22 artikla 📖 GDPR. Automatisoidut yksittäispäätökset, profilointi mukaan luettuna

22 artikla GDPR. Automatisoidut yksittäispäätökset, profilointi mukaan luettuna

Article 22 GDPR. Automated individual decision-making, including profiling

1. Rekisteröidyllä on oikeus olla joutumatta sellaisen päätöksen kohteeksi, joka perustuu pelkästään automaattiseen käsittelyyn, kuten profilointiin, ja jolla on häntä koskevia oikeusvaikutuksia tai joka vaikuttaa häneen vastaavalla tavalla merkittävästi.

1. The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.

Commentaire d'experts

(EN) The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her. In such cases, the data subject shall have the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to contest the decision and to have it reconsidered.

Scope of the Right

The applicability of this article is limited to automated data processing where the decisions have a big impact on data subjects. According to the Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679, this article sets up a general ban on deciding based just on automated processing, regardless of whether or not the data subject takes any action.

In a nutshell, Article 22 states that:

There is a general prohibition on completely automated individual decision-making, including profiling that has a legal or similarly significant effect;
There are exceptions to this rule;
Where one of these exceptions applies, measures must be in place to protect the data subject’s rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests.

But, the Article 22(1) ban only counts in certain cases where a decision based just on automated processing, including profiling, has a legal effect on or similarly affects someone. Even in these cases, there are specified exceptions which allow such processing to take place.

Automated Processing

An automated process can produce a recommendation about a data subject. If a person reviews and takes into account other elements to make the final decision, it won’t be a decision that’s just based on automated processing.

The controller can’t bypass Article 22 requirements by making it look like a human is involved. For example, if someone constantly uses automatically generated profiles for individuals without any actual effect on the result, that’s still a decision based solely on automated processing.

To qualify as human involvement, the controller must make sure that any oversight of the decision is significant, not just a formality. It should be done by someone who can override the decision and has the knowledge to consider all the relevant data.

Significant Effect

Even if a decision-making process does not have an effect on people’s legal rights it could still fall within the scope of Article 22 of the GDPR if it produces an effect that is equivalent or similarly significant in its impact. This means that even if there is no legal change, the data subject could still be impacted enough to require the protections under this provision. The GDPR introduces the word ‘similarly’ to the phrase ‘significantly affects’ in order to provide a threshold for significance that is similar to that of a decision producing a legal effect.

A legal effect occurs when a decision based solely on automated processing impacts someone’s legal rights, such as freedom of association, voting, and legal action, or creates legal effects like contract cancellation, entitlement/denial of social benefits, denial of admission to a country of refusal in citizenship.

According to Recital 71, typical examples of other similarly significant effects could include ‘automatic refusal of an online credit application’ or ‘e-recruiting practices without any human intervention’.

For data processing to significantly affect someone the effects of the processing must be great or important enough. This could include decisions that affect someone’s financial circumstances, such as their eligibility for credit; decisions that affect someone’s access to health services; decisions that deny someone an employment opportunity or put them at a serious disadvantage; or decisions that affect someone’s access to education, for example, university admissions.

In many typical cases, the automated decision to present targeted advertising based on profiling will not have a similarly significant effect on individuals. However, it is possible for data profiling to have an effect on individuals depending on the characteristics of the case. This includes the intrusiveness of the profiling process, the expectations and wishes of the individuals, and the knowledge of the vulnerabilities of the data subjects. Even if it has little effect on some individuals, it can have a significant impact on certain groups, such as minority groups or vulnerable adults.

Similarly, automated decision-making that results in differential pricing based on personal data or personal characteristics could also have a significant effect if, for example, prohibitively high prices effectively bar someone from certain goods or services.

(EN) Author

(EN) Siarhei Varankevich CIPP/E, CIPM, CIPT, MBA, FIP

(EN) Co-Founder & CEO of Data Privacy Office LLC. Data Protection Trainer and Principal Consultant

(EN) Ask a question

2. Edellä olevaa 1 kohtaa ei sovelleta, jos päätös

2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply if the decision:

Commentaire d'experts

(EN) Paragraph 1 of this article laid down a general ban on the use of automated decision-making that has legal or similarly significant effects (as mentioned above). This prohibition is intended to serve as a safeguard, ensuring that decisions of this kind are not taken without due consideration and oversight.

This implies that the controller should not undertake the processing described in Article 22(1) unless one of the exceptions listed below applies.

a) on välttämätön rekisteröidyn ja rekisterinpitäjän välisen sopimuksen tekemistä tai täytäntöönpanoa varten;

(a) is necessary for entering into, or performance of, a contract between the data subject and a data controller;

Commentaire d'experts

(EN) The use of automated decision-making processes for contractual purposes may be the most appropriate way to achieve the desired outcome in certain situations. This is especially true where routine human involvement is impractical or impossible due to the large volume of data. In such instances, it is essential that the controller is able to demonstrate that the processing is necessary, taking into account whether a less privacy-intrusive method could be employed. For example, if there are alternative methods that are equally effective and less intrusive, then automated decision-making is not considered to be ’necessary’.

Moreover, automated decision-making may also be necessary for pre-contractual processing in accordance with Article 22(1). It is essential that controllers consider the privacy implications of their automated decision-making processes, ensuring that any processing is necessary and proportionate, and that there are sufficient safeguards in place to protect individuals’ data rights.

For instance, it may be necessary to utilize automated decision-making in order to identify a short list of suitable candidates due to the exceptionally high volume of applications received for this open position. This is done with the intention of entering into a contract with the data subject in order to progress the recruitment process.

b) on hyväksytty rekisterinpitäjään sovellettavassa unionin oikeudessa tai jäsenvaltion lainsäädännössä, jossa vahvistetaan myös asianmukaiset toimenpiteet rekisteröidyn oikeuksien ja vapauksien sekä oikeutettujen etujen suojaamiseksi; tai

(b) is authorised by Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject and which also lays down suitable measures to safeguard the data subject’s rights and freedoms and legitimate interests; or

Commentaire d'experts

c) perustuu rekisteröidyn nimenomaiseen suostumukseen.

(c) is based on the data subject’s explicit consent.

Commentaire d'experts Liittyvä artikkeli

Commentaire d'experts

(EN) Article 22 of the GDPR makes an exception for using explicit consent for significant automated individual decision-making. This is due to the serious privacy risks posed by such processing and, as such, a higher level of individual control over personal data is deemed appropriate.

However, ’explicit consent’ is not defined in the GDPR. For this reason, the WP29 guidelines on consent (see the “Related” tab for Art.22(2b)) provide important guidance. These guidelines emphasize that consent must be demonstrated through clear affirmative action, such as ticking a box when visiting an internet website or choosing technical settings for an online service.

Liittyvä artikkeli

Guidelines on consent under Regulation 2016/679

OBTAINING EXPLICIT CONSENT

93. The term explicit refers to the way consent is expressed by the data subject. It means that the data subject must give an express statement of consent. An obvious way to make sure consent is explicit would be to expressly confirm consent in a written statement. Where appropriate, the controller could make sure the written statement is signed by the data subject, in order to remove all possible doubt and potential lack of evidence in the future.[47]

_{[47] See also WP29 Opinion 15/2011, on the definition of consent (WP 187), p. 25.}

94. However, such a signed statement is not the only way to obtain explicit consent and, it cannot be said that the GDPR prescribes written and signed statements in all circumstances that require valid explicit consent. For example, in the digital or online context, a data subject may be able to issue the required statement by filling in an electronic form, by sending an email, by uploading a scanned document carrying the signature of the data subject, or by using an electronic signature. In theory, the use of oral statements can also be sufficiently express to obtain valid explicit consent, however, it may be difficult to prove for the controller that all conditions for valid explicit consent were met when the statement was recorded.

95. An organisation may also obtain explicit consent through a telephone conversation, provided that the information about the choice is fair, intelligible and clear, and it asks for a specific confirmation from the data subject (e.g. pressing a button or providing oral confirmation).

3. Edellä 2 kohdan a ja c alakohdassa tarkoitetuissa tapauksissa rekisterinpitäjän on toteutettava asianmukaiset toimenpiteet rekisteröidyn oikeuksien ja vapauksien sekä oikeutettujen etujen suojaamiseksi; tämä koskee vähintään oikeutta vaatia, että tiedot käsittelee rekisterinpitäjän puolesta luonnollinen henkilö, sekä oikeutta esittää kantansa ja riitauttaa päätös.

3. In the cases referred to in points (a) and (c) of paragraph 2, the data controller shall implement suitable measures to safeguard the data subject’s rights and freedoms and legitimate interests, at least the right to obtain human intervention on the part of the controller, to express his or her point of view and to contest the decision.

Commentaire d'experts

(EN) According to Art29 Working Party Guidelines on Automated Individual Decision-Making and Profiling for the Purposes of Regulation 2016/679 (2018) the controllers should implement measures that include providing a way for the data subject to obtain human intervention, express their point of view and contest the decision.

Recital 71 further emphasizes the need for transparency around processing, as it outlines that appropriate safeguards should include providing the data subject with specific information and the right to obtain an explanation and to challenge the decision reached after assessment. Furthermore, the controller must provide an easy way for the data subject to exercise these rights, as this ensures they are able to adequately challenge a decision or express their view if they understand how it was made and on what basis.

Errors in data or automated decision-making can lead to wrong classifications and inaccurate projections that can harm individuals. So, controllers should regularly assess their data sets to find any bias, and figure out how to handle any prejudiced elements. Data controllers must regularly review algorithms to ensure accuracy and the absence of bias. Furthermore, they should review the underlying data to guarantee that automated decisions are based on valid and reliable information.

Controllers should establish regular procedures to prevent errors, inaccuracies, and discrimination during both the design and production stages.

The European supervisory authority recommended the following measures in its Guidelines:

Ensuring regular QA checks of systems to ensure individuals are treated fairly, without discrimination based on personal data or other factors.
Algorithmic auditing that involves testing the algorithms utilized and developed by machine learning systems to validate that they are functioning as intended, and not producing discriminatory, erroneous, or unjustified results.
Provide auditor with information on how algorithm/ML system works for independent auditing of the decisions taken.
Making sure any third party algorithms you’re using have contractual assurances that they’ve been audited and tested, and are compliant with the agreed standards.
Data minimisation and setting clear timelines for using and applying the profiles
Utilization of anonymization or pseudonymization
Providing data subjects with the opportunity to express his or her point of view and contest the decision; and,
Provide a mechanism for human intervention in defined cases (e.g. a link to an appeals process at the point of automated decision delivery). Establish agreed timescales and contact point for any queries.https://gdpr-text.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=288&action=edit

4. Edellä 2 kohdassa tarkoitetut päätökset eivät saa perustua 9 artiklan 1 kohdassa tarkoitettuihin erityisiin henkilötietoryhmiin, paitsi jos sovelletaan 9 artiklan 2 kohdan a tai g alakohtaa ja asianmukaiset toimenpiteet rekisteröidyn oikeuksien ja vapauksien sekä oikeutettujen etujen suojaamiseksi on toteutettu.

4. Decisions referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be based on special categories of personal data referred to in Article 9(1), unless point (a) or (g) of Article 9(2) applies and suitable measures to safeguard the data subject’s rights and freedoms and legitimate interests are in place.

Commentaire d'experts Liittyvä artikkeli

Commentaire d'experts

Liittyvä artikkeli

9 artikla GDPR. Erityisiä henkilötietoryhmiä koskeva käsittely

Article 9 GDPR. Processing of special categories of personal data

1. Sellaisten henkilötietojen käsittely, joista ilmenee rotu tai etninen alkuperä, poliittisia mielipiteitä, uskonnollinen tai filosofinen vakaumus tai ammattiliiton jäsenyys sekä geneettisten tai biometristen tietojen käsittely henkilön yksiselitteistä tunnistamista varten tai terveyttä koskevien tietojen taikka luonnollisen henkilön seksuaalista käyttäytymistä ja suuntautumista koskevien tietojen käsittely on kiellettyä.

1. Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

2. Edellä olevaa 1 kohtaa ei sovelleta, jos sovelletaan jotakin seuraavista:

2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply if one of the following applies:

a) rekisteröity on antanut nimenomaisen suostumuksensa kyseisten henkilötietojen käsittelyyn yhtä tai useampaa tiettyä tarkoitusta varten, paitsi jos unionin oikeudessa tai jäsenvaltion lainsäädännössä säädetään, että 1 kohdassa tarkoitettua kieltoa ei voida kumota rekisteröidyn suostumuksella;

(a) the data subject has given explicit consent to the processing of those personal data for one or more specified purposes, except where Union or Member State law provide that the prohibition referred to in paragraph 1 may not be lifted by the data subject;

[…]

g) käsittely on tarpeen tärkeää yleistä etua koskevasta syystä unionin oikeuden tai jäsenvaltion lainsäädännön nojalla, edellyttäen että se on oikeasuhteinen tavoitteeseen nähden, siinä noudatetaan keskeisiltä osin oikeutta henkilötietojen suojaan ja siinä säädetään asianmukaisista ja erityisistä toimenpiteistä rekisteröidyn perusoikeuksien ja etujen suojaamiseksi;

(g) processing is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest, on the basis of Union or Member State law which shall be proportionate to the aim pursued, respect the essence of the right to data protection and provide for suitable and specific measures to safeguard the fundamental rights and the interests of the data subject;

[…]

Yleinen tietosuoja-asetus (GDPR)

General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR)

The latest consolidated version of the Regulation with corrections by Corrigendum, OJ L 127, 23.5.2018, p. 2 ((EU) 2016/679). Source: EUR-lex.

Commentaire d'experts ISO 27701 Perustelukappaleet Ohjeita & oikeuskäytäntö Jätä kommentti

Commentaire d'experts

(EN)

Data Subject Request Letter Sample

Concern: Request to object to automated decision

Dear Madam, Dear Sir,

I am subject to a decision made by your [company | organization | etc.] based solely on [automated processing | profiling | etc.].

…

Sisään
pääset käsiksi koko tekstiin

(EN) Author

(EN) Louis-Philippe Gratton PhD, LLM

(EN) Privacy Expert

(EN) Ask a question

ISO 27701

(EN) ISO/IEC 27701, adopted in 2019, added additional ISO/IEC 27002 guidance for PII controllers.

Here is the relevant paragraphs to article 22 GDPR:

7.2.2 Identify lawful basis

Control

The organization should determine, document and comply with the relevant lawful basis for the processing of PII for the identified purposes.

Implementation guidance

Some jurisdictions require the organization to be able to demonstrate that the lawfulness of processing was duly established before the processing.

…

Sisään
pääset käsiksi koko tekstiin

Perustelukappaleet

(71) Rekisteröidyllä olisi oltava oikeus olla joutumatta hänen henkilökohtaisia ominaisuuksiaan arvioivan, mahdollisesti toimenpiteen sisältävän päätöksen kohteeksi, joka on tehty yksinomaan automaattisen tietojenkäsittelyn perusteella, josta hänelle aiheutuu oikeudellisia vaikutuksia tai joka vaikuttaa häneen vastaavalla merkittävällä tavalla, kuten online-luottohakemuksen automaattinen epääminen tai sähköisen rekrytoinnin käytännöt ilman ihmisen osallistumista. Kyseinen tietojenkäsittely sisältää ”profiloinnin”, joka tarkoittaa mitä tahansa henkilötietojen automaattista käsittelyä luonnollisen henkilön henkilökohtaisten ominaisuuksien arvioimiseksi, erityisesti rekisteröidyn työsuorituksen, taloudellisen tilanteen, terveyden, henkilökohtaisten mieltymysten tai kiinnostuksen kohteiden, luotettavuuden tai käyttäytymisen, sijainnin tai liikkumisen analysoimiseksi tai ennakoimiseksi, siltä osin kuin sillä on rekisteröityyn kohdistuvia oikeudellisia vaikutuksia tai se vaikuttaa häneen vastaavasti merkittävällä tavalla. Kyseiseen tietojenkäsittelyyn, mukaan lukien profilointiin, perustuva päätöksenteko olisi kuitenkin sallittava, jos siihen annetaan nimenomainen lupa rekisterinpitäjään sovellettavassa unionin oikeudessa tai jäsenvaltion lainsäädännössä, mukaan lukien lainsäädäntö, joka on annettu petosten ja verovilpin valvomiseksi ja torjumiseksi unionin toimielinten tai kansallisten valvontaelinten antamien asetusten, standardien ja suositusten mukaisesti, sekä rekisterinpitäjän tarjoaman palvelun turvallisuuden ja luotettavuuden varmistamiseksi, tai jos se on tarpeen rekisteröidyn ja rekisterinpitäjän välisen sopimuksen tekemistä tai täytäntöönpanoa varten tai jos rekisteröity on antanut siihen nimenomaisen suostumuksensa. Tällaiseen käsittelyyn olisi kuitenkin aina sovellettava asianmukaisia suojatoimia, joihin olisi kuuluttava käsittelystä ilmoittaminen rekisteröidylle ja oikeus vaatia ihmisen osallistumista tietojen käsittelemiseen, rekisteröidyn oikeus esittää kantansa, saada selvitys kyseisen arvioinnin jälkeen tehdystä päätöksestä ja riitauttaa päätös. Tällaista toimenpidettä ei saisi kohdistaa lapseen.

(71) The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. Such processing includes ‘profiling’ that consists of any form of automated processing of personal data evaluating the personal aspects relating to a natural person, in particular to analyse or predict aspects concerning the data subject's performance at work, economic situation, health, personal preferences or interests, reliability or behaviour, location or movements, where it produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her. However, decision-making based on such processing, including profiling, should be allowed where expressly authorised by Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject, including for fraud and tax-evasion monitoring and prevention purposes conducted in accordance with the regulations, standards and recommendations of Union institutions or national oversight bodies and to ensure the security and reliability of a service provided by the controller, or necessary for the entering or performance of a contract between the data subject and a controller, or when the data subject has given his or her explicit consent. In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. Such measure should not concern a child.

Rekisteröityä koskevan asianmukaisen ja läpinäkyvän käsittelyn varmistamiseksi, ottaen huomioon henkilötietojen käsittelyn erityiset olosuhteet ja asiayhteys, rekisterinpitäjän olisi käytettävä profiloinnissa asianmukaisia matemaattisia tai tilastollisia menetelmiä, toteutettava teknisiä ja organisatorisia toimenpiteitä, jotka soveltuvat erityisesti sen varmistamiseen, että henkilötietojen virheellisyyteen johtavat tekijät korjataan ja virheriski minimoidaan, sekä turvattava henkilötiedot siten, että rekisteröidyn etuihin ja oikeuksiin kohdistuvat mahdolliset riskit otetaan huomioon ja estetään muun muassa luonnollisten henkilöiden syrjintä rodun tai etnisen alkuperän, poliittisten mielipiteiden, uskonnon tai vakaumuksen, ammattiliittoon kuulumisen, geneettisen tilan, terveydentilan tai seksuaalisen suuntautumisen perusteella taikka vaikutukset, joiden johdosta toteutetaan toimenpiteitä, joilla on tällaisia seurauksia. Henkilötietojen erityisluokitteluun perustuva automaattinen päätöksenteko ja profilointi olisi sallittava vain erityistilanteissa.

In order to ensure fair and transparent processing in respect of the data subject, taking into account the specific circumstances and context in which the personal data are processed, the controller should use appropriate mathematical or statistical procedures for the profiling, implement technical and organisational measures appropriate to ensure, in particular, that factors which result in inaccuracies in personal data are corrected and the risk of errors is minimised, secure personal data in a manner that takes account of the potential risks involved for the interests and rights of the data subject and that prevents, inter alia, discriminatory effects on natural persons on the basis of racial or ethnic origin, political opinion, religion or beliefs, trade union membership, genetic or health status or sexual orientation, or that result in measures having such an effect. Automated decision-making and profiling based on special categories of personal data should be allowed only under specific conditions.

(72) Profilointiin sovelletaan sellaisenaan tämän henkilötietojen käsittelyä sääntelevän asetuksen sääntöjä, kuten käsittelyn oikeudellisia perusteita tai tietosuojaperiaatteita. Tällä asetuksella perustetulla Euroopan tietosuojaneuvostolla, jäljempänä ’tietosuojaneuvosto’, olisi oltava mahdollisuus antaa ohjausta tässä yhteydessä.

(72) Profiling is subject to the rules of this Regulation governing the processing of personal data, such as the legal grounds for processing or data protection principles. The European Data Protection Board established by this Regulation (the ‘Board’) should be able to issue guidance in that context.

Ohjeita & oikeuskäytäntö

(EN)