Today I came across an article from Herbert Smith Freehills (see the link below) and, ironically, found the same thought I had a month ago: “the guidelines do not appear to add much clarity with respect to the concept of joint controllers and when such a relationship will arise” and “tests will only serve to complicate matters further by requiring additional layers of analysis”.
Exactly! So obvious! Why there hasn’t been any talks on this before?! EDPB often does great things, but sometimes (like all humans, I believe) it may produce shit.
Authors of the article tried to outline 7 practical takeaways from the guidelines. An attempt to squeeze (at least) something useful out? You decide. My point here is that the guidelines partly add little new to the landscape we saw and learnt before, partly – create misunderstanding and ambiguity and, indeed, “complicate matters further”, thus making a step backward from ‘old’ WP29 Opinion 1/2010.
Sweden is ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to children’s rights, even in the digital/online world. Read more here.
To say I felt an excitement deep in me is an understatement. It was children’s safety online which brought me into privacy. My master thesis for my MSc Information Security was on protecting children online, which led to the publication of my first book “Virtual Shadows” in 2009. This was 8 months before the birth of my daughter.
But what triggered me, was long before this, was my son who was 18 by the time I had published my first book. I often had computers at home, normally open as I was twiddling with them, and so was he since he was 10 years old.
I saw his fascination in Sim City and other highly educational games which transported him into worlds of logistics and consequences. The theme of conversation amongst the boys was which level they are reached, e.g. how a famine had broken out, bad decisions on arming, etc. Gaming was not multi-player, it was single player, and installed on a PC in those days.
What Sweden has triggered is awesome. Beyond what any country has done when it comes to human rights, not surprising considering they were the first country globally to give equal rights to children in 1971. Now in 2020, it has reached the digital world.
Swedish DPA #datainspektionen has updated its guidance as to how personal data should be processed in employment relationships. The information is primarily addressed to employers in both the private and public sectors. It can also help workers, job seekers, trade unions and trade associations.
Original text is in Swedish but can be easily translated into English via online translators.
While many transnational companies continue to feel headache after ‘Schrems II’ hit in July, the problem for SMEs looks simpler and more trivial: they seem to be unable to meet even more general and clear data protection requirements without external help.
This can return us to early talks (they are sometimes heard now, though) that the GDPR may be too burdensome for many business actors. And we see it can really be like this.
So hot of the press is that H&M (a Swedish business), although the fine of €41,4m was due to practices in one of their German outlets which were not compliant with GDPR.
Clearly as an employer it is difficult to avoid the collection of sensitive data from employees, i.e. when they are sick, just the notification is in itself sensitive and a DPIA must be conducted on how the notification and following process is done in order to any identify privacy risks, and remediations necessary in order to minimise the risk of harm to the rights and freedoms of each employee.
It seems that H&M were in conducting a “welcome back to work” after sick/vacation interview, recording the contents of the conversation, and storing it somewhere, which badly for them became exposed, which meant they got found out because they were reported to the German DPA.
It seems a bit of a pity, as the purpose of the interview seems to be positive, and a nice way to return to the workplace, especially after one has been unwell. However, storage of this conversation is processing outside of the specific purpose of the conversation, and indications -from what I read- are that this personal data was in fact used beyond purely storage, in that 50 managers had access.
Bad news for H&M. Great news for privacy and GDPR. Great work Germany, as per usual at the front of data protection and privacy of each and every data subject!