The concerns were echoed in a report commissioned by the law firm
Baker & McKenzie
that found that "around 70 percent of respondents believe that
organizations will need to invest additional budget/effort to comply
with the consent, data mapping and cross-border data transfer
requirements under the GDPR."
[41] The total cost for EU companies is estimated at around €200 billion while for US companies the estimate is for $41.7 billion.
[42] It has been argued that smaller businesses and
startup companies
might not have the financial resources to adequately comply with the
GDPR, unlike the larger international technology firms (such as
Facebook and
Google) that the regulation is ostensibly meant to target first and foremost.
[43][44] A lack of knowledge and understanding of the regulations has also been a concern in the lead-up to its adoption.
[45]
A counter-argument to this has been that companies were made aware of
these changes two years prior to them coming into effect and, therefore,
should have had enough time to prepare.
[46]
The regulations, including whether an enterprise must have a data
protection officer, have been criticized for potential administrative
burden and unclear compliance requirements.
[47] Although data minimisation is a requirement, with
pseudonymisation
being one of the possible means, the regulation provide no guidance on
how or what constitutes an effective data de-identification scheme, with
a grey area on what would be considered as inadequate pseudonymisation
subject to Section 5 enforcement actions.
[48][49][50] There is also concern regarding the implementation of the GDPR in
blockchain systems, as the transparent and fixed record of blockchain transactions contradicts the very nature of the GDPR.
[51] Many media outlets have commented on the introduction of a "
right to explanation" of algorithmic decisions,
[52][53]
but legal scholars have since argued that the existence of such a right
is highly unclear without judicial tests and is limited at best.
[54][55]
The GDPR has garnered support from businesses who regard it as an opportunity to improve their data management.
[56][57] Mark Zuckerberg has also called it a "very positive step for the Internet".
[58] Consumer rights groups such as
The European Consumer Organisation are among the most vocal proponents of the legislation.
[59] Other supporters have attributed its passage to the whistleblower
Edward Snowden.
[60] Free software advocate
Richard Stallman
has praised some aspects of GDPR but called for additional safeguards
to prevent technology companies from "manufacturing consent".
[61]
Impact
The
lead-up to the effective date of the GDPR led to many companies and
websites changing their privacy policies and features worldwide in order
to comply with its requirements, and providing email and on-site
notification of the changes, despite having had at least two years to
prepare and do so. This has been criticized for eventually leading to a
form of fatigue among end-users over the excessive numbers of messages.
Experts also noted that some reminder emails incorrectly asserted that
new consent for data processing had to be obtained for when the GDPR
took effect, even though any previously-obtained consent to processing
is valid as long as it is properly documented and meets the requirements
of the GDPR (Recital 171).
Phishing
scams also emerged using falsified versions of such emails, and it was
also argued that some GDPR notice emails may have actually been sent in
violation of anti-spam laws.
[62][13] Mass adoption of GDPR privacy standards by international companies have been cited as an example of the "
Brussels effect", a phenomenon wherein European laws and regulations are used as a global baseline due to their gravitas.
[63]
Research indicates that approximately 25% of software vulnerabilities have GDPR implications.
[64]
Since Article 33 emphasizes breaches, not bugs, security experts advise
companies to invest in processes and capabilities to identify
vulnerabilities before they can be exploited, including
Coordinated vulnerability disclosure processes.
[65] [66]
The deluge of GDPR-related notices also inspired
memes, including those surrounding privacy policy notices being delivered by atypical means (such as an
Ouija board and a
Star Wars opening crawl), suggesting that
Santa Claus's "naughty or nice" list violated the GDPR, and a recording of excerpts from the regulation by a former
BBC Radio 4 announcer, in the style of its late-night
Shipping Forecast. A blog,
GDPR Hall of Shame,
was also created to showcase unusual delivery of GDPR notices, and
attempts at compliance that contained egregious violations of the
regulation's requirements. Its author remarked that the regulation "has a
lot of nitty gritty, in-the-weeds details, but not a lot of information
about how to comply", but also acknowledged that businesses had two
years to comply, making some of its responses unjustified.
[67][68][69][70][71]
On the effective date, some international websites began to block EU users entirely (including
Instapaper,
[72] Unroll.me,
[73] and
Tronc-owned newspapers, such as the
Chicago Tribune and the
Los Angeles Times) or redirect them to stripped-down versions of their services (in the case of
National Public Radio and
USA Today) with limited functionality and/or no advertising, in order to remove their liabilities.
[74][75][76][77] Some companies, such as
Klout,
and several online video games, ceased operations entirely to coincide
with its implementation, citing the GDPR as a burden on their continued
operations, especially due to the business model of the former.
[78][79][80] Sales volume of online
behavioural advertising placements in Europe fell 25–40% on 25 May 2018.
[81]
Facebook and subsidiaries
WhatsApp and
Instagram, as well as
Google LLC (targeting
Android), were immediately sued by
Max Schrems's non-profit
NOYB
just hours after midnight on 25 May 2018, for their use of "forced
consent". Schrems asserts that both companies violated Article 7(4) by
not presenting opt-ins for data processing consent on an individualized
basis, and requiring users to consent to all data processing activities
(including those not strictly necessary) or be forbidden from using the
services.
[82][83][84][85][86]
After the implementation of GDPR, the US state of
California passed a similar bill called The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018.
[87][88]
Timeline
EU Digital Single Market
The EU Digital Single Market strategy relates to "
digital economy" activities related to businesses and people in the EU.
[95] As part of the strategy, the GDPR and the
NIS Directive all apply from 25 May 2018. The proposed
ePrivacy Regulation was also planned to be applicable from 25 May 2018, but will be delayed for several months.
[96] The
eIDAS Regulation is also part of the strategy.
United Kingdom implementation
With the
United Kingdom scheduled to leave the European Union in 2019, the UK granted
royal assent to the
Data Protection Act 2018 on 23 May 2018, which contains equivalent regulations and protections.
[97][98] If the UK leaves the EU, it will become a
third country for the purposes of the transfer of personal data outside the EU. This may require an "adequacy decision"
[99] by the
European Commission
on the suitability of the UK's data protection framework, or other
appropriate safeguards that may allow such transfers to take place.
(Chapter V). It is currently (August 2018) the UK Government's view that
a 'legally-binding data protection agreement' between the EU and the UK
would be more appropriate than an 'adequacy finding'. Such an agreement
would include the UK Information Commissioner taking part in the 'one
stop shop' mechanism and having a seat on the European Data Protection
Board.
[100]
Notes
- Refer GDPR article 4(18):
'enterprise' means a natural or legal person engaged in an economic
activity, irrespective of its legal form, including partnerships or
associations regularly engaged in an economic activity.
"Presidency
of the Council: "Compromise text. Several partial general approaches
have been instrumental in converging views in Council on the proposal
for a General Data Protection Regulation in its entirety. The text on
the Regulation which the Presidency submits for approval as a General
Approach appears in annex," 201 pages, 11 June 2015, PDF".
Blackmer, W.S. (5 May 2016). "GDPR: Getting Ready for the New EU General Data Protection Regulation". Information Law Group. InfoLawGroup LLP. Retrieved 22 June 2016.
Article
3(2): This 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 behaviour as far as their behaviour takes
place within the Union.
European Commission's press release announcing the proposed comprehensive reform of data protection rules. 25 January 2012. Retrieved 3 January 2013.
"EUR-Lex – 32016R0679 – EN – EUR-Lex". eur-lex.europa.eu. Retrieved 21 March 2018.
"EUR-Lex – 32016R0679 – EN – EUR-Lex". eur-lex.europa.eu. Retrieved 21 March 2018.
"Directive
(EU) 2016/680 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 by competent authorities for the purposes of the
prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences
or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of
such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA". 4 May 2016.
The Proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation. A guide for in-house lawyers, Hunton & Williams LLP, June 2015, p. 14
"Data protection" (PDF). European Commission – European Commission.
"EUR-Lex – 32016R0679 – EN – EUR-Lex". eur-lex.europa.eu. Retrieved 7 November 2017..
"Age of consent in the GDPR: updated mapping". iapp.org. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
"How the Proposed EU Data Protection Regulation Is Creating a Ripple Effect Worldwide". Judy Schmitt, Florian Stahl. 11 October 2012. Retrieved 3 January 2013.
Hern, Alex (21 May 2018). "Most GDPR emails unnecessary and some illegal, say experts". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
"Privacy notices under the EU General Data Protection Regulation". ico.org.uk. 19 January 2018. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
"What information must be given to individuals whose data is collected?". Europa (web portal). Retrieved 23 May 2018.
"Privacy and Data Protection by Design – ENISA". Europa (web portal). Retrieved 4 April 2017.
Data science under GDPR with pseudonymization in the data pipeline Published by Dativa, 17 April 2018
"Looking to comply with GDPR? Here's a primer on anonymization and pseudonymization". iapp.org.
"Official Journal L 119/2016". eur-lex.europa.eu. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
Article 29 Working Party (2017). Guidelines on the right to data portability. European Commission.
Veale, Michael; Binns, Reuben; Ausloos, Jef. "When data protection by design and data subject rights clash". International Data Privacy Law. doi:10.1093/idpl/ipy002.
Zuiderveen Borgesius, Frederik J. (April 2016). "Singling
out people without knowing their names – Behavioural targeting,
pseudonymous data, and the new Data Protection Regulation". Computer Law & Security Review. 32 (2): 256–271. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2015.12.013. ISSN 0267-3649.
Proposal for the EU General Data Protection Regulation. European Commission. 25 January 2012. Retrieved 3 January 2013.
"The
Final European Union General Data Protection Regulation, by Cedric
Burton, Laura De Boel, Christopher Kuner, Anna Pateraki, Sarah Cadiot
and Sára G. Hoffman, Section II, 4". Bloomberg BNA. 12 February 2016.(Note that the Article 18 in the draft GDPR became Article 20 in the final version.)
Baldry, Tony; Hyams, Oliver. "The Right to Be Forgotten". 1 Essex Court.
"European
Parliament legislative resolution of 12 March 2014 on the proposal for a
regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data
and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection
Regulation)". European Parliament.
"REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL (article 30)".
"EUR-Lex – Art. 37". eur-lex.europa.eu. Retrieved 23 January 2017.
"Guidelines on Data Protection Officers". Retrieved 27 August 2017.
Jankowski, Piper-Meredith. "Global reach of the GDPR: What is at stake?". Lexology. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
"L_2016119EN.01000101.xml". eur-lex.europa.eu.
"What's new under the GDPR?". ico.org.uk. 22 March 2018.
"GDPR for marketers: The essentials" (PDF). Retrieved 27 May 2018.
"How do we apply legitimate interests in practice?". ico.org.uk. 22 March 2018.
Wehlander, Caroline (2016). "Chapter 2
"Economic activity": criteria and relevance in the fields of EU internal
market law, competition law and procurement law". In Wehlander,
Caroline. Services of general economic interest as a constitutional concept of EU Law (PDF). The Hague, Netherlands: TMC Asser Press. pp. 35–65. doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-117-3_2. ISBN 978-94-6265-116-6. Retrieved 23 May 2018.
House of Commons Justice Committee (November 2012). The Committee's Opinion on the EU Data Protection Framework Proposals. House of Commons, U.K. p. 32. ISBN 9780215049759. Retrieved 3 October 2017. Another issue that has been subject to a large number of comments... is the requirement to appoint a DPO
Wessing, Taylor (1 September 2016). "The compliance burden under the GDPR – Data Protection Officers". taylorweesing.com. Taylor Wessing. Retrieved 3 October 2017. One
of the politically most contentious innovations of the General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the obligation to appoint a Data
Protection Officer (DPO) in certain cases.
"Overview of amendments". LobbyPlag. Retrieved 23 July 2013.
"How Smart Businesses Can Avoid GDPR Penalties When Recording Calls". xewave.io. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
Babel, Chris (11 July 2017). "The High Costs of GDPR Compliance". InformationWeek. UBM Technology Group. Retrieved 4 October 2017.
"Preparing for New Privacy Regimes: Privacy Professionals' Views on the General Data Protection Regulation and Privacy Shield" (PDF). bakermckenzie.com. Baker & McKenzie. 4 May 2016. Retrieved 4 October 2017.
Georgiev, Georgi. "GDPR Compliance Cost Calculator". GIGAcalculator.com. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
Solon, Olivia (19 April 2018). "How Europe's 'breakthrough' privacy law takes on Facebook and Google". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
"Europe's new privacy rules are no silver bullet". Politico.eu. 22 April 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
"Lack of GDPR knowledge is a danger and an opportunity". MicroscopeUK. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
"No one's ready for GDPR". The Verge. Retrieved 2018-06-01.
"New rules on data protection pose compliance issues for firms". The Irish Times. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
Wes, Matt (25 April 2017). "Looking to comply with GDPR? Here's a primer on anonymization and pseudonymization". IAPP.
Chassang, G. (2017). The impact of the EU general data protection regulation on scientific research. ecancermedicalscience, 11.
Tarhonen, Laura (2017). "Pseudonymisation of Personal Data According to the General Data Protection Regulation".
"A
recent report issued by the Blockchain Association of Ireland has found
there are many more questions than answers when it comes to GDPR". siliconrepublic.com. Retrieved 5 March 2018.
Sample, Ian (27 January 2017). "AI watchdog needed to regulate automated decision-making, say experts". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 15 July 2017.
"EU's Right to Explanation: A Harmful Restriction on Artificial Intelligence". techzone360.com. Retrieved 15 July 2017.
Wachter, Sandra; Mittelstadt, Brent; Floridi, Luciano (28 December 2016). "Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation" – via SSRN.
Edwards, Lilian; Veale, Michael (2017). "Slave to the algorithm? Why a "right to an explanation" is probably not the remedy you are looking for". Duke Law and Technology Review. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2972855. SSRN 2972855.
Frimin, Michael (2018-03-29). "Five benefits GDPR compliance will bring to your business". Forbes. Retrieved 2018-09-11.
Butterworth, Trevor (2018-05-23). "Europe's tough new digital privacy law should be a model for US policymakers". Vox. Retrieved 2018-09-11.
Jaffe, Justin; Hautala, Laura (2018-05-25). "What the GDPR means for Facebook, the EU and you". CNET. Retrieved 2018-09-11.
Tiku, Nitasha (2018-03-19). "Europe's new privacy law will change the web, and more". Wired. Retrieved 2018-09-11.
Kalyanpur, Nikhil; Newman, Abraham (2018-05-25). "Today, a new E.U. law transforms privacy rights for everyone. Without Edward Snowden, it might never have happened". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-09-11.
Stallman, Richard (2018-04-03). "A radical proposal to keep your personal data safe". The Guardian. Retrieved 2018-09-11.
Afifi-Sabet, Keumars (3 May 2018). "Scammers are using GDPR email alerts to conduct phishing attacks". IT PRO. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
Roberts, Jeff John (25 May 2018). "The GDPR Is in Effect: Should U.S. Companies Be Afraid?". Retrieved 28 May 2018.
"What Percentage of Your Software Vulnerabilities Have GDPR Implications?" (PDF). HackerOne. 16 January 2018. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
"The Data Protection Officer (DPO): Everything You Need to Know". Cranium and HackerOne. 20 March 2018. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
"What might bug bounty programs look like under the GDPR?". The International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). 27 March 2018. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
"Fall asleep in seconds by listening to a soothing voice read the EU's new GDPR legislation". The Verge. Retrieved 2018-06-16.
"How Europe's GDPR Regulations Became a Meme". Wired. Retrieved 2018-06-17.
"The Internet Created a GDPR-Inspired Meme Using Privacy Policies". Adweek. Retrieved 2018-06-17.
Burgess, Matt. "Help, my lightbulbs are dead! How GDPR became bigger than Beyonce". Wired.co.uk. Retrieved 2018-06-17.
"Here Are Some of the Worst Attempts At Complying with GDPR". Motherboard. 2018-05-25. Retrieved 2018-06-17.
"Instapaper is temporarily shutting off access for European users due to GDPR". The Verge. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
"Unroll.me to close to EU users saying it can't comply with GDPR". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2018-05-29.
Hern, Alex; Waterson, Jim (24 May 2018). "Sites block users, shut down activities and flood inboxes as GDPR rules loom". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
"Blocking 500 Million Users Is Easier Than Complying With Europe's New Rules". Bloomberg L.P. 25 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
"U.S. News Outlets Block European Readers Over New Privacy Rules". The New York Times. 25 May 2018. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
"Look: Here's what EU citizens see now that GDPR has landed". Advertising Age. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
Tiku, Nitasha (24 May 2018). "Why Your Inbox Is Crammed Full of Privacy Policies". Wired. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
Chen, Brian X. (23 May 2018). "Getting a Flood of G.D.P.R.-Related Privacy Policy Updates? Read Them". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
Lanxon, Nate (25 May 2018). "Blocking 500 Million Users Is Easier Than Complying With Europe's New Rules". Bloomberg. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
"GDPR mayhem: Programmatic ad buying plummets in Europe". Digiday. 25 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
"GDPR: noyb.eu filed four complaints over "forced consent" against Google, Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook" (PDF). NOYB.eu. 25 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
"Facebook and Google hit with $8.8 billion in lawsuits on day one of GDPR". The Verge. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
"Max Schrems files first cases under GDPR against Facebook and Google". The Irish Times. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
"Facebook, Google face first GDPR complaints over 'forced consent'". TechCrunch. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
Meyer, David. "Google, Facebook hit with serious GDPR complaints: Others will be soon". ZDNet. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
"California Unanimously Passes Historic Privacy Bill". WIRED. Retrieved 2018-06-29.
"Marketers and tech companies confront California's version of GDPR". Retrieved 2018-06-29.
"Data protection reform: Council adopts position at first reading – Consilium". Europa (web portal).
Adoption of the Council's position at first reading, Votewatch.eu
Written procedure, 8 April 2016, Council of the European Union
"Data protection reform – Parliament approves new rules fit for the digital era – News – European Parliament".
"General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) entered into force in the EEA". EFTA. 20 July 2018. Retrieved 30 September 2018.
Kolsrud, Kjetil (10 July 2018). "GDPR – 20. juli er datoen!". Rett24. Retrieved 13 July 2018.
"Digital Single Market". Digital Single Market.
"What does the ePrivacy Regulation mean for the online industry? - ePrivacy". www.eprivacy.eu.
"New Data Protection Act finalised in the UK". Out-Law.com. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
"New UK Data Protection Act not welcomed by all". Computer Weekly. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
"Adequacy of the protection of personal data in non-EU countries". European Commission. Retrieved 3 August 2018.
External links
