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

The GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) has strict data breach response requirements, particularly for ransomware attacks that affect personal data. The appropriate next step after an internal investigation is to assess the risks associated with the breach and notify affected parties if necessary.

Key GDPR Breach Response Steps (Article 33 & 34):

Assess the risks to personal data

If the breach poses a risk to individuals’ rights and freedoms, the supervisory authority (DPA) must be notified within 72 hours​.

If there is a high risk, affected individuals must also be informed without undue delay​.

Why Answer Choice A is Correct

Risk assessment is a critical first step after an internal investigation.

If the breach meets the risk threshold, notification to authorities and individuals is required under GDPR​.

Why Other Answer Choices Are Incorrect:

B (Notify Law Enforcement First): While law enforcement may be involved, GDPR does not mandate consulting law enforcement before conducting a risk assessment or notifying individuals​.

C (Informing the Public Immediately): Public disclosure via social media is not a GDPR requirement. Affected individuals and DPAs should be formally notified first.

D (Waiting for Law Enforcement): GDPR does not allow waiting for law enforcement before fulfilling notification obligations. Controllers must act within 72 hours​.

Conclusion: The correct next step after an internal investigation is to assess the risks and, if necessary, notify affected individuals and regulatory bodies as required under GDPR Articles 33 and 34.

A DPIA is not a one-time activity. While it's crucial to conduct a DPIA before implementing a new system that processes personal data (like the fingerprint system), the GDPR requires organizations to review and update their DPIAs periodically, especially when there are changes that might affect the risk to data subjects.

Here's why the other options are incorrect:

A. After the complaint of the supporter: While a complaint might trigger a review of the processing, the DPIA should have been done proactively before any issues arose.

C. At the end of every match of the season: This frequency is excessive and doesn't align with the idea of assessing risks when changes occur.

D. After the AEPD notification of the investigation: Similar to option A, this is reactive rather than proactive.

References:

GDPR Article 35 - Data protection impact assessment

IAPP CIPP/E textbook, Chapter 4: Accountability and Data Governance (specifically, sections on DPIAs and ongoing review)

WP29 Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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, the right of access by the data subject is one of the rights granted to individuals to obtain information about the processing of their personal data by a data controller1. The data controller must provide a copy of the personal data undergoing processing and additional information, such as the purposes, the categories, the recipients, the retention period, the rights, the source, and the automated decision-making of the processing1. The data controller must also inform the data subject of the existence of the right to access and the means to exercise it2.

The GDPR also specifies the time limit for responding to a data subject access request. The data controller must provide the information without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of the request1. This period may be extended by two further months where necessary, taking into account the complexity and number of the requests, but the data controller must inform the data subject of any such extension within one month of receipt of the request, together with the reasons for the delay1. The data controller must also verify the identity of the data subject before providing the information, but this verification should not extend the time limit for responding to the request3.

In this scenario, Mike is an EU resident who has booked travel itineraries through XYZ Travel Agency and stayed at ABC Hotel Chain’s locations. Both companies are U.S.-based multinational companies that use a common platform for collecting and sharing their customer data. Mike has signed the agreement to be a rewards program member of XYZ Travel Agency. Mike wants to know what personal information the company holds about him and sends an email requesting access to his data.

Assuming that both companies are subject to the GDPR, either because they offer goods or services to individuals in the EU or because they monitor the behavior of individuals in the EU4, they must comply with the right of access by the data subject and provide Mike with the information he requests. The time period in which Mike should receive a response to his request is not more than one month of receipt of his request, unless there are grounds for extending the period by two further months. The companies must also verify Mike’s identity before providing the information, but this verification should not affect the time limit for responding to the request.

Therefore, the correct answer is A. Not more than one month of receipt of Mike’s request.

References: 1 Article 15 of the GDPR2 Article 13 and 14 of the GDPR3 Guidelines on the right to data portability | European Data Protection Board34 Article 3 of the GDPR.

The purpose limitation principle requires that personal data be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not be further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes. However, the GDPR does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes an incompatible purpose. Instead, it leaves room for interpretation by the member states, taking into account the context and circumstances of the processing. This means that the degree of flexibility a controller has in using personal data for a new purpose may vary depending on the member state’s law and guidance. Some factors that may affect the compatibility assessment include the link between the original and the new purpose, the expectations of the data subject, the nature of the data, the impact of the further processing, and the safeguards applied by the controller. References:

GDPR Article 5(1)(b), which states the purpose limitation principle.

GDPR Article 6(4), which lists the criteria for assessing the compatibility of a new purpose.

ICO guidance, which explains the purpose limitation principle and provides examples of compatible and incompatible purposes.

[EDPB guidelines], which provide further guidance on the application of the purpose limitation principle.

Consent is one of the legal bases for processing personal data under the GDPR, but it must meet certain conditions to be valid. According to Article 4(11) of the GDPR, consent means “any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her.” In this scenario, consent would not be considered an adequate legal basis for accessing the party zone, because it is not freely given. Freely given consent means that the data subject has a genuine and free choice to agree or disagree to the processing, and that there is no detriment, coercion, or significant negative consequences if the data subject does not consent. However, in this case, the consent is conditional on accessing the party zone, which is the main purpose of the event. Therefore, the data subject does not have a real choice, and may feel pressured or obliged to consent in order to participate in the event. This violates the principle of free consent, and could invalidate the consent as a legal basis.

References:

•GDPR Article 4 - Definitions1

•GDPR Article 7 - Conditions for consent2

•Guidelines 05/2020 on consent under Regulation 2016/6793

Article 82 of the GDPR introduces a right to compensation for damage caused as a result of an infringement of the GDPR1. Article 82 (1) states that any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of the GDPR shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor for the damage suffered1. Article 82 (2) states that any controller involved in processing shall be liable for the damage caused by processing which infringes the GDPR1. A processor shall be liable for the damage caused by processing only where it has not complied with obligations of the GDPR specifically directed to processors or where it has acted outside or contrary to lawful instructions of the controller1. Article 82 (3) states that a controller or processor shall be exempt from liability under paragraph 2 if it proves that it is not in any way responsible for the event giving rise to the damage1. In this case, Jack is liable for the damage caused by the data breach, as he violated the GDPR by posting the patient’s name and health information, along with disparaging comments, on a social media website. This constitutes an infringement of the GDPR, as it violates the principles of lawfulness, fairness, and transparency (Article 5 (1) (a)), purpose limitation (Article 5 (1) (b)), data minimisation (Article 5 (1) ©), accuracy (Article 5 (1) (d)), integrity and confidentiality (Article 5 (1) (f)), and the rights of the data subject (Articles 12-23)1. The pharmaceutical company is not liable for the damage caused by the data breach, as it can prove that it is not in any way responsible for the event giving rise to the damage. The company provided privacy training to Jack, informed him of the privacy policy, obtained his consent, and dismissed him as soon as the breach was discovered. Therefore, the company complied with the obligations of the GDPR, such as the accountability principle (Article 5 (2)), the data protection by design and by default principle (Article 25), the security of processing principle (Article 32), and the notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority principle (Article 33)1. Therefore, option D is the correct answer. References: Art. 82 GDPR – Right to compensation and liability, Article 82 GDPR - GDPRhub

The GDPR defines data concerning health as a special category of personal data that is subject to specific processing conditions and safeguards. The GDPR prohibits the processing of such data unless one of the exceptions in Article 9 applies. One of these exceptions is the explicit consent of the data subject, which means that the data subject has given a clear and affirmative indication of their agreement to the processing of their health data. Another exception is when the processing is necessary for reasons of public interest in the area of public health, such as protecting against serious cross-border threats to health or ensuring high standards of quality and safety of health care. A third exception is when the processing is necessary for the purposes of preventive or occupational medicine, for the assessment of the working capacity of the employee, medical diagnosis, the provision of health or social care or treatment or the management of health or social care systems and services. These exceptions are based on the principle of necessity, which means that the processing must be strictly necessary for a specific purpose and cannot be achieved by other means.

In the given scenario, the journalist does not fall under any of these exceptions. The journalist is not a health professional, a public authority, or a person who has obtained the explicit consent of the data subject. The journalist is not processing the data for any legitimate purpose related to public health, medical care, or social protection. The journalist is merely pursuing their own interest in publishing a story that may or may not be in the public interest. The journalist is not respecting the data subject’s rights and freedoms, especially their right to privacy and confidentiality. Therefore, the journalist would be least likely to be allowed to engage in the collection, use, and disclosure of the data subject’s sensitive medical information without their knowledge or consent. References:

Article 4 (15) and Article 9 of the GDPR

Health data | ICO

What does the GDPR mean for personal data in medical reports?

Sensitive data and medical confidentiality - FutureLearn

Health data and data privacy: storing sensitive data under GDPR

The EDPB’s Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection by Design and by Default provide guidance on how to implement the requirements of Article 25 of the GDPR, which obliges controllers to design and implement appropriate technical and organisational measures and necessary safeguards to ensure that the processing of personal data complies with the data protection principles and protects the rights and freedoms of data subjects. The guidelines also explain how to apply the concept of data protection by default, which means that by default, only personal data that are necessary for each specific purpose of the processing are processed.

The guidelines do not mention data ownership allocation as a practice that follows from the principles relating to the processing of personal data under EU data protection law. Data ownership allocation is not a concept that is recognised or defined by the GDPR or the EDPB. Data ownership allocation refers to the idea that data subjects or controllers have some form of property rights over the personal data that they provide or process. However, the GDPR does not grant such rights, but rather establishes a set of rules and obligations for the processing of personal data, based on the notion of accountability and responsibility of the controllers and processors. The GDPR also recognises the rights and freedoms of data subjects, such as the right of access, rectification, erasure, restriction, portability, objection and not to be subject to automated decision-making, which are not dependent on the ownership of the personal data, but on the fact that the personal data relate to them.

The other practices listed in the question, namely access control management, frequent pseudonymization key rotation and error propagation avoidance along the processing chain, are examples of practices that follow from the principles relating to the processing of personal data under EU data protection law, as explained in the guidelines. Access control management follows from the principle of integrity and confidentiality, which requires that personal data are processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage. Frequent pseudonymization key rotation follows from the principle of data minimisation, which requires that personal data are adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed. Error propagation avoidance along the processing chain follows from the principle of accuracy, which requires that personal data are accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

References:

GDPR, Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 25.

EDPB Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection by Design and by Default, pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28.