[Q14-Q28] PDP9 Dumps are Available for Instant Access [2024]

Explanation
A DPIA is not required to fulfil the requirement that all DPIAs are submitted to the ICO, because this is not a requirement under the GDPR. The GDPR only requires that the controller consults the ICO before carrying out processing that is likely to result in a highrisk to individuals, if the controller cannot mitigate that risk. This means that not all DPIAs need to be submitted to the ICO, only those that identify a high residual risk that cannot be reduced. The other options are valid purposes of carrying out a DPIA, as they help the controller to comply with the GDPR, ensure data protection by design and by default, and identify and mitigate the main risks to individuals’ rights and freedoms. References:
* Article 35 and 36 of the GDPR3
* ICO guidance on DPIAs5

Explanation
Article 33 of the UK GDPR requires controllers to notify the supervisory authority of a personal data breach without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of it, unless the personal data breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons. This means that not all personal data breaches need to be reported to the supervisory authority, only those that pose a risk to individuals. The risk should be assessed in terms of the potential negative consequences for individuals, such as discrimination, identity theft, fraud, financial loss, damage to reputation, loss of confidentiality, or any other significant economic or social disadvantage. The UK GDPR also requires controllers to communicate the personal data breach to the affected data subjects without undue delay, where the breach is likely to result in a high risk to their rights and freedoms. The other options are incorrect because:
* The UK GDPR does not require all personal data breaches to be reported to the supervisory authority, only those that pose a risk to individuals. However, controllers must document all personal data breaches, regardless of whether they are reported or not, as part of their accountability obligations.
* The UK GDPR does not make a distinction between personal data and special category data when it comes to reporting personal data breaches. Special category data is a type of personal data that reveals racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, or that concerns health, sex life or sexual orientation, or biometric or genetic data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person. The processing of special category data is subject to stricter conditions and safeguards under the UK GDPR, but the reporting of personal data breaches involving such data is subject to the same criteria as any other personal data breach, namely the risk to individuals.
* The UK GDPR does not provide an exemption from reporting personal data breaches based on the controller’s right of freedom of expression. The right of freedom of expression is a fundamental right that is recognised and protected by the UK GDPR, but it is not an absolute right that overrides the rights and freedoms of data subjects. The UK GDPR allows Member States to provide for exemptions or derogations from certain provisions of the UK GDPR for the processing of personal data carried out for journalistic purposes or the purpose of academic, artistic or literary expression, where such exemptions or derogations are necessary to reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with the right to freedom of expression and information. However, these exemptions or derogations do not apply to the obligation to report personal databreaches to the supervisory authority, unless the Member State law specifies otherwise. References:
* UK GDPR, Article 334
* UK GDPR, Article 34
* UK GDPR, Article 9
* UK GDPR, Article 85

Explanation
The two businesses are both joint controllers of the information contained in the single order system, because they jointly determine the purposes and means of the processing. They have a shared purpose of selling their products by mail order and they agree on the means of processing by using a single online website and a single order system. Their decisions complement each other and are necessary for the processing to take place. The processing by each party is inseparable and inextricably linked. Therefore, they meet the criteria for joint controllership under the GDPR. References:
* Article 26 of the GDPR1
* Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR2, pp. 16-24

Explanation
According to the GDPR, a transfer of personal data to a third country or an international organisation occurs when the personal data is made available to someone outside the EU and EEA, regardless of whether the data is physically sent or not. Therefore, the fact that the Chinese business accesses the platform and the databases that contain personal data of the French company’s customers constitutes a transfer of personal data to China, which is a third country under the GDPR. The French company, as the controller of the personal data, must ensure that the transfer complies with the GDPR requirements and that the level of protection of the personal data is not undermined. This means that the French company must identify and implement an appropriate transfer mechanism, such as an adequacy decision, appropriate safeguards, or derogations for specific situations, as set out in Chapter V of the GDPR. A data processing agreement, although necessary to define the roles and responsibilities of the controller and the processor, is not sufficient to ensure the legality of the transfer, as it does not provide the same guarantees as the GDPR. China is not a country that has been recognised by the European Commission as providing an adequate level ofprotection for personal data, so the French company cannot rely on an adequacy decision either. References:
* Article 44 of the GDPR1
* ICO guidance on international transfers2

Explanation
The UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 set a maximum fine of £17.5 million or 4% of annual global turnover, whichever is higher, for infringements of the data protection principles, the rights of data subjects, or the rules on transfers of personal data to third countries. This is the higher maximum penalty that applies to the most serious breaches of the UK GDPR. A security breach that exposes the details of a hundred thousand members of the public would likely fall under this category, as it would compromise the confidentiality and integrity of personal data, and potentially cause significant harm and distress to the data subjects. Therefore, the maximum fine that the UK public body could receive for this breach is £17.5 million or 4% of gross annual turnover, whichever is higher. References:
* Penalties3
* GDPR Penalties & Fines4
* Three years of GDPR: the biggest fines so far5

Explanation
Information society services (ISS) are defined in Article 4(25) of the UK GDPR as “any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services”. This means that ISS are online services that are paid for, either by the user or by another source of income, such as advertising or sponsorship, and that are provided without the parties being physically present, using electronic equipment for the transmission and reception of data, and upon the request of the user.
Examples of ISS include apps, programs, websites, search engines, social media platforms, online marketplaces, content streaming services, online games, and any other online services that offer goods or services to users over the internet. Therefore, options A, B and C are correct examples of ISS, as they meet the criteria of the definition. However, option D is not a correct example of ISS, as it does not involve any remuneration for the service provider. Information services provided by non-profit or government organisations with no remuneration are not considered ISS under the UK GDPR, unless they compete with other ISS on the market. References:
* UK GDPR, Article 4(25)4
* Services covered by this code5

Explanation
The GDPR and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) are two different but related legal frameworks that regulate the use of cookies and similar technologies. Cookies are small text files that are stored on the user’s device when they visit a website or use an online service. Cookies can be used for various purposes, such as remembering user preferences, tracking user behaviour, delivering targeted advertising, or enabling online transactions. The GDPR applies to the processing of personal data by cookies and similar technologies, as they can be used to identify or single out individuals, either directly or indirectly. Personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, such as a name, an email address, a location data, or a cookie identifier. The GDPR requires data controllers to obtain the user’s consent before using any cookies that are not strictly necessary for the functioning of the website or service, and to provide clear and transparent information about the purposes and legal basis of the processing, the categories and recipients of the personal data, the retention periods, and the rights of the data subjects. The GDPR also requires data controllers to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure the security and confidentiality of the personal data, and to comply with the principles of data protection by design and by default. The PECR are a set of UK-specific rules that implement the EU ePrivacy Directive, which is a complementary legislation to the GDPR that deals with the privacy and security of electronic communications.
The PECR apply to the use of cookies and similar technologies, as well as to the sending of marketing communications by phone, email, text, or fax, and to the provision of public electronic communications services and networks. The PECR require data controllers to obtain the user’s consent before using any cookies or similar technologies, except those that are strictly necessary for the provision of an information society service requested by the user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network. The PECR also require data controllers to provide clear and comprehensive information about the purposes of the cookies or similar technologies, and to offer the user a way to refuse or withdraw their consent. The PECR do not apply to the processing of personal data by cookies or similar technologies, as this is covered by the GDPR. Therefore, the correct answer is C, as where PECR is engaged only PECR will apply to the use of cookies or similar technologies, but not to the processing of personal data by them. The other options are incorrect because:
* The GDPR does not only apply where a cookie processes personal data, but to any processing of personal data by any means, including cookies and similar technologies. The GDPR applies to the processing of personal data by cookies and similar technologies, regardless of whether they are strictly necessary or not, or whether they are first-party or third-party cookies. However, the GDPR does not apply to the use of cookies or similar technologies, as this is covered by the PECR.
* The GDPR does not apply in all cases where cookies are used, but only in cases where cookies are used to process personal data. The GDPR does not apply to the use of cookies or similar technologies that do not process personal data, such as those that are strictly necessary for the functioning of the website orservice, or those that do not identify or single out individuals. However, the PECR still apply to the use of cookies or similar technologies, regardless of whether they process personal data or not, except for some limited exemptions.
* Websites do not only need an opt out of cookies if GDPR applies, but also if PECR applies. The GDPR and the PECR both require data controllers to obtain the user’s consent before using any cookies or similar technologies that are not strictly necessary, and to offer the user a way to refuse or withdraw their consent. The opt out of cookies is a mechanism that allows the user to exercise their right to object to the use of cookies or similar technologies, and to prevent the processing of their personal data by them. Websites need to provide an opt out of cookies in all cases where the user’s consent is required, regardless of whether the GDPR or the PECR applies. References:
* GDPR, Article 4(1)5
* GDPR, Article 6(1)(a)6
* GDPR, Article 13 and 147
* GDPR, Article 328
* GDPR, Article 25
* PECR, Regulation 6
* PECR, Regulation 5

Explanation
A personal data breach is defined in Article 4(12) of the UK GDPR as “a breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed”. Personal data means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person. Therefore, a personal data breach only occurs when the security incident affects personal data, not any other type of information. In this case, the accidental deletion of an organisation’s information security policy from the public facing website would not be a personal data breach, as the policy does not contain any personal data. However, the other scenarios would be considered personal data breaches, as they involve the loss, alteration, destruction or unauthorised access to personal data of customers, employees or students.
References:
* UK GDPR, Article 4(12)1
* UK GDPR, Article 4(1)2
* ICO Guide to Data Protection, Personal Data Breaches3

Explanation
The right to a private life is a fundamental human right that is protected by law in the UK. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act
1998, states that “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”. This right applies to all individuals, regardless of their status, profession, or public exposure.
The right to a private life covers aspects such as personal identity, personal relationships, physical and mental well-being, personal data, and correspondence. However, this right is not absolute and can be limited or interfered with by the state or other parties in certain circumstances, such as for the protection of national security, public safety, health, morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. References:
* Article 8 of the ECHR1
* Human Rights Act 19982
* ICO Guide to Data Protection3

Explanation
The public interest task lawful basis applies to the processing of personal data that is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller. The relevant task or authority must have a clear basis in domestic law, such as a statutory power, a common law duty, or a function of the Crown, central or local government. The processing must also be necessary, meaning that there is no reasonable and less intrusive way to achieve the same purpose. The public interest task lawful basis is most relevant to public authorities, but it can also apply to any organisation that exercises official authority or carries out tasks in the public interest. In scenario C, a local authority processing the personal information of the person responsible for paying council tax is likely to rely on the public interest task lawful basis, as it is performing a task in the public interest that is laid down by law, namely the Local Government Finance Act 1992, and the processing is necessary for the collection and administration of council tax. In contrast, scenarios A, B and D are less likely to qualify for the public interest task lawful basis, as they do not involve a clear task or authority that is set out in law, or that serves the public interest. For example, a health authority processing the personal information of its staff in order to record all training undertaken may have a different lawful basis, such as legitimate interests or contractual necessity. A debt collection agency processinginformation relating to unpaid fines for misuse of community council car parking may not have any official authority or public interest justification for its processing. A tax authority dropping cookies on the devices of visitors to its website may not be able to demonstrate that the processing is necessary for its official functions, and may also need to comply with the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) for the use of cookies. References:
* UK GDPR, Article 6 (1) (e) and (3)8
* ICO Guide to Data Protection, Public Task9
* Local Government Finance Act 199210

Explanation
Providing the controller with corporate information relating to its board members is not a processor obligation under the GDPR. The processor obligations under the GDPR are mainly the following:
* To process the personal data only on documented instructions from the controller, unless required by law;
* To ensure that persons authorised to process the personal data are bound by confidentiality;
* To implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk;
* To not engage another processor without the prior authorisation of the controller;
* To assist the controller in fulfilling its obligations regarding data subject rights, data protection impact assessments, prior consultations, and data breach notifications;
* To delete or return the personal data to the controller at the end of the service, unless required by law to store the data;
* To make available to the controller all information necessary to demonstrate compliance and allow for audits and inspections. References:
* Article 28 of the GDPR1
* Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR2, pp. 37-41

Explanation
Article 29 of UK GDPR states that the processor and any person acting under the authority of the controller or of the processor, who has access to personal data, shall not process those data except on instructions from the controller, unless required to do so by domestic law. This means that the processor must follow the controller’s directions on how to handle the personal data, and cannot use it for its own purposes or deviate from the agreed terms. The only exception is when the processor is obliged by law to process the data in a different way, for example, to comply with a court order or a legal obligation. The other options are not related to Article 29, but to other articles of UK GDPR, such as Article 25 (data protection by design and by default), Article 30 (records of processing activities), and Article 36 (prior consultation). References:
* Article 29 of UK GDPR1
* ICO guidance on controllers and processors2

Explanation
Lawfulness of processing is not a factor that should be considered when looking at security of processing under Article 32 of the GDPR. Lawfulness of processing is a separate requirement that applies to all processing of personal data, regardless of the level of security. Security of processing under Article 32 of the GDPR should be based on the following factors:
* The state of the art and the costs of implementation of the security measures;
* The nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing;
* The risk of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons;
* Adherence to an approved code of conduct or an approved certification mechanism (as an element to demonstrate compliance). References:
* Article 32 of the GDPR1
* Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR2, p. 36

Explanation
Independent supervisory authorities are public authorities that supervise, through investigative and corrective powers, the application of the data protection law. They provide expert advice on data protection issues and handle complaints lodged against violations of the UK GDPR and the relevant national laws. The UK GDPR sets out the key requirements for independent supervisory authorities in Chapter VI, which include the following:
* They must operate independently and remain free from external influence, whether direct or indirect, and must neither seek nor take instructions from anybody.
* They must have adequate human, technical and financial resources to perform their tasks and exercise their powers effectively.
* They must review data protection impact assessments in cases of unmitigated high risk and provide prior consultation to controllers on such processing operations.
* They must provide each other with mutual assistance and cooperate with each other and the European Data Protection Board to ensure the consistent application of the UK GDPR across the EU.
* They must handle complaints lodged by data subjects or by bodies, organisations or associations representing them, and investigate the subject matter of the complaint to the extent appropriate.
* They must adopt binding decisions on matters concerning the application of the UK GDPR and impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive administrative fines for infringements of the UK GDPR.
The UK GDPR does not specify any fixed term for the leadership of independent supervisory authorities, nor does it require their leadership to change every four years. However, it does require that the members of the supervisory authority must be appointed by means of a transparent procedure by the parliament, the government or the head of state of the Member State concerned, and that they must act with integrity, refrain from any action incompatible with their duties and not engage in any incompatible occupation during and after their term of office. The UK GDPR also allows Member States to provide for rules regarding the establishment, appointment, duration of the term and dismissal of the head or members of the supervisory authority. References:
* UK GDPR, Chapter VI7
* ICO website, About the ICO8

Explanation
The Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) makes it a criminal offence for a person to require another person to make a subject access request for information about their health, convictions or cautions, or spent convictions, and to provide that information to the first person or a third person, as a condition of providing or offering to provide goods, facilities or services, or as a condition of entering into or continuing a contract. This is known as an enforced subject access request. The employer in this scenario is committing a criminal offence by offering the job to the individual on the condition that they request a copy of their medical record and provide it to the employer. The employer is also breaching the data protection principles of lawfulness, fairness, transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, and storage limitation, as they are processing health data, which is a special category of personal data, without a valid legal basis, without informing the individual of the purpose and legal basis of the processing, and without limiting the processing to what is necessary and relevant for the employment relationship. The employer should instead obtain the individual’s explicit consent to request the health information directly from the relevant health professional, and only request the information that is necessary and proportionate for the specific role of a security guard. References
:
* Section 184 of the DPA 20183
* ICO guidance on enforced subject access requests4
* ICO guidance on special category data5