(244,5,'2019-01-30 20:02:53','2019-01-30 20:02:53','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In what is today the biggest fine under the GDPR, the French Data Protection Authority CNIL investigated Google Android transparency in Data processing. The investigation was consecutive to two class actions filed on the 25th of May 2018. One by the Austrian NGO Non Of Your Business (NOYB), another by the French La Quadrature du Net (LQDN). This decision worth a close look.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In its complaint, NOYB stated in particular that users of Android mobile devices are required to accept Google\'s privacy policy and general terms and conditions of service and that, failing such acceptance, they could not use their terminal.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The association LQDN complained that, regardless of the terminal used, Google does not have valid legal bases to implement the processing of personal data for purposes of behaviour analysis and advertising targeting.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>First  of all, the CNIL has shown high celerity to deal with the complaints.</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>On 1st June 2018, the CNIL submitted the complaints to its European counterparts via the European information exchange system with a view to the designation of a possible lead authority in accordance with the provisions of Article 56 of the GDPR.</li><li>20 September 2018 : Decision to investigate the Android\'s data procession is taken; </li><li>on 21 September, an online test was carried out  to verify the compliance of any processing relating to the use of the operating system Android for mobile equipment, including the creation of a Google account.</li><li>24 and 25th September, the report was notified to GOOGLE LLC companies.&nbsp;and Google France SARL</li><li>28 September 28,  the two companies also received the aforementioned complaints by courier of the CNIL</li><li>2nd Octobre, Mr. François PELLEGRINI was appointed as rapporteur according to the article 47 French Data Protection law of January 6, 1978</li><li>22nd October, the reporter notified Google LLC&nbsp;and Google France a report detailing shortcomings relating to sections 6, 12 and 13 of the GDPR. The report suggested&nbsp;a fine of 50 million euros to be made public.&nbsp;</li><li>7 November 2018, Google requested a hearing from the rapporteur, </li><li>13 November the request was rejected .</li><li> On the same date, the company also made a request for closed doors and postponement of the meeting, </li><li>15 November the request was rejected.</li><li>22nd November, Google filed a written comments on the report.&nbsp;</li><li>7th December, the rapporteur replied to these observations.</li><li>11th December, Google, which had fifteen days from receipt of the rapporteur\'s to reply, requested to postpone the meeting and extend the deadline to produce new observations.&nbsp; </li><li>13th December , the request was accepted to postpone for two weeks - until January 7 - the deadline for filing these observations and to postpone the meeting to January 15, 2019.</li><li>4th January, Google filed new observations in response to those of the rapporteur.</li><li>All observations were reiterated orally during the meeting of 15 January 2019.</li><li>21st January the decision was made public.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>On the decision itself, Google argued the French CNIL should not be the competent Data Protection Authority.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Based on Article 55 (1) of the GDPR states: Each supervisory authority shall be competent to exercise the tasks and powers vested in it in accordance with this Regulation in the territory of the Member State to which it belongs.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 56 (1) of the GDPR provides: Without prejudice to Article 55, the supervisory authority of the principal place of business or of the sole place of business of the controller or processor shall have jurisdiction to act as lead supervisory authority for cross-border processing by that controller or processor, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 60.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google argued that the CNIL could not be competent to conduct this procedure and that it should have transmitted the complaints received to the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) the lead authority to deal with these cross-border complaints in accordance with Art 60 GDPR.&nbsp;Google Ireland Limited being its main establishment in the EU for some of the its cross-border processing, including those objects of the complaints.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Therefore, initial discussions turned around the competent authority as defined by the main establishment of the company. Google arguing Ireland to be its main establishment, the CNIL responding the main Administrative establishment is not the criteria. Based on Article 4 (16) of the RGPD&nbsp;and Recital 36 GDPR, the main establishment to consider should be based on objective criteria and should imply the effective and real exercise of management activities determining the main decisions as to the purposes and means of processing trough stable arrangements. The CNIL added that the determination should be analysed in concreto, according to objective criteria. The main establishment could therefore not necessarily correspond to the main designated administrative establishment.  The CNIL based its position on the WP article 29 guidance WP244 of 5th April 2017 \"<em>the central administration is the place where the decisions are made on the purposes and means of processing.</em>\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Deciding otherwise would result on forum shopping, says the CNIL. Google Ireland had no decisional power. Google Ireland Limited is not mentioned in the Company\'s Privacy Policy dated May 25, 2018 as the entity where the main decisions about the purposes and means of the processing are made. covered by the privacy policy presented to the user when creating his account, during the configuration of his mobile phone on Android. In fact Google had not either named any DPO in Ireland who would be in charge of the processing of personal data that it could implement in the European Union.&nbsp;It further notes that the Android operating system is developed solely by Google LLC.. Additionally, the company itself had indicated, by mail dated December 3, 2018 addressed to the DPC, that the transfer of responsibility of Google LLC.&nbsp;to Google Ireland Limited on certain processing of personal data concerning European citizens would be finalized on 31 January 2019. It later specified to update its confidentiality rules which will come into effect on 22 January 2019. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google\'s argument that a reorganisation both operational and organizational was underway to make the company Google Ireland Limited the controller for certain processing of personal data concerning European nationals, was in my view a mistake only proving that at the time of the compliant Google Ireland had no decisional power.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It also considers that the definition of principal place of business should be distinguished from that of controller. Arguing that if the European legislator had intended that the concept of principal place of business should be interpreted as the place where decisions concerning \'would have expressly indicated simply ignored the text of the Recital 36.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the absence of a principal establishment allowing the identification of a lead authority, the one stop shop did not apply, and the CNIL was competent to initiate this procedure and to exercise all of its powers under Article 58 of the GDPR.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This is a very interesting analysis to determine the main establishment and the lead authority based on objective criteria and not a subjective decision favouring forum shopping.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Once the CNIL confirmed its competence, it goes into a detailed analysis of the transparency requirement and legitimate basis of processing. here after, a free translation is offered:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>2- On the Procedure</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google argued on the validity of the complaints. &nbsp;The CNIL responded that the question of the admissibility of the complaints could not affect the legality of the proceedings, as it could self-refer itself based on the findings made by its services.&nbsp;The CNIL had therefore a mission to supervise the application of the regulation and to ensure compliance with it and that it has, for this purpose, the power to carry out investigations, in accordance with Arti 57 1. a) and h) of the RGPD. In fact, the two associations had been mandated to represent the complaints under article 80 of the RGPD.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The second argument claiming that the proceedings breached its right to a fair trial according to Art 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that the rapport to his observations were addressed in French, sounded rather difficult to succeed. The CNIL responded to that any notification of a penalty report had to be in French based on a legal obligation laid down in Article 111-1 of the Code of relations between the public and the administration which provides that use of the French language is prescribed in the exchanges between the public and the administration, in accordance with the provisions of the law n ° 94-665 of August 4, 1994 relating to the use of the French language. Google has an establishment on the French territory with several hundred employees. Google had in any event sufficient material and human resources enabling it to ensure a translation of the documents in English in sufficient time to become acquainted with it and to make observations within the deadline.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of these elements, the Restricted Training considers that the company had in any event sufficient material and human resources enabling it to ensure a translation of the documents in English in sufficient time to become acquainted with it and to make observations in the the deadline fixed for it.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This point explains why it is important that the Organisations\' representative speak the language of the DPA.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Also the refusal to extend the time limit he was opposed to produce his first observations and limited the time available to prepare his defence.&nbsp;It also considers that the adjournment of the meeting as well as the additional time it was finally granted to produce its second observations were still not sufficient.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>3.Over the scope of investigations</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google argued first of all that the rapporteur has confused the Android operating system and the Google account when they are separate services that implement different treatment activities. Then argued that the scope of control chosen by the CNIL - namely the creation of a Google account when setting up a new device using the Android operating system - is limited in that it only represents a case figure affecting 7% of users. Finally, it indicated that the findings were made on an older version of the Android operating system.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL did not disputed the existence of separate services, respectively related to the Android operating system and the Google Account, implementing different processing activities.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It observed, however, that the facts covered by the investigations corresponded to the scenario chosen to carry out the on-line check, namely the journey of a user and the documents to which he could have accessed during the initial configuration of his mobile equipment using the Android operating system.&nbsp;This path included the creation of an account.&nbsp;These facts therefore related to the treatments covered by the privacy policy presented to the user when creating an account during the setting up of their mobile phone on Android.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Then, adding that if it was true that the user actually had the choice to create an account and has the opportunity to use some of the services without having to create an account, however, when setting up an Android device, the ability to create a Google account or connect to an existing account naturally appeared at the beginning of the setting process, without specific action of the user.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In any case, under Article 11.I.2 of the Data Protection Act, the CNIL has a broad discretion as to the scope of the controls it may undertake.&nbsp;A specific control scenario, such as that used in this case, may make it possible to make findings reflecting a more comprehensive privacy policy. The scope of the processing of personal data that is performed&nbsp;is therefore is irrelevant so is the version of the Android operating system since it appears from the documents provided by Google that the user\'s journey is similar in the newer version .</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>4.On breach of transparency and information obligations</strong><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google infringed the GDPR for three main reasons: (1)&nbsp;<strong>lack of transparency&nbsp;</strong>(art. 5 GDPR); (2)&nbsp;<strong>insufficient information&nbsp;</strong>(art. 12 and 13 GDPR); and (3)&nbsp;<strong>invalid consent collection&nbsp;</strong>(art. 7 GDPR)</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The <strong>obligations of transparency</strong> resulted on Article 12 (1) GDPR that provides: \"<em>1.The controller shall take appropriate measures to provide any information referred to in&nbsp;</em><a href=\"http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-13-information-to-be-provided-where-personal-data-are-collected-from-the-data-subject-GDPR.htm\"><em>Articles 13</em></a><em>&nbsp;and 14 and any communication under&nbsp;</em><a href=\"http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-15-right-of-access-by-the-data-subject-GDPR.htm\"><em>Articles 15</em></a><em>&nbsp;to 22 and 34 relating to processing to the data subject in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, in particular for any information addressed specifically to a child. The information shall be provided in writing, or by other means, including, where appropriate, by electronic means. When requested by the data subject, the information may be provided orally, provided that the identity of the data subject is proven by other means.\"&nbsp;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 13 (1) provides that:  <em>\"1.&nbsp;Where personal data relating to a data subject are collected from the data subject, the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;shall, at the time when personal data are obtained, provide the data subject with all of the following information:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the identity and the contact details of the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;and, where applicable, of the&nbsp;controller\'s&nbsp;representative;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the contact details of the data protection officer, where applicable;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the purposes of the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the&nbsp;processing;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; where the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is based on point (f) of Article 6(1), the legitimate interests pursued by the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;or by a&nbsp;third party;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;recipients or categories of&nbsp;recipients of the personal data, if any;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(f)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; where applicable, the fact that the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;intends to transfer personal data to a third country or&nbsp;international organisation&nbsp;and the existence or absence of an adequacy decision by the Commission, or in the case of transfers referred to in Article&nbsp;46 or 47, or the second subparagraph of Article&nbsp;49(1), reference to the appropriate or suitable safeguards and the means by which to obtain a copy of them or where they have been made available.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google firstly considered that the Confidentiality rules and conditions of use, accessible when creating an account, constitutes first-level information in accordance with the EDPS Guidelines on Transparency within the meaning of the EU Regulation 2016 / 679 (WP260) of 25 May 2018. It states that the document provides a good overview of the treatments implemented and that the mention of the legal basis of these treatments does not have to be included in this first level information.&nbsp;Information about how long the data is kept is in the section Exporting and Deleting the Information in the Privacy Policy.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google goes on to argue that the information of individuals must, in the light of sections 12 and 13 of the Regulations, be assessed on a global basis.&nbsp;In this regard, it states that the information it issues is also used, in addition to the documents entitled Confidentiality Rules and Conditions of Use, Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, through several other terms and conditions.&nbsp;Additional information messages may appear when creating an account under each of the privacy settings.&nbsp;In addition, an e-mail is sent to the user when an account is created, stating that: it can change the privacy and security settings of the Google account at any time,&nbsp;create reminders to check the privacy or security settings.&nbsp;This e-mail  contains clickable links to various setting tools.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>These other control tools, which are made available to the user after the creation of his account from the management interface of his account include for example a tool called check-up confidentiality that allows users to choose privacy settings that suit them, including custom ads, location history, web-based activity, and apps.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google also puts forward a Dashboard tool that allows users to have an overview of the use they make of the services offered by Google such as Gmail or Youtube.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Finally, Google reminds that when a user clicks Create Account without having disabled custom ad settings, an account creation confirmation pop-up appears to remind that the account is set to include customisation features.&nbsp;The company indicates that the user journey is thus configured to slow down the progression of users who would not have spontaneously made the choice of more privacy-friendly settings.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL takes note of the progress made in recent years by the company in its policy of informing users, in the sense of greater transparency and greater control over their data expected by them.&nbsp;For the reasons that follow, however, it considers that the requirements of the GDPR, the implementation of which must be assessed in the light of the concrete scope of the processing of personal data in question, are not respected.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Firstly, the CNIL recalls that pursuant to the provisions of Art 12 of the Regulation, information must be provided in an <strong>easily accessible way</strong>.&nbsp;This accessibility requirement is informed by the <strong>transparency guidelines</strong>, in which the EDPS considered that a key aspect of the transparency principle highlighted in these provisions is that the data subject should be able to advance what the scope and consequences of the processing encompass so as not to be caught off guard at a later stage as to how its personal data were used.&nbsp;[...] In particular, with regard to complex, technical or non-planned data processing,&nbsp;G29\'s position is that [...] controllers should <strong>separately and clearly define the main consequences of treatment</strong>: in other words, what will actually be the effect of the specific treatment described in a statement or opinion on the protection of the privacy for the data subject.&nbsp;The CNIL also recalls that the <strong>accessibility requirement </strong>of Article 12 is based in part on the ergonomic choices made by the controller.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In this case, the CNIL found that the general architecture of the information chosen by the Corporation does not meet the requirements of the Regulations.&nbsp;The information that must be disclosed to individuals pursuant to section 13 is <strong>excessively scattered in several documents</strong>: Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, displayed during the creation of the account, then Terms of Use and Rules of confidentiality which are accessible in a second time by means of clickable links appearing on the first document.&nbsp;These different documents include buttons and links that must be activated to learn additional information.&nbsp;Such an ergonomic choice leads to a fragmentation of information thus forcing the user to multiply the clicks necessary to access the different documents.&nbsp;The user must then carefully consult a large amount of information before he or she can identify the relevant paragraph (s).&nbsp;However, the work provided by the user does not stop there since it will still have to cross-check and compare the collected information in order to understand which data are collected according to the various settings that he may have chosen.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL noted that, given this architecture, some information is difficult to find. For example, with regard to targeted advertising, to know the information that is collected, a user must perform many actions and combine several documentary resources.&nbsp;As a first step, you should read the General Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, then click the More Options button and then the Read more link to display the Customise Ads page.&nbsp;He will thus have access to a first description of the treatment relating to the personalisation of the advertisement which proves to be incomplete.&nbsp;To complete the information relating to the data processed for this purpose,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Similarly, in terms of <strong>geolocation data processing</strong>, the CNIL noted that the same course devoid of any intuitive character is required from the user with regard to information relating to geolocation data.&nbsp;The user will have to complete the following steps: Review the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, click More Options, and then click the Learn more link to view the Location History page and view the displayed text. However, as this text is only a short description of the processing, the user will need to go to the Privacy Policy document and access the Information about your location to access the rest of the information.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the two cases described, <strong>five actions are necessary for the user to access the information</strong> relating to the targeted advertisements and s<strong>ix for the geolocation</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL stated that if the user wished to have <strong>information on the retention periods</strong> of his personal data, he must first consult the Privacy Policy found in the main document and then go to the section titled Export and delete the information and finally click on the hyperlink click here contained in a general paragraph on storage times.&nbsp;It is therefore only after four clicks that the user accesses this information.&nbsp;The Restricted Training further notes that the title chosen by the company for Exporting and Deleting Your Information does not easily allow the user to understand that this is a topic to access information about retention periods .&nbsp;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As a result of all these factors, there is an <strong>overall lack of accessibility</strong> of the information provided by the company in the context of the processing in question.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Secondly, the CNIL considered that the<strong> clear and comprehensible nature of the information provided</strong>, as required by Article 12 of the GDPR, <strong>must be assessed taking into account the nature of each treatment</strong> in question and its <strong>concrete impact on the persons concerned</strong>. concerned.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Beforehand, the CNIL considered it was essential to emphasise that the <strong>data processing</strong> implemented by the controller was <strong>particularly massive and intrusive</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The data Google collects <strong>comes from a wide variety of sources</strong>.&nbsp;This data is collected both from the use of the phone, the use of the company services, such as the Gmail email service or the Youtube video platform, but also from the data generated by the user activity when they visit third-party sites that use <strong>Google services, including Google Analytics cookies placed on these sites.</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As such, the Privacy Policy reveals that <strong>at least twenty services</strong> offered by the company are likely to be involved in the processing, which may concern data such as web browsing history, history from applications, data stored locally on the equipment (such as address books), geolocation of equipment, etc.&nbsp;Therefore, <strong>a lot of data is processed as part of these services via or in connection with the Android operating system</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The record shows that, in addition to data from external sources, the company treats <strong>at least three categories of data</strong>: </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><strong>data produced by the user</strong> (for example, their name, password, phone number, email address, payment method, content created, imported or received, such as writings, photos or videos );  </li><li><strong>data generated by its activities</strong> (for example, IP address, unique user credentials, mobile network data, data related to wireless networks and Bluetooth devices, timestamp of actions performed, data geolocation, the technical data of the devices used including data relating to the sensors (accelerometer, etc.), the videos viewed, the searches made, the browsing history, the purchases, the applications used, etc .;</li><li><strong>Derived or inferred data from data provided by the user or his activities</strong>.&nbsp;In this category, the Privacy Policy lists a number of purposes that can only be accomplished by generating data from the other two categories of data.&nbsp;Thus, the customisation of the ads that the company realises requires to infer the interests of users from their activity in order to offer them to advertisers.&nbsp;In the same way, the purposes of providing content, research and personalised recommendations require inferring new information from those declared, produced or generated by the activity of the user.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Moreover, if the very large number of processed data can characterise alone the massive and intrusive nature of the treatments performed, the very nature of some of the data described, such as geolocation data or content consulted, reinforces this finding.&nbsp;Considered in isolation, the <strong>collection of each of these data is likely to reveal with a high degree of precision many of the most intimate aspects of people\'s lives, including their lifestyle, their tastes, their contacts, their opinions or their trips</strong>.&nbsp;The result of the combination of these data greatly reinforces the <strong>massive and intrusive nature of the processing</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Consequently, it is in the light of the particular characteristics of these processing of personal data which have just been recalled that the characters are clear and understandable, within the meaning of Art 12 of the GDPR, of the information provided for in Art 13 of the Regulations, must be appreciated.&nbsp;The CNIL considered that these requirements were not respected in this case.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Specifically, the CNIL noted that the information provided by Google did not allow the users to understand sufficiently the particular consequences of the processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In fact, the purposes announced in the various documents are described as follows: offer personalised services in terms of content and advertisements, ensure the safety of products and services, provide and develop services, etc.&nbsp;.&nbsp;They are too generic in terms of the scope of the treatments implemented and their consequences.&nbsp;This is also the case when users are told too loosely: <em>The information we collect is used to improve the services offered to all our users.&nbsp;[...] The information we collect and how we use it depends on how you use our services and how you manage your privacy settings.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Therefore, the CNIL noted that the description of the aims pursued did not allow users to measure the extent of the treatments and the degree of intrusion into their private lives that they are likely to take away.&nbsp;It considered, in particular, that such information is not provided in a clear manner, nor at the first level of information provided to users through, in this case, the document entitled Confidentiality rules and conditions of use nor in the other levels of information proposed by the company.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL further noted that the description of the data collected, which could be of such a nature as to clarify the scope of these purposes and to prevent the user from being subsequently caught off guard as to the way in which his data were used and combined, is particularly imprecise and incomplete, both in the analysis of the first level of information and that of the other documents provided.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>For example, the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use document and the Privacy Policy document specify: <em>This may be more complex (...) information, such as the ads you find most useful, the people you care about. interest most on the web or YouTube videos that are likely to interest you.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of the foregoing, the CNIL believed that the user is not able, especially by being aware of the first level of information presented to him in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, to measure the scope of the main treatments on his private life.&nbsp;While it noted that exhaustive information, from the first level, would be counterproductive and does not respect the requirement of transparency, it considers that it should contain terms that would objectify the number and scope of implemented.&nbsp;It further considered that it would be possible, by other types of presentation methods adapted to data combining services,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The finding of lack of clarity and comprehensibility must also be made with regard to the mention of the legal basis of targeted advertising .&nbsp;In fact, the company first states in the Privacy Policy: <em>We ask you for permission to process your information for specific purposes, and you are free to revoke your consent at any time.&nbsp;For example, we ask you for permission to provide personalised services, such as ads.&nbsp;The legal basis chosen here therefore appears to be consent.&nbsp;</em>However, the company further adds it relies on the legitimate interest,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL stressed that if Google had indicated before that the only legal basis for the processing of the targeted advertisement was consent, the investigation shows that this clarification is not brought to the attention of the users.&nbsp;The formulations recalled above did not allow the latter to clearly measure the distinction between properly targeted advertising, based on the combination of multiple user data, which is based on the company\'s consent statement , other forms of targeting using for example the context of navigation, based on the legitimate interest.&nbsp;The CNIL stressed the particular importance of the need for clarity in these processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>With respect to information on the retention period, the CNIL noted that the How are Google\'s collected information page is maintained has four categories: </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>Information retained until the user deleted it;</li><li>Information with a timeout;</li><li>Information retained until user\'s Google Account is deleted;</li><li>Information kept for long periods of time for specific reasons.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It noted, however, that as regards to the latter category, only very general explanations of the purpose of this retention are provided and no precise duration or the criteria used to determine that duration are indicated.&nbsp;This information is among those that must be issued to users pursuant to Article 13 (2) (a) of the Regulations.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Finally, if the company claims that multiple information tools are made available to users concomitantly and after the creation of their account, the restricted training notes that these methods do not make it possible to reach the requirements of transparency and transparency. information from articles 12 and 13 of the GDPR.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>First, the CNIL noted that the tools to which the company refers do contribute, to a certain extent, to the goal of transparency throughout the life of the account and the use of Google\'s services.&nbsp;However, it considered that they do not participate sufficiently in the information provided for in Article 13, which must be provided at the time data are obtained.&nbsp;As mentioned in the EDPS Transparency Guidelines, Article 13 specifies the information to be provided to data subjects from the start of the processing cycle.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>If any data other than those strictly necessary to create the account, are collected throughout the life of the account, such as browsing history or purchases, the time of its creation marks the entry of the user in the ecosystem of Google services, whose particularly massive and intrusive nature of processing has been recalled previously.&nbsp;This step marks the beginning of a multitude of treatment operations: collection, combination, analysis, etc.&nbsp;Therefore, since the process of creating the account is essential in the understanding of treatments and their impact and where the proposed user journey itself invites the person concerned to focus his attention at this stage, the information provided for in Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure at that time must.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Moreover, both the pop-up window appearing at the time of the creation of the account and the electronic message sent as soon as the account is created contain only a summary or very specific information on the processing implemented and can not allow to consier the prior information as sufficient.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In fact, the text of the pop-up window indicates <em>This Google Account is configured to include customisation features (such as recommendations and custom ads) that are based on the information stored in your account.&nbsp;The e-mail indicates the main features of the Google Account and the existence of control tools.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>With regard to the confidentiality check-up tool, this essentially allows the user to set up the collected information such as browsing history or visited places.&nbsp;Finally, the Dashboard consists of an information panel for each Google service overview of the use of the account holder.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Nevertheless, these confidentiality check-up and Dashboard tools can only be used, just like the e-mail mentioned above, after the account creation step, which is nevertheless essential for informing users as well as it has been said.&nbsp;In addition, although their existence and interest are brought to the attention of users, they imply an active and initiative of these.&nbsp;For these reasons, these tools do not allow to consider that sufficient information is provided for the application of Article 13 of the Regulations.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the light of all these elements, the CNIL committee considers that a breach of the transparency and information obligations as provided for in Articles 12 and 13 of the Regulation is characterised.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>5. Failure to provide a legal basis for the processing implemented</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 6 of the RGPD states that: 1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Processing&nbsp;shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the data subject has given consent to the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;is subject;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the&nbsp;controller;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(f)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;or by a&nbsp;third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>the processing is necessary to safeguard the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google was criticised for failing to validly collect the consent of individuals for targeted advertising.&nbsp;It was also considered that the company could not claim a legitimate interest for these processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In defence, Google specified that it relied solely on the consent for the targeted advertising.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 4 (11) of the above-mentioned Regulations specifies what consent means: <em>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;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 7 of the same Regulation provides the conditions that apply to it:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Where&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is based on consent, the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;shall be able to demonstrate that the data subject has consented to&nbsp;processing&nbsp;of his or her personal data.</em></li><li><em>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If the data subject\'s consent is given in the context of a written declaration which also concerns other matters, the request for consent shall be presented in a manner which is clearly distinguishable from the other matters, in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. Any part of such a declaration which constitutes an infringement of this Regulation shall not be binding.</em></li><li><em>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of&nbsp;processing based on consent before its withdrawal. Prior to giving consent, the data subject shall be informed thereof. It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.</em></li><li><em>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia , the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Firstly, Google said that the users\' consent is informed.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It believes that simple and clear information is presented to the user when creating an account and allow him to know how the company uses the data for customisation purposes.&nbsp;In particular, the Company refers to the summary entitled Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, the sections dedicated to the targeted advertisements contained in the Privacy Policy and the additional information message entitled Targeted Advertising in the Menu Options account creation setting.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Secondly, Google claimed that the user\'s consent is specific and unambiguous.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In particular, it stated that when setting up the account, the user has the option of making a choice regarding the display of targeted advertising .&nbsp;It considers that this possibility enables to express its consent to the use of its data independently of the other choices it may express with regard to the other purposes relating to the processing associated with the Google Account (eg YouTube search history).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It also considered that the procedures for obtaining consent for the purposes of targeted advertisements it sets up are in line with the recommendations of the CNIL of December 5, 2013 regarding cookies.&nbsp;In particular, it specifies that short information is available on the targeted ads followed by an \"I accept\" button (the Privacy Policy and the Terms of Use), preceded by a \"more options\" button that gives users the ability to disable multiple processing operations, including for targeted ad purposes.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It also argued that the solution presented in the public notice of the president of the CNIL No. MED-2018-023 of November 29, 2018 allows the user to consent to all ends via a button accept all.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Lastly, it considered that explicit consent for the processing of data for the purposes of targeted advertising, within the meaning of Art 9 (2) (a) of the GDPR, could not be required in the absence of sensitive data.<br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Regarding the informed consent&nbsp;and&nbsp;the&nbsp;spread&nbsp;of&nbsp;information</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the first place, the CNIL specified that this informed character must be examined in the light of the preceding developments concerning the lack of transparency and information of the users during the setting up of their account.&nbsp;It considered that the deficiencies previously identified necessarily have an impact on the information delivered to the users to ensure the informed nature of the consent.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL indicated that the EDPS Guideline of 10 April 2018 on Consent within the meaning of Regulation 2016/679 (WP250) states that the controller must ensure that consent is provided on the basis of information that enables the people concerned to easily identify who is responsible for the data and to understand what they are agreeing to.&nbsp;[It] must clearly describe the purpose of the data processing for which consent is sought.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>These guidelines also state that: In order for consent to be informed, it is necessary to inform the person concerned of certain crucial elements in making a choice.&nbsp;[..] At least the following information is required in order to obtain valid consent: </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the identity of the controller,</em></li><li><em>the purpose of each processing operation for which consent is sought,</em></li><li><em>the (types of) data collected and used,</em></li><li><em>the existence of the right to withdraw consent,</em></li><li><em>information on the use of data for automated decision-making [..] and</em></li><li><em>information on the possible risks associated with the transmission of data due to the lack of a decision on adequacy and appropriate safeguards [...].</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As it was able to identify under the breach of the transparency and information requirements, the CNIL considered that the information on targeted advertising is excessively disseminated in separate documents and is not, as such, easily accessible.&nbsp;In this respect, the CNIL refered to the preceding developments on the multiple actions that must be performed by a user who wishes to be made aware of available on the processing related to the targeted advertisement.<br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In addition, the CNIL also noted under the breach of transparency obligations, the information provided was not sufficiently clear and understandable in that it was difficult for a user to have a global understanding of the can do the object and their scope.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As an illustration, the information in the targeted Ad section, accessible from the Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions document through the More Options button, contains the following: Google can show you ads based on your activity in Google services (for example, in the search or on YouTube, as well as on Google\'s websites and partner applications).&nbsp;The CNIL noted that it is not possible to read, for example through clickable links, the services, sites and Google application to which the company refers.&nbsp;Therefore, the user was not able to understand the targeted advertising they are subject to, as well as their scope,&nbsp;even though these treatments nevertheless imply a plurality of services (for example: Google search, YouTube, Google home, Google maps, Playstore, Google photo, Google play, Google analytics, Google translation, Play books) and the processing of a large amount of data personal character.&nbsp;Users are not able to have a proper perception of the nature and volume of data that is collected.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of these elements, the CNIL committee considered that the users\' consent for targeted advertising was not sufficiently informed.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>With regard to the specific and unequivocal nature of the consent</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Recital 32 of the Regulation provides that: <em>Consent must be given by a clear positive act by which the data subject expresses in a free, specific, informed and unambiguous manner his agreement to the processing of his personal data [...].&nbsp;There can therefore be no consent in the event of silence, boxes checked by default or inactivity.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Recital 43 of the GDPR states that: <em>Consent is presumed not to have been freely given if separate consent can not be given to different personal data processing operations, although this is appropriate in the present case.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The above EDPS guidance on consent states that: <em>In order to comply with the specific nature of consent, the controller must ensure: [...] (ii) the detailed nature of consent requests [...] This means that data controller who seeks consent for various specific purposes should provide separate consent for each purpose so that users can give specific consent for specific purposes.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In this case, the CNIL noted that when the user creates an account, he has the possibility to modify some of the parameters associated with the account.&nbsp;To access these settings, the user must click the more options button, present before the Create Account button.&nbsp;the CNIL also noted that the personalisation settings of the account, which contain the choice for the display of personalised ads, are pre-checked by default, which means, unless otherwise indicated, the agreement of the user to processing of its data for the purposes mentioned (eg YouTube search history, display of personalised ads etc.).&nbsp;The user has the option to uncheck these parameters if he does not want these treatments to be implemented.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL observed that, at the time of the creation of the account, if the user does not click on the button more options to set his account, he must check the boxes <em>I accept the terms of use of Google and I agree that my information will be used as described above and detailed in the Privacy Policy</em>.&nbsp;Subsequently, he must press the <em>Create Account</em> button.&nbsp;A pop-up window appears, titled Simple confirmation that contains the following text This Google Account is set up to include customisation features (such as recommendations and custom ads), which are based on information stored in your account.&nbsp;To change your personalisation settings and the information stored in your account,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>If it does not click <em>More Options</em>, the user must select the <em>Confirm</em> button to complete the account creation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of the foregoing, the CNIL noted that if the user has the possibility to modify the configuration of the parameters of his account prior to its creation, a positive action on his part is necessary to access the possibilities of setting up the account.&nbsp;Thus, the user can completely create his account, and accept the related processing, including targeted advertising, without clicking <em>More options</em>.&nbsp;Therefore, the user\'s consent is not, in this case, validly collected to the extent that it is not given through a positive act by which the person consents specifically and distinctly to the processing of its data for purposes of targeted advertising compared to other purposes of treatment.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL also considered that the actions by which the user proceeds to the creation of his account - by ticking the boxes I accept the conditions of use of Google and I accept that my information is used as described below above and detailed in the privacy rules, and then selecting Create Account - can not be considered as the expression of a valid consent.&nbsp;The specific nature of the consent is not respected because the user, by these actions, accepts all the processing of personal data implemented by the company, including those of targeted advertising.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In addition, the CNIL noted that multiple technology processes are used by the company to combine and analyse data from different external services, applications or sources.&nbsp;They undeniably have a multiplying effect on the precise knowledge society has of its users.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As a result, the restricted formation believes that the company has operations of combinations with almost unlimited potential allowing a massive and intrusive treatment of the data of the users.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Given the scope of the data processing - in particular that of targeted advertising - and the number of people concerned, the CNIL underlined that the deficiencies previously retained are of a particular gravity.&nbsp;A lack of transparency regarding these wide-scope processing, as well as a lack of valid user consent to targeted advertising, constitute substantial infringements of the protection of their privacy and are contrary to legitimate aspirations of people who want to keep control of their data.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In this respect, strengthening the rights of individuals is one of the main thrusts of the Regulation.&nbsp;The European legislator recalls that The rapid evolution of technologies and globalization have created new challenges for the protection of personal data.&nbsp;The extent of collection and sharing of personal data has increased significantly.&nbsp;Technologies allow both private and public authorities to use personal data as never before in their business (...) Technologies have transformed both the economy and social relations (recital 6) .&nbsp;It stresses that these developments require a strong data protection framework (...) with rigorous enforcement of the rules, it is important to create the confidence that will enable the digital economy to develop in the internal market as a whole.&nbsp;Individuals should have control over their personal data.&nbsp;(recital 7).&nbsp;The European legislator regrets, finally, that Directive 95/46 / EC has not made it possible to avoid the widespread public perception that significant risks to the protection of individuals still exist, in particular as regards the online environment.&nbsp;(recital 9).&nbsp;whereas Directive 95/46 / EC has not prevented the widespread public perception that significant risks to the protection of individuals still exist, in particular with regard to the online environment.&nbsp;(recital 9).&nbsp;whereas Directive 95/46 / EC has not prevented the widespread public perception that significant risks to the protection of individuals still exist, in particular with regard to the online environment.&nbsp;(recital 9).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL thus considered, in view of the scale of the processing carried out and the compelling need for the users to keep control of their data, that they must be put in a position to be sufficiently informed of the scope of the data implemented and to validly consent to it, unless to deprive of basic confidence in the digital ecosystem.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Finally, the CNIL emphasised that shortcomings need to be put into perspective with regard to the company\'s business model, in particular the place of the users\' data processing for advertising purposes via the Android operating system.&nbsp;In view of the benefits it takes from these processing, Google must pay particular attention to its responsibility under the GDPR in their implementation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It follows from all the foregoing and the criteria which have been duly taken into account by the Committee, in view of the maximum amount incurred on the basis of 4% of the turnover indicated in point 2 of this Decision, that a financial penalty is justified up to 50 million euros, as well as a supplementary publicising sanction for the same reasons.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Account is also taken of the company\'s prominent place in the market for operating systems, the seriousness of the deficiencies and the interest this decision represents in informing the public in determining the duration of its publication.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>FOR THESE REASONS</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The restricted formation of the CNIL, after having deliberated, decides:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>to award Google LLC a monetary penalty in the amount of 50 (fifty) million euros;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>to send this decision to Google France Sarl for the execution of this decision;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google has already publicly announced it has appealed the case. It\'s of course important as this decision creates a precedent and establish the rules.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This is only  start.<a href=\"https://www.laquadrature.net/en/2019/01/21/first-sanction-against-google-following-our-collective-complaints/\"> La Quadrature du Net publishe</a>d : \"<em>Today, the CNIL </em><a href=\"https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros-against-google-llc\"><em>sanctioned</em></a><em> </em><strong><em>Google to a 50 million Euros fine</em></strong><em>, stating that the targeted advertising it engages in with its operating system Android is in breach of the GDPR, the new European regulation that came into effect on May 25. However, this sanction is really only the beginning of an answer to our complaint against Google, which denounced especially the targeted advertising imposed on Youtube, Gmail and Google Search in violation of our consent.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>In this respect, the CNIL explains the low amount of its sanction, considering Google’s nearly </em><a href=\"https://www.statista.com/statistics/266206/googles-annual-global-revenue/\"><em>110 billion US dollars</em></a><em> revenue, by the fact it limited the scope of its examination to “the data processing covered by the privacy policy presented to a user when creating their account on their Android mobile phone” (our translation). </em><sup><em>1</em></sup><em> We therefore expect the CNIL to quickly answer the rest of our complaint, which concerns Youtube, Gmail and Google Search, by issuing a fine commensurate with this company and the extent and the duration of the violation of ours rights (the maximum amount possible is 4 billion euros – 4% of global revenue –, which we hope for).</em>\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','Google Subject to the Biggest Fine Under GDPR','In what is today the biggest fine under the GDPR, the French Data Protection Authority CNIL investigated Google Android transparency in Data procession. The investigation was consecutive to two class actions filed on the 25th of May 2018. One by the Austrian NGO Non Of Your Business (NOYB), another by the French La Quadrature du Net (LQDN). This decision worth a close look.','inherit','closed','closed','','204-revision-v1','','','2019-01-30 20:02:53','2019-01-30 20:02:53','',204,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/01/30/204-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(246,5,'2019-01-30 20:07:07','2019-01-30 20:07:07','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In what is today the biggest fine under the GDPR, the French Data Protection Authority CNIL investigated Google Android transparency in Data processing. The investigation was consecutive to two class actions filed on the 25th of May 2018. One by the Austrian NGO Non Of Your Business (NOYB), another by the French La Quadrature du Net (LQDN). This decision worth a close look.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In its complaint, NOYB stated in particular that users of Android mobile devices are required to accept Google\'s privacy policy and general terms and conditions of service and that, failing such acceptance, they could not use their terminal.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The association LQDN complained that, regardless of the terminal used, Google does not have valid legal bases to implement the processing of personal data for purposes of behaviour analysis and advertising targeting.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>First  of all, the CNIL has shown high celerity to deal with the complaints.</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>On 1st June 2018, the CNIL submitted the complaints to its European counterparts via the European information exchange system with a view to the designation of a possible lead authority in accordance with the provisions of Article 56 of the GDPR.</li><li>20 September 2018 : Decision to investigate the Android\'s data procession is taken; </li><li>on 21 September, an online test was carried out  to verify the compliance of any processing relating to the use of the operating system Android for mobile equipment, including the creation of a Google account.</li><li>24 and 25th September, the report was notified to GOOGLE LLC companies.&nbsp;and Google France SARL</li><li>28 September 28,  the two companies also received the aforementioned complaints by courier of the CNIL</li><li>2nd Octobre, Mr. François PELLEGRINI was appointed as rapporteur according to the article 47 French Data Protection law of January 6, 1978</li><li>22nd October, the reporter notified Google LLC&nbsp;and Google France a report detailing shortcomings relating to sections 6, 12 and 13 of the GDPR. The report suggested&nbsp;a fine of 50 million euros to be made public.&nbsp;</li><li>7 November 2018, Google requested a hearing from the rapporteur, </li><li>13 November the request was rejected .</li><li> On the same date, the company also made a request for closed doors and postponement of the meeting, </li><li>15 November the request was rejected.</li><li>22nd November, Google filed a written comments on the report.&nbsp;</li><li>7th December, the rapporteur replied to these observations.</li><li>11th December, Google, which had fifteen days from receipt of the rapporteur\'s to reply, requested to postpone the meeting and extend the deadline to produce new observations.&nbsp; </li><li>13th December , the request was accepted to postpone for two weeks - until January 7 - the deadline for filing these observations and to postpone the meeting to January 15, 2019.</li><li>4th January, Google filed new observations in response to those of the rapporteur.</li><li>All observations were reiterated orally during the meeting of 15 January 2019.</li><li>21st January the decision was made public.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>On the decision itself, Google argued the French CNIL should not be the competent Data Protection Authority.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Based on Article 55 (1) of the GDPR states: Each supervisory authority shall be competent to exercise the tasks and powers vested in it in accordance with this Regulation in the territory of the Member State to which it belongs.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 56 (1) of the GDPR provides: Without prejudice to Article 55, the supervisory authority of the principal place of business or of the sole place of business of the controller or processor shall have jurisdiction to act as lead supervisory authority for cross-border processing by that controller or processor, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 60.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google argued that the CNIL could not be competent to conduct this procedure and that it should have transmitted the complaints received to the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) the lead authority to deal with these cross-border complaints in accordance with Art 60 GDPR.&nbsp;Google Ireland Limited being its main establishment in the EU for some of the its cross-border processing, including those objects of the complaints.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Therefore, initial discussions turned around the competent authority as defined by the main establishment of the company. Google arguing Ireland to be its main establishment, the CNIL responding the main Administrative establishment is not the criteria. Based on Article 4 (16) of the RGPD&nbsp;and Recital 36 GDPR, the main establishment to consider should be based on objective criteria and should imply the effective and real exercise of management activities determining the main decisions as to the purposes and means of processing trough stable arrangements. The CNIL added that the determination should be analysed in concreto, according to objective criteria. The main establishment could therefore not necessarily correspond to the main designated administrative establishment.  The CNIL based its position on the WP article 29 guidance WP244 of 5th April 2017 \"<em>the central administration is the place where the decisions are made on the purposes and means of processing.</em>\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Deciding otherwise would result on forum shopping, says the CNIL. Google Ireland had no decisional power. Google Ireland Limited is not mentioned in the Company\'s Privacy Policy dated May 25, 2018 as the entity where the main decisions about the purposes and means of the processing are made. covered by the privacy policy presented to the user when creating his account, during the configuration of his mobile phone on Android. In fact Google had not either named any DPO in Ireland who would be in charge of the processing of personal data that it could implement in the European Union.&nbsp;It further notes that the Android operating system is developed solely by Google LLC.. Additionally, the company itself had indicated, by mail dated December 3, 2018 addressed to the DPC, that the transfer of responsibility of Google LLC.&nbsp;to Google Ireland Limited on certain processing of personal data concerning European citizens would be finalized on 31 January 2019. It later specified to update its confidentiality rules which will come into effect on 22 January 2019. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google\'s argument that a reorganisation both operational and organizational was underway to make the company Google Ireland Limited the controller for certain processing of personal data concerning European nationals, was in my view a mistake only proving that at the time of the compliant Google Ireland had no decisional power.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It also considers that the definition of principal place of business should be distinguished from that of controller. Arguing that if the European legislator had intended that the concept of principal place of business should be interpreted as the place where decisions concerning \'would have expressly indicated simply ignored the text of the Recital 36.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the absence of a principal establishment allowing the identification of a lead authority, the one stop shop did not apply, and the CNIL was competent to initiate this procedure and to exercise all of its powers under Article 58 of the GDPR.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This is a very interesting analysis to determine the main establishment and the lead authority based on objective criteria and not a subjective decision favouring forum shopping.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Once the CNIL confirmed its competence, it goes into a detailed analysis of the transparency requirement and legitimate basis of processing. here after, a free translation is offered:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>2- On the Procedure</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google argued on the validity of the complaints. &nbsp;The CNIL responded that the question of the admissibility of the complaints could not affect the legality of the proceedings, as it could self-refer itself based on the findings made by its services.&nbsp;The CNIL had therefore a mission to supervise the application of the regulation and to ensure compliance with it and that it has, for this purpose, the power to carry out investigations, in accordance with Arti 57 1. a) and h) of the RGPD. In fact, the two associations had been mandated to represent the complaints under article 80 of the RGPD.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The second argument claiming that the proceedings breached its right to a fair trial according to Art 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that the rapport to his observations were addressed in French, sounded rather difficult to succeed. The CNIL responded to that any notification of a penalty report had to be in French based on a legal obligation laid down in Article 111-1 of the Code of relations between the public and the administration which provides that use of the French language is prescribed in the exchanges between the public and the administration, in accordance with the provisions of the law n ° 94-665 of August 4, 1994 relating to the use of the French language. Google has an establishment on the French territory with several hundred employees. Google had in any event sufficient material and human resources enabling it to ensure a translation of the documents in English in sufficient time to become acquainted with it and to make observations within the deadline.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of these elements, the Restricted Training considers that the company had in any event sufficient material and human resources enabling it to ensure a translation of the documents in English in sufficient time to become acquainted with it and to make observations in the the deadline fixed for it.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This point explains why it is important that the Organisations\' representative speak the language of the DPA.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Also the refusal to extend the time limit he was opposed to produce his first observations and limited the time available to prepare his defence.&nbsp;It also considers that the adjournment of the meeting as well as the additional time it was finally granted to produce its second observations were still not sufficient.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>3.Over the scope of investigations</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google argued first of all that the rapporteur has confused the Android operating system and the Google account when they are separate services that implement different treatment activities. Then argued that the scope of control chosen by the CNIL - namely the creation of a Google account when setting up a new device using the Android operating system - is limited in that it only represents a case figure affecting 7% of users. Finally, it indicated that the findings were made on an older version of the Android operating system.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL did not disputed the existence of separate services, respectively related to the Android operating system and the Google Account, implementing different processing activities.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It observed, however, that the facts covered by the investigations corresponded to the scenario chosen to carry out the on-line check, namely the journey of a user and the documents to which he could have accessed during the initial configuration of his mobile equipment using the Android operating system.&nbsp;This path included the creation of an account.&nbsp;These facts therefore related to the treatments covered by the privacy policy presented to the user when creating an account during the setting up of their mobile phone on Android.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Then, adding that if it was true that the user actually had the choice to create an account and has the opportunity to use some of the services without having to create an account, however, when setting up an Android device, the ability to create a Google account or connect to an existing account naturally appeared at the beginning of the setting process, without specific action of the user.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In any case, under Article 11.I.2 of the Data Protection Act, the CNIL has a broad discretion as to the scope of the controls it may undertake.&nbsp;A specific control scenario, such as that used in this case, may make it possible to make findings reflecting a more comprehensive privacy policy. The scope of the processing of personal data that is performed&nbsp;is therefore is irrelevant so is the version of the Android operating system since it appears from the documents provided by Google that the user\'s journey is similar in the newer version .</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>4.On breach of transparency and information obligations</strong><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google infringed the GDPR for three main reasons: (1) <strong>lack of transparency </strong>(art. 5 GDPR); (2) <strong>insufficient information </strong>(art. 12 and 13 GDPR); and (3) <strong>invalid consent collection </strong>(art. 7 GDPR). The CNIL found the information Google provides when creating an account is not clearly accessible and therefore consent is not \'informed\' and explicitly obtained. Criticising pre-ticked boxes explicitly prohibited by the GDPR.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The <strong>obligations of transparency</strong> resulted on Article 12 (1) GDPR that provides: \"<em>1.The controller shall take appropriate measures to provide any information referred to in&nbsp;</em><a href=\"http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-13-information-to-be-provided-where-personal-data-are-collected-from-the-data-subject-GDPR.htm\"><em>Articles 13</em></a><em>&nbsp;and 14 and any communication under&nbsp;</em><a href=\"http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-15-right-of-access-by-the-data-subject-GDPR.htm\"><em>Articles 15</em></a><em>&nbsp;to 22 and 34 relating to processing to the data subject in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, in particular for any information addressed specifically to a child. The information shall be provided in writing, or by other means, including, where appropriate, by electronic means. When requested by the data subject, the information may be provided orally, provided that the identity of the data subject is proven by other means.\"&nbsp;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 13 (1) provides that:  <em>\"1.&nbsp;Where personal data relating to a data subject are collected from the data subject, the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;shall, at the time when personal data are obtained, provide the data subject with all of the following information:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the identity and the contact details of the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;and, where applicable, of the&nbsp;controller\'s&nbsp;representative;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the contact details of the data protection officer, where applicable;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the purposes of the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the&nbsp;processing;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; where the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is based on point (f) of Article 6(1), the legitimate interests pursued by the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;or by a&nbsp;third party;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;recipients or categories of&nbsp;recipients of the personal data, if any;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(f)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; where applicable, the fact that the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;intends to transfer personal data to a third country or&nbsp;international organisation&nbsp;and the existence or absence of an adequacy decision by the Commission, or in the case of transfers referred to in Article&nbsp;46 or 47, or the second subparagraph of Article&nbsp;49(1), reference to the appropriate or suitable safeguards and the means by which to obtain a copy of them or where they have been made available.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google firstly considered that the Confidentiality rules and conditions of use, accessible when creating an account, constitutes first-level information in accordance with the EDPS Guidelines on Transparency within the meaning of the EU Regulation 2016 / 679 (WP260) of 25 May 2018. It states that the document provides a good overview of the treatments implemented and that the mention of the legal basis of these treatments does not have to be included in this first level information.&nbsp;Information about how long the data is kept is in the section Exporting and Deleting the Information in the Privacy Policy.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google goes on to argue that the information of individuals must, in the light of sections 12 and 13 of the Regulations, be assessed on a global basis.&nbsp;In this regard, it states that the information it issues is also used, in addition to the documents entitled Confidentiality Rules and Conditions of Use, Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, through several other terms and conditions.&nbsp;Additional information messages may appear when creating an account under each of the privacy settings.&nbsp;In addition, an e-mail is sent to the user when an account is created, stating that: it can change the privacy and security settings of the Google account at any time,&nbsp;create reminders to check the privacy or security settings.&nbsp;This e-mail  contains clickable links to various setting tools.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>These other control tools, which are made available to the user after the creation of his account from the management interface of his account include for example a tool called check-up confidentiality that allows users to choose privacy settings that suit them, including custom ads, location history, web-based activity, and apps.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google also puts forward a Dashboard tool that allows users to have an overview of the use they make of the services offered by Google such as Gmail or Youtube.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Finally, Google reminds that when a user clicks Create Account without having disabled custom ad settings, an account creation confirmation pop-up appears to remind that the account is set to include customisation features.&nbsp;The company indicates that the user journey is thus configured to slow down the progression of users who would not have spontaneously made the choice of more privacy-friendly settings.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL takes note of the progress made in recent years by the company in its policy of informing users, in the sense of greater transparency and greater control over their data expected by them.&nbsp;For the reasons that follow, however, it considers that the requirements of the GDPR, the implementation of which must be assessed in the light of the concrete scope of the processing of personal data in question, are not respected.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Firstly, the CNIL recalls that pursuant to the provisions of Art 12 of the Regulation, information must be provided in an <strong>easily accessible way</strong>.&nbsp;This accessibility requirement is informed by the <strong>transparency guidelines</strong>, in which the EDPS considered that a key aspect of the transparency principle highlighted in these provisions is that the data subject should be able to advance what the scope and consequences of the processing encompass so as not to be caught off guard at a later stage as to how its personal data were used.&nbsp;[...] In particular, with regard to complex, technical or non-planned data processing,&nbsp;G29\'s position is that [...] controllers should <strong>separately and clearly define the main consequences of treatment</strong>: in other words, what will actually be the effect of the specific treatment described in a statement or opinion on the protection of the privacy for the data subject.&nbsp;The CNIL also recalls that the <strong>accessibility requirement </strong>of Article 12 is based in part on the ergonomic choices made by the controller.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In this case, the CNIL found that the general architecture of the information chosen by the Corporation does not meet the requirements of the Regulations.&nbsp;The information that must be disclosed to individuals pursuant to section 13 is <strong>excessively scattered in several documents</strong>: Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, displayed during the creation of the account, then Terms of Use and Rules of confidentiality which are accessible in a second time by means of clickable links appearing on the first document.&nbsp;These different documents include buttons and links that must be activated to learn additional information.&nbsp;Such an ergonomic choice leads to a fragmentation of information thus forcing the user to multiply the clicks necessary to access the different documents.&nbsp;The user must then carefully consult a large amount of information before he or she can identify the relevant paragraph (s).&nbsp;However, the work provided by the user does not stop there since it will still have to cross-check and compare the collected information in order to understand which data are collected according to the various settings that he may have chosen.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL noted that, given this architecture, some information is difficult to find. For example, with regard to targeted advertising, to know the information that is collected, a user must perform many actions and combine several documentary resources.&nbsp;As a first step, you should read the General Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, then click the More Options button and then the Read more link to display the Customise Ads page.&nbsp;He will thus have access to a first description of the treatment relating to the personalisation of the advertisement which proves to be incomplete.&nbsp;To complete the information relating to the data processed for this purpose,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Similarly, in terms of <strong>geolocation data processing</strong>, the CNIL noted that the same course devoid of any intuitive character is required from the user with regard to information relating to geolocation data.&nbsp;The user will have to complete the following steps: Review the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, click More Options, and then click the Learn more link to view the Location History page and view the displayed text. However, as this text is only a short description of the processing, the user will need to go to the Privacy Policy document and access the Information about your location to access the rest of the information.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the two cases described, <strong>five actions are necessary for the user to access the information</strong> relating to the targeted advertisements and s<strong>ix for the geolocation</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL stated that if the user wished to have <strong>information on the retention periods</strong> of his personal data, he must first consult the Privacy Policy found in the main document and then go to the section titled Export and delete the information and finally click on the hyperlink click here contained in a general paragraph on storage times.&nbsp;It is therefore only after four clicks that the user accesses this information.&nbsp;The Restricted Training further notes that the title chosen by the company for Exporting and Deleting Your Information does not easily allow the user to understand that this is a topic to access information about retention periods .&nbsp;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As a result of all these factors, there is an <strong>overall lack of accessibility</strong> of the information provided by the company in the context of the processing in question.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Secondly, the CNIL considered that the<strong> clear and comprehensible nature of the information provided</strong>, as required by Article 12 of the GDPR, <strong>must be assessed taking into account the nature of each treatment</strong> in question and its <strong>concrete impact on the persons concerned</strong>. concerned.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Beforehand, the CNIL considered it was essential to emphasise that the <strong>data processing</strong> implemented by the controller was <strong>particularly massive and intrusive</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The data Google collects <strong>comes from a wide variety of sources</strong>.&nbsp;This data is collected both from the use of the phone, the use of the company services, such as the Gmail email service or the Youtube video platform, but also from the data generated by the user activity when they visit third-party sites that use <strong>Google services, including Google Analytics cookies placed on these sites.</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As such, the Privacy Policy reveals that <strong>at least twenty services</strong> offered by the company are likely to be involved in the processing, which may concern data such as web browsing history, history from applications, data stored locally on the equipment (such as address books), geolocation of equipment, etc.&nbsp;Therefore, <strong>a lot of data is processed as part of these services via or in connection with the Android operating system</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The record shows that, in addition to data from external sources, the company treats <strong>at least three categories of data</strong>: </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><strong>data produced by the user</strong> (for example, their name, password, phone number, email address, payment method, content created, imported or received, such as writings, photos or videos );  </li><li><strong>data generated by its activities</strong> (for example, IP address, unique user credentials, mobile network data, data related to wireless networks and Bluetooth devices, timestamp of actions performed, data geolocation, the technical data of the devices used including data relating to the sensors (accelerometer, etc.), the videos viewed, the searches made, the browsing history, the purchases, the applications used, etc .;</li><li><strong>Derived or inferred data from data provided by the user or his activities</strong>.&nbsp;In this category, the Privacy Policy lists a number of purposes that can only be accomplished by generating data from the other two categories of data.&nbsp;Thus, the customisation of the ads that the company realises requires to infer the interests of users from their activity in order to offer them to advertisers.&nbsp;In the same way, the purposes of providing content, research and personalised recommendations require inferring new information from those declared, produced or generated by the activity of the user.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Moreover, if the very large number of processed data can characterise alone the massive and intrusive nature of the treatments performed, the very nature of some of the data described, such as geolocation data or content consulted, reinforces this finding.&nbsp;Considered in isolation, the <strong>collection of each of these data is likely to reveal with a high degree of precision many of the most intimate aspects of people\'s lives, including their lifestyle, their tastes, their contacts, their opinions or their trips</strong>.&nbsp;The result of the combination of these data greatly reinforces the <strong>massive and intrusive nature of the processing</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Consequently, it is in the light of the particular characteristics of these processing of personal data which have just been recalled that the characters are clear and understandable, within the meaning of Art 12 of the GDPR, of the information provided for in Art 13 of the Regulations, must be appreciated.&nbsp;The CNIL considered that these requirements were not respected in this case.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Specifically, the CNIL noted that the information provided by Google did not allow the users to understand sufficiently the particular consequences of the processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In fact, the purposes announced in the various documents are described as follows: offer personalised services in terms of content and advertisements, ensure the safety of products and services, provide and develop services, etc.&nbsp;.&nbsp;They are too generic in terms of the scope of the treatments implemented and their consequences.&nbsp;This is also the case when users are told too loosely: <em>The information we collect is used to improve the services offered to all our users.&nbsp;[...] The information we collect and how we use it depends on how you use our services and how you manage your privacy settings.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Therefore, the CNIL noted that the description of the aims pursued did not allow users to measure the extent of the treatments and the degree of intrusion into their private lives that they are likely to take away.&nbsp;It considered, in particular, that such information is not provided in a clear manner, nor at the first level of information provided to users through, in this case, the document entitled Confidentiality rules and conditions of use nor in the other levels of information proposed by the company.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL further noted that the description of the data collected, which could be of such a nature as to clarify the scope of these purposes and to prevent the user from being subsequently caught off guard as to the way in which his data were used and combined, is particularly imprecise and incomplete, both in the analysis of the first level of information and that of the other documents provided.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>For example, the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use document and the Privacy Policy document specify: <em>This may be more complex (...) information, such as the ads you find most useful, the people you care about. interest most on the web or YouTube videos that are likely to interest you.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of the foregoing, the CNIL believed that the user is not able, especially by being aware of the first level of information presented to him in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, to measure the scope of the main treatments on his private life.&nbsp;While it noted that exhaustive information, from the first level, would be counterproductive and does not respect the requirement of transparency, it considers that it should contain terms that would objectify the number and scope of implemented.&nbsp;It further considered that it would be possible, by other types of presentation methods adapted to data combining services,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The finding of lack of clarity and comprehensibility must also be made with regard to the mention of the legal basis of targeted advertising .&nbsp;In fact, the company first states in the Privacy Policy: <em>We ask you for permission to process your information for specific purposes, and you are free to revoke your consent at any time.&nbsp;For example, we ask you for permission to provide personalised services, such as ads.&nbsp;The legal basis chosen here therefore appears to be consent.&nbsp;</em>However, the company further adds it relies on the legitimate interest,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL stressed that if Google had indicated before that the only legal basis for the processing of the targeted advertisement was consent, the investigation shows that this clarification is not brought to the attention of the users.&nbsp;The formulations recalled above did not allow the latter to clearly measure the distinction between properly targeted advertising, based on the combination of multiple user data, which is based on the company\'s consent statement , other forms of targeting using for example the context of navigation, based on the legitimate interest.&nbsp;The CNIL stressed the particular importance of the need for clarity in these processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>With respect to information on the retention period, the CNIL noted that the How are Google\'s collected information page is maintained has four categories: </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>Information retained until the user deleted it;</li><li>Information with a timeout;</li><li>Information retained until user\'s Google Account is deleted;</li><li>Information kept for long periods of time for specific reasons.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It noted, however, that as regards to the latter category, only very general explanations of the purpose of this retention are provided and no precise duration or the criteria used to determine that duration are indicated.&nbsp;This information is among those that must be issued to users pursuant to Article 13 (2) (a) of the Regulations.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Finally, if the company claims that multiple information tools are made available to users concomitantly and after the creation of their account, the restricted training notes that these methods do not make it possible to reach the requirements of transparency and transparency. information from articles 12 and 13 of the GDPR.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>First, the CNIL noted that the tools to which the company refers do contribute, to a certain extent, to the goal of transparency throughout the life of the account and the use of Google\'s services.&nbsp;However, it considered that they do not participate sufficiently in the information provided for in Article 13, which must be provided at the time data are obtained.&nbsp;As mentioned in the EDPS Transparency Guidelines, Article 13 specifies the information to be provided to data subjects from the start of the processing cycle.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>If any data other than those strictly necessary to create the account, are collected throughout the life of the account, such as browsing history or purchases, the time of its creation marks the entry of the user in the ecosystem of Google services, whose particularly massive and intrusive nature of processing has been recalled previously.&nbsp;This step marks the beginning of a multitude of treatment operations: collection, combination, analysis, etc.&nbsp;Therefore, since the process of creating the account is essential in the understanding of treatments and their impact and where the proposed user journey itself invites the person concerned to focus his attention at this stage, the information provided for in Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure at that time must.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Moreover, both the pop-up window appearing at the time of the creation of the account and the electronic message sent as soon as the account is created contain only a summary or very specific information on the processing implemented and can not allow to consier the prior information as sufficient.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In fact, the text of the pop-up window indicates <em>This Google Account is configured to include customisation features (such as recommendations and custom ads) that are based on the information stored in your account.&nbsp;The e-mail indicates the main features of the Google Account and the existence of control tools.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>With regard to the confidentiality check-up tool, this essentially allows the user to set up the collected information such as browsing history or visited places.&nbsp;Finally, the Dashboard consists of an information panel for each Google service overview of the use of the account holder.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Nevertheless, these confidentiality check-up and Dashboard tools can only be used, just like the e-mail mentioned above, after the account creation step, which is nevertheless essential for informing users as well as it has been said.&nbsp;In addition, although their existence and interest are brought to the attention of users, they imply an active and initiative of these.&nbsp;For these reasons, these tools do not allow to consider that sufficient information is provided for the application of Article 13 of the Regulations.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the light of all these elements, the CNIL committee considers that a breach of the transparency and information obligations as provided for in Articles 12 and 13 of the Regulation is characterised.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>5. Failure to provide a legal basis for the processing implemented</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 6 of the RGPD states that: 1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Processing&nbsp;shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the data subject has given consent to the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;is subject;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the&nbsp;controller;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(f)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;or by a&nbsp;third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>the processing is necessary to safeguard the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google was criticised for failing to validly collect the consent of individuals for targeted advertising.&nbsp;It was also considered that the company could not claim a legitimate interest for these processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In defence, Google specified that it relied solely on the consent for the targeted advertising.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 4 (11) of the above-mentioned Regulations specifies what consent means: <em>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;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 7 of the same Regulation provides the conditions that apply to it:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Where&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is based on consent, the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;shall be able to demonstrate that the data subject has consented to&nbsp;processing&nbsp;of his or her personal data.</em></li><li><em>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If the data subject\'s consent is given in the context of a written declaration which also concerns other matters, the request for consent shall be presented in a manner which is clearly distinguishable from the other matters, in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. Any part of such a declaration which constitutes an infringement of this Regulation shall not be binding.</em></li><li><em>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of&nbsp;processing based on consent before its withdrawal. Prior to giving consent, the data subject shall be informed thereof. It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.</em></li><li><em>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia , the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Firstly, Google said that the users\' consent is informed.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It believes that simple and clear information is presented to the user when creating an account and allow him to know how the company uses the data for customisation purposes.&nbsp;In particular, the Company refers to the summary entitled Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, the sections dedicated to the targeted advertisements contained in the Privacy Policy and the additional information message entitled Targeted Advertising in the Menu Options account creation setting.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Secondly, Google claimed that the user\'s consent is specific and unambiguous.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In particular, it stated that when setting up the account, the user has the option of making a choice regarding the display of targeted advertising .&nbsp;It considers that this possibility enables to express its consent to the use of its data independently of the other choices it may express with regard to the other purposes relating to the processing associated with the Google Account (eg YouTube search history).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It also considered that the procedures for obtaining consent for the purposes of targeted advertisements it sets up are in line with the recommendations of the CNIL of December 5, 2013 regarding cookies.&nbsp;In particular, it specifies that short information is available on the targeted ads followed by an \"I accept\" button (the Privacy Policy and the Terms of Use), preceded by a \"more options\" button that gives users the ability to disable multiple processing operations, including for targeted ad purposes.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It also argued that the solution presented in the public notice of the president of the CNIL No. MED-2018-023 of November 29, 2018 allows the user to consent to all ends via a button accept all.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Lastly, it considered that explicit consent for the processing of data for the purposes of targeted advertising, within the meaning of Art 9 (2) (a) of the GDPR, could not be required in the absence of sensitive data.<br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Regarding the informed consent&nbsp;and&nbsp;the&nbsp;spread&nbsp;of&nbsp;information</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the first place, the CNIL specified that this informed character must be examined in the light of the preceding developments concerning the lack of transparency and information of the users during the setting up of their account.&nbsp;It considered that the deficiencies previously identified necessarily have an impact on the information delivered to the users to ensure the informed nature of the consent.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL indicated that the EDPS Guideline of 10 April 2018 on Consent within the meaning of Regulation 2016/679 (WP250) states that the controller must ensure that consent is provided on the basis of information that enables the people concerned to easily identify who is responsible for the data and to understand what they are agreeing to.&nbsp;[It] must clearly describe the purpose of the data processing for which consent is sought.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>These guidelines also state that: In order for consent to be informed, it is necessary to inform the person concerned of certain crucial elements in making a choice.&nbsp;[..] At least the following information is required in order to obtain valid consent: </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the identity of the controller,</em></li><li><em>the purpose of each processing operation for which consent is sought,</em></li><li><em>the (types of) data collected and used,</em></li><li><em>the existence of the right to withdraw consent,</em></li><li><em>information on the use of data for automated decision-making [..] and</em></li><li><em>information on the possible risks associated with the transmission of data due to the lack of a decision on adequacy and appropriate safeguards [...].</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As it was able to identify under the breach of the transparency and information requirements, the CNIL considered that the information on targeted advertising is excessively disseminated in separate documents and is not, as such, easily accessible.&nbsp;In this respect, the CNIL refered to the preceding developments on the multiple actions that must be performed by a user who wishes to be made aware of available on the processing related to the targeted advertisement.<br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In addition, the CNIL also noted under the breach of transparency obligations, the information provided was not sufficiently clear and understandable in that it was difficult for a user to have a global understanding of the can do the object and their scope.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As an illustration, the information in the targeted Ad section, accessible from the Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions document through the More Options button, contains the following: Google can show you ads based on your activity in Google services (for example, in the search or on YouTube, as well as on Google\'s websites and partner applications).&nbsp;The CNIL noted that it is not possible to read, for example through clickable links, the services, sites and Google application to which the company refers.&nbsp;Therefore, the user was not able to understand the targeted advertising they are subject to, as well as their scope,&nbsp;even though these treatments nevertheless imply a plurality of services (for example: Google search, YouTube, Google home, Google maps, Playstore, Google photo, Google play, Google analytics, Google translation, Play books) and the processing of a large amount of data personal character.&nbsp;Users are not able to have a proper perception of the nature and volume of data that is collected.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of these elements, the CNIL committee considered that the users\' consent for targeted advertising was not sufficiently informed.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>With regard to the specific and unequivocal nature of the consent</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Recital 32 of the Regulation provides that: <em>Consent must be given by a clear positive act by which the data subject expresses in a free, specific, informed and unambiguous manner his agreement to the processing of his personal data [...].&nbsp;There can therefore be no consent in the event of silence, boxes checked by default or inactivity.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Recital 43 of the GDPR states that: <em>Consent is presumed not to have been freely given if separate consent can not be given to different personal data processing operations, although this is appropriate in the present case.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The above EDPS guidance on consent states that: <em>In order to comply with the specific nature of consent, the controller must ensure: [...] (ii) the detailed nature of consent requests [...] This means that data controller who seeks consent for various specific purposes should provide separate consent for each purpose so that users can give specific consent for specific purposes.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In this case, the CNIL noted that when the user creates an account, he has the possibility to modify some of the parameters associated with the account.&nbsp;To access these settings, the user must click the more options button, present before the Create Account button.&nbsp;the CNIL also noted that the personalisation settings of the account, which contain the choice for the display of personalised ads, are pre-checked by default, which means, unless otherwise indicated, the agreement of the user to processing of its data for the purposes mentioned (eg YouTube search history, display of personalised ads etc.).&nbsp;The user has the option to uncheck these parameters if he does not want these treatments to be implemented.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL observed that, at the time of the creation of the account, if the user does not click on the button more options to set his account, he must check the boxes <em>I accept the terms of use of Google and I agree that my information will be used as described above and detailed in the Privacy Policy</em>.&nbsp;Subsequently, he must press the <em>Create Account</em> button.&nbsp;A pop-up window appears, titled Simple confirmation that contains the following text This Google Account is set up to include customisation features (such as recommendations and custom ads), which are based on information stored in your account.&nbsp;To change your personalisation settings and the information stored in your account,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>If it does not click <em>More Options</em>, the user must select the <em>Confirm</em> button to complete the account creation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of the foregoing, the CNIL noted that if the user has the possibility to modify the configuration of the parameters of his account prior to its creation, a positive action on his part is necessary to access the possibilities of setting up the account.&nbsp;Thus, the user can completely create his account, and accept the related processing, including targeted advertising, without clicking <em>More options</em>.&nbsp;Therefore, the user\'s consent is not, in this case, validly collected to the extent that it is not given through a positive act by which the person consents specifically and distinctly to the processing of its data for purposes of targeted advertising compared to other purposes of treatment.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL also considered that the actions by which the user proceeds to the creation of his account - by ticking the boxes I accept the conditions of use of Google and I accept that my information is used as described below above and detailed in the privacy rules, and then selecting Create Account - can not be considered as the expression of a valid consent.&nbsp;The specific nature of the consent is not respected because the user, by these actions, accepts all the processing of personal data implemented by the company, including those of targeted advertising.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In addition, the CNIL noted that multiple technology processes are used by the company to combine and analyse data from different external services, applications or sources.&nbsp;They undeniably have a multiplying effect on the precise knowledge society has of its users.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As a result, the restricted formation believes that the company has operations of combinations with almost unlimited potential allowing a massive and intrusive treatment of the data of the users.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Given the scope of the data processing - in particular that of targeted advertising - and the number of people concerned, the CNIL underlined that the deficiencies previously retained are of a particular gravity.&nbsp;A lack of transparency regarding these wide-scope processing, as well as a lack of valid user consent to targeted advertising, constitute substantial infringements of the protection of their privacy and are contrary to legitimate aspirations of people who want to keep control of their data.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In this respect, strengthening the rights of individuals is one of the main thrusts of the Regulation.&nbsp;The European legislator recalls that The rapid evolution of technologies and globalization have created new challenges for the protection of personal data.&nbsp;The extent of collection and sharing of personal data has increased significantly.&nbsp;Technologies allow both private and public authorities to use personal data as never before in their business (...) Technologies have transformed both the economy and social relations (recital 6) .&nbsp;It stresses that these developments require a strong data protection framework (...) with rigorous enforcement of the rules, it is important to create the confidence that will enable the digital economy to develop in the internal market as a whole.&nbsp;Individuals should have control over their personal data.&nbsp;(recital 7).&nbsp;The European legislator regrets, finally, that Directive 95/46 / EC has not made it possible to avoid the widespread public perception that significant risks to the protection of individuals still exist, in particular as regards the online environment.&nbsp;(recital 9).&nbsp;whereas Directive 95/46 / EC has not prevented the widespread public perception that significant risks to the protection of individuals still exist, in particular with regard to the online environment.&nbsp;(recital 9).&nbsp;whereas Directive 95/46 / EC has not prevented the widespread public perception that significant risks to the protection of individuals still exist, in particular with regard to the online environment.&nbsp;(recital 9).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL thus considered, in view of the scale of the processing carried out and the compelling need for the users to keep control of their data, that they must be put in a position to be sufficiently informed of the scope of the data implemented and to validly consent to it, unless to deprive of basic confidence in the digital ecosystem.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Finally, the CNIL emphasised that shortcomings need to be put into perspective with regard to the company\'s business model, in particular the place of the users\' data processing for advertising purposes via the Android operating system.&nbsp;In view of the benefits it takes from these processing, Google must pay particular attention to its responsibility under the GDPR in their implementation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It follows from all the foregoing and the criteria which have been duly taken into account by the Committee, in view of the maximum amount incurred on the basis of 4% of the turnover indicated in point 2 of this Decision, that a financial penalty is justified up to 50 million euros, as well as a supplementary publicising sanction for the same reasons.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Account is also taken of the company\'s prominent place in the market for operating systems, the seriousness of the deficiencies and the interest this decision represents in informing the public in determining the duration of its publication.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>FOR THESE REASONS</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The restricted formation of the CNIL, after having deliberated, decides:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>to award Google LLC a monetary penalty in the amount of 50 (fifty) million euros;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>to send this decision to Google France Sarl for the execution of this decision;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google has already publicly announced it has appealed the case. It\'s of course important as this decision creates a precedent and establish the rules.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This is only  start.<a href=\"https://www.laquadrature.net/en/2019/01/21/first-sanction-against-google-following-our-collective-complaints/\"> La Quadrature du Net publishe</a>d : \"<em>Today, the CNIL </em><a href=\"https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros-against-google-llc\"><em>sanctioned</em></a><em> </em><strong><em>Google to a 50 million Euros fine</em></strong><em>, stating that the targeted advertising it engages in with its operating system Android is in breach of the GDPR, the new European regulation that came into effect on May 25. However, this sanction is really only the beginning of an answer to our complaint against Google, which denounced especially the targeted advertising imposed on Youtube, Gmail and Google Search in violation of our consent.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>In this respect, the CNIL explains the low amount of its sanction, considering Google’s nearly </em><a href=\"https://www.statista.com/statistics/266206/googles-annual-global-revenue/\"><em>110 billion US dollars</em></a><em> revenue, by the fact it limited the scope of its examination to “the data processing covered by the privacy policy presented to a user when creating their account on their Android mobile phone” (our translation). </em><sup><em>1</em></sup><em> We therefore expect the CNIL to quickly answer the rest of our complaint, which concerns Youtube, Gmail and Google Search, by issuing a fine commensurate with this company and the extent and the duration of the violation of ours rights (the maximum amount possible is 4 billion euros – 4% of global revenue –, which we hope for).</em>\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','Google Subject to the Biggest Fine Under GDPR','In what is today the biggest fine under the GDPR, the French Data Protection Authority CNIL investigated Google Android transparency in Data procession. The investigation was consecutive to two class actions filed on the 25th of May 2018. One by the Austrian NGO Non Of Your Business (NOYB), another by the French La Quadrature du Net (LQDN). This decision worth a close look.','inherit','closed','closed','','204-revision-v1','','','2019-01-30 20:07:07','2019-01-30 20:07:07','',204,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/01/30/204-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(247,5,'2019-01-30 20:10:23','2019-01-30 20:10:23','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In what is today the biggest fine under the GDPR, the French Data Protection Authority CNIL investigated Google Android transparency in Data processing. The investigation was consecutive to two class actions filed on the 25th of May 2018. One by the Austrian NGO Non Of Your Business (NOYB), another by the French La Quadrature du Net (LQDN). The complained have been partly answered as limited to the mobile Android Operating System. Still remain Youtube, Gmail and Google Search. This decision worth a close look up.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In its complaint, NOYB stated in particular that users of Android mobile devices are required to accept Google\'s privacy policy and general terms and conditions of service and that, failing such acceptance, they could not use their terminal.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The association LQDN complained that, regardless of the terminal used, Google does not have valid legal bases to implement the processing of personal data for purposes of behaviour analysis and advertising targeting.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>First  of all, the CNIL has shown high celerity to deal with the complaints.</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>On 1st June 2018, the CNIL submitted the complaints to its European counterparts via the European information exchange system with a view to the designation of a possible lead authority in accordance with the provisions of Article 56 of the GDPR.</li><li>20 September 2018 : Decision to investigate the Android\'s data procession is taken; </li><li>on 21 September, an online test was carried out  to verify the compliance of any processing relating to the use of the operating system Android for mobile equipment, including the creation of a Google account.</li><li>24 and 25th September, the report was notified to GOOGLE LLC companies.&nbsp;and Google France SARL</li><li>28 September 28,  the two companies also received the aforementioned complaints by courier of the CNIL</li><li>2nd Octobre, Mr. François PELLEGRINI was appointed as rapporteur according to the article 47 French Data Protection law of January 6, 1978</li><li>22nd October, the reporter notified Google LLC&nbsp;and Google France a report detailing shortcomings relating to sections 6, 12 and 13 of the GDPR. The report suggested&nbsp;a fine of 50 million euros to be made public.&nbsp;</li><li>7 November 2018, Google requested a hearing from the rapporteur, </li><li>13 November the request was rejected .</li><li> On the same date, the company also made a request for closed doors and postponement of the meeting, </li><li>15 November the request was rejected.</li><li>22nd November, Google filed a written comments on the report.&nbsp;</li><li>7th December, the rapporteur replied to these observations.</li><li>11th December, Google, which had fifteen days from receipt of the rapporteur\'s to reply, requested to postpone the meeting and extend the deadline to produce new observations.&nbsp; </li><li>13th December , the request was accepted to postpone for two weeks - until January 7 - the deadline for filing these observations and to postpone the meeting to January 15, 2019.</li><li>4th January, Google filed new observations in response to those of the rapporteur.</li><li>All observations were reiterated orally during the meeting of 15 January 2019.</li><li>21st January the decision was made public.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>On the decision itself, Google argued the French CNIL should not be the competent Data Protection Authority.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Based on Article 55 (1) of the GDPR states: Each supervisory authority shall be competent to exercise the tasks and powers vested in it in accordance with this Regulation in the territory of the Member State to which it belongs.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 56 (1) of the GDPR provides: Without prejudice to Article 55, the supervisory authority of the principal place of business or of the sole place of business of the controller or processor shall have jurisdiction to act as lead supervisory authority for cross-border processing by that controller or processor, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 60.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google argued that the CNIL could not be competent to conduct this procedure and that it should have transmitted the complaints received to the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) the lead authority to deal with these cross-border complaints in accordance with Art 60 GDPR.&nbsp;Google Ireland Limited being its main establishment in the EU for some of the its cross-border processing, including those objects of the complaints.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Therefore, initial discussions turned around the competent authority as defined by the main establishment of the company. Google arguing Ireland to be its main establishment, the CNIL responding the main Administrative establishment is not the criteria. Based on Article 4 (16) of the RGPD&nbsp;and Recital 36 GDPR, the main establishment to consider should be based on objective criteria and should imply the effective and real exercise of management activities determining the main decisions as to the purposes and means of processing trough stable arrangements. The CNIL added that the determination should be analysed in concreto, according to objective criteria. The main establishment could therefore not necessarily correspond to the main designated administrative establishment.  The CNIL based its position on the WP article 29 guidance WP244 of 5th April 2017 \"<em>the central administration is the place where the decisions are made on the purposes and means of processing.</em>\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Deciding otherwise would result on forum shopping, says the CNIL. Google Ireland had no decisional power. Google Ireland Limited is not mentioned in the Company\'s Privacy Policy dated May 25, 2018 as the entity where the main decisions about the purposes and means of the processing are made. covered by the privacy policy presented to the user when creating his account, during the configuration of his mobile phone on Android. In fact Google had not either named any DPO in Ireland who would be in charge of the processing of personal data that it could implement in the European Union.&nbsp;It further notes that the Android operating system is developed solely by Google LLC.. Additionally, the company itself had indicated, by mail dated December 3, 2018 addressed to the DPC, that the transfer of responsibility of Google LLC.&nbsp;to Google Ireland Limited on certain processing of personal data concerning European citizens would be finalized on 31 January 2019. It later specified to update its confidentiality rules which will come into effect on 22 January 2019. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google\'s argument that a reorganisation both operational and organizational was underway to make the company Google Ireland Limited the controller for certain processing of personal data concerning European nationals, was in my view a mistake only proving that at the time of the compliant Google Ireland had no decisional power.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It also considers that the definition of principal place of business should be distinguished from that of controller. Arguing that if the European legislator had intended that the concept of principal place of business should be interpreted as the place where decisions concerning \'would have expressly indicated simply ignored the text of the Recital 36.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the absence of a principal establishment allowing the identification of a lead authority, the one stop shop did not apply, and the CNIL was competent to initiate this procedure and to exercise all of its powers under Article 58 of the GDPR.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This is a very interesting analysis to determine the main establishment and the lead authority based on objective criteria and not a subjective decision favouring forum shopping.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Once the CNIL confirmed its competence, it goes into a detailed analysis of the transparency requirement and legitimate basis of processing. here after, a free translation is offered:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>2- On the Procedure</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google argued on the validity of the complaints. &nbsp;The CNIL responded that the question of the admissibility of the complaints could not affect the legality of the proceedings, as it could self-refer itself based on the findings made by its services.&nbsp;The CNIL had therefore a mission to supervise the application of the regulation and to ensure compliance with it and that it has, for this purpose, the power to carry out investigations, in accordance with Arti 57 1. a) and h) of the RGPD. In fact, the two associations had been mandated to represent the complaints under article 80 of the RGPD.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The second argument claiming that the proceedings breached its right to a fair trial according to Art 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that the rapport to his observations were addressed in French, sounded rather difficult to succeed. The CNIL responded to that any notification of a penalty report had to be in French based on a legal obligation laid down in Article 111-1 of the Code of relations between the public and the administration which provides that use of the French language is prescribed in the exchanges between the public and the administration, in accordance with the provisions of the law n ° 94-665 of August 4, 1994 relating to the use of the French language. Google has an establishment on the French territory with several hundred employees. Google had in any event sufficient material and human resources enabling it to ensure a translation of the documents in English in sufficient time to become acquainted with it and to make observations within the deadline.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of these elements, the Restricted Training considers that the company had in any event sufficient material and human resources enabling it to ensure a translation of the documents in English in sufficient time to become acquainted with it and to make observations in the the deadline fixed for it.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This point explains why it is important that the Organisations\' representative speak the language of the DPA.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Also the refusal to extend the time limit he was opposed to produce his first observations and limited the time available to prepare his defence.&nbsp;It also considers that the adjournment of the meeting as well as the additional time it was finally granted to produce its second observations were still not sufficient.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>3.Over the scope of investigations</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google argued first of all that the rapporteur has confused the Android operating system and the Google account when they are separate services that implement different treatment activities. Then argued that the scope of control chosen by the CNIL - namely the creation of a Google account when setting up a new device using the Android operating system - is limited in that it only represents a case figure affecting 7% of users. Finally, it indicated that the findings were made on an older version of the Android operating system.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL did not disputed the existence of separate services, respectively related to the Android operating system and the Google Account, implementing different processing activities.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It observed, however, that the facts covered by the investigations corresponded to the scenario chosen to carry out the on-line check, namely the journey of a user and the documents to which he could have accessed during the initial configuration of his mobile equipment using the Android operating system.&nbsp;This path included the creation of an account.&nbsp;These facts therefore related to the treatments covered by the privacy policy presented to the user when creating an account during the setting up of their mobile phone on Android.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Then, adding that if it was true that the user actually had the choice to create an account and has the opportunity to use some of the services without having to create an account, however, when setting up an Android device, the ability to create a Google account or connect to an existing account naturally appeared at the beginning of the setting process, without specific action of the user.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In any case, under Article 11.I.2 of the Data Protection Act, the CNIL has a broad discretion as to the scope of the controls it may undertake.&nbsp;A specific control scenario, such as that used in this case, may make it possible to make findings reflecting a more comprehensive privacy policy. The scope of the processing of personal data that is performed&nbsp;is therefore is irrelevant so is the version of the Android operating system since it appears from the documents provided by Google that the user\'s journey is similar in the newer version .</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>4.On breach of transparency and information obligations</strong><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google infringed the GDPR for three main reasons: (1) <strong>lack of transparency </strong>(art. 5 GDPR); (2) <strong>insufficient information </strong>(art. 12 and 13 GDPR); and (3) <strong>invalid consent collection </strong>(art. 7 GDPR). The CNIL found the information Google provides when creating an account is not clearly accessible and therefore consent is not \'informed\' and explicitly obtained. Criticising pre-ticked boxes explicitly prohibited by the GDPR.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The <strong>obligations of transparency</strong> resulted on Article 12 (1) GDPR that provides: \"<em>1.The controller shall take appropriate measures to provide any information referred to in&nbsp;</em><a href=\"http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-13-information-to-be-provided-where-personal-data-are-collected-from-the-data-subject-GDPR.htm\"><em>Articles 13</em></a><em>&nbsp;and 14 and any communication under&nbsp;</em><a href=\"http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-15-right-of-access-by-the-data-subject-GDPR.htm\"><em>Articles 15</em></a><em>&nbsp;to 22 and 34 relating to processing to the data subject in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, in particular for any information addressed specifically to a child. The information shall be provided in writing, or by other means, including, where appropriate, by electronic means. When requested by the data subject, the information may be provided orally, provided that the identity of the data subject is proven by other means.\"&nbsp;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 13 (1) provides that:  <em>\"1.&nbsp;Where personal data relating to a data subject are collected from the data subject, the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;shall, at the time when personal data are obtained, provide the data subject with all of the following information:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the identity and the contact details of the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;and, where applicable, of the&nbsp;controller\'s&nbsp;representative;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the contact details of the data protection officer, where applicable;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the purposes of the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the&nbsp;processing;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; where the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is based on point (f) of Article 6(1), the legitimate interests pursued by the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;or by a&nbsp;third party;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;recipients or categories of&nbsp;recipients of the personal data, if any;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(f)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; where applicable, the fact that the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;intends to transfer personal data to a third country or&nbsp;international organisation&nbsp;and the existence or absence of an adequacy decision by the Commission, or in the case of transfers referred to in Article&nbsp;46 or 47, or the second subparagraph of Article&nbsp;49(1), reference to the appropriate or suitable safeguards and the means by which to obtain a copy of them or where they have been made available.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google firstly considered that the Confidentiality rules and conditions of use, accessible when creating an account, constitutes first-level information in accordance with the EDPS Guidelines on Transparency within the meaning of the EU Regulation 2016 / 679 (WP260) of 25 May 2018. It states that the document provides a good overview of the treatments implemented and that the mention of the legal basis of these treatments does not have to be included in this first level information.&nbsp;Information about how long the data is kept is in the section Exporting and Deleting the Information in the Privacy Policy.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google goes on to argue that the information of individuals must, in the light of sections 12 and 13 of the Regulations, be assessed on a global basis.&nbsp;In this regard, it states that the information it issues is also used, in addition to the documents entitled Confidentiality Rules and Conditions of Use, Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, through several other terms and conditions.&nbsp;Additional information messages may appear when creating an account under each of the privacy settings.&nbsp;In addition, an e-mail is sent to the user when an account is created, stating that: it can change the privacy and security settings of the Google account at any time,&nbsp;create reminders to check the privacy or security settings.&nbsp;This e-mail  contains clickable links to various setting tools.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>These other control tools, which are made available to the user after the creation of his account from the management interface of his account include for example a tool called check-up confidentiality that allows users to choose privacy settings that suit them, including custom ads, location history, web-based activity, and apps.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google also puts forward a Dashboard tool that allows users to have an overview of the use they make of the services offered by Google such as Gmail or Youtube.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Finally, Google reminds that when a user clicks Create Account without having disabled custom ad settings, an account creation confirmation pop-up appears to remind that the account is set to include customisation features.&nbsp;The company indicates that the user journey is thus configured to slow down the progression of users who would not have spontaneously made the choice of more privacy-friendly settings.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL takes note of the progress made in recent years by the company in its policy of informing users, in the sense of greater transparency and greater control over their data expected by them.&nbsp;For the reasons that follow, however, it considers that the requirements of the GDPR, the implementation of which must be assessed in the light of the concrete scope of the processing of personal data in question, are not respected.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Firstly, the CNIL recalls that pursuant to the provisions of Art 12 of the Regulation, information must be provided in an <strong>easily accessible way</strong>.&nbsp;This accessibility requirement is informed by the <strong>transparency guidelines</strong>, in which the EDPS considered that a key aspect of the transparency principle highlighted in these provisions is that the data subject should be able to advance what the scope and consequences of the processing encompass so as not to be caught off guard at a later stage as to how its personal data were used.&nbsp;[...] In particular, with regard to complex, technical or non-planned data processing,&nbsp;G29\'s position is that [...] controllers should <strong>separately and clearly define the main consequences of treatment</strong>: in other words, what will actually be the effect of the specific treatment described in a statement or opinion on the protection of the privacy for the data subject.&nbsp;The CNIL also recalls that the <strong>accessibility requirement </strong>of Article 12 is based in part on the ergonomic choices made by the controller.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In this case, the CNIL found that the general architecture of the information chosen by the Corporation does not meet the requirements of the Regulations.&nbsp;The information that must be disclosed to individuals pursuant to section 13 is <strong>excessively scattered in several documents</strong>: Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, displayed during the creation of the account, then Terms of Use and Rules of confidentiality which are accessible in a second time by means of clickable links appearing on the first document.&nbsp;These different documents include buttons and links that must be activated to learn additional information.&nbsp;Such an ergonomic choice leads to a fragmentation of information thus forcing the user to multiply the clicks necessary to access the different documents.&nbsp;The user must then carefully consult a large amount of information before he or she can identify the relevant paragraph (s).&nbsp;However, the work provided by the user does not stop there since it will still have to cross-check and compare the collected information in order to understand which data are collected according to the various settings that he may have chosen.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL noted that, given this architecture, some information is difficult to find. For example, with regard to targeted advertising, to know the information that is collected, a user must perform many actions and combine several documentary resources.&nbsp;As a first step, you should read the General Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, then click the More Options button and then the Read more link to display the Customise Ads page.&nbsp;He will thus have access to a first description of the treatment relating to the personalisation of the advertisement which proves to be incomplete.&nbsp;To complete the information relating to the data processed for this purpose,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Similarly, in terms of <strong>geolocation data processing</strong>, the CNIL noted that the same course devoid of any intuitive character is required from the user with regard to information relating to geolocation data.&nbsp;The user will have to complete the following steps: Review the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, click More Options, and then click the Learn more link to view the Location History page and view the displayed text. However, as this text is only a short description of the processing, the user will need to go to the Privacy Policy document and access the Information about your location to access the rest of the information.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the two cases described, <strong>five actions are necessary for the user to access the information</strong> relating to the targeted advertisements and s<strong>ix for the geolocation</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL stated that if the user wished to have <strong>information on the retention periods</strong> of his personal data, he must first consult the Privacy Policy found in the main document and then go to the section titled Export and delete the information and finally click on the hyperlink click here contained in a general paragraph on storage times.&nbsp;It is therefore only after four clicks that the user accesses this information.&nbsp;The Restricted Training further notes that the title chosen by the company for Exporting and Deleting Your Information does not easily allow the user to understand that this is a topic to access information about retention periods .&nbsp;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As a result of all these factors, there is an <strong>overall lack of accessibility</strong> of the information provided by the company in the context of the processing in question.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Secondly, the CNIL considered that the<strong> clear and comprehensible nature of the information provided</strong>, as required by Article 12 of the GDPR, <strong>must be assessed taking into account the nature of each treatment</strong> in question and its <strong>concrete impact on the persons concerned</strong>. concerned.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Beforehand, the CNIL considered it was essential to emphasise that the <strong>data processing</strong> implemented by the controller was <strong>particularly massive and intrusive</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The data Google collects <strong>comes from a wide variety of sources</strong>.&nbsp;This data is collected both from the use of the phone, the use of the company services, such as the Gmail email service or the Youtube video platform, but also from the data generated by the user activity when they visit third-party sites that use <strong>Google services, including Google Analytics cookies placed on these sites.</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As such, the Privacy Policy reveals that <strong>at least twenty services</strong> offered by the company are likely to be involved in the processing, which may concern data such as web browsing history, history from applications, data stored locally on the equipment (such as address books), geolocation of equipment, etc.&nbsp;Therefore, <strong>a lot of data is processed as part of these services via or in connection with the Android operating system</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The record shows that, in addition to data from external sources, the company treats <strong>at least three categories of data</strong>: </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><strong>data produced by the user</strong> (for example, their name, password, phone number, email address, payment method, content created, imported or received, such as writings, photos or videos );  </li><li><strong>data generated by its activities</strong> (for example, IP address, unique user credentials, mobile network data, data related to wireless networks and Bluetooth devices, timestamp of actions performed, data geolocation, the technical data of the devices used including data relating to the sensors (accelerometer, etc.), the videos viewed, the searches made, the browsing history, the purchases, the applications used, etc .;</li><li><strong>Derived or inferred data from data provided by the user or his activities</strong>.&nbsp;In this category, the Privacy Policy lists a number of purposes that can only be accomplished by generating data from the other two categories of data.&nbsp;Thus, the customisation of the ads that the company realises requires to infer the interests of users from their activity in order to offer them to advertisers.&nbsp;In the same way, the purposes of providing content, research and personalised recommendations require inferring new information from those declared, produced or generated by the activity of the user.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Moreover, if the very large number of processed data can characterise alone the massive and intrusive nature of the treatments performed, the very nature of some of the data described, such as geolocation data or content consulted, reinforces this finding.&nbsp;Considered in isolation, the <strong>collection of each of these data is likely to reveal with a high degree of precision many of the most intimate aspects of people\'s lives, including their lifestyle, their tastes, their contacts, their opinions or their trips</strong>.&nbsp;The result of the combination of these data greatly reinforces the <strong>massive and intrusive nature of the processing</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Consequently, it is in the light of the particular characteristics of these processing of personal data which have just been recalled that the characters are clear and understandable, within the meaning of Art 12 of the GDPR, of the information provided for in Art 13 of the Regulations, must be appreciated.&nbsp;The CNIL considered that these requirements were not respected in this case.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Specifically, the CNIL noted that the information provided by Google did not allow the users to understand sufficiently the particular consequences of the processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In fact, the purposes announced in the various documents are described as follows: offer personalised services in terms of content and advertisements, ensure the safety of products and services, provide and develop services, etc.&nbsp;.&nbsp;They are too generic in terms of the scope of the treatments implemented and their consequences.&nbsp;This is also the case when users are told too loosely: <em>The information we collect is used to improve the services offered to all our users.&nbsp;[...] The information we collect and how we use it depends on how you use our services and how you manage your privacy settings.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Therefore, the CNIL noted that the description of the aims pursued did not allow users to measure the extent of the treatments and the degree of intrusion into their private lives that they are likely to take away.&nbsp;It considered, in particular, that such information is not provided in a clear manner, nor at the first level of information provided to users through, in this case, the document entitled Confidentiality rules and conditions of use nor in the other levels of information proposed by the company.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL further noted that the description of the data collected, which could be of such a nature as to clarify the scope of these purposes and to prevent the user from being subsequently caught off guard as to the way in which his data were used and combined, is particularly imprecise and incomplete, both in the analysis of the first level of information and that of the other documents provided.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>For example, the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use document and the Privacy Policy document specify: <em>This may be more complex (...) information, such as the ads you find most useful, the people you care about. interest most on the web or YouTube videos that are likely to interest you.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of the foregoing, the CNIL believed that the user is not able, especially by being aware of the first level of information presented to him in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, to measure the scope of the main treatments on his private life.&nbsp;While it noted that exhaustive information, from the first level, would be counterproductive and does not respect the requirement of transparency, it considers that it should contain terms that would objectify the number and scope of implemented.&nbsp;It further considered that it would be possible, by other types of presentation methods adapted to data combining services,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The finding of lack of clarity and comprehensibility must also be made with regard to the mention of the legal basis of targeted advertising .&nbsp;In fact, the company first states in the Privacy Policy: <em>We ask you for permission to process your information for specific purposes, and you are free to revoke your consent at any time.&nbsp;For example, we ask you for permission to provide personalised services, such as ads.&nbsp;The legal basis chosen here therefore appears to be consent.&nbsp;</em>However, the company further adds it relies on the legitimate interest,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL stressed that if Google had indicated before that the only legal basis for the processing of the targeted advertisement was consent, the investigation shows that this clarification is not brought to the attention of the users.&nbsp;The formulations recalled above did not allow the latter to clearly measure the distinction between properly targeted advertising, based on the combination of multiple user data, which is based on the company\'s consent statement , other forms of targeting using for example the context of navigation, based on the legitimate interest.&nbsp;The CNIL stressed the particular importance of the need for clarity in these processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>With respect to information on the retention period, the CNIL noted that the How are Google\'s collected information page is maintained has four categories: </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>Information retained until the user deleted it;</li><li>Information with a timeout;</li><li>Information retained until user\'s Google Account is deleted;</li><li>Information kept for long periods of time for specific reasons.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It noted, however, that as regards to the latter category, only very general explanations of the purpose of this retention are provided and no precise duration or the criteria used to determine that duration are indicated.&nbsp;This information is among those that must be issued to users pursuant to Article 13 (2) (a) of the Regulations.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Finally, if the company claims that multiple information tools are made available to users concomitantly and after the creation of their account, the restricted training notes that these methods do not make it possible to reach the requirements of transparency and transparency. information from articles 12 and 13 of the GDPR.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>First, the CNIL noted that the tools to which the company refers do contribute, to a certain extent, to the goal of transparency throughout the life of the account and the use of Google\'s services.&nbsp;However, it considered that they do not participate sufficiently in the information provided for in Article 13, which must be provided at the time data are obtained.&nbsp;As mentioned in the EDPS Transparency Guidelines, Article 13 specifies the information to be provided to data subjects from the start of the processing cycle.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>If any data other than those strictly necessary to create the account, are collected throughout the life of the account, such as browsing history or purchases, the time of its creation marks the entry of the user in the ecosystem of Google services, whose particularly massive and intrusive nature of processing has been recalled previously.&nbsp;This step marks the beginning of a multitude of treatment operations: collection, combination, analysis, etc.&nbsp;Therefore, since the process of creating the account is essential in the understanding of treatments and their impact and where the proposed user journey itself invites the person concerned to focus his attention at this stage, the information provided for in Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure at that time must.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Moreover, both the pop-up window appearing at the time of the creation of the account and the electronic message sent as soon as the account is created contain only a summary or very specific information on the processing implemented and can not allow to consier the prior information as sufficient.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In fact, the text of the pop-up window indicates <em>This Google Account is configured to include customisation features (such as recommendations and custom ads) that are based on the information stored in your account.&nbsp;The e-mail indicates the main features of the Google Account and the existence of control tools.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>With regard to the confidentiality check-up tool, this essentially allows the user to set up the collected information such as browsing history or visited places.&nbsp;Finally, the Dashboard consists of an information panel for each Google service overview of the use of the account holder.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Nevertheless, these confidentiality check-up and Dashboard tools can only be used, just like the e-mail mentioned above, after the account creation step, which is nevertheless essential for informing users as well as it has been said.&nbsp;In addition, although their existence and interest are brought to the attention of users, they imply an active and initiative of these.&nbsp;For these reasons, these tools do not allow to consider that sufficient information is provided for the application of Article 13 of the Regulations.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the light of all these elements, the CNIL committee considers that a breach of the transparency and information obligations as provided for in Articles 12 and 13 of the Regulation is characterised.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>5. Failure to provide a legal basis for the processing implemented</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 6 of the RGPD states that: 1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Processing&nbsp;shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the data subject has given consent to the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;is subject;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the&nbsp;controller;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(f)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;or by a&nbsp;third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>the processing is necessary to safeguard the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google was criticised for failing to validly collect the consent of individuals for targeted advertising.&nbsp;It was also considered that the company could not claim a legitimate interest for these processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In defence, Google specified that it relied solely on the consent for the targeted advertising.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 4 (11) of the above-mentioned Regulations specifies what consent means: <em>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;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 7 of the same Regulation provides the conditions that apply to it:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Where&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is based on consent, the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;shall be able to demonstrate that the data subject has consented to&nbsp;processing&nbsp;of his or her personal data.</em></li><li><em>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If the data subject\'s consent is given in the context of a written declaration which also concerns other matters, the request for consent shall be presented in a manner which is clearly distinguishable from the other matters, in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. Any part of such a declaration which constitutes an infringement of this Regulation shall not be binding.</em></li><li><em>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of&nbsp;processing based on consent before its withdrawal. Prior to giving consent, the data subject shall be informed thereof. It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.</em></li><li><em>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia , the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Firstly, Google said that the users\' consent is informed.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It believes that simple and clear information is presented to the user when creating an account and allow him to know how the company uses the data for customisation purposes.&nbsp;In particular, the Company refers to the summary entitled Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, the sections dedicated to the targeted advertisements contained in the Privacy Policy and the additional information message entitled Targeted Advertising in the Menu Options account creation setting.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Secondly, Google claimed that the user\'s consent is specific and unambiguous.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In particular, it stated that when setting up the account, the user has the option of making a choice regarding the display of targeted advertising .&nbsp;It considers that this possibility enables to express its consent to the use of its data independently of the other choices it may express with regard to the other purposes relating to the processing associated with the Google Account (eg YouTube search history).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It also considered that the procedures for obtaining consent for the purposes of targeted advertisements it sets up are in line with the recommendations of the CNIL of December 5, 2013 regarding cookies.&nbsp;In particular, it specifies that short information is available on the targeted ads followed by an \"I accept\" button (the Privacy Policy and the Terms of Use), preceded by a \"more options\" button that gives users the ability to disable multiple processing operations, including for targeted ad purposes.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It also argued that the solution presented in the public notice of the president of the CNIL No. MED-2018-023 of November 29, 2018 allows the user to consent to all ends via a button accept all.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Lastly, it considered that explicit consent for the processing of data for the purposes of targeted advertising, within the meaning of Art 9 (2) (a) of the GDPR, could not be required in the absence of sensitive data.<br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Regarding the informed consent&nbsp;and&nbsp;the&nbsp;spread&nbsp;of&nbsp;information</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the first place, the CNIL specified that this informed character must be examined in the light of the preceding developments concerning the lack of transparency and information of the users during the setting up of their account.&nbsp;It considered that the deficiencies previously identified necessarily have an impact on the information delivered to the users to ensure the informed nature of the consent.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL indicated that the EDPS Guideline of 10 April 2018 on Consent within the meaning of Regulation 2016/679 (WP250) states that the controller must ensure that consent is provided on the basis of information that enables the people concerned to easily identify who is responsible for the data and to understand what they are agreeing to.&nbsp;[It] must clearly describe the purpose of the data processing for which consent is sought.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>These guidelines also state that: In order for consent to be informed, it is necessary to inform the person concerned of certain crucial elements in making a choice.&nbsp;[..] At least the following information is required in order to obtain valid consent: </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the identity of the controller,</em></li><li><em>the purpose of each processing operation for which consent is sought,</em></li><li><em>the (types of) data collected and used,</em></li><li><em>the existence of the right to withdraw consent,</em></li><li><em>information on the use of data for automated decision-making [..] and</em></li><li><em>information on the possible risks associated with the transmission of data due to the lack of a decision on adequacy and appropriate safeguards [...].</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As it was able to identify under the breach of the transparency and information requirements, the CNIL considered that the information on targeted advertising is excessively disseminated in separate documents and is not, as such, easily accessible.&nbsp;In this respect, the CNIL refered to the preceding developments on the multiple actions that must be performed by a user who wishes to be made aware of available on the processing related to the targeted advertisement.<br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In addition, the CNIL also noted under the breach of transparency obligations, the information provided was not sufficiently clear and understandable in that it was difficult for a user to have a global understanding of the can do the object and their scope.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As an illustration, the information in the targeted Ad section, accessible from the Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions document through the More Options button, contains the following: Google can show you ads based on your activity in Google services (for example, in the search or on YouTube, as well as on Google\'s websites and partner applications).&nbsp;The CNIL noted that it is not possible to read, for example through clickable links, the services, sites and Google application to which the company refers.&nbsp;Therefore, the user was not able to understand the targeted advertising they are subject to, as well as their scope,&nbsp;even though these treatments nevertheless imply a plurality of services (for example: Google search, YouTube, Google home, Google maps, Playstore, Google photo, Google play, Google analytics, Google translation, Play books) and the processing of a large amount of data personal character.&nbsp;Users are not able to have a proper perception of the nature and volume of data that is collected.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of these elements, the CNIL committee considered that the users\' consent for targeted advertising was not sufficiently informed.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>With regard to the specific and unequivocal nature of the consent</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Recital 32 of the Regulation provides that: <em>Consent must be given by a clear positive act by which the data subject expresses in a free, specific, informed and unambiguous manner his agreement to the processing of his personal data [...].&nbsp;There can therefore be no consent in the event of silence, boxes checked by default or inactivity.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Recital 43 of the GDPR states that: <em>Consent is presumed not to have been freely given if separate consent can not be given to different personal data processing operations, although this is appropriate in the present case.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The above EDPS guidance on consent states that: <em>In order to comply with the specific nature of consent, the controller must ensure: [...] (ii) the detailed nature of consent requests [...] This means that data controller who seeks consent for various specific purposes should provide separate consent for each purpose so that users can give specific consent for specific purposes.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In this case, the CNIL noted that when the user creates an account, he has the possibility to modify some of the parameters associated with the account.&nbsp;To access these settings, the user must click the more options button, present before the Create Account button.&nbsp;the CNIL also noted that the personalisation settings of the account, which contain the choice for the display of personalised ads, are pre-checked by default, which means, unless otherwise indicated, the agreement of the user to processing of its data for the purposes mentioned (eg YouTube search history, display of personalised ads etc.).&nbsp;The user has the option to uncheck these parameters if he does not want these treatments to be implemented.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL observed that, at the time of the creation of the account, if the user does not click on the button more options to set his account, he must check the boxes <em>I accept the terms of use of Google and I agree that my information will be used as described above and detailed in the Privacy Policy</em>.&nbsp;Subsequently, he must press the <em>Create Account</em> button.&nbsp;A pop-up window appears, titled Simple confirmation that contains the following text This Google Account is set up to include customisation features (such as recommendations and custom ads), which are based on information stored in your account.&nbsp;To change your personalisation settings and the information stored in your account,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>If it does not click <em>More Options</em>, the user must select the <em>Confirm</em> button to complete the account creation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of the foregoing, the CNIL noted that if the user has the possibility to modify the configuration of the parameters of his account prior to its creation, a positive action on his part is necessary to access the possibilities of setting up the account.&nbsp;Thus, the user can completely create his account, and accept the related processing, including targeted advertising, without clicking <em>More options</em>.&nbsp;Therefore, the user\'s consent is not, in this case, validly collected to the extent that it is not given through a positive act by which the person consents specifically and distinctly to the processing of its data for purposes of targeted advertising compared to other purposes of treatment.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL also considered that the actions by which the user proceeds to the creation of his account - by ticking the boxes I accept the conditions of use of Google and I accept that my information is used as described below above and detailed in the privacy rules, and then selecting Create Account - can not be considered as the expression of a valid consent.&nbsp;The specific nature of the consent is not respected because the user, by these actions, accepts all the processing of personal data implemented by the company, including those of targeted advertising.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In addition, the CNIL noted that multiple technology processes are used by the company to combine and analyse data from different external services, applications or sources.&nbsp;They undeniably have a multiplying effect on the precise knowledge society has of its users.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As a result, the restricted formation believes that the company has operations of combinations with almost unlimited potential allowing a massive and intrusive treatment of the data of the users.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Given the scope of the data processing - in particular that of targeted advertising - and the number of people concerned, the CNIL underlined that the deficiencies previously retained are of a particular gravity.&nbsp;A lack of transparency regarding these wide-scope processing, as well as a lack of valid user consent to targeted advertising, constitute substantial infringements of the protection of their privacy and are contrary to legitimate aspirations of people who want to keep control of their data.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In this respect, strengthening the rights of individuals is one of the main thrusts of the Regulation.&nbsp;The European legislator recalls that The rapid evolution of technologies and globalization have created new challenges for the protection of personal data.&nbsp;The extent of collection and sharing of personal data has increased significantly.&nbsp;Technologies allow both private and public authorities to use personal data as never before in their business (...) Technologies have transformed both the economy and social relations (recital 6) .&nbsp;It stresses that these developments require a strong data protection framework (...) with rigorous enforcement of the rules, it is important to create the confidence that will enable the digital economy to develop in the internal market as a whole.&nbsp;Individuals should have control over their personal data.&nbsp;(recital 7).&nbsp;The European legislator regrets, finally, that Directive 95/46 / EC has not made it possible to avoid the widespread public perception that significant risks to the protection of individuals still exist, in particular as regards the online environment.&nbsp;(recital 9).&nbsp;whereas Directive 95/46 / EC has not prevented the widespread public perception that significant risks to the protection of individuals still exist, in particular with regard to the online environment.&nbsp;(recital 9).&nbsp;whereas Directive 95/46 / EC has not prevented the widespread public perception that significant risks to the protection of individuals still exist, in particular with regard to the online environment.&nbsp;(recital 9).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL thus considered, in view of the scale of the processing carried out and the compelling need for the users to keep control of their data, that they must be put in a position to be sufficiently informed of the scope of the data implemented and to validly consent to it, unless to deprive of basic confidence in the digital ecosystem.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Finally, the CNIL emphasised that shortcomings need to be put into perspective with regard to the company\'s business model, in particular the place of the users\' data processing for advertising purposes via the Android operating system.&nbsp;In view of the benefits it takes from these processing, Google must pay particular attention to its responsibility under the GDPR in their implementation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It follows from all the foregoing and the criteria which have been duly taken into account by the Committee, in view of the maximum amount incurred on the basis of 4% of the turnover indicated in point 2 of this Decision, that a financial penalty is justified up to 50 million euros, as well as a supplementary publicising sanction for the same reasons.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Account is also taken of the company\'s prominent place in the market for operating systems, the seriousness of the deficiencies and the interest this decision represents in informing the public in determining the duration of its publication.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>FOR THESE REASONS</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The restricted formation of the CNIL, after having deliberated, decides:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>to award Google LLC a monetary penalty in the amount of 50 (fifty) million euros;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>to send this decision to Google France Sarl for the execution of this decision;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google has already publicly announced it has appealed the case. It\'s of course important as this decision creates a precedent and establish the rules.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This is only  start.<a href=\"https://www.laquadrature.net/en/2019/01/21/first-sanction-against-google-following-our-collective-complaints/\"> La Quadrature du Net publishe</a>d : \"<em>Today, the CNIL </em><a href=\"https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros-against-google-llc\"><em>sanctioned</em></a><em> </em><strong><em>Google to a 50 million Euros fine</em></strong><em>, stating that the targeted advertising it engages in with its operating system Android is in breach of the GDPR, the new European regulation that came into effect on May 25. However, this sanction is really only the beginning of an answer to our complaint against Google, which denounced especially the targeted advertising imposed on Youtube, Gmail and Google Search in violation of our consent.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>In this respect, the CNIL explains the low amount of its sanction, considering Google’s nearly </em><a href=\"https://www.statista.com/statistics/266206/googles-annual-global-revenue/\"><em>110 billion US dollars</em></a><em> revenue, by the fact it limited the scope of its examination to “the data processing covered by the privacy policy presented to a user when creating their account on their Android mobile phone” (our translation). </em><sup><em>1</em></sup><em> We therefore expect the CNIL to quickly answer the rest of our complaint, which concerns Youtube, Gmail and Google Search, by issuing a fine commensurate with this company and the extent and the duration of the violation of ours rights (the maximum amount possible is 4 billion euros – 4% of global revenue –, which we hope for).</em>\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','Google Subject to the Biggest Fine Under GDPR','In what is today the biggest fine under the GDPR, the French Data Protection Authority CNIL investigated Google Android transparency in Data procession. The investigation was consecutive to two class actions filed on the 25th of May 2018. One by the Austrian NGO Non Of Your Business (NOYB), another by the French La Quadrature du Net (LQDN). This decision worth a close look.','inherit','closed','closed','','204-revision-v1','','','2019-01-30 20:10:23','2019-01-30 20:10:23','',204,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/01/30/204-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(249,5,'2019-01-30 20:28:11','2019-01-30 20:28:11','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In what is today the biggest fine under the GDPR, the French Data Protection Authority CNIL investigated Google Android transparency in Data processing. The investigation was consecutive to two class actions filed on the 25th of May 2018. One by the Austrian NGO Non Of Your Business (NOYB), another by the French La Quadrature du Net (LQDN). The complained have been partly answered as limited to the mobile Android Operating System. Still remain Youtube, Gmail and Google Search. This decision worth a close look up.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In its complaint, NOYB stated in particular that users of Android mobile devices are required to accept Google\'s privacy policy and general terms and conditions of service and that, failing such acceptance, they could not use their terminal.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The association LQDN complained that, regardless of the terminal used, Google does not have valid legal bases to implement the processing of personal data for purposes of behaviour analysis and advertising targeting.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>First  of all, the CNIL has shown high celerity to deal with the complaints.</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>On 1st June 2018, the CNIL submitted the complaints to its European counterparts via the European information exchange system with a view to the designation of a possible lead authority in accordance with the provisions of Article 56 of the GDPR.</li><li>20 September 2018 : Decision to investigate the Android\'s data procession is taken; </li><li>on 21 September, an online test was carried out  to verify the compliance of any processing relating to the use of the operating system Android for mobile equipment, including the creation of a Google account.</li><li>24 and 25th September, the report was notified to GOOGLE LLC companies.&nbsp;and Google France SARL</li><li>28 September 28,  the two companies also received the aforementioned complaints by courier of the CNIL</li><li>2nd Octobre, Mr. François PELLEGRINI was appointed as rapporteur according to the article 47 French Data Protection law of January 6, 1978</li><li>22nd October, the reporter notified Google LLC&nbsp;and Google France a report detailing shortcomings relating to sections 6, 12 and 13 of the GDPR. The report suggested&nbsp;a fine of 50 million euros to be made public.&nbsp;</li><li>7 November 2018, Google requested a hearing from the rapporteur, </li><li>13 November the request was rejected .</li><li> On the same date, the company also made a request for closed doors and postponement of the meeting, </li><li>15 November the request was rejected.</li><li>22nd November, Google filed a written comments on the report.&nbsp;</li><li>7th December, the rapporteur replied to these observations.</li><li>11th December, Google, which had fifteen days from receipt of the rapporteur\'s to reply, requested to postpone the meeting and extend the deadline to produce new observations.&nbsp; </li><li>13th December , the request was accepted to postpone for two weeks - until January 7 - the deadline for filing these observations and to postpone the meeting to January 15, 2019.</li><li>4th January, Google filed new observations in response to those of the rapporteur.</li><li>All observations were reiterated orally during the meeting of 15 January 2019.</li><li>21st January the decision was made public.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>On the decision itself, Google argued the French CNIL should not be the competent Data Protection Authority.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Based on Article 55 (1) of the GDPR states: Each supervisory authority shall be competent to exercise the tasks and powers vested in it in accordance with this Regulation in the territory of the Member State to which it belongs.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 56 (1) of the GDPR provides: Without prejudice to Article 55, the supervisory authority of the principal place of business or of the sole place of business of the controller or processor shall have jurisdiction to act as lead supervisory authority for cross-border processing by that controller or processor, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 60.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google argued that the CNIL could not be competent to conduct this procedure and that it should have transmitted the complaints received to the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) the lead authority to deal with these cross-border complaints in accordance with Art 60 GDPR.&nbsp;Google Ireland Limited being its main establishment in the EU for some of the its cross-border processing, including those objects of the complaints.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Therefore, initial discussions turned around the competent authority as defined by the main establishment of the company. Google arguing Ireland to be its main establishment, the CNIL responding the main Administrative establishment is not the criteria. Based on Article 4 (16) of the RGPD&nbsp;and Recital 36 GDPR, the main establishment to consider should be based on objective criteria and should imply the effective and real exercise of management activities determining the main decisions as to the purposes and means of processing trough stable arrangements. The CNIL added that the determination should be analysed in concreto, according to objective criteria. The main establishment could therefore not necessarily correspond to the main designated administrative establishment.  The CNIL based its position on the WP article 29 guidance WP244 of 5th April 2017 \"<em>the central administration is the place where the decisions are made on the purposes and means of processing.</em>\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Deciding otherwise would result on forum shopping, says the CNIL. Google Ireland had no decisional power. Google Ireland Limited is not mentioned in the Company\'s Privacy Policy dated May 25, 2018 as the entity where the main decisions about the purposes and means of the processing are made. covered by the privacy policy presented to the user when creating his account, during the configuration of his mobile phone on Android. In fact Google had not either named any DPO in Ireland who would be in charge of the processing of personal data that it could implement in the European Union.&nbsp;It further notes that the Android operating system is developed solely by Google LLC.. Additionally, the company itself had indicated, by mail dated December 3, 2018 addressed to the DPC, that the transfer of responsibility of Google LLC.&nbsp;to Google Ireland Limited on certain processing of personal data concerning European citizens would be finalized on 31 January 2019. It later specified to update its confidentiality rules which will come into effect on 22 January 2019. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google\'s argument that a reorganisation both operational and organizational was underway to make the company Google Ireland Limited the controller for certain processing of personal data concerning European nationals, was in my view a mistake only proving that at the time of the compliant Google Ireland had no decisional power.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It also considers that the definition of principal place of business should be distinguished from that of controller. Arguing that if the European legislator had intended that the concept of principal place of business should be interpreted as the place where decisions concerning \'would have expressly indicated simply ignored the text of the Recital 36.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the absence of a principal establishment allowing the identification of a lead authority, the one stop shop did not apply, and the CNIL was competent to initiate this procedure and to exercise all of its powers under Article 58 of the GDPR.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This is a very interesting analysis to determine the main establishment and the lead authority based on objective criteria and not a subjective decision favouring forum shopping. The decision dismisses the application of the GDPR’s one-stop-shop by holding that Google Ireland Limited is not Google’s main establishment in the EU. A rather strict interpretation of the concept of “main establishment”. With no main establishment in the EU, Google LLC could potentially be subject to enforcement by any supervisory authority in the EU where Google has an establishment, including France.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Once the CNIL confirmed its competence, it goes into a detailed analysis of the transparency requirement and legitimate basis of processing. here after, a free translation is offered:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>2- On the Procedure</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google argued on the validity of the complaints. &nbsp;The CNIL responded that the question of the admissibility of the complaints could not affect the legality of the proceedings, as it could self-refer itself based on the findings made by its services.&nbsp;The CNIL had therefore a mission to supervise the application of the regulation and to ensure compliance with it and that it has, for this purpose, the power to carry out investigations, in accordance with Arti 57 1. a) and h) of the RGPD. In fact, the two associations had been mandated to represent the complaints under article 80 of the RGPD.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The second argument claiming that the proceedings breached its right to a fair trial according to Art 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that the rapport to his observations were addressed in French, sounded rather difficult to succeed. The CNIL responded to that any notification of a penalty report had to be in French based on a legal obligation laid down in Article 111-1 of the Code of relations between the public and the administration which provides that use of the French language is prescribed in the exchanges between the public and the administration, in accordance with the provisions of the law n ° 94-665 of August 4, 1994 relating to the use of the French language. Google has an establishment on the French territory with several hundred employees. Google had in any event sufficient material and human resources enabling it to ensure a translation of the documents in English in sufficient time to become acquainted with it and to make observations within the deadline.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of these elements, the Restricted Training considers that the company had in any event sufficient material and human resources enabling it to ensure a translation of the documents in English in sufficient time to become acquainted with it and to make observations in the the deadline fixed for it.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This point explains why it is important that the Organisations\' representative speak the language of the DPA.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Also the refusal to extend the time limit he was opposed to produce his first observations and limited the time available to prepare his defence.&nbsp;It also considers that the adjournment of the meeting as well as the additional time it was finally granted to produce its second observations were still not sufficient.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>3.Over the scope of investigations</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google argued first of all that the rapporteur has confused the Android operating system and the Google account when they are separate services that implement different treatment activities. Then argued that the scope of control chosen by the CNIL - namely the creation of a Google account when setting up a new device using the Android operating system - is limited in that it only represents a case figure affecting 7% of users. Finally, it indicated that the findings were made on an older version of the Android operating system.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL did not disputed the existence of separate services, respectively related to the Android operating system and the Google Account, implementing different processing activities.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It observed, however, that the facts covered by the investigations corresponded to the scenario chosen to carry out the on-line check, namely the journey of a user and the documents to which he could have accessed during the initial configuration of his mobile equipment using the Android operating system.&nbsp;This path included the creation of an account.&nbsp;These facts therefore related to the treatments covered by the privacy policy presented to the user when creating an account during the setting up of their mobile phone on Android.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Then, adding that if it was true that the user actually had the choice to create an account and has the opportunity to use some of the services without having to create an account, however, when setting up an Android device, the ability to create a Google account or connect to an existing account naturally appeared at the beginning of the setting process, without specific action of the user.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In any case, under Article 11.I.2 of the Data Protection Act, the CNIL has a broad discretion as to the scope of the controls it may undertake.&nbsp;A specific control scenario, such as that used in this case, may make it possible to make findings reflecting a more comprehensive privacy policy. The scope of the processing of personal data that is performed&nbsp;is therefore is irrelevant so is the version of the Android operating system since it appears from the documents provided by Google that the user\'s journey is similar in the newer version .</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>4.On breach of transparency and information obligations</strong><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google infringed the GDPR for three main reasons: (1) <strong>lack of transparency </strong>(art. 5 GDPR); (2) <strong>insufficient information </strong>(art. 12 and 13 GDPR); and (3) <strong>invalid consent collection </strong>(art. 7 GDPR). The CNIL found the information Google provides when creating an account is not clearly accessible and therefore consent is not \'informed\' and explicitly obtained. Criticising pre-ticked boxes explicitly prohibited by the GDPR.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The <strong>obligations of transparency</strong> resulted on Article 12 (1) GDPR that provides: \"<em>1.The controller shall take appropriate measures to provide any information referred to in&nbsp;</em><a href=\"http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-13-information-to-be-provided-where-personal-data-are-collected-from-the-data-subject-GDPR.htm\"><em>Articles 13</em></a><em>&nbsp;and 14 and any communication under&nbsp;</em><a href=\"http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-15-right-of-access-by-the-data-subject-GDPR.htm\"><em>Articles 15</em></a><em>&nbsp;to 22 and 34 relating to processing to the data subject in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, in particular for any information addressed specifically to a child. The information shall be provided in writing, or by other means, including, where appropriate, by electronic means. When requested by the data subject, the information may be provided orally, provided that the identity of the data subject is proven by other means.\"&nbsp;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 13 (1) provides that:  <em>\"1.&nbsp;Where personal data relating to a data subject are collected from the data subject, the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;shall, at the time when personal data are obtained, provide the data subject with all of the following information:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the identity and the contact details of the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;and, where applicable, of the&nbsp;controller\'s&nbsp;representative;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the contact details of the data protection officer, where applicable;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the purposes of the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the&nbsp;processing;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; where the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is based on point (f) of Article 6(1), the legitimate interests pursued by the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;or by a&nbsp;third party;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;recipients or categories of&nbsp;recipients of the personal data, if any;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(f)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; where applicable, the fact that the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;intends to transfer personal data to a third country or&nbsp;international organisation&nbsp;and the existence or absence of an adequacy decision by the Commission, or in the case of transfers referred to in Article&nbsp;46 or 47, or the second subparagraph of Article&nbsp;49(1), reference to the appropriate or suitable safeguards and the means by which to obtain a copy of them or where they have been made available.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google firstly considered that the Confidentiality rules and conditions of use, accessible when creating an account, constitutes first-level information in accordance with the EDPS Guidelines on Transparency within the meaning of the EU Regulation 2016 / 679 (WP260) of 25 May 2018. It states that the document provides a good overview of the treatments implemented and that the mention of the legal basis of these treatments does not have to be included in this first level information.&nbsp;Information about how long the data is kept is in the section Exporting and Deleting the Information in the Privacy Policy.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google goes on to argue that the information of individuals must, in the light of sections 12 and 13 of the Regulations, be assessed on a global basis.&nbsp;In this regard, it states that the information it issues is also used, in addition to the documents entitled Confidentiality Rules and Conditions of Use, Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, through several other terms and conditions.&nbsp;Additional information messages may appear when creating an account under each of the privacy settings.&nbsp;In addition, an e-mail is sent to the user when an account is created, stating that: it can change the privacy and security settings of the Google account at any time,&nbsp;create reminders to check the privacy or security settings.&nbsp;This e-mail  contains clickable links to various setting tools.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>These other control tools, which are made available to the user after the creation of his account from the management interface of his account include for example a tool called check-up confidentiality that allows users to choose privacy settings that suit them, including custom ads, location history, web-based activity, and apps.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google also puts forward a Dashboard tool that allows users to have an overview of the use they make of the services offered by Google such as Gmail or Youtube.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Finally, Google reminds that when a user clicks Create Account without having disabled custom ad settings, an account creation confirmation pop-up appears to remind that the account is set to include customisation features.&nbsp;The company indicates that the user journey is thus configured to slow down the progression of users who would not have spontaneously made the choice of more privacy-friendly settings.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL takes note of the progress made in recent years by the company in its policy of informing users, in the sense of greater transparency and greater control over their data expected by them.&nbsp;For the reasons that follow, however, it considers that the requirements of the GDPR, the implementation of which must be assessed in the light of the concrete scope of the processing of personal data in question, are not respected.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Firstly, the CNIL recalls that pursuant to the provisions of Art 12 of the Regulation, information must be provided in an <strong>easily accessible way</strong>.&nbsp;This accessibility requirement is informed by the <strong>transparency guidelines</strong>, in which the EDPS considered that a key aspect of the transparency principle highlighted in these provisions is that the data subject should be able to advance what the scope and consequences of the processing encompass so as not to be caught off guard at a later stage as to how its personal data were used.&nbsp;[...] In particular, with regard to complex, technical or non-planned data processing,&nbsp;G29\'s position is that [...] controllers should <strong>separately and clearly define the main consequences of treatment</strong>: in other words, what will actually be the effect of the specific treatment described in a statement or opinion on the protection of the privacy for the data subject.&nbsp;The CNIL also recalls that the <strong>accessibility requirement </strong>of Article 12 is based in part on the ergonomic choices made by the controller.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In this case, the CNIL found that the general architecture of the information chosen by the Corporation does not meet the requirements of the Regulations.&nbsp;The information that must be disclosed to individuals pursuant to section 13 is <strong>excessively scattered in several documents</strong>: Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, displayed during the creation of the account, then Terms of Use and Rules of confidentiality which are accessible in a second time by means of clickable links appearing on the first document.&nbsp;These different documents include buttons and links that must be activated to learn additional information.&nbsp;Such an ergonomic choice leads to a fragmentation of information thus forcing the user to multiply the clicks necessary to access the different documents.&nbsp;The user must then carefully consult a large amount of information before he or she can identify the relevant paragraph (s).&nbsp;However, the work provided by the user does not stop there since it will still have to cross-check and compare the collected information in order to understand which data are collected according to the various settings that he may have chosen.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL noted that, given this architecture, some information is difficult to find. For example, with regard to targeted advertising, to know the information that is collected, a user must perform many actions and combine several documentary resources.&nbsp;As a first step, you should read the General Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, then click the More Options button and then the Read more link to display the Customise Ads page.&nbsp;He will thus have access to a first description of the treatment relating to the personalisation of the advertisement which proves to be incomplete.&nbsp;To complete the information relating to the data processed for this purpose,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Similarly, in terms of <strong>geolocation data processing</strong>, the CNIL noted that the same course devoid of any intuitive character is required from the user with regard to information relating to geolocation data.&nbsp;The user will have to complete the following steps: Review the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, click More Options, and then click the Learn more link to view the Location History page and view the displayed text. However, as this text is only a short description of the processing, the user will need to go to the Privacy Policy document and access the Information about your location to access the rest of the information.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the two cases described, <strong>five actions are necessary for the user to access the information</strong> relating to the targeted advertisements and s<strong>ix for the geolocation</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL stated that if the user wished to have <strong>information on the retention periods</strong> of his personal data, he must first consult the Privacy Policy found in the main document and then go to the section titled Export and delete the information and finally click on the hyperlink click here contained in a general paragraph on storage times.&nbsp;It is therefore only after four clicks that the user accesses this information.&nbsp;The Restricted Training further notes that the title chosen by the company for Exporting and Deleting Your Information does not easily allow the user to understand that this is a topic to access information about retention periods .&nbsp;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As a result of all these factors, there is an <strong>overall lack of accessibility</strong> of the information provided by the company in the context of the processing in question.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Secondly, the CNIL considered that the<strong> clear and comprehensible nature of the information provided</strong>, as required by Article 12 of the GDPR, <strong>must be assessed taking into account the nature of each treatment</strong> in question and its <strong>concrete impact on the persons concerned</strong>. concerned.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Beforehand, the CNIL considered it was essential to emphasise that the <strong>data processing</strong> implemented by the controller was <strong>particularly massive and intrusive</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The data Google collects <strong>comes from a wide variety of sources</strong>.&nbsp;This data is collected both from the use of the phone, the use of the company services, such as the Gmail email service or the Youtube video platform, but also from the data generated by the user activity when they visit third-party sites that use <strong>Google services, including Google Analytics cookies placed on these sites.</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As such, the Privacy Policy reveals that <strong>at least twenty services</strong> offered by the company are likely to be involved in the processing, which may concern data such as web browsing history, history from applications, data stored locally on the equipment (such as address books), geolocation of equipment, etc.&nbsp;Therefore, <strong>a lot of data is processed as part of these services via or in connection with the Android operating system</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The record shows that, in addition to data from external sources, the company treats <strong>at least three categories of data</strong>: </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><strong>data produced by the user</strong> (for example, their name, password, phone number, email address, payment method, content created, imported or received, such as writings, photos or videos );  </li><li><strong>data generated by its activities</strong> (for example, IP address, unique user credentials, mobile network data, data related to wireless networks and Bluetooth devices, timestamp of actions performed, data geolocation, the technical data of the devices used including data relating to the sensors (accelerometer, etc.), the videos viewed, the searches made, the browsing history, the purchases, the applications used, etc .;</li><li><strong>Derived or inferred data from data provided by the user or his activities</strong>.&nbsp;In this category, the Privacy Policy lists a number of purposes that can only be accomplished by generating data from the other two categories of data.&nbsp;Thus, the customisation of the ads that the company realises requires to infer the interests of users from their activity in order to offer them to advertisers.&nbsp;In the same way, the purposes of providing content, research and personalised recommendations require inferring new information from those declared, produced or generated by the activity of the user.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Moreover, if the very large number of processed data can characterise alone the massive and intrusive nature of the treatments performed, the very nature of some of the data described, such as geolocation data or content consulted, reinforces this finding.&nbsp;Considered in isolation, the <strong>collection of each of these data is likely to reveal with a high degree of precision many of the most intimate aspects of people\'s lives, including their lifestyle, their tastes, their contacts, their opinions or their trips</strong>.&nbsp;The result of the combination of these data greatly reinforces the <strong>massive and intrusive nature of the processing</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Consequently, it is in the light of the particular characteristics of these processing of personal data which have just been recalled that the characters are clear and understandable, within the meaning of Art 12 of the GDPR, of the information provided for in Art 13 of the Regulations, must be appreciated.&nbsp;The CNIL considered that these requirements were not respected in this case.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Specifically, the CNIL noted that the information provided by Google did not allow the users to understand sufficiently the particular consequences of the processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In fact, the purposes announced in the various documents are described as follows: offer personalised services in terms of content and advertisements, ensure the safety of products and services, provide and develop services, etc.&nbsp;.&nbsp;They are too generic in terms of the scope of the treatments implemented and their consequences.&nbsp;This is also the case when users are told too loosely: <em>The information we collect is used to improve the services offered to all our users.&nbsp;[...] The information we collect and how we use it depends on how you use our services and how you manage your privacy settings.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Therefore, the CNIL noted that the description of the aims pursued did not allow users to measure the extent of the treatments and the degree of intrusion into their private lives that they are likely to take away.&nbsp;It considered, in particular, that such information is not provided in a clear manner, nor at the first level of information provided to users through, in this case, the document entitled Confidentiality rules and conditions of use nor in the other levels of information proposed by the company.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL further noted that the description of the data collected, which could be of such a nature as to clarify the scope of these purposes and to prevent the user from being subsequently caught off guard as to the way in which his data were used and combined, is particularly imprecise and incomplete, both in the analysis of the first level of information and that of the other documents provided.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>For example, the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use document and the Privacy Policy document specify: <em>This may be more complex (...) information, such as the ads you find most useful, the people you care about. interest most on the web or YouTube videos that are likely to interest you.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of the foregoing, the CNIL believed that the user is not able, especially by being aware of the first level of information presented to him in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, to measure the scope of the main treatments on his private life.&nbsp;While it noted that exhaustive information, from the first level, would be counterproductive and does not respect the requirement of transparency, it considers that it should contain terms that would objectify the number and scope of implemented.&nbsp;It further considered that it would be possible, by other types of presentation methods adapted to data combining services,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The finding of lack of clarity and comprehensibility must also be made with regard to the mention of the legal basis of targeted advertising .&nbsp;In fact, the company first states in the Privacy Policy: <em>We ask you for permission to process your information for specific purposes, and you are free to revoke your consent at any time.&nbsp;For example, we ask you for permission to provide personalised services, such as ads.&nbsp;The legal basis chosen here therefore appears to be consent.&nbsp;</em>However, the company further adds it relies on the legitimate interest,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL stressed that if Google had indicated before that the only legal basis for the processing of the targeted advertisement was consent, the investigation shows that this clarification is not brought to the attention of the users.&nbsp;The formulations recalled above did not allow the latter to clearly measure the distinction between properly targeted advertising, based on the combination of multiple user data, which is based on the company\'s consent statement , other forms of targeting using for example the context of navigation, based on the legitimate interest.&nbsp;The CNIL stressed the particular importance of the need for clarity in these processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>With respect to information on the retention period, the CNIL noted that the How are Google\'s collected information page is maintained has four categories: </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>Information retained until the user deleted it;</li><li>Information with a timeout;</li><li>Information retained until user\'s Google Account is deleted;</li><li>Information kept for long periods of time for specific reasons.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It noted, however, that as regards to the latter category, only very general explanations of the purpose of this retention are provided and no precise duration or the criteria used to determine that duration are indicated.&nbsp;This information is among those that must be issued to users pursuant to Article 13 (2) (a) of the Regulations.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Finally, if the company claims that multiple information tools are made available to users concomitantly and after the creation of their account, the restricted training notes that these methods do not make it possible to reach the requirements of transparency and transparency. information from articles 12 and 13 of the GDPR.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>First, the CNIL noted that the tools to which the company refers do contribute, to a certain extent, to the goal of transparency throughout the life of the account and the use of Google\'s services.&nbsp;However, it considered that they do not participate sufficiently in the information provided for in Article 13, which must be provided at the time data are obtained.&nbsp;As mentioned in the EDPS Transparency Guidelines, Article 13 specifies the information to be provided to data subjects from the start of the processing cycle.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>If any data other than those strictly necessary to create the account, are collected throughout the life of the account, such as browsing history or purchases, the time of its creation marks the entry of the user in the ecosystem of Google services, whose particularly massive and intrusive nature of processing has been recalled previously.&nbsp;This step marks the beginning of a multitude of treatment operations: collection, combination, analysis, etc.&nbsp;Therefore, since the process of creating the account is essential in the understanding of treatments and their impact and where the proposed user journey itself invites the person concerned to focus his attention at this stage, the information provided for in Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure at that time must.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Moreover, both the pop-up window appearing at the time of the creation of the account and the electronic message sent as soon as the account is created contain only a summary or very specific information on the processing implemented and can not allow to consier the prior information as sufficient.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In fact, the text of the pop-up window indicates <em>This Google Account is configured to include customisation features (such as recommendations and custom ads) that are based on the information stored in your account.&nbsp;The e-mail indicates the main features of the Google Account and the existence of control tools.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>With regard to the confidentiality check-up tool, this essentially allows the user to set up the collected information such as browsing history or visited places.&nbsp;Finally, the Dashboard consists of an information panel for each Google service overview of the use of the account holder.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Nevertheless, these confidentiality check-up and Dashboard tools can only be used, just like the e-mail mentioned above, after the account creation step, which is nevertheless essential for informing users as well as it has been said.&nbsp;In addition, although their existence and interest are brought to the attention of users, they imply an active and initiative of these.&nbsp;For these reasons, these tools do not allow to consider that sufficient information is provided for the application of Article 13 of the Regulations.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the light of all these elements, the CNIL committee considers that a breach of the transparency and information obligations as provided for in Articles 12 and 13 of the Regulation is characterised.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>5. Failure to provide a legal basis for the processing implemented</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 6 of the RGPD states that: 1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Processing&nbsp;shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the data subject has given consent to the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;is subject;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the&nbsp;controller;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(f)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;or by a&nbsp;third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>the processing is necessary to safeguard the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google was criticised for failing to validly collect the consent of individuals for targeted advertising.&nbsp;It was also considered that the company could not claim a legitimate interest for these processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In defence, Google specified that it relied solely on the consent for the targeted advertising.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 4 (11) of the above-mentioned Regulations specifies what consent means: <em>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;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 7 of the same Regulation provides the conditions that apply to it:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Where&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is based on consent, the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;shall be able to demonstrate that the data subject has consented to&nbsp;processing&nbsp;of his or her personal data.</em></li><li><em>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If the data subject\'s consent is given in the context of a written declaration which also concerns other matters, the request for consent shall be presented in a manner which is clearly distinguishable from the other matters, in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. Any part of such a declaration which constitutes an infringement of this Regulation shall not be binding.</em></li><li><em>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of&nbsp;processing based on consent before its withdrawal. Prior to giving consent, the data subject shall be informed thereof. It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.</em></li><li><em>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia , the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Firstly, Google said that the users\' consent is informed.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It believes that simple and clear information is presented to the user when creating an account and allow him to know how the company uses the data for customisation purposes.&nbsp;In particular, the Company refers to the summary entitled Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, the sections dedicated to the targeted advertisements contained in the Privacy Policy and the additional information message entitled Targeted Advertising in the Menu Options account creation setting.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Secondly, Google claimed that the user\'s consent is specific and unambiguous.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In particular, it stated that when setting up the account, the user has the option of making a choice regarding the display of targeted advertising .&nbsp;It considers that this possibility enables to express its consent to the use of its data independently of the other choices it may express with regard to the other purposes relating to the processing associated with the Google Account (eg YouTube search history).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It also considered that the procedures for obtaining consent for the purposes of targeted advertisements it sets up are in line with the recommendations of the CNIL of December 5, 2013 regarding cookies.&nbsp;In particular, it specifies that short information is available on the targeted ads followed by an \"I accept\" button (the Privacy Policy and the Terms of Use), preceded by a \"more options\" button that gives users the ability to disable multiple processing operations, including for targeted ad purposes.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It also argued that the solution presented in the public notice of the president of the CNIL No. MED-2018-023 of November 29, 2018 allows the user to consent to all ends via a button accept all.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Lastly, it considered that explicit consent for the processing of data for the purposes of targeted advertising, within the meaning of Art 9 (2) (a) of the GDPR, could not be required in the absence of sensitive data.<br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Regarding the informed consent&nbsp;and&nbsp;the&nbsp;spread&nbsp;of&nbsp;information</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the first place, the CNIL specified that this informed character must be examined in the light of the preceding developments concerning the lack of transparency and information of the users during the setting up of their account.&nbsp;It considered that the deficiencies previously identified necessarily have an impact on the information delivered to the users to ensure the informed nature of the consent.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL indicated that the EDPS Guideline of 10 April 2018 on Consent within the meaning of Regulation 2016/679 (WP250) states that the controller must ensure that consent is provided on the basis of information that enables the people concerned to easily identify who is responsible for the data and to understand what they are agreeing to.&nbsp;[It] must clearly describe the purpose of the data processing for which consent is sought.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>These guidelines also state that: In order for consent to be informed, it is necessary to inform the person concerned of certain crucial elements in making a choice.&nbsp;[..] At least the following information is required in order to obtain valid consent: </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the identity of the controller,</em></li><li><em>the purpose of each processing operation for which consent is sought,</em></li><li><em>the (types of) data collected and used,</em></li><li><em>the existence of the right to withdraw consent,</em></li><li><em>information on the use of data for automated decision-making [..] and</em></li><li><em>information on the possible risks associated with the transmission of data due to the lack of a decision on adequacy and appropriate safeguards [...].</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As it was able to identify under the breach of the transparency and information requirements, the CNIL considered that the information on targeted advertising is excessively disseminated in separate documents and is not, as such, easily accessible.&nbsp;In this respect, the CNIL refered to the preceding developments on the multiple actions that must be performed by a user who wishes to be made aware of available on the processing related to the targeted advertisement.<br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In addition, the CNIL also noted under the breach of transparency obligations, the information provided was not sufficiently clear and understandable in that it was difficult for a user to have a global understanding of the can do the object and their scope.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As an illustration, the information in the targeted Ad section, accessible from the Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions document through the More Options button, contains the following: Google can show you ads based on your activity in Google services (for example, in the search or on YouTube, as well as on Google\'s websites and partner applications).&nbsp;The CNIL noted that it is not possible to read, for example through clickable links, the services, sites and Google application to which the company refers.&nbsp;Therefore, the user was not able to understand the targeted advertising they are subject to, as well as their scope,&nbsp;even though these treatments nevertheless imply a plurality of services (for example: Google search, YouTube, Google home, Google maps, Playstore, Google photo, Google play, Google analytics, Google translation, Play books) and the processing of a large amount of data personal character.&nbsp;Users are not able to have a proper perception of the nature and volume of data that is collected.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of these elements, the CNIL committee considered that the users\' consent for targeted advertising was not sufficiently informed.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>With regard to the specific and unequivocal nature of the consent</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Recital 32 of the Regulation provides that: <em>Consent must be given by a clear positive act by which the data subject expresses in a free, specific, informed and unambiguous manner his agreement to the processing of his personal data [...].&nbsp;There can therefore be no consent in the event of silence, boxes checked by default or inactivity.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Recital 43 of the GDPR states that: <em>Consent is presumed not to have been freely given if separate consent can not be given to different personal data processing operations, although this is appropriate in the present case.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The above EDPS guidance on consent states that: <em>In order to comply with the specific nature of consent, the controller must ensure: [...] (ii) the detailed nature of consent requests [...] This means that data controller who seeks consent for various specific purposes should provide separate consent for each purpose so that users can give specific consent for specific purposes.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In this case, the CNIL noted that when the user creates an account, he has the possibility to modify some of the parameters associated with the account.&nbsp;To access these settings, the user must click the more options button, present before the Create Account button.&nbsp;the CNIL also noted that the personalisation settings of the account, which contain the choice for the display of personalised ads, are pre-checked by default, which means, unless otherwise indicated, the agreement of the user to processing of its data for the purposes mentioned (eg YouTube search history, display of personalised ads etc.).&nbsp;The user has the option to uncheck these parameters if he does not want these treatments to be implemented.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL observed that, at the time of the creation of the account, if the user does not click on the button more options to set his account, he must check the boxes <em>I accept the terms of use of Google and I agree that my information will be used as described above and detailed in the Privacy Policy</em>.&nbsp;Subsequently, he must press the <em>Create Account</em> button.&nbsp;A pop-up window appears, titled Simple confirmation that contains the following text This Google Account is set up to include customisation features (such as recommendations and custom ads), which are based on information stored in your account.&nbsp;To change your personalisation settings and the information stored in your account,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>If it does not click <em>More Options</em>, the user must select the <em>Confirm</em> button to complete the account creation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of the foregoing, the CNIL noted that if the user has the possibility to modify the configuration of the parameters of his account prior to its creation, a positive action on his part is necessary to access the possibilities of setting up the account.&nbsp;Thus, the user can completely create his account, and accept the related processing, including targeted advertising, without clicking <em>More options</em>.&nbsp;Therefore, the user\'s consent is not, in this case, validly collected to the extent that it is not given through a positive act by which the person consents specifically and distinctly to the processing of its data for purposes of targeted advertising compared to other purposes of treatment.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL also considered that the actions by which the user proceeds to the creation of his account - by ticking the boxes I accept the conditions of use of Google and I accept that my information is used as described below above and detailed in the privacy rules, and then selecting Create Account - can not be considered as the expression of a valid consent.&nbsp;The specific nature of the consent is not respected because the user, by these actions, accepts all the processing of personal data implemented by the company, including those of targeted advertising.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In addition, the CNIL noted that multiple technology processes are used by the company to combine and analyse data from different external services, applications or sources.&nbsp;They undeniably have a multiplying effect on the precise knowledge society has of its users.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As a result, the restricted formation believes that the company has operations of combinations with almost unlimited potential allowing a massive and intrusive treatment of the data of the users.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Given the scope of the data processing - in particular that of targeted advertising - and the number of people concerned, the CNIL underlined that the deficiencies previously retained are of a particular gravity.&nbsp;A lack of transparency regarding these wide-scope processing, as well as a lack of valid user consent to targeted advertising, constitute substantial infringements of the protection of their privacy and are contrary to legitimate aspirations of people who want to keep control of their data.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In this respect, strengthening the rights of individuals is one of the main thrusts of the Regulation.&nbsp;The European legislator recalls that The rapid evolution of technologies and globalization have created new challenges for the protection of personal data.&nbsp;The extent of collection and sharing of personal data has increased significantly.&nbsp;Technologies allow both private and public authorities to use personal data as never before in their business (...) Technologies have transformed both the economy and social relations (recital 6) .&nbsp;It stresses that these developments require a strong data protection framework (...) with rigorous enforcement of the rules, it is important to create the confidence that will enable the digital economy to develop in the internal market as a whole.&nbsp;Individuals should have control over their personal data.&nbsp;(recital 7).&nbsp;The European legislator regrets, finally, that Directive 95/46 / EC has not made it possible to avoid the widespread public perception that significant risks to the protection of individuals still exist, in particular as regards the online environment.&nbsp;(recital 9).&nbsp;whereas Directive 95/46 / EC has not prevented the widespread public perception that significant risks to the protection of individuals still exist, in particular with regard to the online environment.&nbsp;(recital 9).&nbsp;whereas Directive 95/46 / EC has not prevented the widespread public perception that significant risks to the protection of individuals still exist, in particular with regard to the online environment.&nbsp;(recital 9).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL thus considered, in view of the scale of the processing carried out and the compelling need for the users to keep control of their data, that they must be put in a position to be sufficiently informed of the scope of the data implemented and to validly consent to it, unless to deprive of basic confidence in the digital ecosystem.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Finally, the CNIL emphasised that shortcomings need to be put into perspective with regard to the company\'s business model, in particular the place of the users\' data processing for advertising purposes via the Android operating system.&nbsp;In view of the benefits it takes from these processing, Google must pay particular attention to its responsibility under the GDPR in their implementation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It follows from all the foregoing and the criteria which have been duly taken into account by the Committee, in view of the maximum amount incurred on the basis of 4% of the turnover indicated in point 2 of this Decision, that a financial penalty is justified up to 50 million euros, as well as a supplementary publicising sanction for the same reasons.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Account is also taken of the company\'s prominent place in the market for operating systems, the seriousness of the deficiencies and the interest this decision represents in informing the public in determining the duration of its publication.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>FOR THESE REASONS</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The restricted formation of the CNIL, after having deliberated, decides:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>to award Google LLC a monetary penalty in the amount of 50 (fifty) million euros;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>to send this decision to Google France Sarl for the execution of this decision;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google has already publicly announced it has appealed the case. It\'s of course important as this decision creates a precedent and establish the rules.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This is only  start.<a href=\"https://www.laquadrature.net/en/2019/01/21/first-sanction-against-google-following-our-collective-complaints/\"> La Quadrature du Net publishe</a>d : \"<em>Today, the CNIL </em><a href=\"https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros-against-google-llc\"><em>sanctioned</em></a><em> </em><strong><em>Google to a 50 million Euros fine</em></strong><em>, stating that the targeted advertising it engages in with its operating system Android is in breach of the GDPR, the new European regulation that came into effect on May 25. However, this sanction is really only the beginning of an answer to our complaint against Google, which denounced especially the targeted advertising imposed on Youtube, Gmail and Google Search in violation of our consent.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>In this respect, the CNIL explains the low amount of its sanction, considering Google’s nearly </em><a href=\"https://www.statista.com/statistics/266206/googles-annual-global-revenue/\"><em>110 billion US dollars</em></a><em> revenue, by the fact it limited the scope of its examination to “the data processing covered by the privacy policy presented to a user when creating their account on their Android mobile phone” (our translation). </em><sup><em>1</em></sup><em> We therefore expect the CNIL to quickly answer the rest of our complaint, which concerns Youtube, Gmail and Google Search, by issuing a fine commensurate with this company and the extent and the duration of the violation of ours rights (the maximum amount possible is 4 billion euros – 4% of global revenue –, which we hope for).</em>\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','Google Subject to the Biggest Fine Under GDPR','In what is today the biggest fine under the GDPR, the French Data Protection Authority CNIL investigated Google Android transparency in Data procession. The investigation was consecutive to two class actions filed on the 25th of May 2018. One by the Austrian NGO Non Of Your Business (NOYB), another by the French La Quadrature du Net (LQDN). This decision worth a close look.','inherit','closed','closed','','204-revision-v1','','','2019-01-30 20:28:11','2019-01-30 20:28:11','',204,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/01/30/204-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(251,5,'2019-01-31 00:30:25','2019-01-31 00:30:25','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In what is today the biggest fine under the GDPR, the French Data Protection Authority CNIL investigated Google Android transparency in Data processing. The investigation was consecutive to two class actions filed on the 25th of May 2018. One by the Austrian NGO Non Of Your Business (NOYB), another by the French La Quadrature du Net (LQDN). The complained have been partly answered as limited to the mobile Android Operating System. Still remain Youtube, Gmail and Google Search. This decision worth a close look up.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In its complaint, NOYB stated in particular that users of Android mobile devices are required to accept Google\'s privacy policy and general terms and conditions of service and that, failing such acceptance, they could not use their terminal.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The association LQDN complained that, regardless of the terminal used, Google does not have valid legal bases to implement the processing of personal data for purposes of behaviour analysis and advertising targeting.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>First  of all, the CNIL has shown high celerity to deal with the complaints.</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>On 1st June 2018, the CNIL submitted the complaints to its European counterparts via the European information exchange system with a view to the designation of a possible lead authority in accordance with the provisions of Article 56 of the GDPR.</li><li>20 September 2018 : Decision to investigate the Android\'s data procession is taken; </li><li>on 21 September, an online test was carried out  to verify the compliance of any processing relating to the use of the operating system Android for mobile equipment, including the creation of a Google account.</li><li>24 and 25th September, the report was notified to GOOGLE LLC companies.&nbsp;and Google France SARL</li><li>28 September 28,  the two companies also received the aforementioned complaints by courier of the CNIL</li><li>2nd Octobre, Mr. François PELLEGRINI was appointed as rapporteur according to the article 47 French Data Protection law of January 6, 1978</li><li>22nd October, the reporter notified Google LLC&nbsp;and Google France a report detailing shortcomings relating to sections 6, 12 and 13 of the GDPR. The report suggested&nbsp;a fine of 50 million euros to be made public.&nbsp;</li><li>7 November 2018, Google requested a hearing from the rapporteur, </li><li>13 November the request was rejected .</li><li> On the same date, the company also made a request for closed doors and postponement of the meeting, </li><li>15 November the request was rejected.</li><li>22nd November, Google filed a written comments on the report.&nbsp;</li><li>7th December, the rapporteur replied to these observations.</li><li>11th December, Google, which had fifteen days from receipt of the rapporteur\'s to reply, requested to postpone the meeting and extend the deadline to produce new observations.&nbsp; </li><li>13th December , the request was accepted to postpone for two weeks - until January 7 - the deadline for filing these observations and to postpone the meeting to January 15, 2019.</li><li>4th January, Google filed new observations in response to those of the rapporteur.</li><li>All observations were reiterated orally during the meeting of 15 January 2019.</li><li>21st January the decision was made public.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>On the decision itself, Google argued the French CNIL should not be the competent Data Protection Authority.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Based on Article 55 (1) of the GDPR states: Each supervisory authority shall be competent to exercise the tasks and powers vested in it in accordance with this Regulation in the territory of the Member State to which it belongs.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 56 (1) of the GDPR provides: Without prejudice to Article 55, the supervisory authority of the principal place of business or of the sole place of business of the controller or processor shall have jurisdiction to act as lead supervisory authority for cross-border processing by that controller or processor, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 60.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google argued that the CNIL could not be competent to conduct this procedure and that it should have transmitted the complaints received to the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) the lead authority to deal with these cross-border complaints in accordance with Art 60 GDPR.&nbsp;Google Ireland Limited being its main establishment in the EU for some of the its cross-border processing, including those objects of the complaints.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Therefore, initial discussions turned around the competent authority as defined by the main establishment of the company. Google arguing Ireland to be its main establishment, the CNIL responding the main Administrative establishment is not the criteria. Based on Article 4 (16) of the RGPD&nbsp;and Recital 36 GDPR, the main establishment to consider should be based on objective criteria and should imply the effective and real exercise of management activities determining the main decisions as to the purposes and means of processing trough stable arrangements. The CNIL added that the determination should be analysed in concreto, according to objective criteria. The main establishment could therefore not necessarily correspond to the main designated administrative establishment.  The CNIL based its position on the WP article 29 guidance WP244 of 5th April 2017 \"<em>the central administration is the place where the decisions are made on the purposes and means of processing.</em>\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Deciding otherwise would result on forum shopping, says the CNIL. Google Ireland had no decisional power. Google Ireland Limited is not mentioned in the Company\'s Privacy Policy dated May 25, 2018 as the entity where the main decisions about the purposes and means of the processing are made. covered by the privacy policy presented to the user when creating his account, during the configuration of his mobile phone on Android. In fact Google had not either named any DPO in Ireland who would be in charge of the processing of personal data that it could implement in the European Union.&nbsp;It further notes that the Android operating system is developed solely by Google LLC.. Additionally, the company itself had indicated, by mail dated December 3, 2018 addressed to the DPC, that the transfer of responsibility of Google LLC.&nbsp;to Google Ireland Limited on certain processing of personal data concerning European citizens would be finalized on 31 January 2019. It later specified to update its confidentiality rules which will come into effect on 22 January 2019. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google\'s argument that a reorganisation both operational and organizational was underway to make the company Google Ireland Limited the controller for certain processing of personal data concerning European nationals, was in my view a mistake only proving that at the time of the compliant Google Ireland had no decisional power.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It also considers that the definition of principal place of business should be distinguished from that of controller. Arguing that if the European legislator had intended that the concept of principal place of business should be interpreted as the place where decisions concerning \'would have expressly indicated simply ignored the text of the Recital 36.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the absence of a principal establishment allowing the identification of a lead authority, the one stop shop did not apply, and the CNIL was competent to initiate this procedure and to exercise all of its powers under Article 58 of the GDPR.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This is a very interesting analysis to determine the main establishment and the lead authority based on objective criteria and not a subjective decision favouring forum shopping. The decision dismisses the application of the GDPR’s one-stop-shop by holding that Google Ireland Limited is not Google’s main establishment in the EU. A rather strict interpretation of the concept of “main establishment”. With no main establishment in the EU, Google LLC could potentially be subject to enforcement by any supervisory authority in the EU where Google has an establishment, including France.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Once the CNIL confirmed its competence, it goes into a detailed analysis of the transparency requirement and legitimate basis of processing. here after, a free translation is offered:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>2- On the Procedure</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google argued on the validity of the complaints. &nbsp;The CNIL responded that the question of the admissibility of the complaints could not affect the legality of the proceedings, as it could self-refer itself based on the findings made by its services.&nbsp;The CNIL had therefore a mission to supervise the application of the regulation and to ensure compliance with it and that it has, for this purpose, the power to carry out investigations, in accordance with Arti 57 1. a) and h) of the RGPD. In fact, the two associations had been mandated to represent the complaints under article 80 of the RGPD.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The second argument claiming that the proceedings breached its right to a fair trial according to Art 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that the rapport to his observations were addressed in French, sounded rather difficult to succeed. The CNIL responded to that any notification of a penalty report had to be in French based on a legal obligation laid down in Article 111-1 of the Code of relations between the public and the administration which provides that use of the French language is prescribed in the exchanges between the public and the administration, in accordance with the provisions of the law n ° 94-665 of August 4, 1994 relating to the use of the French language. Google has an establishment on the French territory with several hundred employees. Google had in any event sufficient material and human resources enabling it to ensure a translation of the documents in English in sufficient time to become acquainted with it and to make observations within the deadline.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of these elements, the Restricted Training considers that the company had in any event sufficient material and human resources enabling it to ensure a translation of the documents in English in sufficient time to become acquainted with it and to make observations in the the deadline fixed for it.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This point explains why it is important that the Organisations\' representative speak the language of the DPA.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Also the refusal to extend the time limit he was opposed to produce his first observations and limited the time available to prepare his defence.&nbsp;It also considers that the adjournment of the meeting as well as the additional time it was finally granted to produce its second observations were still not sufficient.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>3.Over the scope of investigations</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google argued first of all that the rapporteur has confused the Android operating system and the Google account when they are separate services that implement different treatment activities. Then argued that the scope of control chosen by the CNIL - namely the creation of a Google account when setting up a new device using the Android operating system - is limited in that it only represents a case figure affecting 7% of users. Finally, it indicated that the findings were made on an older version of the Android operating system.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL did not disputed the existence of separate services, respectively related to the Android operating system and the Google Account, implementing different processing activities.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It observed, however, that the facts covered by the investigations corresponded to the scenario chosen to carry out the on-line check, namely the journey of a user and the documents to which he could have accessed during the initial configuration of his mobile equipment using the Android operating system.&nbsp;This path included the creation of an account.&nbsp;These facts therefore related to the treatments covered by the privacy policy presented to the user when creating an account during the setting up of their mobile phone on Android.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Then, adding that if it was true that the user actually had the choice to create an account and has the opportunity to use some of the services without having to create an account, however, when setting up an Android device, the ability to create a Google account or connect to an existing account naturally appeared at the beginning of the setting process, without specific action of the user.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In any case, under Article 11.I.2 of the Data Protection Act, the CNIL has a broad discretion as to the scope of the controls it may undertake.&nbsp;A specific control scenario, such as that used in this case, may make it possible to make findings reflecting a more comprehensive privacy policy. The scope of the processing of personal data that is performed&nbsp;is therefore is irrelevant so is the version of the Android operating system since it appears from the documents provided by Google that the user\'s journey is similar in the newer version .</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>4.On breach of transparency and information obligations</strong><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google infringed the GDPR for three main reasons: (1) <strong>lack of transparency </strong>(art. 5 GDPR); (2) <strong>insufficient information </strong>(art. 12 and 13 GDPR); and (3) <strong>invalid consent collection or lawfulness basis </strong>(art. 7 GDPR). The CNIL found the information Google provides when creating an account is not clearly accessible and therefore consent is not \'informed\' and explicitly obtained. Criticising pre-ticked boxes explicitly prohibited by the GDPR.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The <strong>obligations of transparency</strong> resulted on Article 12 (1) GDPR that provides: \"<em>1.The controller shall take appropriate measures to provide any information referred to in&nbsp;</em><a href=\"http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-13-information-to-be-provided-where-personal-data-are-collected-from-the-data-subject-GDPR.htm\"><em>Articles 13</em></a><em>&nbsp;and 14 and any communication under&nbsp;</em><a href=\"http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-15-right-of-access-by-the-data-subject-GDPR.htm\"><em>Articles 15</em></a><em>&nbsp;to 22 and 34 relating to processing to the data subject in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, in particular for any information addressed specifically to a child. The information shall be provided in writing, or by other means, including, where appropriate, by electronic means. When requested by the data subject, the information may be provided orally, provided that the identity of the data subject is proven by other means.\"&nbsp;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 13 (1) provides that:  <em>\"1.&nbsp;Where personal data relating to a data subject are collected from the data subject, the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;shall, at the time when personal data are obtained, provide the data subject with all of the following information:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the identity and the contact details of the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;and, where applicable, of the&nbsp;controller\'s&nbsp;representative;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the contact details of the data protection officer, where applicable;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the purposes of the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the&nbsp;processing;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; where the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is based on point (f) of Article 6(1), the legitimate interests pursued by the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;or by a&nbsp;third party;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;recipients or categories of&nbsp;recipients of the personal data, if any;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(f)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; where applicable, the fact that the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;intends to transfer personal data to a third country or&nbsp;international organisation&nbsp;and the existence or absence of an adequacy decision by the Commission, or in the case of transfers referred to in Article&nbsp;46 or 47, or the second subparagraph of Article&nbsp;49(1), reference to the appropriate or suitable safeguards and the means by which to obtain a copy of them or where they have been made available.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google firstly considered that the Confidentiality rules and conditions of use, accessible when creating an account, constitutes first-level information in accordance with the EDPS Guidelines on Transparency within the meaning of the EU Regulation 2016 / 679 (WP260) of 25 May 2018. It states that the document provides a good overview of the treatments implemented and that the mention of the legal basis of these treatments does not have to be included in this first level information.&nbsp;Information about how long the data is kept is in the section Exporting and Deleting the Information in the Privacy Policy.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google goes on to argue that the information of individuals must, in the light of sections 12 and 13 of the Regulations, be assessed on a global basis.&nbsp;In this regard, it states that the information it issues is also used, in addition to the documents entitled Confidentiality Rules and Conditions of Use, Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, through several other terms and conditions.&nbsp;Additional information messages may appear when creating an account under each of the privacy settings.&nbsp;In addition, an e-mail is sent to the user when an account is created, stating that: it can change the privacy and security settings of the Google account at any time,&nbsp;create reminders to check the privacy or security settings.&nbsp;This e-mail  contains clickable links to various setting tools.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>These other control tools, which are made available to the user after the creation of his account from the management interface of his account include for example a tool called check-up confidentiality that allows users to choose privacy settings that suit them, including custom ads, location history, web-based activity, and apps.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google also puts forward a Dashboard tool that allows users to have an overview of the use they make of the services offered by Google such as Gmail or Youtube.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Finally, Google reminds that when a user clicks Create Account without having disabled custom ad settings, an account creation confirmation pop-up appears to remind that the account is set to include customisation features.&nbsp;The company indicates that the user journey is thus configured to slow down the progression of users who would not have spontaneously made the choice of more privacy-friendly settings.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL takes note of the progress made in recent years by the company in its policy of informing users, in the sense of greater transparency and greater control over their data expected by them.&nbsp;For the reasons that follow, however, it considers that the requirements of the GDPR, the implementation of which must be assessed in the light of the concrete scope of the processing of personal data in question, are not respected.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Firstly, the CNIL recalls that pursuant to the provisions of Art 12 of the Regulation, information must be provided in an <strong>easily accessible way</strong>.&nbsp;This accessibility requirement is informed by the <strong>transparency guidelines</strong>, in which the EDPS considered that a key aspect of the transparency principle highlighted in these provisions is that the data subject should be able to advance what the scope and consequences of the processing encompass so as not to be caught off guard at a later stage as to how its personal data were used.&nbsp;[...] In particular, with regard to complex, technical or non-planned data processing,&nbsp;G29\'s position is that [...] controllers should <strong>separately and clearly define the main consequences of treatment</strong>: in other words, what will actually be the effect of the specific treatment described in a statement or opinion on the protection of the privacy for the data subject.&nbsp;The CNIL also recalls that the <strong>accessibility requirement </strong>of Article 12 is based in part on the ergonomic choices made by the controller.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In this case, the CNIL found that the general architecture of the information chosen by the Corporation does not meet the requirements of the Regulations.&nbsp;The information that must be disclosed to individuals pursuant to section 13 is <strong>excessively scattered in several documents</strong>: Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, displayed during the creation of the account, then Terms of Use and Rules of confidentiality which are accessible in a second time by means of clickable links appearing on the first document.&nbsp;These different documents include buttons and links that must be activated to learn additional information.&nbsp;Such an ergonomic choice leads to a fragmentation of information thus forcing the user to multiply the clicks necessary to access the different documents.&nbsp;The user must then carefully consult a large amount of information before he or she can identify the relevant paragraph (s).&nbsp;However, the work provided by the user does not stop there since it will still have to cross-check and compare the collected information in order to understand which data are collected according to the various settings that he may have chosen.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL noted that, given this architecture, some information is difficult to find. For example, with regard to targeted advertising, to know the information that is collected, a user must perform many actions and combine several documentary resources.&nbsp;As a first step, you should read the General Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, then click the More Options button and then the Read more link to display the Customise Ads page.&nbsp;He will thus have access to a first description of the treatment relating to the personalisation of the advertisement which proves to be incomplete.&nbsp;To complete the information relating to the data processed for this purpose,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Similarly, in terms of <strong>geolocation data processing</strong>, the CNIL noted that the same course devoid of any intuitive character is required from the user with regard to information relating to geolocation data.&nbsp;The user will have to complete the following steps: Review the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, click More Options, and then click the Learn more link to view the Location History page and view the displayed text. However, as this text is only a short description of the processing, the user will need to go to the Privacy Policy document and access the Information about your location to access the rest of the information.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the two cases described, <strong>five actions are necessary for the user to access the information</strong> relating to the targeted advertisements and s<strong>ix for the geolocation</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL stated that if the user wished to have <strong>information on the retention periods</strong> of his personal data, he must first consult the Privacy Policy found in the main document and then go to the section titled Export and delete the information and finally click on the hyperlink click here contained in a general paragraph on storage times.&nbsp;It is therefore only after four clicks that the user accesses this information.&nbsp;The Restricted Training further notes that the title chosen by the company for Exporting and Deleting Your Information does not easily allow the user to understand that this is a topic to access information about retention periods .&nbsp;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As a result of all these factors, there is an <strong>overall lack of accessibility</strong> of the information provided by the company in the context of the processing in question.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Secondly, the CNIL considered that the<strong> clear and comprehensible nature of the information provided</strong>, as required by Article 12 of the GDPR, <strong>must be assessed taking into account the nature of each treatment</strong> in question and its <strong>concrete impact on the persons concerned</strong>. concerned.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Beforehand, the CNIL considered it was essential to emphasise that the <strong>data processing</strong> implemented by the controller was <strong>particularly massive and intrusive</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The data Google collects <strong>comes from a wide variety of sources</strong>.&nbsp;This data is collected both from the use of the phone, the use of the company services, such as the Gmail email service or the Youtube video platform, but also from the data generated by the user activity when they visit third-party sites that use <strong>Google services, including Google Analytics cookies placed on these sites.</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As such, the Privacy Policy reveals that <strong>at least twenty services</strong> offered by the company are likely to be involved in the processing, which may concern data such as web browsing history, history from applications, data stored locally on the equipment (such as address books), geolocation of equipment, etc.&nbsp;Therefore, <strong>a lot of data is processed as part of these services via or in connection with the Android operating system</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The record shows that, in addition to data from external sources, the company treats <strong>at least three categories of data</strong>: </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><strong>data produced by the user</strong> (for example, their name, password, phone number, email address, payment method, content created, imported or received, such as writings, photos or videos );  </li><li><strong>data generated by its activities</strong> (for example, IP address, unique user credentials, mobile network data, data related to wireless networks and Bluetooth devices, timestamp of actions performed, data geolocation, the technical data of the devices used including data relating to the sensors (accelerometer, etc.), the videos viewed, the searches made, the browsing history, the purchases, the applications used, etc .;</li><li><strong>Derived or inferred data from data provided by the user or his activities</strong>.&nbsp;In this category, the Privacy Policy lists a number of purposes that can only be accomplished by generating data from the other two categories of data.&nbsp;Thus, the customisation of the ads that the company realises requires to infer the interests of users from their activity in order to offer them to advertisers.&nbsp;In the same way, the purposes of providing content, research and personalised recommendations require inferring new information from those declared, produced or generated by the activity of the user.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Moreover, if the very large number of processed data can characterise alone the massive and intrusive nature of the treatments performed, the very nature of some of the data described, such as geolocation data or content consulted, reinforces this finding.&nbsp;Considered in isolation, the <strong>collection of each of these data is likely to reveal with a high degree of precision many of the most intimate aspects of people\'s lives, including their lifestyle, their tastes, their contacts, their opinions or their trips</strong>.&nbsp;The result of the combination of these data greatly reinforces the <strong>massive and intrusive nature of the processing</strong>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Consequently, it is in the light of the particular characteristics of these processing of personal data which have just been recalled that the characters are clear and understandable, within the meaning of Art 12 of the GDPR, of the information provided for in Art 13 of the Regulations, must be appreciated.&nbsp;The CNIL considered that these requirements were not respected in this case.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Specifically, the CNIL noted that the information provided by Google did not allow the users to understand sufficiently the particular consequences of the processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In fact, the purposes announced in the various documents are described as follows: offer personalised services in terms of content and advertisements, ensure the safety of products and services, provide and develop services, etc.&nbsp;.&nbsp;They are too generic in terms of the scope of the treatments implemented and their consequences.&nbsp;This is also the case when users are told too loosely: <em>The information we collect is used to improve the services offered to all our users.&nbsp;[...] The information we collect and how we use it depends on how you use our services and how you manage your privacy settings.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Therefore, the CNIL noted that the description of the aims pursued did not allow users to measure the extent of the treatments and the degree of intrusion into their private lives that they are likely to take away.&nbsp;It considered, in particular, that such information is not provided in a clear manner, nor at the first level of information provided to users through, in this case, the document entitled Confidentiality rules and conditions of use nor in the other levels of information proposed by the company.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL further noted that the description of the data collected, which could be of such a nature as to clarify the scope of these purposes and to prevent the user from being subsequently caught off guard as to the way in which his data were used and combined, is particularly imprecise and incomplete, both in the analysis of the first level of information and that of the other documents provided.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>For example, the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use document and the Privacy Policy document specify: <em>This may be more complex (...) information, such as the ads you find most useful, the people you care about. interest most on the web or YouTube videos that are likely to interest you.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of the foregoing, the CNIL believed that the user is not able, especially by being aware of the first level of information presented to him in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, to measure the scope of the main treatments on his private life.&nbsp;While it noted that exhaustive information, from the first level, would be counterproductive and does not respect the requirement of transparency, it considers that it should contain terms that would objectify the number and scope of implemented.&nbsp;It further considered that it would be possible, by other types of presentation methods adapted to data combining services,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The finding of lack of clarity and comprehensibility must also be made with regard to the mention of the legal basis of targeted advertising .&nbsp;In fact, the company first states in the Privacy Policy: <em>We ask you for permission to process your information for specific purposes, and you are free to revoke your consent at any time.&nbsp;For example, we ask you for permission to provide personalised services, such as ads.&nbsp;The legal basis chosen here therefore appears to be consent.&nbsp;</em>However, the company further adds it relies on the legitimate interest,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL stressed that if Google had indicated before that the only legal basis for the processing of the targeted advertisement was consent, the investigation shows that this clarification is not brought to the attention of the users.&nbsp;The formulations recalled above did not allow the latter to clearly measure the distinction between properly targeted advertising, based on the combination of multiple user data, which is based on the company\'s consent statement , other forms of targeting using for example the context of navigation, based on the legitimate interest.&nbsp;The CNIL stressed the particular importance of the need for clarity in these processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>With respect to information on the retention period, the CNIL noted that the How are Google\'s collected information page is maintained has four categories: </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>Information retained until the user deleted it;</li><li>Information with a timeout;</li><li>Information retained until user\'s Google Account is deleted;</li><li>Information kept for long periods of time for specific reasons.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It noted, however, that as regards to the latter category, only very general explanations of the purpose of this retention are provided and no precise duration or the criteria used to determine that duration are indicated.&nbsp;This information is among those that must be issued to users pursuant to Article 13 (2) (a) of the Regulations.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Finally, if the company claims that multiple information tools are made available to users concomitantly and after the creation of their account, the restricted training notes that these methods do not make it possible to reach the requirements of transparency and transparency. information from articles 12 and 13 of the GDPR.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>First, the CNIL noted that the tools to which the company refers do contribute, to a certain extent, to the goal of transparency throughout the life of the account and the use of Google\'s services.&nbsp;However, it considered that they do not participate sufficiently in the information provided for in Article 13, which must be provided at the time data are obtained.&nbsp;As mentioned in the EDPS Transparency Guidelines, Article 13 specifies the information to be provided to data subjects from the start of the processing cycle.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>If any data other than those strictly necessary to create the account, are collected throughout the life of the account, such as browsing history or purchases, the time of its creation marks the entry of the user in the ecosystem of Google services, whose particularly massive and intrusive nature of processing has been recalled previously.&nbsp;This step marks the beginning of a multitude of treatment operations: collection, combination, analysis, etc.&nbsp;Therefore, since the process of creating the account is essential in the understanding of treatments and their impact and where the proposed user journey itself invites the person concerned to focus his attention at this stage, the information provided for in Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure at that time must.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Moreover, both the pop-up window appearing at the time of the creation of the account and the electronic message sent as soon as the account is created contain only a summary or very specific information on the processing implemented and can not allow to consier the prior information as sufficient.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In fact, the text of the pop-up window indicates <em>This Google Account is configured to include customisation features (such as recommendations and custom ads) that are based on the information stored in your account.&nbsp;The e-mail indicates the main features of the Google Account and the existence of control tools.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>With regard to the confidentiality check-up tool, this essentially allows the user to set up the collected information such as browsing history or visited places.&nbsp;Finally, the Dashboard consists of an information panel for each Google service overview of the use of the account holder.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Nevertheless, these confidentiality check-up and Dashboard tools can only be used, just like the e-mail mentioned above, after the account creation step, which is nevertheless essential for informing users as well as it has been said.&nbsp;In addition, although their existence and interest are brought to the attention of users, they imply an active and initiative of these.&nbsp;For these reasons, these tools do not allow to consider that sufficient information is provided for the application of Article 13 of the Regulations.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the light of all these elements, the CNIL committee considers that a breach of the transparency and information obligations as provided for in Articles 12 and 13 of the Regulation is characterised.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>5. Failure to provide a legal basis for the processing implemented</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 6 of the RGPD states that: 1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Processing&nbsp;shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the data subject has given consent to the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;is subject;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the&nbsp;controller;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(f)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;or by a&nbsp;third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>the processing is necessary to safeguard the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google was criticised for failing to validly collect the consent of individuals for targeted advertising.&nbsp;It was also considered that the company could not claim a legitimate interest for these processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In defence, Google specified that it relied solely on the consent for the targeted advertising.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 4 (11) of the above-mentioned Regulations specifies what consent means: <em>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;</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Article 7 of the same Regulation provides the conditions that apply to it:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Where&nbsp;processing&nbsp;is based on consent, the&nbsp;controller&nbsp;shall be able to demonstrate that the data subject has consented to&nbsp;processing&nbsp;of his or her personal data.</em></li><li><em>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If the data subject\'s consent is given in the context of a written declaration which also concerns other matters, the request for consent shall be presented in a manner which is clearly distinguishable from the other matters, in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. Any part of such a declaration which constitutes an infringement of this Regulation shall not be binding.</em></li><li><em>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of&nbsp;processing based on consent before its withdrawal. Prior to giving consent, the data subject shall be informed thereof. It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.</em></li><li><em>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia , the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the&nbsp;processing&nbsp;of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Firstly, Google said that the users\' consent is informed.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It believes that simple and clear information is presented to the user when creating an account and allow him to know how the company uses the data for customisation purposes.&nbsp;In particular, the Company refers to the summary entitled Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, the sections dedicated to the targeted advertisements contained in the Privacy Policy and the additional information message entitled Targeted Advertising in the Menu Options account creation setting.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Secondly, Google claimed that the user\'s consent is specific and unambiguous.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In particular, it stated that when setting up the account, the user has the option of making a choice regarding the display of targeted advertising .&nbsp;It considers that this possibility enables to express its consent to the use of its data independently of the other choices it may express with regard to the other purposes relating to the processing associated with the Google Account (eg YouTube search history).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It also considered that the procedures for obtaining consent for the purposes of targeted advertisements it sets up are in line with the recommendations of the CNIL of December 5, 2013 regarding cookies.&nbsp;In particular, it specifies that short information is available on the targeted ads followed by an \"I accept\" button (the Privacy Policy and the Terms of Use), preceded by a \"more options\" button that gives users the ability to disable multiple processing operations, including for targeted ad purposes.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It also argued that the solution presented in the public notice of the president of the CNIL No. MED-2018-023 of November 29, 2018 allows the user to consent to all ends via a button accept all.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Lastly, it considered that explicit consent for the processing of data for the purposes of targeted advertising, within the meaning of Art 9 (2) (a) of the GDPR, could not be required in the absence of sensitive data.<br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Regarding the informed consent&nbsp;and&nbsp;the&nbsp;spread&nbsp;of&nbsp;information</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In the first place, the CNIL specified that this informed character must be examined in the light of the preceding developments concerning the lack of transparency and information of the users during the setting up of their account.&nbsp;It considered that the deficiencies previously identified necessarily have an impact on the information delivered to the users to ensure the informed nature of the consent.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL indicated that the EDPS Guideline of 10 April 2018 on Consent within the meaning of Regulation 2016/679 (WP250) states that the controller must ensure that consent is provided on the basis of information that enables the people concerned to easily identify who is responsible for the data and to understand what they are agreeing to.&nbsp;[It] must clearly describe the purpose of the data processing for which consent is sought.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>These guidelines also state that: In order for consent to be informed, it is necessary to inform the person concerned of certain crucial elements in making a choice.&nbsp;[..] At least the following information is required in order to obtain valid consent: </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the identity of the controller,</em></li><li><em>the purpose of each processing operation for which consent is sought,</em></li><li><em>the (types of) data collected and used,</em></li><li><em>the existence of the right to withdraw consent,</em></li><li><em>information on the use of data for automated decision-making [..] and</em></li><li><em>information on the possible risks associated with the transmission of data due to the lack of a decision on adequacy and appropriate safeguards [...].</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As it was able to identify under the breach of the transparency and information requirements, the CNIL considered that the information on targeted advertising is excessively disseminated in separate documents and is not, as such, easily accessible.&nbsp;In this respect, the CNIL refered to the preceding developments on the multiple actions that must be performed by a user who wishes to be made aware of available on the processing related to the targeted advertisement.<br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In addition, the CNIL also noted under the breach of transparency obligations, the information provided was not sufficiently clear and understandable in that it was difficult for a user to have a global understanding of the can do the object and their scope.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As an illustration, the information in the targeted Ad section, accessible from the Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions document through the More Options button, contains the following: Google can show you ads based on your activity in Google services (for example, in the search or on YouTube, as well as on Google\'s websites and partner applications).&nbsp;The CNIL noted that it is not possible to read, for example through clickable links, the services, sites and Google application to which the company refers.&nbsp;Therefore, the user was not able to understand the targeted advertising they are subject to, as well as their scope,&nbsp;even though these treatments nevertheless imply a plurality of services (for example: Google search, YouTube, Google home, Google maps, Playstore, Google photo, Google play, Google analytics, Google translation, Play books) and the processing of a large amount of data personal character.&nbsp;Users are not able to have a proper perception of the nature and volume of data that is collected.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of these elements, the CNIL committee considered that the users\' consent for targeted advertising was not sufficiently informed.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>With regard to the specific and unequivocal nature of the consent</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Recital 32 of the Regulation provides that: <em>Consent must be given by a clear positive act by which the data subject expresses in a free, specific, informed and unambiguous manner his agreement to the processing of his personal data [...].&nbsp;There can therefore be no consent in the event of silence, boxes checked by default or inactivity.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Recital 43 of the GDPR states that: <em>Consent is presumed not to have been freely given if separate consent can not be given to different personal data processing operations, although this is appropriate in the present case.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The above EDPS guidance on consent states that: <em>In order to comply with the specific nature of consent, the controller must ensure: [...] (ii) the detailed nature of consent requests [...] This means that data controller who seeks consent for various specific purposes should provide separate consent for each purpose so that users can give specific consent for specific purposes.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In this case, the CNIL noted that when the user creates an account, he has the possibility to modify some of the parameters associated with the account.&nbsp;To access these settings, the user must click the more options button, present before the Create Account button.&nbsp;the CNIL also noted that the personalisation settings of the account, which contain the choice for the display of personalised ads, are pre-checked by default, which means, unless otherwise indicated, the agreement of the user to processing of its data for the purposes mentioned (eg YouTube search history, display of personalised ads etc.).&nbsp;The user has the option to uncheck these parameters if he does not want these treatments to be implemented.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL observed that, at the time of the creation of the account, if the user does not click on the button more options to set his account, he must check the boxes <em>I accept the terms of use of Google and I agree that my information will be used as described above and detailed in the Privacy Policy</em>.&nbsp;Subsequently, he must press the <em>Create Account</em> button.&nbsp;A pop-up window appears, titled Simple confirmation that contains the following text This Google Account is set up to include customisation features (such as recommendations and custom ads), which are based on information stored in your account.&nbsp;To change your personalisation settings and the information stored in your account,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>If it does not click <em>More Options</em>, the user must select the <em>Confirm</em> button to complete the account creation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In view of the foregoing, the CNIL noted that if the user has the possibility to modify the configuration of the parameters of his account prior to its creation, a positive action on his part is necessary to access the possibilities of setting up the account.&nbsp;Thus, the user can completely create his account, and accept the related processing, including targeted advertising, without clicking <em>More options</em>.&nbsp;Therefore, the user\'s consent is not, in this case, validly collected to the extent that it is not given through a positive act by which the person consents specifically and distinctly to the processing of its data for purposes of targeted advertising compared to other purposes of treatment.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL also considered that the actions by which the user proceeds to the creation of his account - by ticking the boxes I accept the conditions of use of Google and I accept that my information is used as described below above and detailed in the privacy rules, and then selecting Create Account - can not be considered as the expression of a valid consent.&nbsp;The specific nature of the consent is not respected because the user, by these actions, accepts all the processing of personal data implemented by the company, including those of targeted advertising.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In addition, the CNIL noted that multiple technology processes are used by the company to combine and analyse data from different external services, applications or sources.&nbsp;They undeniably have a multiplying effect on the precise knowledge society has of its users.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>As a result, the restricted formation believes that the company has operations of combinations with almost unlimited potential allowing a massive and intrusive treatment of the data of the users.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Given the scope of the data processing - in particular that of targeted advertising - and the number of people concerned, the CNIL underlined that the deficiencies previously retained are of a particular gravity.&nbsp;A lack of transparency regarding these wide-scope processing, as well as a lack of valid user consent to targeted advertising, constitute substantial infringements of the protection of their privacy and are contrary to legitimate aspirations of people who want to keep control of their data.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In this respect, strengthening the rights of individuals is one of the main thrusts of the Regulation.&nbsp;The European legislator recalls that The rapid evolution of technologies and globalization have created new challenges for the protection of personal data.&nbsp;The extent of collection and sharing of personal data has increased significantly.&nbsp;Technologies allow both private and public authorities to use personal data as never before in their business (...) Technologies have transformed both the economy and social relations (recital 6) .&nbsp;It stresses that these developments require a strong data protection framework (...) with rigorous enforcement of the rules, it is important to create the confidence that will enable the digital economy to develop in the internal market as a whole.&nbsp;Individuals should have control over their personal data.&nbsp;(recital 7).&nbsp;The European legislator regrets, finally, that Directive 95/46 / EC has not made it possible to avoid the widespread public perception that significant risks to the protection of individuals still exist, in particular as regards the online environment.&nbsp;(recital 9).&nbsp;whereas Directive 95/46 / EC has not prevented the widespread public perception that significant risks to the protection of individuals still exist, in particular with regard to the online environment.&nbsp;(recital 9).&nbsp;whereas Directive 95/46 / EC has not prevented the widespread public perception that significant risks to the protection of individuals still exist, in particular with regard to the online environment.&nbsp;(recital 9).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The CNIL thus considered, in view of the scale of the processing carried out and the compelling need for the users to keep control of their data, that they must be put in a position to be sufficiently informed of the scope of the data implemented and to validly consent to it, unless to deprive of basic confidence in the digital ecosystem.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Finally, the CNIL emphasised that shortcomings need to be put into perspective with regard to the company\'s business model, in particular the place of the users\' data processing for advertising purposes via the Android operating system.&nbsp;In view of the benefits it takes from these processing, Google must pay particular attention to its responsibility under the GDPR in their implementation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It follows from all the foregoing and the criteria which have been duly taken into account by the Committee, in view of the maximum amount incurred on the basis of 4% of the turnover indicated in point 2 of this Decision, that a financial penalty is justified up to 50 million euros, as well as a supplementary publicising sanction for the same reasons.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Account is also taken of the company\'s prominent place in the market for operating systems, the seriousness of the deficiencies and the interest this decision represents in informing the public in determining the duration of its publication.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>FOR THESE REASONS</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The restricted formation of the CNIL, after having deliberated, decides:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>to award Google LLC a monetary penalty in the amount of 50 (fifty) million euros;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>to send this decision to Google France Sarl for the execution of this decision;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Google has already publicly announced it has appealed the case. It\'s of course important as this decision creates a precedent and establish the rules.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This is only  start.<a href=\"https://www.laquadrature.net/en/2019/01/21/first-sanction-against-google-following-our-collective-complaints/\"> La Quadrature du Net publishe</a>d : \"<em>Today, the CNIL </em><a href=\"https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros-against-google-llc\"><em>sanctioned</em></a><em> </em><strong><em>Google to a 50 million Euros fine</em></strong><em>, stating that the targeted advertising it engages in with its operating system Android is in breach of the GDPR, the new European regulation that came into effect on May 25. However, this sanction is really only the beginning of an answer to our complaint against Google, which denounced especially the targeted advertising imposed on Youtube, Gmail and Google Search in violation of our consent.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>In this respect, the CNIL explains the low amount of its sanction, considering Google’s nearly </em><a href=\"https://www.statista.com/statistics/266206/googles-annual-global-revenue/\"><em>110 billion US dollars</em></a><em> revenue, by the fact it limited the scope of its examination to “the data processing covered by the privacy policy presented to a user when creating their account on their Android mobile phone” (our translation). </em><sup><em>1</em></sup><em> We therefore expect the CNIL to quickly answer the rest of our complaint, which concerns Youtube, Gmail and Google Search, by issuing a fine commensurate with this company and the extent and the duration of the violation of ours rights (the maximum amount possible is 4 billion euros – 4% of global revenue –, which we hope for).</em>\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','Google Subject to the Biggest Fine Under GDPR','In what is today the biggest fine under the GDPR, the French Data Protection Authority CNIL investigated Google Android transparency in Data procession. The investigation was consecutive to two class actions filed on the 25th of May 2018. One by the Austrian NGO Non Of Your Business (NOYB), another by the French La Quadrature du Net (LQDN). This decision worth a close look.','inherit','closed','closed','','204-revision-v1','','','2019-01-31 00:30:25','2019-01-31 00:30:25','',204,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/01/31/204-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(252,5,'2019-01-31 11:23:27','2019-01-31 11:23:27','','Screenshot 2019-01-31 at 11.22.40','','inherit','open','closed','','screenshot-2019-01-31-at-11-22-40','','','2019-01-31 11:23:27','2019-01-31 11:23:27','',31,'/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-31-at-11.22.40.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(253,5,'2019-01-31 11:23:32','2019-01-31 11:23:32','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Why DATARAINBOW ?</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":83,\"width\":688,\"height\":439} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image is-resized\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-21-at-14.52.01-1.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-83\" width=\"688\" height=\"439\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>After the storm, here comes the rainbow arch of colours. Data compliance of today will hopefully bring harmony by applying a series of rules and regulations. The new digital world is regulated by the GDPR in the EU with less known several other regulations, the ePrivacy, the PECR, Convention 108, the NIS, the eCommerce Directive, IP laws, ....</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We want to help every individual and every organisations to know their rights and liabilities. We want to help you walk trough the labyrinth, under the DATARAINBOW.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We hope you will not see regulations simply as a burden, more as a Fundamental Human Right for individuals bringing better trust for a better business.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Who created DATARAINBOW ?</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:heading -->\n<h2>Tara Taubman-Bassirian</h2>\n<!-- /wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Tara Taubman-Bassirian, LLM, is a French Lawyer based in the UK who has studied private law at the prestigious Paris University Pantheon Assas, before specialising on Computer and Communication Law at Queen Mary at University of London. She has completed for IP Law knowledge with a Harvard University course. She has expertise in areas of privacy, data protection, intellectual property, eCommerce and eReputation. She has made a name for herself in several areas of the world, most notably the UK, France and the US. Languages she practices have helped her to widen her horizon and reach. An early adopter of emerging technologies, Tara makes it her business to understand the challenges presented by regulations in this high connectivity era, which is how she has become a trusted adviser to individuals &amp; businesses navigating legal pathways to justice on the internet. Tara is very active in raising awareness of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) &amp; advising businesses on the compliance requirements. Tara is a member of ICANN\'s NCUC &amp; is a volunteer mediator for Surrey Mediation where she extends community mediation to copyright conflict resolution. Tara co-founded Facebook group <a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/login.php?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fgroups%2F167255910003191%2F%3Ffb_dtsg_ag%3DAQw9IfIePuQkc9TDea1_4RgJG1SdsWqqZUil9j7T6q25CQ%253AAQyW3EGpAIEMXEv2FVBpA_93mEYKgUwphsnFvCEdqqEPzQ%26jazoest%3D27874\">Fly A Kite</a> with <a href=\"https://simbus360.com/\">Rebecca Herold</a>. It is dedicated to eradicating cyber-bullying &amp; improving online security, something near &amp; dear to us both.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>CONTACT : Data@datarainbow.eu</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:table -->\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td><br></td></tr></tbody></table>\n<!-- /wp:table -->\n\n<!-- wp:table -->\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td><strong><a href=\"https://myemail.constantcontact.com/January-Tips--Data-Privacy-Day-just-around-the-corner.html?soid=1102633925835&amp;aid=yBZYGvOtdbw#hero2\">Privacy Hero 2018:&nbsp;Tara Taubman-Bassirian﻿</a></strong><br></td></tr></tbody></table>\n<!-- /wp:table -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Privacy Hero of the Year poll, and the results are in...&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.linkedin.com/in/taubmanbassirian/\">Tara Taubman-Bassirian</a>&nbsp;is the winner!&nbsp;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>(Big thank you to the community of voters for participating in our first ever Privacy Hero of the Year initiative.)</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Hopefully you will get a chance to hear from Tara and Philip on upcoming episodes of <a href=\"https://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/112620/gdpr-data-privacy-day-and-the-need-for-privacy\">Rebecca Herold\'s radio show</a>,&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.voiceamerica.com/show/2733/data-security-and-privacy-with-the-privacy-professor\">Data Security and Privacy with The Privacy Professor</a>. I\'ve extended invitations to each today, so stay tuned for more details.&nbsp;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>Tara Taubman-Bassirian:&nbsp;Early adopter learns tech so she can teach others</em>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>For keeping up with news on IT security, Privacy and Online Security, join our Facebook Group <a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/groups/167255910003191/?multi_permalinks=2203761959685899&amp;notif_id=1548347410584622&amp;notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic\">Fly A Kite</a>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Seen on Twitter</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":252} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-31-at-11.22.40.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-252\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->','About','','inherit','closed','closed','','31-revision-v1','','','2019-01-31 11:23:32','2019-01-31 11:23:32','',31,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/01/31/31-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(256,5,'2019-02-08 13:56:28','2019-02-08 13:56:28','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/google-style-gdpr-fines-for-everyone-23609/\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Google-Style GDPR Fines for Everyone? Bavarian DPA Conducts Website Cookie Practices Sweep, Announces Fines under Consideration</a></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The French Data Protection Authority, CNIL, <a href=\"https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros-against-google-llc\">fining Google 50 Million Euros</a>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":118,\"align\":\"left\",\"width\":416,\"height\":266} -->\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignleft is-resized\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-21-at-14.52.01-3.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-118\" width=\"416\" height=\"266\" /></figure></div>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The <a href=\"https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2019/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros_en\">European Data Protection Board summary </a>explains how the CNIL has played the role of the lead authority to investigate the class actions filed by the Austrian <a href=\"https://noyb.eu/\">Non Of Your Business, NOYB</a>, and the French <a href=\"https://www.laquadrature.net/en/personnal-data/\">La Quadrature Du Net</a>. \'L\'Europe est en marche\' - Europe is leading - and the Union is enforcing its capabilities. Britain will be missed after Brexit.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>After Google, here comes Facebook : <a href=\"https://www.lesoir.be/140480/article/2018-02-16/protection-des-donnees-privees-la-belgique-fait-plier-facebook\">A Belgian court injonction to Facebook</a> to stop his illegal collect of personal data in an 80 pages decision. 250.000 € maximum de 100 millions d’euros for everyday they dont comply. Things are acceleration. If you havent yet seen the French CNIL Google fine, have a look and make sure your organisation is compliant.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph {\"align\":\"center\"} -->\n<p style=\"text-align:center\"><strong>* * *</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.voiceamerica.com/promo/episode/112620\">Radio interview of Tara Taubman-Bassirian</a>, voted <strong>Privacy Hero 2018</strong>, is on Voice of America Business.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:table -->\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.voiceamerica.com/guest/42903/tara-taubman-bassirian\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Tara Taubman-Bassirian</a></td></tr></tbody></table>\n<!-- /wp:table -->\n\n<!-- wp:heading {\"level\":4} -->\n<h4>Episode Description</h4>\n<!-- /wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>2018 privacy hero of the year, Tara Taubman-Bassirian, discusses the EU GDPR, the increasing need for protecting privacy in the increasingly technology-rich environment, and some activities for Data Privacy Day on January 28, 2019. What are the benefits of GDPR? Where can it be improved upon? What do companies struggle with most for GDPR compliance? What is a “hot potato” GDPR issue? How are binding corporate rules (BCRs) used for non-adequate countries? How has Brexit impacted GDPR compliance? Why does privacy matter? What are the current largest threats to privacy? What are some activities for Data Privacy Day? Hear Tara discuss these topics, and more, with Rebecca.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We are preparing to celebrate the <strong>International Privacy Day</strong> on January the 28th. A <strong>TwitterChat at 3pm GMT</strong> using the hashtag <strong>#PrivacyAware</strong> with help of Kingston Technology. A <strong>drink in a pub in London</strong> from 6 to 9pm, you might want to register for. Hope to see many join us for these celebrations. contact data@datarainbow.eu</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph {\"align\":\"center\"} -->\n<p style=\"text-align:center\"><strong>* *&nbsp;*</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Let the data flow, <a href=\"https://blogs.dlapiper.com/privacymatters/eu-japan-let-the-data-flow-free-flow-of-personal-data-between-eu-countries-and-japan-confirmed/\">adequacy decision between EU and Japan</a> adopted.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Former European Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx joins <a href=\"https://t.co/2LSgMjSG6b\">ICO </a>as non-executive director.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph {\"align\":\"center\"} -->\n<p style=\"text-align:center\"><strong>* *&nbsp;*</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em><a href=\"https://www.pearltrees.com/privacyday/twitter/id23766377#item247781087\">Twitter</a></em> under investigation by the Irish Data Protection Commission</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em><a href=\"https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252456335/Facebooks-objections-to-court-concerns-over-privacy-more-about-optics-than-facts\">Facebook</a></em>’s challenge to a High Court ruling that raises serious concerns about data transfers between Europe and the US is more about appearance than facts, lawyers for the Irish Data Protection Commission told Dublin\'s Supreme Court.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>WARNING : Links to external website may contain cookies and tracking of visitors data. Do adjust your privacy setting in accordance.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','NEWS','','inherit','closed','closed','','65-revision-v1','','','2019-02-08 13:56:28','2019-02-08 13:56:28','',65,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/08/65-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(258,5,'2019-02-08 14:05:36','2019-02-08 14:05:36','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>by Tara Taubman-Bassirian LLM</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Much has been said and complained about data protection regulations. Lots of criticism, its cost, resources consumption, business killer,….</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>What\'s been forgotten is that the&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-you-need-know-gdpr-compliance-tara-taubman-bassirian/\" target=\"_blank\">General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)</a>&nbsp;is not against data processing when done in respect with the data subject rights. The amount of electronically available data and curation and storage tools, justify a better protection. Privacy is a&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https://rightsinfo.org/the-rights-in-the-european-convention/\" target=\"_blank\">Fundamental Human Right</a>, for dignity and freedom.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The equation is simple : Privacy = Transparency + Control</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>A balance of rights and freedom of data subjects with respect to the interest of the business.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Before the GDPR, data protection directive lacked uniformity and the necessary certainty throughout the EU. The new Regulation is based on harmonisation and the&nbsp;<a href=\"https://rightsinfo.org/the-rights-in-the-european-convention/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">European Data Protection Board (EDPB)</a>&nbsp;is the authority in charge of the&nbsp;<a href=\"https://gdpr-info.eu/art-63-gdpr/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">consistency mechanism - Article 63</a>&nbsp;- to make sure the regulation and its enforcement are harmoniously applied by all national Data Protection Authorities (DPAs).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>One of the more pro-active DPAs has been the French&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.cnil.fr/en/home\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Commission Nationale de l\'Informatique et des Libertes (CNIL)</a>&nbsp;producing many guidelines in both French and English, including a very useful&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.cnil.fr/en/pia-software-20-available-and-growth-pia-ecosystem\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) tool</a>. So, I would like to think French companies have benefited from all necessary guidances to comply after two years period of preparation and 6 months after the GDPR entered into effect.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In two previous article, I wrote about the&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cnil-published-first-review-6-months-gdpr-tara-taubman-bassirian-llm/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">CNIL’s report after 6 months of activities</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/six-months-gdpr-tara-taubman-bassirian-llm/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">some of their main cases.</a>&nbsp;While The UK ICO has been more focusing on fining nuisance calls and clarifying data subject\'s access after investigating Facebook Analytica case, The French CNIL focus has been :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>clarifying criteria of consent in four cases of Mobile App data collection,</li><li>clarifying CCTV monitoring and biometrics in work place</li><li>clarifying cookie compliance.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>What are cookies?</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Better than me,&nbsp;<a href=\"https://termly.io/resources/articles/cookies-comprehensive-guide/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">KJ Kearie has a Comprehensive Guide&nbsp;</a>on cookies, I recommend you read.&nbsp;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:quote -->\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\"><p>“A cookie is&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/23/cookies-and-web-tracking-intro\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">a tiny bit of plain text</a>&nbsp;that a website downloads to a computer when that user’s browser opens a new webpage. They are used to remember useful pieces of data from the users they encounter, acting as an<strong>invisible liaison between a domain’s owner and visitors</strong>.</p></blockquote>\n<!-- /wp:quote -->\n\n<!-- wp:quote -->\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\"><p>A cookie can identify both the user and the browser, and can be left on the user’s device indefinitely. When the user’s browser returns to that website, the cookie connects with the domain and shares with it the data it has collected or stored about that user.</p></blockquote>\n<!-- /wp:quote -->\n\n<!-- wp:quote -->\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\"><p>There are two main types of cookies –&nbsp;<a href=\"http://www.allaboutcookies.org/cookies/session-cookies-used-for.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">session cookies</a>&nbsp;only collect details from a single browsing sessions, while&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.techopedia.com/definition/4901/persistent-cookie\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">persistent cookies</a>remain on the user’s device and collect information over time.\"</p></blockquote>\n<!-- /wp:quote -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In terms of functionality, some cookies aim to a better browsing experience such as remembering the language of their visitor, others, more pernicious, track the users habits, profiling users for targeted advertising. Data collected has fuelled a huge business of data brokage raising privacy and security concerns. In November,&nbsp;<a href=\"https://privacyinternational.org/feature/2433/i-asked-online-tracking-company-all-my-data-and-heres-what-i-found\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Privacy International</a>, the UK based organisation, has filed&nbsp;<a href=\"https://privacyinternational.org/press-release/2424/privacy-international-files-complaints-against-seven-companies-wide-scale-and\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">complaints</a>&nbsp;against seven data brokers (Acxiom, Oracle), ad-tech companies (Criteo, Quantcast, Tapad), and credit referencing agencies (Equifax, Experian) with data protection authorities in France, Ireland, and the UK.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>If you think online tracking and profiling are legitimate? Watch&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYZtHIPktQg&amp;feature=youtu.be\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">this video</a>&nbsp;it\'s eloquent.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Online customers deserve the same privacy as offline.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Cookie law, known as the ePrivacy Directive, has long been misunderstood. It is not a useless banner asking you to confirm you agree for your personal data to be collected in order to access the website. Just in case, you have forgotten, an IP address or any identifiable information is considered a personal data.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>What are website owners duties exactly ?</strong>&nbsp;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>To provide clear transparency to inform their visitors about the personal data they collect, how long it is kept, with whom they share the data and data subjects rights of access, right to delete, amend or the right of portability. These informations should be provided at the time of data collection, made accessible on each webpage, in clear language.&nbsp;<a href=\"https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/item-detail.cfm?item_id=622227\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The WP art 29&nbsp;</a>requires that</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:quote -->\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\"><p>“Every organisation that maintains a website should publish a privacy statement/ notice on the website. A link to this privacy statement/ notice should be clearly visible on each page of this website under a commonly used term (such as “Privacy”, “Privacy Policy” or “Data Protection Notice”). Positioning or colour schemes that make a text or link less noticeable, or hard to find on a webpage, are not considered easily accessible. “</p></blockquote>\n<!-- /wp:quote -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>it must be concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible (Article 12.1);</li><li>clear and plain language must be used (Article 12.1);</li><li>the requirement for clear and plain language is of particular importance when</li><li>providing information to children (Article 12.1);</li><li>it must be in writing “or by other means, including where appropriate, by electronic</li><li>means” (Article 12.1);</li><li>where requested by the data subject it may be provided orally (Article 12.1) ; and</li><li>it must be provided free of charge (Article 12.5).</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>In short, a privacy notice is required to provide “<em>Concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible</em>” information about the data collected from visitors.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Alined with the WP guidance, the&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/six-months-gdpr-tara-taubman-bassirian-llm/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">French DPA CNIL</a>&nbsp;has required clear information for visitors, and for non exclusively technical cookies, consent is required. AND - that is very important - opting out of cookie tracking should not be detrimental to the use of the service. This goes with the clear position of the Working Party Art 29, replaced by the EDPB.&nbsp;For more on Privacy by Design, you might want to follow&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.ryerson.ca/pbdce/about/ann-cavoukian/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Ann Cavoukian</a>, Leading the Privacy by Design Centre of Excellence at Ryerson University.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>So, remember, privacy = transparency + control. that means an obligation to tell visitors what is collected, with whom is shared, users rights and clear opt out.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Despite all clear guidance, too many websites are non compliant.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>You’d expect lawyers would have it right, for being well aware of the regulation. The French association of lawyers, the CNB, has done a good job informing their members by producing ample&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.cnb.avocat.fr/sites/default/files/documents/guide_rgpd_avocats-2018.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">guidance</a>&nbsp;to follow.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Additionally law firms handle sensitive data of clients, so they should be the ones showing the good example.&nbsp;<a href=\"https://twitter.com/clarinette02/status/1071025796767236097\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Recently</a>, I have looked at&nbsp;<a href=\"http://www.cbbc-avocats.com/cbbc/lequipe\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">few websites</a>&nbsp;from some of&nbsp;<a href=\"http://www.hleclerc-avocats.fr/alain-weber\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">the top law firms</a>&nbsp;in Paris. It is outraging to see they are mostly ignoring their obligations. Lack of information about cookies, no privacy notice or insufficient information. Too many are even&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/24/17603126/google-chrome-unencrypted-not-secure\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">tagged as ‘Not Secure’ by Google Chrome web browser&nbsp;</a>lacking encryption. [This is when the lock does not show next to the URL ‘http’ instead of https. unencrypted transmission means that data can be intercepted.] Some of the websites I visited have visitors contact forms or candidates applications online with CV upload.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>I raised the issue few weeks ago, two of the law firms amended the security certification to https. One specialised DPO did not considered a cookie banner or&nbsp;<a href=\"http://www.jacobavocats.com/mentions-legales/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">more comprehensive privacy notice was needed</a>. It is painful to see members of the law society or big law firms could have so little consideration for privacy and data protection of clients and web visitors. I see too many exchange documents via un-encrypted email attachments. These big law firms have opulent clients around the world including outside the EU. How do they comply with data flow regulation to countries of non adequate data protection, not just China, that includes the USA as well. I have brought the CNIL\'s attention to this issue. Knowing that a website is the vitrine of a business, it worth the effort.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Data breach has been on everyday news. Have you heard of&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidvolodzko/2018/12/04/marriott-breach-exposes-far-more-than-just-data/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Marriott hotels breach</a>&nbsp;gone undetected for four years?&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/after-canada-airlines-here-comes-british-airways-tara/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Air Canada</a>, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Yahoo, Equifax,,.... and many more. Fines will not give back data subjects\' hassle when dealing with ID theft or financial misuse.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It’s not anymore IF but WHEN.&nbsp;</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Any data collection creates data breach risk.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>I invite you to read&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/memory-forgetfulness-privacy-tara-taubman-bassirian-llm/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Memory, Forgetfulness and Delete</a>&nbsp;because Privacy matters to us all,</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>and from&nbsp;<a href=\"https://blog.usejournal.com/is-your-web-site-breaking-eu-law-7e5b7eb33d5d?fbclid=IwAR3n5duN22qnmVk_he_EHxsg2JQA2DCeCzAzoTk9AUBUWlUvV8h4k75FoBg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Alexander Hanff&nbsp;</a>: \"<em>Your consent notice should provide a list of all of these assets (unless covered by the “strictly necessary” exception) and provide the option for the data to refuse the loading of any or all of these assets.</em>\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Connected read&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/law-firm-internet-security-data-protection-tara-taubman-bassirian-llm/?published=t\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Law&nbsp;</a>Firm Internet Security and Data Protection</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/law-firm-internet-security-data-protection-tara-taubman-bassirian-llm/?published=t\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Firms Data Security</a></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Follow ongoing <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"http://www.pearltrees.com/idigital/firms-data-security-liability/id15689736\" target=\"_blank\">Pearltrees curation</a></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>UPDATE : Google-Style GDPR Fines for Everyone? <a href=\"https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/google-style-gdpr-fines-for-everyone-23609/\">Bavarian DPA </a>Conducts Website Cookie Practices Sweep, Announces Fines under Consideration.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>The Bavarian DPA audited 40 “large websites”. The companies audited were from the following industries</em>:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a) Online retail ; (b) Sports; (c) Banking &amp; insurance; (d) Media; (e) Automotive &amp; electronics; (f) Home and residential; and (g) Other.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>• <em> The sweep revealed that all 40 websites had integrated cookies or other “tracking tools”. While the Bavarian DPA leaves the term “tracking tools” largely undefined, it indicates they are provided by third parties and result in data being sent to these third party providers, such as pixels, beacons, or the like.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>The Bavarian DPA found that none of the 40 websites’ cookie practices were GDPR-compliant. It found the following violations</em>:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list {\"ordered\":true} -->\n<ol><li><strong><em>Websites lacked the transparency needed for “informed” cookie consent</em></strong><em>. </em></li><li><strong><em>No “prior” consent was collected from users</em></strong><em>. </em></li><li><strong><em>The consent obtained was not sufficiently “active”</em>.</strong> </li></ol>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>The Bavarian DPA announced it was considering GDPR fines for the website operators.\"</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><br></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>This work is licensed under a&nbsp;<a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</a>.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->','Website transparency : Cookies and privacy notice','The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is not against data processing when done in respect with the data subject rights. The amount of electronically available data and curation and storage tools, justify a better protection. Privacy is a Fundamental Human Right, for dignity and freedom.','inherit','closed','closed','','26-revision-v1','','','2019-02-08 14:05:36','2019-02-08 14:05:36','',26,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/08/26-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(260,5,'2019-02-08 17:38:32','2019-02-08 17:38:32','','Screenshot 2019-02-08 at 17.36.50','','inherit','open','closed','','screenshot-2019-02-08-at-17-36-50','','','2019-02-08 17:38:32','2019-02-08 17:38:32','',217,'/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-08-at-17.36.50.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(261,5,'2019-02-08 17:38:33','2019-02-08 17:38:33','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>A <a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYZtHIPktQg#action=share\">short video created by Forbrugerrådet Tænk</a> that shows precisely how a large number of apps demand access to your private information such as location, contacts and text  messages. How would you react if real people demanded the same?</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"https://datarainbow.eu/373b4146-9937-4304-a6cf-83a53d3d0d82\" alt=\"\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Don\'t forget to visit our <a href=\"https://www.pearltrees.com/privacyday?paccess=16febff1f47.ec66ccb.a7c2311362a91fc7ea3760971fcb5692#item247885003\">Pearltrees</a> filled with resources on Privacy, Data Protection, Online Security or join the Fly A Kite Facebook Page. Be aware of must if not all free App that collect your personal data. Set your privacy setting  in accordance, especially your geolocation. Delete or reject un-necessary cookies. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Join our TwitterChat Monday 28th at 3pm GMT following @clarinette02 using #PrivacyAware</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>If you wish to join us for the networking celebration in London from 6 to 9pm, please contact data@datarainbow.eu for more detail. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We are starting our first of a series of <a href=\"https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/privacy-walks-tara-taubman-bassirian-llm/﻿\">Walks in the Park</a> to chat privacy and Data Protection Sunday 2nd February at Richmond Park. contact data@datarainbow.eu for more details and show interest.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/2019-gdpr-privacy-best-wishes-tara-taubman-bassirian-llm/\">GDPR and Best Wishes 2019</a>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&amp;v=Y1b8865GOHU&amp;fbclid=IwAR0u3CAxvU8p9clE152Dhh8PAyYiwKA4chsjC_6euOyOywpzf8S-umOiX9g&amp;app=desktop\">What would a cyber attack look like in the real world?</a></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/privacy-is-a-human-right-we-need-a-gdpr-for-the-world-microsoft-ceo/\">Privacy is a human right, we need a GDPR for the world: Microsoft CEO</a></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.gdprtoday.org/gdpr-in-numbers-3/\">GDPR in Numbers</a> :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>Statistics collected from 11 EU countries show that 8 months into the GDPR, the new data protection law is alive and kicking. DPAs have received thousands of complaints and breach notifications, and a first large fine has already been imposed.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>You can contact us at Daa@DataRainbow.eu for all your queries concerning Data Protection and compliance. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','HAPPY PRIVACY DAY @)!( !!','','inherit','closed','closed','','217-revision-v1','','','2019-02-08 17:38:33','2019-02-08 17:38:33','',217,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/08/217-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(262,5,'2019-02-08 17:39:01','2019-02-08 17:39:01','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>A <a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYZtHIPktQg#action=share\">short video created by Forbrugerrådet Tænk</a> that shows precisely how a large number of apps demand access to your private information such as location, contacts and text  messages. How would you react if real people demanded the same?</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":260} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-08-at-17.36.50-1024x701.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-260\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Don\'t forget to visit our <a href=\"https://www.pearltrees.com/privacyday?paccess=16febff1f47.ec66ccb.a7c2311362a91fc7ea3760971fcb5692#item247885003\">Pearltrees</a> filled with resources on Privacy, Data Protection, Online Security or join the Fly A Kite Facebook Page. Be aware of must if not all free App that collect your personal data. Set your privacy setting  in accordance, especially your geolocation. Delete or reject un-necessary cookies. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Join our TwitterChat Monday 28th at 3pm GMT following @clarinette02 using #PrivacyAware</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>If you wish to join us for the networking celebration in London from 6 to 9pm, please contact data@datarainbow.eu for more detail. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We are starting our first of a series of <a href=\"https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/privacy-walks-tara-taubman-bassirian-llm/﻿\">Walks in the Park</a> to chat privacy and Data Protection Sunday 2nd February at Richmond Park. contact data@datarainbow.eu for more details and show interest.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/2019-gdpr-privacy-best-wishes-tara-taubman-bassirian-llm/\">GDPR and Best Wishes 2019</a>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&amp;v=Y1b8865GOHU&amp;fbclid=IwAR0u3CAxvU8p9clE152Dhh8PAyYiwKA4chsjC_6euOyOywpzf8S-umOiX9g&amp;app=desktop\">What would a cyber attack look like in the real world?</a></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/privacy-is-a-human-right-we-need-a-gdpr-for-the-world-microsoft-ceo/\">Privacy is a human right, we need a GDPR for the world: Microsoft CEO</a></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.gdprtoday.org/gdpr-in-numbers-3/\">GDPR in Numbers</a> :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>Statistics collected from 11 EU countries show that 8 months into the GDPR, the new data protection law is alive and kicking. DPAs have received thousands of complaints and breach notifications, and a first large fine has already been imposed.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>You can contact us at Daa@DataRainbow.eu for all your queries concerning Data Protection and compliance. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','HAPPY PRIVACY DAY @)!( !!','','inherit','closed','closed','','217-autosave-v1','','','2019-02-08 17:39:01','2019-02-08 17:39:01','',217,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/08/217-autosave-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(264,5,'2019-02-09 14:29:53','2019-02-09 14:29:53','','Screenshot 2019-02-09 at 14.28.29','','inherit','open','closed','','screenshot-2019-02-09-at-14-28-29','','','2019-02-09 14:29:53','2019-02-09 14:29:53','',29,'/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-09-at-14.28.29.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(265,5,'2019-02-09 14:30:00','2019-02-09 14:30:00','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"http://www.pearltrees.com/privacyday\">A curation of various resources </a> to give a whole picture of Privacy and Data Protection that goes far above the GDPR, from a global perspective. The Pearltrees are a work in progress with links, notes and editorials.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":264} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-09-at-14.28.29.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-264\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":106} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-22-at-13.22.25-1024x607.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-106\" /><figcaption>PrivacyDay Pearltrees</figcaption></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>WARNING</strong> : this is an external link  to a free App that collects personal data. Do adjust your privacy settings and clear your cookies history.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','Privacy Day Pearltrees','','inherit','closed','closed','','29-revision-v1','','','2019-02-09 14:30:00','2019-02-09 14:30:00','',29,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/09/29-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(266,5,'2019-03-08 21:19:31','2019-03-08 21:19:31','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Very good analysis that unfortunately misses the Morrison’s case of vicarious liability where the Appeal judge expressly states the need for sufficient insurance policies are taken out in the event of \"Armageddon\".</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','Insurability Of Fines And Penalties For Breaches Of The GDPR','','private','open','open','','insurability-of-fines-and-penalties-for-breaches-of-the-gdpr','','','2019-03-08 21:32:32','2019-03-08 21:32:32','',0,'http://datarainbow.eu/?p=266',0,'post','',0),(267,5,'2019-02-11 16:59:28','2019-02-11 16:59:28','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Article 6(1) of the GDPR</strong> sets out the conditions that must be met for the processing of personal data to be lawful. They are:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a) the data subject has given <strong>consent</strong> to the processing of their personal data for one or more specific purposes;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a <strong>contract</strong> to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a <strong>legal obligation</strong> to which the controller is subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the <strong>vital interests</strong> of the data subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the <strong>public interest</strong> or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the <strong>legitimate interests</strong> pursued by a controller, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.</em><br>These conditions are all equally valid, regardless the order of appearance. Organisations should assess which of these grounds are most appropriate for different processing activities and then fulfil any further requirements the GDPR sets out for these conditions (GDPR Article 5).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Many organisations have been wrongly advised to opt for consent. The new regulation that entered into force on May 2018 requires a higher standard of consent. That explains the deluge of re-consent emails sent out around May last year. The other inconvenient of consent is the requirement to keep a register of all granted consents, with the risk that at anytime the data subject could withdraw its consent to processing. Imagine an individual giving consent for his image to be used in a commercial movie. at anytime, this person could revise its position and withdraw its consent, The organisation will have to pull out the movie. That should explain why consent is not always the most appropriate basis.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/when-can-we-rely-on-legitimate-interests/\">The UK ICO</a> website explain : \"<em>Legitimate interests is the most flexible of the six lawful bases. It is not focused on a particular purpose and therefore gives you more scope to potentially rely on it in many different circumstances.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>It may be the most appropriate basis when:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the processing is not required by law but is of a clear benefit to you or others;</em></li><li><em>there’s a limited privacy impact on the individual;</em></li><li><em>the individual should reasonably expect you to use their data in that way; and</em></li><li><em>you cannot, or do not want to, give the individual full upfront control (ie consent) or bother them with disruptive consent requests when they are unlikely to object to the processing.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>However, it must be clear that Legitimate Interest is not simply the interest of the organisation. It is framed within strict conditions. A three part assessment that needs to be carefully conducted and communicated to the data subject at the time the data is collected. The jurisprudence has based the conditions of necessity and the respect of rights and freedoms of individuals.  Legitimate Interest, when validly demonstrated, can exempt from requesting formal consent. In a way, consent can be implicite as the data controller will be processing the data the way it is expected to act. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Extracts of the UK ICO website, for processing for marketing purposes to be lawful : \"<em>You still need to show that your processing passes the necessity and balancing tests</em>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>You may also need to be more specific about your purposes for some elements of your processing in order to show that processing is necessary and to weigh the benefits in the balancing test. For example, if you use profiling to target your marketing.</em>\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>When looking at the balancing test, you should also consider factors such as:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>whether people would expect you to use their details in this way;</em></li><li><em>the potential nuisance factor of unwanted marketing messages; and</em></li><li><em>the effect your chosen method and frequency of communication might have on more vulnerable individuals.</em>\"</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Rowenna Fielding - a <em>\"Professional Data Protection Nerd, Information Governance\"</em> as she describes herself on her Linkedin profile - published a very useful reminder that hopefully will help to clarify some of the misinformation around Legitimate Interest. I could not say it any better, so I reproduce this here with her authorisation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>&nbsp;10 Legitimate Interests Lessons for Marketers :</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>1. Just because you\'re interested, doesn\'t make it legitimate.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>2. You can\'t use LI to avoid getting consent when you suspect the answer will be \"No\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p> 3. Whether LI can be applied depends on your own assessment of what you\'re doing, why and how - which you will be expected to justify and defend. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>4. LI is not \'unclear\' or \'ambiguous\'; it requires thinking to be done and a decision to be made. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>5. Publish your Legitimate Interests Assessments (LIA) if you anticipate/plan to reject objections to processing. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>6. If a law says you have to get consent for a processing activity, then forget about LI. You can\'t use it. Move on. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>7. LI is only a valid lawful basis for processing personal data if you\'re adhering to all of the principles. It\'s not a loophole around compliance. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>8. If your LIA is post-hoc rationalisation of something you won\'t consider ceasing to do even though you suspect it\'s a bit dodgy; then you wasted your time. Just make sure you have funds set aside to deal with complaints, regulatory action and reputation damage when you get found out. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>9. The ICO is not responsible for your continuing professional development 10. No-one else can do your thinking for you.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The same way that consent is not a universal panacea, Legitimate Interest has to be balanced and where there is a contract to justify the processing of personal data it can be better suited. The UK ICO has an <a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/resources-and-support/lawful-basis-interactive-guidance-tool\">online interactive tool</a> that helps select the most appropriate lawful base of processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>UPDATE by the UK ICO : </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The ICO has published a report highlighting major data protection concerns  in the advertising industry and the real time bidding (online advertising space sold to bidders almost instantaneously). Data about users, including personal data collected from cookies is shared, in real time, in order for marketplace participants to be informed about viewers of the advertising space . The data is being used without a lawful basis and that appropriate consent to deploy cookies under PECR has not been obtained.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The ICO has flagged an incorrect reliance on legitimate interests as the lawful basis for processing personal data. When personal data is collected from cookies, consent is the only appropriate lawful basis under the GDPR and consent is nevertheless also a prerequisite under PECR for the associated cookies to be placed. The report highlights issues with transparency and accountability, control and supervision by market participants over the flows and sharing of data. Here is the full <a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/documents/2615156/adtech-real-time-bidding-report-201906.pdf\">report</a>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Contact us at Data@DataRainbow.eu if you need further assistance to take you trough some of these complexities.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International<br>More information on the licence can be found <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\">here</a>. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','How to Understand the GDPR Legitimate Interest','Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.','publish','open','open','','how-to-understand-the-gdpr-legitimate-interest','','','2019-07-25 18:47:28','2019-07-25 17:47:28','',0,'http://datarainbow.eu/?p=267',0,'post','',0),(268,5,'2019-02-11 16:59:28','2019-02-11 16:59:28','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Article 6(1) of the GDPR</strong> sets out the conditions that must be met for the processing of personal data to be lawful. They are:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a) the data subject has given <strong>consent</strong> to the processing of their personal data for one or more specific purposes; </em><br><em>(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a <strong>contract</strong> to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract; </em><br><em>(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a <strong>legal obligation</strong> to which the controller is subject; </em><br><em>(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the <strong>vital interests</strong> of the data subject; </em><br><em>(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the <strong>public interest</strong> or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller; </em><br><em>(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the <strong>legitimate interests</strong> pursued by a controller, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.</em><br>These conditions are all equally valid, regardless the order of appearance. Organisations should assess which of these grounds are most appropriate for different processing activities and then fulfil any further requirements the GDPR sets out for these conditions (GDPR Article 5).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The UK ICO has an <a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/resources-and-support/lawful-basis-interactive-guidance-tool\">online interactive tool</a> that helps select the most appropriate lawful base of processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Many organisations have been wrongly advised to opt for consent. The new regulation that enters into force on May 2018 requires a higher standard for consent to be lawful. That explains the deluge of re-consent emails sent out around May. The other inconvenient of consent is the requirement to keep a register of all consent granted with the risk that at anytime the data subject could withdraw its consent to processing. Imagine an individual giving consent for his image to be used in a commercial movie. at anytime, this person could revise its position and withdraw its consent, The organisation will have to pull out the movie. That should explain why consent is not always the most appropriate base.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/when-can-we-rely-on-legitimate-interests/\">The UK ICO</a> website explain : \"<em>Legitimate interests is the most flexible of the six lawful bases. It is not focused on a particular purpose and therefore gives you more scope to potentially rely on it in many different circumstances.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>It may be the most appropriate basis when:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the processing is not required by law but is of a clear benefit to you or others;</em></li><li><em>there’s a limited privacy impact on the individual;</em></li><li><em>the individual should reasonably expect you to use their data in that way; and</em></li><li><em>you cannot, or do not want to, give the individual full upfront control (ie consent) or bother them with disruptive consent requests when they are unlikely to object to the processing.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It\'s clear that Legitimate Interest is not simply the interest of the organisation. it\'s framed within strict conditions. A three part assessment needs to be conducted and communicated to the data subject at the time the data is collected. In a way, Legitimate Interest can excuse data processing from requesting formal consent when consent can be implicite as the data controller will processing the data the way it is expected to act.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Rowenna Fielding - a <em>\"Professional Data Protection Nerd, Information Governance\"</em> as she describes herself on her Linkedin profile - published a very useful reminder that hopefully will clarify some of the misinformation around Legitimate Interest.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong> 10 Legitimate Interests Lessons for Marketers :</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>1. Just because you\'re interested, doesn\'t make it legitimate.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>2. You can\'t use LI to avoid getting consent when you suspect the answer will be \"No\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p> 3. Whether LI can be applied depends on your own assessment of what you\'re doing, why and how - which you will be expected to justify and defend. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>4. LI is not \'unclear\' or \'ambiguous\'; it requires thinking to be done and a decision to be made. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>5. Publish your Legitimate Interests Assessments (LIA) if you anticipate/plan to reject objections to processing. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>6. If a law says you have to get consent for a processing activity, then forget about LI. You can\'t use it. Move on. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>7. LI is only a valid lawful basis for processing personal data if you\'re adhering to all of the principles. It\'s not a loophole around compliance. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>8. If your LIA is post-hoc rationalisation of something you won\'t consider ceasing to do even though you suspect it\'s a bit dodgy; then you wasted your time. Just make sure you have funds set aside to deal with complaints, regulatory action and reputation damage when you get found out. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>9. The ICO is not responsible for your continuing professional development 10. No-one else can do your thinking for you.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Contact us at Data@DataRainbow.eu if you need further assistance.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','How to Understand the GDPR Legitimate Interest','','inherit','closed','closed','','267-revision-v1','','','2019-02-11 16:59:28','2019-02-11 16:59:28','',267,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/11/267-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(270,5,'2019-02-11 17:06:16','2019-02-11 17:06:16','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Article 6(1) of the GDPR</strong> sets out the conditions that must be met for the processing of personal data to be lawful. They are:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a) the data subject has given <strong>consent</strong> to the processing of their personal data for one or more specific purposes;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a <strong>contract</strong> to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a <strong>legal obligation</strong> to which the controller is subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the <strong>vital interests</strong> of the data subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the <strong>public interest</strong> or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the <strong>legitimate interests</strong> pursued by a controller, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.</em><br>These conditions are all equally valid, regardless the order of appearance. Organisations should assess which of these grounds are most appropriate for different processing activities and then fulfil any further requirements the GDPR sets out for these conditions (GDPR Article 5).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Many organisations have been wrongly advised to opt for consent. The new regulation that enters into force on May 2018 requires a higher standard for consent to be lawful. That explains the deluge of re-consent emails sent out around May. The other inconvenient of consent is the requirement to keep a register of all consent granted with the risk that at anytime the data subject could withdraw its consent to processing. Imagine an individual giving consent for his image to be used in a commercial movie. at anytime, this person could revise its position and withdraw its consent, The organisation will have to pull out the movie. That should explain why consent is not always the most appropriate base.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/when-can-we-rely-on-legitimate-interests/\">The UK ICO</a> website explain : \"<em>Legitimate interests is the most flexible of the six lawful bases. It is not focused on a particular purpose and therefore gives you more scope to potentially rely on it in many different circumstances.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>It may be the most appropriate basis when:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the processing is not required by law but is of a clear benefit to you or others;</em></li><li><em>there’s a limited privacy impact on the individual;</em></li><li><em>the individual should reasonably expect you to use their data in that way; and</em></li><li><em>you cannot, or do not want to, give the individual full upfront control (ie consent) or bother them with disruptive consent requests when they are unlikely to object to the processing.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It\'s clear that Legitimate Interest is not simply the interest of the organisation. it\'s framed within strict conditions. A three part assessment needs to be conducted and communicated to the data subject at the time the data is collected. In a way, Legitimate Interest can excuse data processing from requesting formal consent when consent can be implicite as the data controller will processing the data the way it is expected to act.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Rowenna Fielding - a <em>\"Professional Data Protection Nerd, Information Governance\"</em> as she describes herself on her Linkedin profile - published a very useful reminder that hopefully will clarify some of the misinformation around Legitimate Interest.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>&nbsp;10 Legitimate Interests Lessons for Marketers :</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>1. Just because you\'re interested, doesn\'t make it legitimate.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>2. You can\'t use LI to avoid getting consent when you suspect the answer will be \"No\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p> 3. Whether LI can be applied depends on your own assessment of what you\'re doing, why and how - which you will be expected to justify and defend. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>4. LI is not \'unclear\' or \'ambiguous\'; it requires thinking to be done and a decision to be made. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>5. Publish your Legitimate Interests Assessments (LIA) if you anticipate/plan to reject objections to processing. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>6. If a law says you have to get consent for a processing activity, then forget about LI. You can\'t use it. Move on. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>7. LI is only a valid lawful basis for processing personal data if you\'re adhering to all of the principles. It\'s not a loophole around compliance. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>8. If your LIA is post-hoc rationalisation of something you won\'t consider ceasing to do even though you suspect it\'s a bit dodgy; then you wasted your time. Just make sure you have funds set aside to deal with complaints, regulatory action and reputation damage when you get found out. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>9. The ICO is not responsible for your continuing professional development 10. No-one else can do your thinking for you.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The same way that consent is not a universal panacea, Legitimate Interest has to be balanced and where there is a contract to justify the processing of personal data it can be better justified. The UK ICO has an <a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/resources-and-support/lawful-basis-interactive-guidance-tool\">online interactive tool</a> that helps select the most appropriate lawful base of processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Contact us at Data@DataRainbow.eu if you need further assistance.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','How to Understand the GDPR Legitimate Interest','','inherit','closed','closed','','267-revision-v1','','','2019-02-11 17:06:16','2019-02-11 17:06:16','',267,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/11/267-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(272,5,'2019-02-11 17:10:42','2019-02-11 17:10:42','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Article 6(1) of the GDPR</strong> sets out the conditions that must be met for the processing of personal data to be lawful. They are:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a) the data subject has given <strong>consent</strong> to the processing of their personal data for one or more specific purposes;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a <strong>contract</strong> to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a <strong>legal obligation</strong> to which the controller is subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the <strong>vital interests</strong> of the data subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the <strong>public interest</strong> or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the <strong>legitimate interests</strong> pursued by a controller, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.</em><br>These conditions are all equally valid, regardless the order of appearance. Organisations should assess which of these grounds are most appropriate for different processing activities and then fulfil any further requirements the GDPR sets out for these conditions (GDPR Article 5).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Many organisations have been wrongly advised to opt for consent. The new regulation that enters into force on May 2018 requires a higher standard for consent to be lawful. That explains the deluge of re-consent emails sent out around May. The other inconvenient of consent is the requirement to keep a register of all consent granted with the risk that at anytime the data subject could withdraw its consent to processing. Imagine an individual giving consent for his image to be used in a commercial movie. at anytime, this person could revise its position and withdraw its consent, The organisation will have to pull out the movie. That should explain why consent is not always the most appropriate base.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/when-can-we-rely-on-legitimate-interests/\">The UK ICO</a> website explain : \"<em>Legitimate interests is the most flexible of the six lawful bases. It is not focused on a particular purpose and therefore gives you more scope to potentially rely on it in many different circumstances.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>It may be the most appropriate basis when:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the processing is not required by law but is of a clear benefit to you or others;</em></li><li><em>there’s a limited privacy impact on the individual;</em></li><li><em>the individual should reasonably expect you to use their data in that way; and</em></li><li><em>you cannot, or do not want to, give the individual full upfront control (ie consent) or bother them with disruptive consent requests when they are unlikely to object to the processing.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It\'s clear that Legitimate Interest is not simply the interest of the organisation. it\'s framed within strict conditions. A three part assessment needs to be conducted and communicated to the data subject at the time the data is collected. In a way, Legitimate Interest can excuse data processing from requesting formal consent when consent can be implicite as the data controller will processing the data the way it is expected to act.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Rowenna Fielding - a <em>\"Professional Data Protection Nerd, Information Governance\"</em> as she describes herself on her Linkedin profile - published a very useful reminder that hopefully will clarify some of the misinformation around Legitimate Interest.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>&nbsp;10 Legitimate Interests Lessons for Marketers :</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>1. Just because you\'re interested, doesn\'t make it legitimate.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>2. You can\'t use LI to avoid getting consent when you suspect the answer will be \"No\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p> 3. Whether LI can be applied depends on your own assessment of what you\'re doing, why and how - which you will be expected to justify and defend. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>4. LI is not \'unclear\' or \'ambiguous\'; it requires thinking to be done and a decision to be made. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>5. Publish your Legitimate Interests Assessments (LIA) if you anticipate/plan to reject objections to processing. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>6. If a law says you have to get consent for a processing activity, then forget about LI. You can\'t use it. Move on. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>7. LI is only a valid lawful basis for processing personal data if you\'re adhering to all of the principles. It\'s not a loophole around compliance. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>8. If your LIA is post-hoc rationalisation of something you won\'t consider ceasing to do even though you suspect it\'s a bit dodgy; then you wasted your time. Just make sure you have funds set aside to deal with complaints, regulatory action and reputation damage when you get found out. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>9. The ICO is not responsible for your continuing professional development 10. No-one else can do your thinking for you.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The same way that consent is not a universal panacea, Legitimate Interest has to be balanced and where there is a contract to justify the processing of personal data it can be better justified. The UK ICO has an <a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/resources-and-support/lawful-basis-interactive-guidance-tool\">online interactive tool</a> that helps select the most appropriate lawful base of processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Contact us at Data@DataRainbow.eu if you need further assistance.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','How to Understand the GDPR Legitimate Interest','Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.','inherit','closed','closed','','267-revision-v1','','','2019-02-11 17:10:42','2019-02-11 17:10:42','',267,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/11/267-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(274,5,'2019-02-11 18:24:34','2019-02-11 18:24:34','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Article 6(1) of the GDPR</strong> sets out the conditions that must be met for the processing of personal data to be lawful. They are:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a) the data subject has given <strong>consent</strong> to the processing of their personal data for one or more specific purposes;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a <strong>contract</strong> to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a <strong>legal obligation</strong> to which the controller is subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the <strong>vital interests</strong> of the data subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the <strong>public interest</strong> or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the <strong>legitimate interests</strong> pursued by a controller, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.</em><br>These conditions are all equally valid, regardless the order of appearance. Organisations should assess which of these grounds are most appropriate for different processing activities and then fulfil any further requirements the GDPR sets out for these conditions (GDPR Article 5).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Many organisations have been wrongly advised to opt for consent. The new regulation that entered into force on May 2018 requires a higher standard of consent. That explains the deluge of re-consent emails sent out around May last year. The other inconvenient of consent is the requirement to keep a register of all granted consents, with the risk that at anytime the data subject could withdraw its consent to processing. Imagine an individual giving consent for his image to be used in a commercial movie. at anytime, this person could revise its position and withdraw its consent, The organisation will have to pull out the movie. That should explain why consent is not always the most appropriate basis.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/when-can-we-rely-on-legitimate-interests/\">The UK ICO</a> website explain : \"<em>Legitimate interests is the most flexible of the six lawful bases. It is not focused on a particular purpose and therefore gives you more scope to potentially rely on it in many different circumstances.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>It may be the most appropriate basis when:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the processing is not required by law but is of a clear benefit to you or others;</em></li><li><em>there’s a limited privacy impact on the individual;</em></li><li><em>the individual should reasonably expect you to use their data in that way; and</em></li><li><em>you cannot, or do not want to, give the individual full upfront control (ie consent) or bother them with disruptive consent requests when they are unlikely to object to the processing.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>However, it must be clear that Legitimate Interest is not simply the interest of the organisation. It is framed within strict conditions. A three part assessment that needs to be carefully conducted and communicated to the data subject at the time the data is collected. The jurisprudence has based the conditions of necessity and the respect of rights and freedoms of individuals.  Legitimate Interest, when validly demonstrated, can exempt from requesting formal consent. In a way, consent can be implicite as the data controller will be processing the data the way it is expected to act.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Rowenna Fielding - a <em>\"Professional Data Protection Nerd, Information Governance\"</em> as she describes herself on her Linkedin profile - published a very useful reminder that hopefully will clarify some of the misinformation around Legitimate Interest.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>&nbsp;10 Legitimate Interests Lessons for Marketers :</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>1. Just because you\'re interested, doesn\'t make it legitimate.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>2. You can\'t use LI to avoid getting consent when you suspect the answer will be \"No\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p> 3. Whether LI can be applied depends on your own assessment of what you\'re doing, why and how - which you will be expected to justify and defend. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>4. LI is not \'unclear\' or \'ambiguous\'; it requires thinking to be done and a decision to be made. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>5. Publish your Legitimate Interests Assessments (LIA) if you anticipate/plan to reject objections to processing. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>6. If a law says you have to get consent for a processing activity, then forget about LI. You can\'t use it. Move on. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>7. LI is only a valid lawful basis for processing personal data if you\'re adhering to all of the principles. It\'s not a loophole around compliance. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>8. If your LIA is post-hoc rationalisation of something you won\'t consider ceasing to do even though you suspect it\'s a bit dodgy; then you wasted your time. Just make sure you have funds set aside to deal with complaints, regulatory action and reputation damage when you get found out. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>9. The ICO is not responsible for your continuing professional development 10. No-one else can do your thinking for you.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The same way that consent is not a universal panacea, Legitimate Interest has to be balanced and where there is a contract to justify the processing of personal data it can be better suited. The UK ICO has an <a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/resources-and-support/lawful-basis-interactive-guidance-tool\">online interactive tool</a> that helps select the most appropriate lawful base of processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Contact us at Data@DataRainbow.eu if you need further assistance.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','How to Understand the GDPR Legitimate Interest','Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.','inherit','closed','closed','','267-revision-v1','','','2019-02-11 18:24:34','2019-02-11 18:24:34','',267,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/11/267-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(275,5,'2019-02-11 18:26:11','2019-02-11 18:26:11','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Article 6(1) of the GDPR</strong> sets out the conditions that must be met for the processing of personal data to be lawful. They are:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a) the data subject has given <strong>consent</strong> to the processing of their personal data for one or more specific purposes;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a <strong>contract</strong> to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a <strong>legal obligation</strong> to which the controller is subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the <strong>vital interests</strong> of the data subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the <strong>public interest</strong> or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the <strong>legitimate interests</strong> pursued by a controller, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.</em><br>These conditions are all equally valid, regardless the order of appearance. Organisations should assess which of these grounds are most appropriate for different processing activities and then fulfil any further requirements the GDPR sets out for these conditions (GDPR Article 5).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Many organisations have been wrongly advised to opt for consent. The new regulation that entered into force on May 2018 requires a higher standard of consent. That explains the deluge of re-consent emails sent out around May last year. The other inconvenient of consent is the requirement to keep a register of all granted consents, with the risk that at anytime the data subject could withdraw its consent to processing. Imagine an individual giving consent for his image to be used in a commercial movie. at anytime, this person could revise its position and withdraw its consent, The organisation will have to pull out the movie. That should explain why consent is not always the most appropriate basis.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/when-can-we-rely-on-legitimate-interests/\">The UK ICO</a> website explain : \"<em>Legitimate interests is the most flexible of the six lawful bases. It is not focused on a particular purpose and therefore gives you more scope to potentially rely on it in many different circumstances.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>It may be the most appropriate basis when:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the processing is not required by law but is of a clear benefit to you or others;</em></li><li><em>there’s a limited privacy impact on the individual;</em></li><li><em>the individual should reasonably expect you to use their data in that way; and</em></li><li><em>you cannot, or do not want to, give the individual full upfront control (ie consent) or bother them with disruptive consent requests when they are unlikely to object to the processing.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>However, it must be clear that Legitimate Interest is not simply the interest of the organisation. It is framed within strict conditions. A three part assessment that needs to be carefully conducted and communicated to the data subject at the time the data is collected. The jurisprudence has based the conditions of necessity and the respect of rights and freedoms of individuals.  Legitimate Interest, when validly demonstrated, can exempt from requesting formal consent. In a way, consent can be implicite as the data controller will be processing the data the way it is expected to act.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Rowenna Fielding - a <em>\"Professional Data Protection Nerd, Information Governance\"</em> as she describes herself on her Linkedin profile - published a very useful reminder that hopefully will clarify some of the misinformation around Legitimate Interest.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>&nbsp;10 Legitimate Interests Lessons for Marketers :</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>1. Just because you\'re interested, doesn\'t make it legitimate.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>2. You can\'t use LI to avoid getting consent when you suspect the answer will be \"No\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p> 3. Whether LI can be applied depends on your own assessment of what you\'re doing, why and how - which you will be expected to justify and defend. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>4. LI is not \'unclear\' or \'ambiguous\'; it requires thinking to be done and a decision to be made. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>5. Publish your Legitimate Interests Assessments (LIA) if you anticipate/plan to reject objections to processing. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>6. If a law says you have to get consent for a processing activity, then forget about LI. You can\'t use it. Move on. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>7. LI is only a valid lawful basis for processing personal data if you\'re adhering to all of the principles. It\'s not a loophole around compliance. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>8. If your LIA is post-hoc rationalisation of something you won\'t consider ceasing to do even though you suspect it\'s a bit dodgy; then you wasted your time. Just make sure you have funds set aside to deal with complaints, regulatory action and reputation damage when you get found out. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>9. The ICO is not responsible for your continuing professional development 10. No-one else can do your thinking for you.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The same way that consent is not a universal panacea, Legitimate Interest has to be balanced and where there is a contract to justify the processing of personal data it can be better suited. The UK ICO has an <a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/resources-and-support/lawful-basis-interactive-guidance-tool\">online interactive tool</a> that helps select the most appropriate lawful base of processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Contact us at Data@DataRainbow.eu if you need further assistance to go trough some of these complexities.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','How to Understand the GDPR Legitimate Interest','Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.','inherit','closed','closed','','267-revision-v1','','','2019-02-11 18:26:11','2019-02-11 18:26:11','',267,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/11/267-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(276,5,'2019-02-11 18:38:26','2019-02-11 18:38:26','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Article 6(1) of the GDPR</strong> sets out the conditions that must be met for the processing of personal data to be lawful. They are:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a) the data subject has given <strong>consent</strong> to the processing of their personal data for one or more specific purposes;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a <strong>contract</strong> to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a <strong>legal obligation</strong> to which the controller is subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the <strong>vital interests</strong> of the data subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the <strong>public interest</strong> or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the <strong>legitimate interests</strong> pursued by a controller, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.</em><br>These conditions are all equally valid, regardless the order of appearance. Organisations should assess which of these grounds are most appropriate for different processing activities and then fulfil any further requirements the GDPR sets out for these conditions (GDPR Article 5).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Many organisations have been wrongly advised to opt for consent. The new regulation that entered into force on May 2018 requires a higher standard of consent. That explains the deluge of re-consent emails sent out around May last year. The other inconvenient of consent is the requirement to keep a register of all granted consents, with the risk that at anytime the data subject could withdraw its consent to processing. Imagine an individual giving consent for his image to be used in a commercial movie. at anytime, this person could revise its position and withdraw its consent, The organisation will have to pull out the movie. That should explain why consent is not always the most appropriate basis.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/when-can-we-rely-on-legitimate-interests/\">The UK ICO</a> website explain : \"<em>Legitimate interests is the most flexible of the six lawful bases. It is not focused on a particular purpose and therefore gives you more scope to potentially rely on it in many different circumstances.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>It may be the most appropriate basis when:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the processing is not required by law but is of a clear benefit to you or others;</em></li><li><em>there’s a limited privacy impact on the individual;</em></li><li><em>the individual should reasonably expect you to use their data in that way; and</em></li><li><em>you cannot, or do not want to, give the individual full upfront control (ie consent) or bother them with disruptive consent requests when they are unlikely to object to the processing.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>However, it must be clear that Legitimate Interest is not simply the interest of the organisation. It is framed within strict conditions. A three part assessment that needs to be carefully conducted and communicated to the data subject at the time the data is collected. The jurisprudence has based the conditions of necessity and the respect of rights and freedoms of individuals.  Legitimate Interest, when validly demonstrated, can exempt from requesting formal consent. In a way, consent can be implicite as the data controller will be processing the data the way it is expected to act.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Rowenna Fielding - a <em>\"Professional Data Protection Nerd, Information Governance\"</em> as she describes herself on her Linkedin profile - published a very useful reminder that hopefully will clarify some of the misinformation around Legitimate Interest.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>&nbsp;10 Legitimate Interests Lessons for Marketers :</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>1. Just because you\'re interested, doesn\'t make it legitimate.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>2. You can\'t use LI to avoid getting consent when you suspect the answer will be \"No\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p> 3. Whether LI can be applied depends on your own assessment of what you\'re doing, why and how - which you will be expected to justify and defend. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>4. LI is not \'unclear\' or \'ambiguous\'; it requires thinking to be done and a decision to be made. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>5. Publish your Legitimate Interests Assessments (LIA) if you anticipate/plan to reject objections to processing. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>6. If a law says you have to get consent for a processing activity, then forget about LI. You can\'t use it. Move on. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>7. LI is only a valid lawful basis for processing personal data if you\'re adhering to all of the principles. It\'s not a loophole around compliance. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>8. If your LIA is post-hoc rationalisation of something you won\'t consider ceasing to do even though you suspect it\'s a bit dodgy; then you wasted your time. Just make sure you have funds set aside to deal with complaints, regulatory action and reputation damage when you get found out. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>9. The ICO is not responsible for your continuing professional development 10. No-one else can do your thinking for you.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The same way that consent is not a universal panacea, Legitimate Interest has to be balanced and where there is a contract to justify the processing of personal data it can be better suited. The UK ICO has an <a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/resources-and-support/lawful-basis-interactive-guidance-tool\">online interactive tool</a> that helps select the most appropriate lawful base of processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Contact us at Data@DataRainbow.eu if you need further assistance to take you trough some of these complexities.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','How to Understand the GDPR Legitimate Interest','Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.','inherit','closed','closed','','267-revision-v1','','','2019-02-11 18:38:26','2019-02-11 18:38:26','',267,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/11/267-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(278,5,'2019-02-12 15:42:55','2019-02-12 15:42:55','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Article 6(1) of the GDPR</strong> sets out the conditions that must be met for the processing of personal data to be lawful. They are:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a) the data subject has given <strong>consent</strong> to the processing of their personal data for one or more specific purposes;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a <strong>contract</strong> to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a <strong>legal obligation</strong> to which the controller is subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the <strong>vital interests</strong> of the data subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the <strong>public interest</strong> or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the <strong>legitimate interests</strong> pursued by a controller, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.</em><br>These conditions are all equally valid, regardless the order of appearance. Organisations should assess which of these grounds are most appropriate for different processing activities and then fulfil any further requirements the GDPR sets out for these conditions (GDPR Article 5).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Many organisations have been wrongly advised to opt for consent. The new regulation that entered into force on May 2018 requires a higher standard of consent. That explains the deluge of re-consent emails sent out around May last year. The other inconvenient of consent is the requirement to keep a register of all granted consents, with the risk that at anytime the data subject could withdraw its consent to processing. Imagine an individual giving consent for his image to be used in a commercial movie. at anytime, this person could revise its position and withdraw its consent, The organisation will have to pull out the movie. That should explain why consent is not always the most appropriate basis.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/when-can-we-rely-on-legitimate-interests/\">The UK ICO</a> website explain : \"<em>Legitimate interests is the most flexible of the six lawful bases. It is not focused on a particular purpose and therefore gives you more scope to potentially rely on it in many different circumstances.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>It may be the most appropriate basis when:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the processing is not required by law but is of a clear benefit to you or others;</em></li><li><em>there’s a limited privacy impact on the individual;</em></li><li><em>the individual should reasonably expect you to use their data in that way; and</em></li><li><em>you cannot, or do not want to, give the individual full upfront control (ie consent) or bother them with disruptive consent requests when they are unlikely to object to the processing.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>However, it must be clear that Legitimate Interest is not simply the interest of the organisation. It is framed within strict conditions. A three part assessment that needs to be carefully conducted and communicated to the data subject at the time the data is collected. The jurisprudence has based the conditions of necessity and the respect of rights and freedoms of individuals.  Legitimate Interest, when validly demonstrated, can exempt from requesting formal consent. In a way, consent can be implicite as the data controller will be processing the data the way it is expected to act.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Rowenna Fielding - a <em>\"Professional Data Protection Nerd, Information Governance\"</em> as she describes herself on her Linkedin profile - published a very useful reminder that hopefully will help to clarify some of the misinformation around Legitimate Interest.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>&nbsp;10 Legitimate Interests Lessons for Marketers :</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>1. Just because you\'re interested, doesn\'t make it legitimate.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>2. You can\'t use LI to avoid getting consent when you suspect the answer will be \"No\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p> 3. Whether LI can be applied depends on your own assessment of what you\'re doing, why and how - which you will be expected to justify and defend. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>4. LI is not \'unclear\' or \'ambiguous\'; it requires thinking to be done and a decision to be made. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>5. Publish your Legitimate Interests Assessments (LIA) if you anticipate/plan to reject objections to processing. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>6. If a law says you have to get consent for a processing activity, then forget about LI. You can\'t use it. Move on. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>7. LI is only a valid lawful basis for processing personal data if you\'re adhering to all of the principles. It\'s not a loophole around compliance. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>8. If your LIA is post-hoc rationalisation of something you won\'t consider ceasing to do even though you suspect it\'s a bit dodgy; then you wasted your time. Just make sure you have funds set aside to deal with complaints, regulatory action and reputation damage when you get found out. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>9. The ICO is not responsible for your continuing professional development 10. No-one else can do your thinking for you.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The same way that consent is not a universal panacea, Legitimate Interest has to be balanced and where there is a contract to justify the processing of personal data it can be better suited. The UK ICO has an <a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/resources-and-support/lawful-basis-interactive-guidance-tool\">online interactive tool</a> that helps select the most appropriate lawful base of processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Contact us at Data@DataRainbow.eu if you need further assistance to take you trough some of these complexities.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','How to Understand the GDPR Legitimate Interest','Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.','inherit','closed','closed','','267-revision-v1','','','2019-02-12 15:42:55','2019-02-12 15:42:55','',267,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/12/267-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(279,5,'2019-02-12 15:43:26','2019-02-12 15:43:26','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Article 6(1) of the GDPR</strong> sets out the conditions that must be met for the processing of personal data to be lawful. They are:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a) the data subject has given <strong>consent</strong> to the processing of their personal data for one or more specific purposes;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a <strong>contract</strong> to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a <strong>legal obligation</strong> to which the controller is subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the <strong>vital interests</strong> of the data subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the <strong>public interest</strong> or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the <strong>legitimate interests</strong> pursued by a controller, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.</em><br>These conditions are all equally valid, regardless the order of appearance. Organisations should assess which of these grounds are most appropriate for different processing activities and then fulfil any further requirements the GDPR sets out for these conditions (GDPR Article 5).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Many organisations have been wrongly advised to opt for consent. The new regulation that entered into force on May 2018 requires a higher standard of consent. That explains the deluge of re-consent emails sent out around May last year. The other inconvenient of consent is the requirement to keep a register of all granted consents, with the risk that at anytime the data subject could withdraw its consent to processing. Imagine an individual giving consent for his image to be used in a commercial movie. at anytime, this person could revise its position and withdraw its consent, The organisation will have to pull out the movie. That should explain why consent is not always the most appropriate basis.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/when-can-we-rely-on-legitimate-interests/\">The UK ICO</a> website explain : \"<em>Legitimate interests is the most flexible of the six lawful bases. It is not focused on a particular purpose and therefore gives you more scope to potentially rely on it in many different circumstances.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>It may be the most appropriate basis when:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the processing is not required by law but is of a clear benefit to you or others;</em></li><li><em>there’s a limited privacy impact on the individual;</em></li><li><em>the individual should reasonably expect you to use their data in that way; and</em></li><li><em>you cannot, or do not want to, give the individual full upfront control (ie consent) or bother them with disruptive consent requests when they are unlikely to object to the processing.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>However, it must be clear that Legitimate Interest is not simply the interest of the organisation. It is framed within strict conditions. A three part assessment that needs to be carefully conducted and communicated to the data subject at the time the data is collected. The jurisprudence has based the conditions of necessity and the respect of rights and freedoms of individuals.  Legitimate Interest, when validly demonstrated, can exempt from requesting formal consent. In a way, consent can be implicite as the data controller will be processing the data the way it is expected to act.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Rowenna Fielding - a <em>\"Professional Data Protection Nerd, Information Governance\"</em> as she describes herself on her Linkedin profile - published a very useful reminder that hopefully will help to clarify some of the misinformation around Legitimate Interest. I could notsay it any better, so I reproduce this here with her authorisation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>&nbsp;10 Legitimate Interests Lessons for Marketers :</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>1. Just because you\'re interested, doesn\'t make it legitimate.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>2. You can\'t use LI to avoid getting consent when you suspect the answer will be \"No\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p> 3. Whether LI can be applied depends on your own assessment of what you\'re doing, why and how - which you will be expected to justify and defend. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>4. LI is not \'unclear\' or \'ambiguous\'; it requires thinking to be done and a decision to be made. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>5. Publish your Legitimate Interests Assessments (LIA) if you anticipate/plan to reject objections to processing. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>6. If a law says you have to get consent for a processing activity, then forget about LI. You can\'t use it. Move on. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>7. LI is only a valid lawful basis for processing personal data if you\'re adhering to all of the principles. It\'s not a loophole around compliance. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>8. If your LIA is post-hoc rationalisation of something you won\'t consider ceasing to do even though you suspect it\'s a bit dodgy; then you wasted your time. Just make sure you have funds set aside to deal with complaints, regulatory action and reputation damage when you get found out. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>9. The ICO is not responsible for your continuing professional development 10. No-one else can do your thinking for you.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The same way that consent is not a universal panacea, Legitimate Interest has to be balanced and where there is a contract to justify the processing of personal data it can be better suited. The UK ICO has an <a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/resources-and-support/lawful-basis-interactive-guidance-tool\">online interactive tool</a> that helps select the most appropriate lawful base of processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Contact us at Data@DataRainbow.eu if you need further assistance to take you trough some of these complexities.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','How to Understand the GDPR Legitimate Interest','Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.','inherit','closed','closed','','267-revision-v1','','','2019-02-12 15:43:26','2019-02-12 15:43:26','',267,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/12/267-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(280,5,'2019-02-12 15:43:35','2019-02-12 15:43:35','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Article 6(1) of the GDPR</strong> sets out the conditions that must be met for the processing of personal data to be lawful. They are:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a) the data subject has given <strong>consent</strong> to the processing of their personal data for one or more specific purposes;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a <strong>contract</strong> to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a <strong>legal obligation</strong> to which the controller is subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the <strong>vital interests</strong> of the data subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the <strong>public interest</strong> or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the <strong>legitimate interests</strong> pursued by a controller, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.</em><br>These conditions are all equally valid, regardless the order of appearance. Organisations should assess which of these grounds are most appropriate for different processing activities and then fulfil any further requirements the GDPR sets out for these conditions (GDPR Article 5).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Many organisations have been wrongly advised to opt for consent. The new regulation that entered into force on May 2018 requires a higher standard of consent. That explains the deluge of re-consent emails sent out around May last year. The other inconvenient of consent is the requirement to keep a register of all granted consents, with the risk that at anytime the data subject could withdraw its consent to processing. Imagine an individual giving consent for his image to be used in a commercial movie. at anytime, this person could revise its position and withdraw its consent, The organisation will have to pull out the movie. That should explain why consent is not always the most appropriate basis.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/when-can-we-rely-on-legitimate-interests/\">The UK ICO</a> website explain : \"<em>Legitimate interests is the most flexible of the six lawful bases. It is not focused on a particular purpose and therefore gives you more scope to potentially rely on it in many different circumstances.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>It may be the most appropriate basis when:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the processing is not required by law but is of a clear benefit to you or others;</em></li><li><em>there’s a limited privacy impact on the individual;</em></li><li><em>the individual should reasonably expect you to use their data in that way; and</em></li><li><em>you cannot, or do not want to, give the individual full upfront control (ie consent) or bother them with disruptive consent requests when they are unlikely to object to the processing.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>However, it must be clear that Legitimate Interest is not simply the interest of the organisation. It is framed within strict conditions. A three part assessment that needs to be carefully conducted and communicated to the data subject at the time the data is collected. The jurisprudence has based the conditions of necessity and the respect of rights and freedoms of individuals.  Legitimate Interest, when validly demonstrated, can exempt from requesting formal consent. In a way, consent can be implicite as the data controller will be processing the data the way it is expected to act.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Rowenna Fielding - a <em>\"Professional Data Protection Nerd, Information Governance\"</em> as she describes herself on her Linkedin profile - published a very useful reminder that hopefully will help to clarify some of the misinformation around Legitimate Interest. I could not say it any better, so I reproduce this here with her authorisation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>&nbsp;10 Legitimate Interests Lessons for Marketers :</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>1. Just because you\'re interested, doesn\'t make it legitimate.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>2. You can\'t use LI to avoid getting consent when you suspect the answer will be \"No\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p> 3. Whether LI can be applied depends on your own assessment of what you\'re doing, why and how - which you will be expected to justify and defend. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>4. LI is not \'unclear\' or \'ambiguous\'; it requires thinking to be done and a decision to be made. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>5. Publish your Legitimate Interests Assessments (LIA) if you anticipate/plan to reject objections to processing. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>6. If a law says you have to get consent for a processing activity, then forget about LI. You can\'t use it. Move on. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>7. LI is only a valid lawful basis for processing personal data if you\'re adhering to all of the principles. It\'s not a loophole around compliance. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>8. If your LIA is post-hoc rationalisation of something you won\'t consider ceasing to do even though you suspect it\'s a bit dodgy; then you wasted your time. Just make sure you have funds set aside to deal with complaints, regulatory action and reputation damage when you get found out. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>9. The ICO is not responsible for your continuing professional development 10. No-one else can do your thinking for you.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The same way that consent is not a universal panacea, Legitimate Interest has to be balanced and where there is a contract to justify the processing of personal data it can be better suited. The UK ICO has an <a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/resources-and-support/lawful-basis-interactive-guidance-tool\">online interactive tool</a> that helps select the most appropriate lawful base of processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Contact us at Data@DataRainbow.eu if you need further assistance to take you trough some of these complexities.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','How to Understand the GDPR Legitimate Interest','Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.','inherit','closed','closed','','267-revision-v1','','','2019-02-12 15:43:35','2019-02-12 15:43:35','',267,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/12/267-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(281,5,'2019-02-13 16:12:44','2019-02-13 16:12:44','{{unknown}}','','','publish','closed','closed','','347e9c7640b0208378d267285fb25047','','','2019-02-13 16:12:44','2019-02-13 16:12:44','',0,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/13/347e9c7640b0208378d267285fb25047/',0,'oembed_cache','',0),(283,5,'2019-02-13 16:40:17','2019-02-13 16:40:17','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/google-style-gdpr-fines-for-everyone-23609/\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Google-Style GDPR Fines for Everyone? Bavarian DPA Conducts Website Cookie Practices Sweep, Announces Fines under Consideration</a></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The French Data Protection Authority, CNIL, <a href=\"https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros-against-google-llc\">fining Google 50 Million Euros</a>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":118,\"align\":\"left\",\"width\":416,\"height\":266} -->\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignleft is-resized\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-21-at-14.52.01-3.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-118\" width=\"416\" height=\"266\" /></figure></div>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The <a href=\"https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2019/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros_en\">European Data Protection Board summary </a>explains how the CNIL has played the role of the lead authority to investigate the class actions filed by the Austrian <a href=\"https://noyb.eu/\">Non Of Your Business, NOYB</a>, and the French <a href=\"https://www.laquadrature.net/en/personnal-data/\">La Quadrature Du Net</a>. \'L\'Europe est en marche\' - Europe is leading - and the Union is enforcing its capabilities. Britain will be missed after Brexit.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>After Google, here comes Facebook : <a href=\"https://www.lesoir.be/140480/article/2018-02-16/protection-des-donnees-privees-la-belgique-fait-plier-facebook\">A Belgian court injonction to Facebook</a> to stop his illegal collect of personal data in an 80 pages decision. 250.000 € maximum de 100 millions d’euros for everyday they dont comply. Things are acceleration. If you havent yet seen the French CNIL Google fine, have a look and make sure your organisation is compliant.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph {\"align\":\"center\"} -->\n<p style=\"text-align:center\"><strong>* * *</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.voiceamerica.com/promo/episode/112620\">Radio interview of Tara Taubman-Bassirian</a>, voted <strong>Privacy Hero 2018</strong>, is on Voice of America Business.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:table -->\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.voiceamerica.com/guest/42903/tara-taubman-bassirian\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Tara Taubman-Bassirian</a></td></tr></tbody></table>\n<!-- /wp:table -->\n\n<!-- wp:heading {\"level\":4} -->\n<h4>Episode Description</h4>\n<!-- /wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>2018 privacy hero of the year, Tara Taubman-Bassirian, discusses the EU GDPR, the increasing need for protecting privacy in the increasingly technology-rich environment, and some activities for Data Privacy Day on January 28, 2019. What are the benefits of GDPR? Where can it be improved upon? What do companies struggle with most for GDPR compliance? What is a “hot potato” GDPR issue? How are binding corporate rules (BCRs) used for non-adequate countries? How has Brexit impacted GDPR compliance? Why does privacy matter? What are the current largest threats to privacy? What are some activities for Data Privacy Day? Hear Tara discuss these topics, and more, with Rebecca.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We are preparing to celebrate the <strong>International Privacy Day</strong> on January the 28th. A <strong>TwitterChat at 3pm GMT</strong> using the hashtag <strong>#PrivacyAware</strong> with help of Kingston Technology. A <strong>drink in a pub in London</strong> from 6 to 9pm, you might want to register for. Hope to see many join us for these celebrations. contact data@datarainbow.eu</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph {\"align\":\"center\"} -->\n<p style=\"text-align:center\"><strong>* *&nbsp;*</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Let the data flow, <a href=\"https://blogs.dlapiper.com/privacymatters/eu-japan-let-the-data-flow-free-flow-of-personal-data-between-eu-countries-and-japan-confirmed/\">adequacy decision between EU and Japan</a> adopted.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Former European Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx joins <a href=\"https://t.co/2LSgMjSG6b\">ICO </a>as non-executive director.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph {\"align\":\"center\"} -->\n<p style=\"text-align:center\"><strong>* *&nbsp;*</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em><a href=\"https://www.pearltrees.com/privacyday/twitter/id23766377#item247781087\">Twitter</a></em> under investigation by the Irish Data Protection Commission</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em><a href=\"https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252456335/Facebooks-objections-to-court-concerns-over-privacy-more-about-optics-than-facts\">Facebook</a></em>’s challenge to a High Court ruling that raises serious concerns about data transfers between Europe and the US is more about appearance than facts, lawyers for the Irish Data Protection Commission told Dublin\'s Supreme Court.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph {\"align\":\"center\"} -->\n<p style=\"text-align:center\"><strong>* * *</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Via EDRI : On 7 February, the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) presented two new working documents analysing further the issue of cross-border access to data in criminal matters, also known as “e-evidence”.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Conditions for obtaining subscriber information in relation to dynamic versus static IP addresses: overview of relevant court decisions and developments <a href=\"https://rm.coe.int/t-cy-2018-26-ip-addresses-v6/16808ea472\">here</a> and<a href=\"https://rm.coe.int/t-cy-2018-26-ip-addresses-v6/16808ea472\"> here.</a></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:embed {\"url\":\"https://rm.coe.int/t-cy-2018-26-ip-addresses-v6/16808ea472\"} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\nhttps://rm.coe.int/t-cy-2018-26-ip-addresses-v6/16808ea472\n</div></figure>\n<!-- /wp:embed -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>WARNING : Links to external website may contain cookies and tracking of visitors data. Do adjust your privacy setting in accordance.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','NEWS','','inherit','closed','closed','','65-revision-v1','','','2019-02-13 16:40:17','2019-02-13 16:40:17','',65,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/13/65-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(284,5,'2019-02-14 13:05:54','2019-02-14 13:05:54','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong><a href=\"https://blog.feroot.com/24-good-reasons-to-love-privacy\">Happy Valentine\'s Day !</a></strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":285} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-14-at-13.03.39.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-285\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":286} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-14-at-13.03.30.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-286\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:gallery {\"ids\":[287,1008]} -->\n<ul class=\"wp-block-gallery columns-2 is-cropped\"><li class=\"blocks-gallery-item\"><figure><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-14-at-13.04.58.png\" alt=\"\" data-id=\"287\" class=\"wp-image-287\" /></figure></li><li class=\"blocks-gallery-item\"><figure><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/08/image.png\" alt=\"\" data-id=\"1008\" data-link=\"http://datarainbow.eu/?attachment_id=1008\" class=\"wp-image-1008\" /></figure></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:gallery -->','Privacy Celebration','','publish','closed','closed','','privacy-celebration','','','2020-08-26 17:47:43','2020-08-26 16:47:43','',0,'http://datarainbow.eu/?page_id=284',0,'page','',0),(285,5,'2019-02-14 13:04:25','2019-02-14 13:04:25','','Screenshot 2019-02-14 at 13.03.39','','inherit','open','closed','','screenshot-2019-02-14-at-13-03-39','','','2019-02-14 13:04:25','2019-02-14 13:04:25','',284,'/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-14-at-13.03.39.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(286,5,'2019-02-14 13:04:42','2019-02-14 13:04:42','','Screenshot 2019-02-14 at 13.03.30','','inherit','open','closed','','screenshot-2019-02-14-at-13-03-30','','','2019-02-14 13:04:42','2019-02-14 13:04:42','',284,'/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-14-at-13.03.30.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(287,5,'2019-02-14 13:05:22','2019-02-14 13:05:22','','Screenshot 2019-02-14 at 13.04.58','','inherit','open','closed','','screenshot-2019-02-14-at-13-04-58','','','2019-02-14 13:05:22','2019-02-14 13:05:22','',284,'/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-14-at-13.04.58.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(288,5,'2019-02-14 13:05:54','2019-02-14 13:05:54','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Happy Valentine\'s Day !</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":285} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-14-at-13.03.39.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-285\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":286} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-14-at-13.03.30.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-286\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":287} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-14-at-13.04.58.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-287\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->','Privacy Celebration','','inherit','closed','closed','','284-revision-v1','','','2019-02-14 13:05:54','2019-02-14 13:05:54','',284,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/14/284-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(289,5,'2019-02-14 13:07:36','2019-02-14 13:07:36','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong><a href=\"https://blog.feroot.com/24-good-reasons-to-love-privacy\">Happy Valentine\'s Day !</a></strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":285} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-14-at-13.03.39.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-285\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":286} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-14-at-13.03.30.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-286\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":287} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-14-at-13.04.58.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-287\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->','Privacy Celebration','','inherit','closed','closed','','284-revision-v1','','','2019-02-14 13:07:36','2019-02-14 13:07:36','',284,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/14/284-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(292,5,'2019-02-15 20:13:14','2019-02-15 20:13:14','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>CELEBRATING THE PRIVACY DAY 2019</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":178} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Champion-Badge.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-178\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Every 28th of January, <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Council_of_Europe\">47 European countries</a> with the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States\">United States</a>,&nbsp;<a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada\">Canada</a>, <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India\">India</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp; celebrate Data Privacy Day, which is designed to raise awareness of and generate discussion about data privacy rights and practices.  The purpose of Data Privacy Day is to raise awareness and promote privacy and data protection best practices. It is currently observed in the&nbsp;.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This year, they are few major reason to celebrate :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>The EU GDPR Regulation entered into for on May 2018</li><li>Between other International Data Protection regulations, the California Consumers Protection Act.</li><li>Tara Taubman-Bassirian the ‘<a href=\"https://myemail.constantcontact.com/January-Tips--Data-Privacy-Day-just-around-the-corner.html?soid=1102633925835&amp;aid=yBZYGvOtdbw#hero2\">Privacy Hero</a>’ of the year &nbsp;</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We are preparing to celebrate the&nbsp;<strong>International Privacy Day</strong>&nbsp;on January the 28th. A&nbsp;<strong>TwitterChat at 3pm GMT</strong> using the hashtag&nbsp;<strong>#PrivacyAware</strong> with the help of Kingston Technology , follow @clarinette02. A&nbsp;<strong>drink in a pub in London</strong>&nbsp;from 6 to 9pm, you might want to register for. Hope to see many join us for these celebrations. Contact : Data@datarainbow.eu</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":227} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/INTRO-1024x575.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-227\" /><figcaption><br></figcaption></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":229} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Question-1-1024x576.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-229\" /><figcaption><br></figcaption></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":230} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Question-2-1024x566.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-230\" /><figcaption><br></figcaption></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":231} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Question-3-1024x569.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-231\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":232} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Question4-1024x571.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-232\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":233} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Question-5-1024x566.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-233\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":234} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Question-6-1024x569.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-234\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":235} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Question-7-1024x565.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-235\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":236} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/QUESTION-8-1024x404.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-236\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":260} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-08-at-17.36.50-1024x701.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-260\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->','Privacy Day','','inherit','closed','closed','','35-revision-v1','','','2019-02-15 20:13:14','2019-02-15 20:13:14','',35,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/15/35-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(293,5,'2019-02-15 20:16:37','2019-02-15 20:16:37','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>CELEBRATING THE PRIVACY DAY 2019</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":178} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Champion-Badge.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-178\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Every 28th of January, <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Council_of_Europe\">47 European countries</a> with the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States\">United States</a>,&nbsp;<a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada\">Canada</a>, <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India\">India</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp; celebrate Data Privacy Day, which is designed to raise awareness of and generate discussion about data privacy rights and practices.  The purpose of Data Privacy Day is to raise awareness and promote privacy and data protection best practices. It is currently observed in the&nbsp;.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This year, they are few major reason to celebrate :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>The EU GDPR Regulation entered into for on May 2018</li><li>Between other International Data Protection regulations, the California Consumers Protection Act.</li><li>Tara Taubman-Bassirian the ‘<a href=\"https://myemail.constantcontact.com/January-Tips--Data-Privacy-Day-just-around-the-corner.html?soid=1102633925835&amp;aid=yBZYGvOtdbw#hero2\">Privacy Hero</a>’ of the year &nbsp;</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We are preparing to celebrate the&nbsp;<strong>International Privacy Day</strong>&nbsp;on January the 28th. A&nbsp;<strong>TwitterChat at 3pm GMT</strong> using the hashtag&nbsp;<strong>#PrivacyAware</strong> with the help of Kingston Technology , follow @clarinette02. A&nbsp;<strong>drink in a pub in London</strong>&nbsp;from 6 to 9pm, you might want to register for. Hope to see many join us for these celebrations. Contact : Data@datarainbow.eu</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":227} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/INTRO-1024x575.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-227\" /><figcaption><br></figcaption></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":229} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Question-1-1024x576.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-229\" /><figcaption><br></figcaption></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":230} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Question-2-1024x566.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-230\" /><figcaption><br></figcaption></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":231} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Question-3-1024x569.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-231\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":232} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Question4-1024x571.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-232\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":233} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Question-5-1024x566.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-233\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":234} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Question-6-1024x569.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-234\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":235} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Question-7-1024x565.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-235\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":236} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/QUESTION-8-1024x404.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-236\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":260} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-08-at-17.36.50-1024x701.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-260\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Have a look at this <a href=\"https://youtu.be/xYZtHIPktQg\">video on Youtube</a></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','Privacy Day','','inherit','closed','closed','','35-revision-v1','','','2019-02-15 20:16:37','2019-02-15 20:16:37','',35,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/15/35-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(295,5,'2019-02-17 11:08:11','2019-02-17 11:08:11','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"http://www.pearltrees.com/privacyday\">A curation of various resources </a> to give a whole picture of Privacy and Data Protection that goes far above the GDPR, from a global perspective. The Pearltrees are a work in progress with links, notes and editorials.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":264} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-09-at-14.28.29.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-264\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":106} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-22-at-13.22.25-1024x607.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-106\" /><figcaption>PrivacyDay Pearltrees</figcaption></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>WARNING</strong> : this is an external link  to a free App that collects personal data. Do adjust your privacy settings and clear your cookies history.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This link will take you to an external website that is hosted by a third-party provider not necessarily in your regional jurisdiction or that of DataRainbow. This company may collect, store and use information independent of DataRainbow including but not limited to IP address, browser details etc. DataRainbow has no control over the collection or use of this information. For more information on the linked sites Privacy Policy and the Legitimate Interest for this data collection, see <a href=\"http://www.pearltrees.com/info/privacy\">here</a>.\" </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','Privacy Day Pearltrees','','inherit','closed','closed','','29-revision-v1','','','2019-02-17 11:08:11','2019-02-17 11:08:11','',29,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/17/29-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(297,5,'2019-02-17 11:12:17','2019-02-17 11:12:17','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We are working on building a privacy compliant website. This site does not use any analytics.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":116,\"align\":\"left\",\"width\":360,\"height\":230} -->\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignleft is-resized\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-21-at-14.52.01-2.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-116\" width=\"360\" height=\"230\" /></figure></div>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We do not use cookies unless strict necessity. We are trying our best to not allow third parties to track our visitors by cookies or by Java Script embeded code. It\'s hard job. We might lose traffic and SEO. Help us by spreading the word. If you see anything suspicious, lets us know.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We believe our visitors deserve protection and privacy. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We want your trust.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":78} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-22-at-11.16.16-1024x415.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-78\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>When links are posted, beware that will take you to an external website that is hosted by a third-party provider not necessarily in your regional jurisdiction or that of DataRainbow. The company may collect, store and use information independent of DataRainbow including but not limited to IP address, browser details etc. DataRainbow has no control over the collection or use of this information. For more information on the linked sites Privacy Policy and the Legitimate Interest for this data collection, read their privacy notice/policy.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This website has been built with the support and help of <a href=\"https://baycloud.com/\">BayCloud. </a> They exceptionally provided the WordPress template and the hosting.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We are very grateful for their hosting of this website and assistance. Here is what you can find on BayCloud website :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>Back in May 2011 Baycloud Systems introduced the original tool for helping websites comply with Do-Not-Track and the Data Protection and ePrivacy Directives, backed by a cost-effective and exhaustive website auditing service.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>Fast track to 2017 and we are now the leading provider to multi-national companies of multi-language and multi-compliance systems, capable of actively managing the users\'s terminal storage in a secure way, not only to protect website visitors’ personal data but also clearly giving them control over its collection and use.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>The Baycloud Consent Platform manages the consent request process, presenting information on usage commitments and user benefits in any language, with a per-site customised user experience and ensuring their choice is continuously available. We ensure that tracking and storage consent policies are properly adhered to, with users\' consent capable of being revoked at any time and automatically after a configurable \"sunset\" period.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>Baycloud was the first universal ePrivacy consent platform, and has, since 2011, focused on real user choice, actively managing first-party cookies and tracking third-parties. This means our technology has been honed and further developed through continuous use on thousands of major brand websites over many years, giving us an unquestioned lead in this space.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>We believe that publishers and brands that respect and offer a straightforward choice to their customers will earn their trust and loyalty.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":75} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-22-at-11.14.49-1024x429.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-75\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->','Privacy Notice','','inherit','closed','closed','','33-revision-v1','','','2019-02-17 11:12:17','2019-02-17 11:12:17','',33,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/17/33-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(298,5,'2019-02-17 11:13:12','2019-02-17 11:13:12','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We are working on building a privacy compliant website. This site does not use any analytics.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":116,\"align\":\"left\",\"width\":360,\"height\":230} -->\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignleft is-resized\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-21-at-14.52.01-2.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-116\" width=\"360\" height=\"230\" /></figure></div>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We do not use cookies unless strict necessity. We are trying our best to not allow third parties to track our visitors by cookies or by Java Script embeded code. It\'s hard job. We might lose traffic and SEO. Help us by spreading the word. If you see anything suspicious, lets us know.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We believe our visitors deserve protection and privacy. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We want your trust.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":78} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-22-at-11.16.16-1024x415.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-78\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>When links are posted, beware that they will take you to an external website that is hosted by a third-party provider not necessarily in your regional jurisdiction or that of DataRainbow. The company may collect, store and use information independent of DataRainbow including but not limited to IP address, browser details etc. DataRainbow has no control over the collection or use of this information. For more information on the linked sites Privacy Policy and the Legitimate Interest for this data collection, read their privacy notice/policy.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This website has been built with the support and help of <a href=\"https://baycloud.com/\">BayCloud. </a> They exceptionally provided the WordPress template and the hosting.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We are very grateful for their hosting of this website and assistance. Here is what you can find on BayCloud website :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>Back in May 2011 Baycloud Systems introduced the original tool for helping websites comply with Do-Not-Track and the Data Protection and ePrivacy Directives, backed by a cost-effective and exhaustive website auditing service.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>Fast track to 2017 and we are now the leading provider to multi-national companies of multi-language and multi-compliance systems, capable of actively managing the users\'s terminal storage in a secure way, not only to protect website visitors’ personal data but also clearly giving them control over its collection and use.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>The Baycloud Consent Platform manages the consent request process, presenting information on usage commitments and user benefits in any language, with a per-site customised user experience and ensuring their choice is continuously available. We ensure that tracking and storage consent policies are properly adhered to, with users\' consent capable of being revoked at any time and automatically after a configurable \"sunset\" period.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>Baycloud was the first universal ePrivacy consent platform, and has, since 2011, focused on real user choice, actively managing first-party cookies and tracking third-parties. This means our technology has been honed and further developed through continuous use on thousands of major brand websites over many years, giving us an unquestioned lead in this space.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>We believe that publishers and brands that respect and offer a straightforward choice to their customers will earn their trust and loyalty.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":75} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-22-at-11.14.49-1024x429.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-75\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->','Privacy Notice','','inherit','closed','closed','','33-revision-v1','','','2019-02-17 11:13:12','2019-02-17 11:13:12','',33,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/17/33-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(300,5,'2019-02-17 11:28:58','2019-02-17 11:28:58','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We are working on building a privacy compliant website. This site does not use any analytics.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":116,\"align\":\"left\",\"width\":360,\"height\":230} -->\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignleft is-resized\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-21-at-14.52.01-2.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-116\" width=\"360\" height=\"230\" /></figure></div>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We do not use cookies unless strict necessity. We are trying our best to not allow third parties to track our visitors by cookies or by Java Script embeded code. It\'s hard job. We might lose traffic and SEO. Help us by spreading the word. If you see anything suspicious, lets us know.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We believe our visitors deserve protection and privacy. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We want your trust. In particular, we do not use Google analytics, avoiding to share data with external third parties.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":78} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-22-at-11.16.16-1024x415.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-78\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>When links are posted, beware that they will take you to an external website that is hosted by a third-party provider not necessarily in your regional jurisdiction or that of DataRainbow. The company may collect, store and use information independent of DataRainbow including but not limited to IP address, browser details etc. DataRainbow has no control over the collection or use of this information. For more information on the linked sites Privacy Policy and the Lawful basis for this data collection, read their privacy notice/policy.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This website has been built with the support and help of <a href=\"https://baycloud.com/\">BayCloud.&nbsp;</a> They exceptionally provided the WordPress template and the hosting.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We are very grateful for their hosting of this website and assistance. Here is what you can find on BayCloud website :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>Back in May 2011 Baycloud Systems introduced the original tool for helping websites comply with Do-Not-Track and the Data Protection and ePrivacy Directives, backed by a cost-effective and exhaustive website auditing service.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>Fast track to 2017 and we are now the leading provider to multi-national companies of multi-language and multi-compliance systems, capable of actively managing the users\'s terminal storage in a secure way, not only to protect website visitors’ personal data but also clearly giving them control over its collection and use.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>The Baycloud Consent Platform manages the consent request process, presenting information on usage commitments and user benefits in any language, with a per-site customised user experience and ensuring their choice is continuously available. We ensure that tracking and storage consent policies are properly adhered to, with users\' consent capable of being revoked at any time and automatically after a configurable \"sunset\" period.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>Baycloud was the first universal ePrivacy consent platform, and has, since 2011, focused on real user choice, actively managing first-party cookies and tracking third-parties. This means our technology has been honed and further developed through continuous use on thousands of major brand websites over many years, giving us an unquestioned lead in this space.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>We believe that publishers and brands that respect and offer a straightforward choice to their customers will earn their trust and loyalty.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":75} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-22-at-11.14.49-1024x429.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-75\" /></figure>\n<!-- /wp:image -->','Privacy Notice','','inherit','closed','closed','','33-revision-v1','','','2019-02-17 11:28:58','2019-02-17 11:28:58','',33,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/17/33-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(303,5,'2019-02-18 17:46:06','2019-02-18 17:46:06','<!-- wp:heading {\"level\":4} -->\n<h4><a href=\"https://privacylawblog.fieldfisher.com/2019/edpb-prepares-for-a-no-deal-brexit\">EDPB prepares for a \"no deal\" Brexit</a></h4>\n<!-- /wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>\"What this means is that companies in the EU (including the EEA) that are currently freely sending their personal data to the UK will have to implement appropriate safeguards in accordance with article 46 before transferring any personal data to the UK. These appropriate safeguards include:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>Standard Data Protection Clauses adopted by the European Commission of a DPA</em></li><li><em>Ad Hoc Data Protection Clauses adopted the EU based company (data exporter) and the UK based recipient of this data (data importer)</em></li><li><em>Binding Corporate Rules</em></li><li><em>Codes of Conduct</em></li><li><em>Certification Mechanism\"</em>.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The European Data Protection Board Published its guidance :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>Information note on data transfers under the GDPR in the event of a no-deal Brexit  <a href=\"https://www.pearltrees.com/s/file/preview/192486822/edpb-2019-02-12-infonote-nodeal-brexit_en.pdf\">Adopted on 12 February 2019</a></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>Information note on BCRs for companies which have ICO<br> as BCR Lead Supervisory Authority - <a href=\"https://www.pearltrees.com/s/file/preview/192486834/edpb-2019-02-12-infonote-bcrs-brexit_en.pdf\">Adopted on 12 February 2019</a></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/google-style-gdpr-fines-for-everyone-23609/\" target=\"_blank\">Google-Style GDPR Fines for Everyone? Bavarian DPA Conducts Website Cookie Practices Sweep, Announces Fines under Consideration</a></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The French Data Protection Authority, CNIL, <a href=\"https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros-against-google-llc\">fining Google 50 Million Euros</a>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":118,\"align\":\"left\",\"width\":416,\"height\":266} -->\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignleft is-resized\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-21-at-14.52.01-3.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-118\" width=\"416\" height=\"266\" /></figure></div>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The <a href=\"https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2019/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros_en\">European Data Protection Board summary </a>explains how the CNIL has played the role of the lead authority to investigate the class actions filed by the Austrian <a href=\"https://noyb.eu/\">Non Of Your Business, NOYB</a>, and the French <a href=\"https://www.laquadrature.net/en/personnal-data/\">La Quadrature Du Net</a>. \'L\'Europe est en marche\' - Europe is leading - and the Union is enforcing its capabilities. Britain will be missed after Brexit.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>After Google, here comes Facebook : <a href=\"https://www.lesoir.be/140480/article/2018-02-16/protection-des-donnees-privees-la-belgique-fait-plier-facebook\">A Belgian court injonction to Facebook</a> to stop his illegal collect of personal data in an 80 pages decision. 250.000 € maximum de 100 millions d’euros for everyday they dont comply. Things are acceleration. If you havent yet seen the French CNIL Google fine, have a look and make sure your organisation is compliant.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph {\"align\":\"center\"} -->\n<p style=\"text-align:center\"><strong>* * *</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.voiceamerica.com/promo/episode/112620\">Radio interview of Tara Taubman-Bassirian</a>, voted <strong>Privacy Hero 2018</strong>, is on Voice of America Business.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:table -->\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.voiceamerica.com/guest/42903/tara-taubman-bassirian\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Tara Taubman-Bassirian</a></td></tr></tbody></table>\n<!-- /wp:table -->\n\n<!-- wp:heading {\"level\":4} -->\n<h4>Episode Description</h4>\n<!-- /wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>2018 privacy hero of the year, Tara Taubman-Bassirian, discusses the EU GDPR, the increasing need for protecting privacy in the increasingly technology-rich environment, and some activities for Data Privacy Day on January 28, 2019. What are the benefits of GDPR? Where can it be improved upon? What do companies struggle with most for GDPR compliance? What is a “hot potato” GDPR issue? How are binding corporate rules (BCRs) used for non-adequate countries? How has Brexit impacted GDPR compliance? Why does privacy matter? What are the current largest threats to privacy? What are some activities for Data Privacy Day? Hear Tara discuss these topics, and more, with Rebecca.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We are preparing to celebrate the <strong>International Privacy Day</strong> on January the 28th. A <strong>TwitterChat at 3pm GMT</strong> using the hashtag <strong>#PrivacyAware</strong> with help of Kingston Technology. A <strong>drink in a pub in London</strong> from 6 to 9pm, you might want to register for. Hope to see many join us for these celebrations. contact data@datarainbow.eu</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph {\"align\":\"center\"} -->\n<p style=\"text-align:center\"><strong>* *&nbsp;*</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Let the data flow, <a href=\"https://blogs.dlapiper.com/privacymatters/eu-japan-let-the-data-flow-free-flow-of-personal-data-between-eu-countries-and-japan-confirmed/\">adequacy decision between EU and Japan</a> adopted.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Former European Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx joins <a href=\"https://t.co/2LSgMjSG6b\">ICO </a>as non-executive director.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph {\"align\":\"center\"} -->\n<p style=\"text-align:center\"><strong>* *&nbsp;*</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em><a href=\"https://www.pearltrees.com/privacyday/twitter/id23766377#item247781087\">Twitter</a></em> under investigation by the Irish Data Protection Commission</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em><a href=\"https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252456335/Facebooks-objections-to-court-concerns-over-privacy-more-about-optics-than-facts\">Facebook</a></em>’s challenge to a High Court ruling that raises serious concerns about data transfers between Europe and the US is more about appearance than facts, lawyers for the Irish Data Protection Commission told Dublin\'s Supreme Court.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph {\"align\":\"center\"} -->\n<p style=\"text-align:center\"><strong>* * *</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Via EDRI&nbsp;: On 7 February, the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) presented two new working documents analysing further the issue of cross-border access to data in criminal matters, also known as “e-evidence”.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Conditions for obtaining subscriber information in relation to dynamic versus static IP addresses: overview of relevant court decisions and developments <a href=\"https://rm.coe.int/t-cy-2018-26-ip-addresses-v6/16808ea472\">here</a> and<a href=\"https://rm.coe.int/t-cy-2018-26-ip-addresses-v6/16808ea472\"> here.</a></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:embed {\"url\":\"https://rm.coe.int/t-cy-2018-26-ip-addresses-v6/16808ea472\"} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\nhttps://rm.coe.int/t-cy-2018-26-ip-addresses-v6/16808ea472\n</div></figure>\n<!-- /wp:embed -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>WARNING : Links to external website may contain cookies and tracking of visitors data. Do adjust your privacy setting in accordance.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','NEWS','','inherit','closed','closed','','65-revision-v1','','','2019-02-18 17:46:06','2019-02-18 17:46:06','',65,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/18/65-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(305,5,'2019-02-18 18:10:13','2019-02-18 18:10:13','<!-- wp:heading {\"level\":4} -->\n<h4><a href=\"https://privacylawblog.fieldfisher.com/2019/edpb-prepares-for-a-no-deal-brexit\">EDPB prepares for a \"no deal\" Brexit</a></h4>\n<!-- /wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>\"What this means is that companies in the EU (including the EEA) that are currently freely sending their personal data to the UK will have to implement appropriate safeguards in accordance with article 46 before transferring any personal data to the UK. These appropriate safeguards include:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>Standard Data Protection Clauses adopted by the European Commission of a DPA</em></li><li><em>Ad Hoc Data Protection Clauses adopted the EU based company (data exporter) and the UK based recipient of this data (data importer)</em></li><li><em>Binding Corporate Rules</em></li><li><em>Codes of Conduct</em></li><li><em>Certification Mechanism\"</em>.</li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The European Data Protection Board Published its guidance :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>Information note on data transfers under the GDPR in the event of a no-deal Brexit  <a href=\"https://www.pearltrees.com/s/file/preview/192486822/edpb-2019-02-12-infonote-nodeal-brexit_en.pdf\">Adopted on 12 February 2019</a></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li>Information note on BCRs for companies which have ICO<br> as BCR Lead Supervisory Authority - <a href=\"https://www.pearltrees.com/s/file/preview/192486834/edpb-2019-02-12-infonote-bcrs-brexit_en.pdf\">Adopted on 12 February 2019 </a></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:heading {\"level\":3} -->\n<h3>ICO guidance</h3>\n<!-- /wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>To&nbsp;<em>help</em>&nbsp;organisations prepare for a&nbsp;<em>\'</em>no deal<em>\'</em>&nbsp;Brexit, the ICO has published a short guide for UK businesses:&nbsp;<em>\'</em><a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/media/2553958/leaving-the-eu-six-steps-to-take.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Six Steps to Take</a><em>\'</em>:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list {\"ordered\":true} -->\n<ol><li><strong><em>Continue to comply</em></strong>&nbsp;with GDPR and follow ICO guidance.</li><li><strong><em>Transfers to the UK</em>:</strong>&nbsp;Review data flows and identify where your organisation receives data into the UK from the EEA to ensure sufficient safeguards are in place to allow the continued flow of personal data.</li><li><strong><em>Transfers from the UK</em>:</strong>&nbsp;Identify data flows to countries outside of the UK, as these will fall under new UK transfer and documentation provisions.</li><li><strong><em>European operations</em>:</strong>&nbsp;For organisations that operate across Europe, data flows, processing operations and group structures should be reviewed to fully understand the effect of Brexit on operations.</li><li><strong><em>Documentation:</em></strong>&nbsp;Identify privacy documentation in the event it needs to be updated when the UK leaves the EU.</li><li><strong><em>Organisational awareness:</em></strong>&nbsp;Ensure key people in the organisation are aware of these key issues and that plans are up to date.</li></ol>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:heading {\"level\":4} -->\n<h4><strong><a href=\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/data-protection-law-eu-exit/amendments-to-uk-data-protection-law-in-the-event-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-without-a-deal-on-29-march-2019\">UK Gov Guidance</a> : Amendments to UK data protection law in the event the UK leaves the EU without a deal on 29 March 2019</strong></h4>\n<!-- /wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Resources on<a href=\"http://www.pearltrees.com/privacyday/uk-brexit/id23426706\"> Brexit</a>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/google-style-gdpr-fines-for-everyone-23609/\" target=\"_blank\">Google-Style GDPR Fines for Everyone? Bavarian DPA Conducts Website Cookie Practices Sweep, Announces Fines under Consideration</a></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The French Data Protection Authority, CNIL, <a href=\"https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros-against-google-llc\">fining Google 50 Million Euros</a>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:image {\"id\":118,\"align\":\"left\",\"width\":416,\"height\":266} -->\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignleft is-resized\"><img src=\"/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Screenshot-2019-01-21-at-14.52.01-3.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-118\" width=\"416\" height=\"266\" /></figure></div>\n<!-- /wp:image -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The <a href=\"https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2019/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros_en\">European Data Protection Board summary </a>explains how the CNIL has played the role of the lead authority to investigate the class actions filed by the Austrian <a href=\"https://noyb.eu/\">Non Of Your Business, NOYB</a>, and the French <a href=\"https://www.laquadrature.net/en/personnal-data/\">La Quadrature Du Net</a>. \'L\'Europe est en marche\' - Europe is leading - and the Union is enforcing its capabilities. Britain will be missed after Brexit.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>After Google, here comes Facebook : <a href=\"https://www.lesoir.be/140480/article/2018-02-16/protection-des-donnees-privees-la-belgique-fait-plier-facebook\">A Belgian court injonction to Facebook</a> to stop his illegal collect of personal data in an 80 pages decision. 250.000 € maximum de 100 millions d’euros for everyday they dont comply. Things are acceleration. If you havent yet seen the French CNIL Google fine, have a look and make sure your organisation is compliant.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph {\"align\":\"center\"} -->\n<p style=\"text-align:center\"><strong>* * *</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.voiceamerica.com/promo/episode/112620\">Radio interview of Tara Taubman-Bassirian</a>, voted <strong>Privacy Hero 2018</strong>, is on Voice of America Business.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:table -->\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.voiceamerica.com/guest/42903/tara-taubman-bassirian\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Tara Taubman-Bassirian</a></td></tr></tbody></table>\n<!-- /wp:table -->\n\n<!-- wp:heading {\"level\":4} -->\n<h4>Episode Description</h4>\n<!-- /wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>2018 privacy hero of the year, Tara Taubman-Bassirian, discusses the EU GDPR, the increasing need for protecting privacy in the increasingly technology-rich environment, and some activities for Data Privacy Day on January 28, 2019. What are the benefits of GDPR? Where can it be improved upon? What do companies struggle with most for GDPR compliance? What is a “hot potato” GDPR issue? How are binding corporate rules (BCRs) used for non-adequate countries? How has Brexit impacted GDPR compliance? Why does privacy matter? What are the current largest threats to privacy? What are some activities for Data Privacy Day? Hear Tara discuss these topics, and more, with Rebecca.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We are preparing to celebrate the <strong>International Privacy Day</strong> on January the 28th. A <strong>TwitterChat at 3pm GMT</strong> using the hashtag <strong>#PrivacyAware</strong> with help of Kingston Technology. A <strong>drink in a pub in London</strong> from 6 to 9pm, you might want to register for. Hope to see many join us for these celebrations. contact data@datarainbow.eu</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph {\"align\":\"center\"} -->\n<p style=\"text-align:center\"><strong>* *&nbsp;*</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Let the data flow, <a href=\"https://blogs.dlapiper.com/privacymatters/eu-japan-let-the-data-flow-free-flow-of-personal-data-between-eu-countries-and-japan-confirmed/\">adequacy decision between EU and Japan</a> adopted.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Former European Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx joins <a href=\"https://t.co/2LSgMjSG6b\">ICO </a>as non-executive director.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph {\"align\":\"center\"} -->\n<p style=\"text-align:center\"><strong>* *&nbsp;*</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em><a href=\"https://www.pearltrees.com/privacyday/twitter/id23766377#item247781087\">Twitter</a></em> under investigation by the Irish Data Protection Commission</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em><a href=\"https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252456335/Facebooks-objections-to-court-concerns-over-privacy-more-about-optics-than-facts\">Facebook</a></em>’s challenge to a High Court ruling that raises serious concerns about data transfers between Europe and the US is more about appearance than facts, lawyers for the Irish Data Protection Commission told Dublin\'s Supreme Court.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph {\"align\":\"center\"} -->\n<p style=\"text-align:center\"><strong>* * *</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Via EDRI&nbsp;: On 7 February, the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) presented two new working documents analysing further the issue of cross-border access to data in criminal matters, also known as “e-evidence”.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Conditions for obtaining subscriber information in relation to dynamic versus static IP addresses: overview of relevant court decisions and developments <a href=\"https://rm.coe.int/t-cy-2018-26-ip-addresses-v6/16808ea472\">here</a> and<a href=\"https://rm.coe.int/t-cy-2018-26-ip-addresses-v6/16808ea472\"> here.</a></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:embed {\"url\":\"https://rm.coe.int/t-cy-2018-26-ip-addresses-v6/16808ea472\"} -->\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\nhttps://rm.coe.int/t-cy-2018-26-ip-addresses-v6/16808ea472\n</div></figure>\n<!-- /wp:embed -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>WARNING : Links to external website may contain cookies and tracking of visitors data. Do adjust your privacy setting in accordance.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','NEWS','','inherit','closed','closed','','65-revision-v1','','','2019-02-18 18:10:13','2019-02-18 18:10:13','',65,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/18/65-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(307,5,'2019-02-22 18:46:46','2019-02-22 18:46:46','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/datenschutzgrundverordnung-behoerden-verhaengen-erste-bussgelder-wegen-verstoessen-gegen-dsgvo/23872806.html?utm_term=Autofeed&amp;social=tw-hb_hk-li-ne-or-&amp;utm_medium=Social&amp;utm_content=hb_hk&amp;utm_source=Twitter&amp;ticket=ST-3132650-6BS3JkvjeZRSOdTaQcJa-ap4#Echobox=1547811383\">The Handlsblatt</a> report the authorities first fines for violations of GDPR (DSGVO)  by the various DPAs in the German Federal States. :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Nationwide, fines have been issued in 41 cases because of DSGVO violations. Especially small companies are apparently unprepared for the new rules. \"<em>Most fines were imposed by North Rhine-Westphalia (33), followed by Hamburg (3) and Baden-Württemberg and Berlin (2 each) and Saarland (1). Alone at the Bavarian State Office for Data Protection Supervision (BayLDA), which monitors the observance of data protection law in private business enterprises, in freelancers, in associations and associations as well as on the internet, currently 85 fine proceedings are under the GDPR.</em>\" </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>The large number of consultation requests and the explicit complaints indicate that there has been an increased awareness.</em>\" In this respect one could say: \"<em>The DSGVO has been effective with regard to those affected.</em>\" There are serious deficiencies in the data processing information.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>According to the Hamburg data protection Authority, Johannes Caspar, \"<em>a lot has changed for the better in companies as well</em>\".&nbsp;Awareness of data protection and understanding of one\'s own responsibility for the processing of data has increased significantly.&nbsp;For example regarding the appointment of data protection officers or the creation of processing directories and data protection statements.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>In this respect, this improved awareness is certainly one of the most important changes by the GDPR</em>,\" according to Johannes Caspar.&nbsp;\"<em>The huge increase in consultancy shows the great need of companies to behave in compliance with data protection</em>,\" said BayLDA President Thomas Kranig .</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>With regard to global Internet companies, supervisors must be able to enforce data protection in accordance with the GDPR and, where necessary, initiate and implement fast and effective procedures,</em>\" Johannes Caspar said.&nbsp;It will show whether the European Data Protection Board and the national authorities represented therein are able to ensure the uniform and effective protection of the rights and freedoms of stakeholders in this field.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>For the Bavarian State Commissioner for&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/themen/datenschutz\">Data Protection</a>,&nbsp;Thomas Petri, it was important that companies such as clinics or transport companies,&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/it-medien/studie-zur-it-sicherheit-viele-firmen-sind-bei-cyberangriffen-konzeptlos/23178588.html\">adapted as soon as possible their privacy management.</a> He considers \"<em>Sometimes fines can inhibit rather than promote fines,</em>\" while at the same time he warned: \"<em>I should not rely unconditionally on my restraint.</em>\" He had already warned a number of clinics for significant violations that they would result in fines.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It was about&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/it-medien/emotet-angriffe-cybersicherheit-ist-noch-immer-selten-chefsache-das-kann-sich-raechen/23732342.html\">\"significant technical and organizational deficiencies.\"</a>&nbsp;In Brandenburg, it was said in the \"conversion phase\" consultations would be more effective than the \"immediate application of the tightened fine rules\".&nbsp;However, fines would \"make use of them in the future,\" emphasized data protection officer Dagmar Hartge.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The Data Protection Authority of Lower Saxony is currently conducting a \"cross-sectional inspection\" of 50 companies in Lower Saxony for the GDPR implementation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We can only agree with the Berlin data protection officer Maja Smoltczyk, \"<em>The General Data Protection Regulation represents a first important step in helping to safeguard our freedoms</em>\" .</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International<br>More information on the licence can be found <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\">here</a>. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','Increasing Fines Expected from German DPAs','In Germany, nationwide, fines have been issued in 41 cases because of GDPR violations. Especially small companies are apparently unprepared for the new rules.','publish','open','open','','increasing-fines-expected-from-german-dpas','','','2019-03-08 21:22:37','2019-03-08 21:22:37','',0,'http://datarainbow.eu/?p=307',0,'post','',0),(308,5,'2019-02-22 18:46:46','2019-02-22 18:46:46','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/datenschutzgrundverordnung-behoerden-verhaengen-erste-bussgelder-wegen-verstoessen-gegen-dsgvo/23872806.html?utm_term=Autofeed&amp;social=tw-hb_hk-li-ne-or-&amp;utm_medium=Social&amp;utm_content=hb_hk&amp;utm_source=Twitter&amp;ticket=ST-3132650-6BS3JkvjeZRSOdTaQcJa-ap4#Echobox=1547811383\">The Handlsblatt</a> report the authorities first fines for violations of GDPR (DSGVO)  by the various DPAs in the German Federal States. :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Nationwide, fines have been issued in 41 cases because of DSGVO violations. Especially small companies are apparently unprepared for the new rules. \"<em>Most fines were imposed by North Rhine-Westphalia (33), followed by Hamburg (3) and Baden-Württemberg and Berlin (2 each) and Saarland (1). Alone at the Bavarian State Office for Data Protection Supervision (BayLDA), which monitors the observance of data protection law in private business enterprises, in freelancers, in associations and associations as well as on the internet, currently 85 fine proceedings are under the GDPR.</em>\" </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>The large number of consultation requests and the explicit complaints indicate that there has been an increased awareness.</em>\" In this respect one could say: \"<em>The DSGVO has been effective with regard to those affected.</em>\" There are serious deficiencies in the data processing information.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>According to the Hamburg data protector Johannes Caspar, \"<em>a lot has changed for the better in companies as well</em>\". Awareness of data protection and understanding of one\'s own responsibility for the processing of data has increased significantly. For example regarding the appointment of data protection officers or the creation of processing directories and data protection statements.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>In this respect, this improved awareness is certainly one of the most important changes by the GDPR</em>,\" said Caspar. \"<em>The huge increase in consultancy shows the great need of companies to behave in compliance with data protection</em>,\" said BayLDA President Thomas Kranig .</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>With regard to global Internet companies, supervisors must be able to enforce data protection in accordance with the GDPR and, where necessary, initiate and implement fast and effective procedures,</em>\" Johannes Caspar said. It will show whether the European Data Protection Board and the national authorities represented therein are able to ensure the uniform and effective protection of the rights and freedoms of stakeholders in this field.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','Increasing Fines Expected from German DPAs','','inherit','closed','closed','','307-revision-v1','','','2019-02-22 18:46:46','2019-02-22 18:46:46','',307,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/22/307-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(310,5,'2019-02-22 18:54:48','2019-02-22 18:54:48','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/datenschutzgrundverordnung-behoerden-verhaengen-erste-bussgelder-wegen-verstoessen-gegen-dsgvo/23872806.html?utm_term=Autofeed&amp;social=tw-hb_hk-li-ne-or-&amp;utm_medium=Social&amp;utm_content=hb_hk&amp;utm_source=Twitter&amp;ticket=ST-3132650-6BS3JkvjeZRSOdTaQcJa-ap4#Echobox=1547811383\">The Handlsblatt</a> report the authorities first fines for violations of GDPR (DSGVO)  by the various DPAs in the German Federal States. :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Nationwide, fines have been issued in 41 cases because of DSGVO violations. Especially small companies are apparently unprepared for the new rules. \"<em>Most fines were imposed by North Rhine-Westphalia (33), followed by Hamburg (3) and Baden-Württemberg and Berlin (2 each) and Saarland (1). Alone at the Bavarian State Office for Data Protection Supervision (BayLDA), which monitors the observance of data protection law in private business enterprises, in freelancers, in associations and associations as well as on the internet, currently 85 fine proceedings are under the GDPR.</em>\" </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>The large number of consultation requests and the explicit complaints indicate that there has been an increased awareness.</em>\" In this respect one could say: \"<em>The DSGVO has been effective with regard to those affected.</em>\" There are serious deficiencies in the data processing information.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>According to the Hamburg data protection Authority, Johannes Caspar, \"<em>a lot has changed for the better in companies as well</em>\". Awareness of data protection and understanding of one\'s own responsibility for the processing of data has increased significantly. For example regarding the appointment of data protection officers or the creation of processing directories and data protection statements.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>In this respect, this improved awareness is certainly one of the most important changes by the GDPR</em>,\" according to Johannes Caspar. \"<em>The huge increase in consultancy shows the great need of companies to behave in compliance with data protection</em>,\" said BayLDA President Thomas Kranig .</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>With regard to global Internet companies, supervisors must be able to enforce data protection in accordance with the GDPR and, where necessary, initiate and implement fast and effective procedures,</em>\" Johannes Caspar said. It will show whether the European Data Protection Board and the national authorities represented therein are able to ensure the uniform and effective protection of the rights and freedoms of stakeholders in this field.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>For the Bavarian State Commissioner for <a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/themen/datenschutz\">Data Protection</a>, Thomas Petri, it was important that companies such as clinics or transport companies, <a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/it-medien/studie-zur-it-sicherheit-viele-firmen-sind-bei-cyberangriffen-konzeptlos/23178588.html\">adapted as soon as possible their privacy management.</a> He considers \"<em>Sometimes fines can inhibit rather than promote fines,</em>\" while at the same time he warned: \"<em>I should not rely unconditionally on my restraint.</em>\" He had already warned a number of clinics for significant violations that they would result in fines.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It was about&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/it-medien/emotet-angriffe-cybersicherheit-ist-noch-immer-selten-chefsache-das-kann-sich-raechen/23732342.html\">\"significant technical and organizational deficiencies.\"</a>&nbsp;In Brandenburg, it was said in the \"conversion phase\" consultations would be more effective than the \"immediate application of the tightened fine rules\".&nbsp;However, fines would \"make use of them in the future,\" emphasized data protection officer Dagmar Hartge.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','Increasing Fines Expected from German DPAs','In Germany, nationwide, fines have been issued in 41 cases because of GDPR violations. Especially small companies are apparently unprepared for the new rules.','inherit','closed','closed','','307-revision-v1','','','2019-02-22 18:54:48','2019-02-22 18:54:48','',307,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/22/307-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(312,5,'2019-02-22 19:04:08','2019-02-22 19:04:08','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/datenschutzgrundverordnung-behoerden-verhaengen-erste-bussgelder-wegen-verstoessen-gegen-dsgvo/23872806.html?utm_term=Autofeed&amp;social=tw-hb_hk-li-ne-or-&amp;utm_medium=Social&amp;utm_content=hb_hk&amp;utm_source=Twitter&amp;ticket=ST-3132650-6BS3JkvjeZRSOdTaQcJa-ap4#Echobox=1547811383\">The Handlsblatt</a> report the authorities first fines for violations of GDPR (DSGVO)  by the various DPAs in the German Federal States. :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Nationwide, fines have been issued in 41 cases because of DSGVO violations. Especially small companies are apparently unprepared for the new rules. \"<em>Most fines were imposed by North Rhine-Westphalia (33), followed by Hamburg (3) and Baden-Württemberg and Berlin (2 each) and Saarland (1). Alone at the Bavarian State Office for Data Protection Supervision (BayLDA), which monitors the observance of data protection law in private business enterprises, in freelancers, in associations and associations as well as on the internet, currently 85 fine proceedings are under the GDPR.</em>\" </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>The large number of consultation requests and the explicit complaints indicate that there has been an increased awareness.</em>\" In this respect one could say: \"<em>The DSGVO has been effective with regard to those affected.</em>\" There are serious deficiencies in the data processing information.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>According to the Hamburg data protection Authority, Johannes Caspar, \"<em>a lot has changed for the better in companies as well</em>\".&nbsp;Awareness of data protection and understanding of one\'s own responsibility for the processing of data has increased significantly.&nbsp;For example regarding the appointment of data protection officers or the creation of processing directories and data protection statements.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>In this respect, this improved awareness is certainly one of the most important changes by the GDPR</em>,\" according to Johannes Caspar.&nbsp;\"<em>The huge increase in consultancy shows the great need of companies to behave in compliance with data protection</em>,\" said BayLDA President Thomas Kranig .</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>With regard to global Internet companies, supervisors must be able to enforce data protection in accordance with the GDPR and, where necessary, initiate and implement fast and effective procedures,</em>\" Johannes Caspar said.&nbsp;It will show whether the European Data Protection Board and the national authorities represented therein are able to ensure the uniform and effective protection of the rights and freedoms of stakeholders in this field.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>For the Bavarian State Commissioner for&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/themen/datenschutz\">Data Protection</a>,&nbsp;Thomas Petri, it was important that companies such as clinics or transport companies,&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/it-medien/studie-zur-it-sicherheit-viele-firmen-sind-bei-cyberangriffen-konzeptlos/23178588.html\">adapted as soon as possible their privacy management.</a> He considers \"<em>Sometimes fines can inhibit rather than promote fines,</em>\" while at the same time he warned: \"<em>I should not rely unconditionally on my restraint.</em>\" He had already warned a number of clinics for significant violations that they would result in fines.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It was about <a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/it-medien/emotet-angriffe-cybersicherheit-ist-noch-immer-selten-chefsache-das-kann-sich-raechen/23732342.html\">\"significant technical and organizational deficiencies.\"</a> In Brandenburg, it was said in the \"conversion phase\" consultations would be more effective than the \"immediate application of the tightened fine rules\". However, fines would \"make use of them in the future,\" emphasized data protection officer Dagmar Hartge.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The Data Protection Authority of Lower Saxony is currently conducting a \"cross-sectional inspection\" of 50 companies in Lower Saxony for the GDPR implementation on their websites.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','Increasing Fines Expected from German DPAs','In Germany, nationwide, fines have been issued in 41 cases because of GDPR violations. Especially small companies are apparently unprepared for the new rules.','inherit','closed','closed','','307-revision-v1','','','2019-02-22 19:04:08','2019-02-22 19:04:08','',307,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/22/307-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(313,5,'2019-02-22 19:04:58','2019-02-22 19:04:58','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/datenschutzgrundverordnung-behoerden-verhaengen-erste-bussgelder-wegen-verstoessen-gegen-dsgvo/23872806.html?utm_term=Autofeed&amp;social=tw-hb_hk-li-ne-or-&amp;utm_medium=Social&amp;utm_content=hb_hk&amp;utm_source=Twitter&amp;ticket=ST-3132650-6BS3JkvjeZRSOdTaQcJa-ap4#Echobox=1547811383\">The Handlsblatt</a> report the authorities first fines for violations of GDPR (DSGVO)  by the various DPAs in the German Federal States. :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Nationwide, fines have been issued in 41 cases because of DSGVO violations. Especially small companies are apparently unprepared for the new rules. \"<em>Most fines were imposed by North Rhine-Westphalia (33), followed by Hamburg (3) and Baden-Württemberg and Berlin (2 each) and Saarland (1). Alone at the Bavarian State Office for Data Protection Supervision (BayLDA), which monitors the observance of data protection law in private business enterprises, in freelancers, in associations and associations as well as on the internet, currently 85 fine proceedings are under the GDPR.</em>\" </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>The large number of consultation requests and the explicit complaints indicate that there has been an increased awareness.</em>\" In this respect one could say: \"<em>The DSGVO has been effective with regard to those affected.</em>\" There are serious deficiencies in the data processing information.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>According to the Hamburg data protection Authority, Johannes Caspar, \"<em>a lot has changed for the better in companies as well</em>\".&nbsp;Awareness of data protection and understanding of one\'s own responsibility for the processing of data has increased significantly.&nbsp;For example regarding the appointment of data protection officers or the creation of processing directories and data protection statements.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>In this respect, this improved awareness is certainly one of the most important changes by the GDPR</em>,\" according to Johannes Caspar.&nbsp;\"<em>The huge increase in consultancy shows the great need of companies to behave in compliance with data protection</em>,\" said BayLDA President Thomas Kranig .</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>With regard to global Internet companies, supervisors must be able to enforce data protection in accordance with the GDPR and, where necessary, initiate and implement fast and effective procedures,</em>\" Johannes Caspar said.&nbsp;It will show whether the European Data Protection Board and the national authorities represented therein are able to ensure the uniform and effective protection of the rights and freedoms of stakeholders in this field.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>For the Bavarian State Commissioner for&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/themen/datenschutz\">Data Protection</a>,&nbsp;Thomas Petri, it was important that companies such as clinics or transport companies,&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/it-medien/studie-zur-it-sicherheit-viele-firmen-sind-bei-cyberangriffen-konzeptlos/23178588.html\">adapted as soon as possible their privacy management.</a> He considers \"<em>Sometimes fines can inhibit rather than promote fines,</em>\" while at the same time he warned: \"<em>I should not rely unconditionally on my restraint.</em>\" He had already warned a number of clinics for significant violations that they would result in fines.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It was about <a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/it-medien/emotet-angriffe-cybersicherheit-ist-noch-immer-selten-chefsache-das-kann-sich-raechen/23732342.html\">\"significant technical and organizational deficiencies.\"</a> In Brandenburg, it was said in the \"conversion phase\" consultations would be more effective than the \"immediate application of the tightened fine rules\". However, fines would \"make use of them in the future,\" emphasized data protection officer Dagmar Hartge.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The Data Protection Authority of Lower Saxony is currently conducting a \"cross-sectional inspection\" of 50 companies in Lower Saxony for the GDPR implementation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','Increasing Fines Expected from German DPAs','In Germany, nationwide, fines have been issued in 41 cases because of GDPR violations. Especially small companies are apparently unprepared for the new rules.','inherit','closed','closed','','307-revision-v1','','','2019-02-22 19:04:58','2019-02-22 19:04:58','',307,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/22/307-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(315,5,'2019-02-22 19:07:48','2019-02-22 19:07:48','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/datenschutzgrundverordnung-behoerden-verhaengen-erste-bussgelder-wegen-verstoessen-gegen-dsgvo/23872806.html?utm_term=Autofeed&amp;social=tw-hb_hk-li-ne-or-&amp;utm_medium=Social&amp;utm_content=hb_hk&amp;utm_source=Twitter&amp;ticket=ST-3132650-6BS3JkvjeZRSOdTaQcJa-ap4#Echobox=1547811383\">The Handlsblatt</a> report the authorities first fines for violations of GDPR (DSGVO)  by the various DPAs in the German Federal States. :</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Nationwide, fines have been issued in 41 cases because of DSGVO violations. Especially small companies are apparently unprepared for the new rules. \"<em>Most fines were imposed by North Rhine-Westphalia (33), followed by Hamburg (3) and Baden-Württemberg and Berlin (2 each) and Saarland (1). Alone at the Bavarian State Office for Data Protection Supervision (BayLDA), which monitors the observance of data protection law in private business enterprises, in freelancers, in associations and associations as well as on the internet, currently 85 fine proceedings are under the GDPR.</em>\" </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>The large number of consultation requests and the explicit complaints indicate that there has been an increased awareness.</em>\" In this respect one could say: \"<em>The DSGVO has been effective with regard to those affected.</em>\" There are serious deficiencies in the data processing information.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>According to the Hamburg data protection Authority, Johannes Caspar, \"<em>a lot has changed for the better in companies as well</em>\".&nbsp;Awareness of data protection and understanding of one\'s own responsibility for the processing of data has increased significantly.&nbsp;For example regarding the appointment of data protection officers or the creation of processing directories and data protection statements.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>In this respect, this improved awareness is certainly one of the most important changes by the GDPR</em>,\" according to Johannes Caspar.&nbsp;\"<em>The huge increase in consultancy shows the great need of companies to behave in compliance with data protection</em>,\" said BayLDA President Thomas Kranig .</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>With regard to global Internet companies, supervisors must be able to enforce data protection in accordance with the GDPR and, where necessary, initiate and implement fast and effective procedures,</em>\" Johannes Caspar said.&nbsp;It will show whether the European Data Protection Board and the national authorities represented therein are able to ensure the uniform and effective protection of the rights and freedoms of stakeholders in this field.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>For the Bavarian State Commissioner for&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/themen/datenschutz\">Data Protection</a>,&nbsp;Thomas Petri, it was important that companies such as clinics or transport companies,&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/it-medien/studie-zur-it-sicherheit-viele-firmen-sind-bei-cyberangriffen-konzeptlos/23178588.html\">adapted as soon as possible their privacy management.</a> He considers \"<em>Sometimes fines can inhibit rather than promote fines,</em>\" while at the same time he warned: \"<em>I should not rely unconditionally on my restraint.</em>\" He had already warned a number of clinics for significant violations that they would result in fines.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It was about <a href=\"https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/it-medien/emotet-angriffe-cybersicherheit-ist-noch-immer-selten-chefsache-das-kann-sich-raechen/23732342.html\">\"significant technical and organizational deficiencies.\"</a> In Brandenburg, it was said in the \"conversion phase\" consultations would be more effective than the \"immediate application of the tightened fine rules\". However, fines would \"make use of them in the future,\" emphasized data protection officer Dagmar Hartge.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The Data Protection Authority of Lower Saxony is currently conducting a \"cross-sectional inspection\" of 50 companies in Lower Saxony for the GDPR implementation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>We can only agree with the Berlin data protection officer Maja Smoltczyk, \"<em>The General Data Protection Regulation represents a first important step in helping to safeguard our freedoms</em>\" .</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','Increasing Fines Expected from German DPAs','In Germany, nationwide, fines have been issued in 41 cases because of GDPR violations. Especially small companies are apparently unprepared for the new rules.','inherit','closed','closed','','307-revision-v1','','','2019-02-22 19:07:48','2019-02-22 19:07:48','',307,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/22/307-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(318,5,'2019-02-26 20:43:26','2019-02-26 20:43:26','<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>Article 6(1) of the GDPR</strong> sets out the conditions that must be met for the processing of personal data to be lawful. They are:</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>(a) the data subject has given <strong>consent</strong> to the processing of their personal data for one or more specific purposes;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a <strong>contract</strong> to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a <strong>legal obligation</strong> to which the controller is subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the <strong>vital interests</strong> of the data subject;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the <strong>public interest</strong> or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;&nbsp;</em><br><em>(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the <strong>legitimate interests</strong> pursued by a controller, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.</em><br>These conditions are all equally valid, regardless the order of appearance. Organisations should assess which of these grounds are most appropriate for different processing activities and then fulfil any further requirements the GDPR sets out for these conditions (GDPR Article 5).</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Many organisations have been wrongly advised to opt for consent. The new regulation that entered into force on May 2018 requires a higher standard of consent. That explains the deluge of re-consent emails sent out around May last year. The other inconvenient of consent is the requirement to keep a register of all granted consents, with the risk that at anytime the data subject could withdraw its consent to processing. Imagine an individual giving consent for his image to be used in a commercial movie. at anytime, this person could revise its position and withdraw its consent, The organisation will have to pull out the movie. That should explain why consent is not always the most appropriate basis.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/when-can-we-rely-on-legitimate-interests/\">The UK ICO</a> website explain : \"<em>Legitimate interests is the most flexible of the six lawful bases. It is not focused on a particular purpose and therefore gives you more scope to potentially rely on it in many different circumstances.</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>It may be the most appropriate basis when:</em></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul><li><em>the processing is not required by law but is of a clear benefit to you or others;</em></li><li><em>there’s a limited privacy impact on the individual;</em></li><li><em>the individual should reasonably expect you to use their data in that way; and</em></li><li><em>you cannot, or do not want to, give the individual full upfront control (ie consent) or bother them with disruptive consent requests when they are unlikely to object to the processing.</em></li></ul>\n<!-- /wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>However, it must be clear that Legitimate Interest is not simply the interest of the organisation. It is framed within strict conditions. A three part assessment that needs to be carefully conducted and communicated to the data subject at the time the data is collected. The jurisprudence has based the conditions of necessity and the respect of rights and freedoms of individuals.  Legitimate Interest, when validly demonstrated, can exempt from requesting formal consent. In a way, consent can be implicite as the data controller will be processing the data the way it is expected to act. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>\"<em>You still need to show that your processing passes the necessity and balancing tests</em>.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><em>You may also need to be more specific about your purposes for some elements of your processing in order to show that processing is necessary and to weigh the benefits in the balancing test. For example, if you use profiling to target your marketing.</em>\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Rowenna Fielding - a <em>\"Professional Data Protection Nerd, Information Governance\"</em> as she describes herself on her Linkedin profile - published a very useful reminder that hopefully will help to clarify some of the misinformation around Legitimate Interest. I could not say it any better, so I reproduce this here with her authorisation.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>&nbsp;10 Legitimate Interests Lessons for Marketers :</strong></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>1. Just because you\'re interested, doesn\'t make it legitimate.  </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>2. You can\'t use LI to avoid getting consent when you suspect the answer will be \"No\"</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p> 3. Whether LI can be applied depends on your own assessment of what you\'re doing, why and how - which you will be expected to justify and defend. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>4. LI is not \'unclear\' or \'ambiguous\'; it requires thinking to be done and a decision to be made. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>5. Publish your Legitimate Interests Assessments (LIA) if you anticipate/plan to reject objections to processing. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>6. If a law says you have to get consent for a processing activity, then forget about LI. You can\'t use it. Move on. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>7. LI is only a valid lawful basis for processing personal data if you\'re adhering to all of the principles. It\'s not a loophole around compliance. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>8. If your LIA is post-hoc rationalisation of something you won\'t consider ceasing to do even though you suspect it\'s a bit dodgy; then you wasted your time. Just make sure you have funds set aside to deal with complaints, regulatory action and reputation damage when you get found out. </p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>9. The ICO is not responsible for your continuing professional development 10. No-one else can do your thinking for you.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The same way that consent is not a universal panacea, Legitimate Interest has to be balanced and where there is a contract to justify the processing of personal data it can be better suited. The UK ICO has an <a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/resources-and-support/lawful-basis-interactive-guidance-tool\">online interactive tool</a> that helps select the most appropriate lawful base of processing.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Contact us at Data@DataRainbow.eu if you need further assistance to take you trough some of these complexities.</p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p></p>\n<!-- /wp:paragraph -->','How to Understand the GDPR Legitimate Interest','Much confusion around the concept of Legitimate Interest justifying Personal Data Processing. Worth going back to the roots.','inherit','closed','closed','','267-revision-v1','','','2019-02-26 20:43:26','2019-02-26 20:43:26','',267,'https://datarainbow.eu/2019/02/26/267-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),