32 pants 📖 VDAR. Apstrādes drošība

32 pants VDAR. Apstrādes drošība

Article 32 GDPR. Security of processing

1. Ņemot vērā tehnikas līmeni, īstenošanas izmaksas un apstrādes raksturu, apmēru, kontekstu un nolūkus, kā arī dažādas iespējamības un smaguma pakāpes risku attiecībā uz fizisku personu tiesībām un brīvībām, pārzinis un apstrādātājs īsteno atbilstīgus tehniskus un organizatoriskus pasākumus, lai nodrošinātu tādu drošības līmeni, kas atbilst riskam, tostarp attiecīgā gadījumā cita starpā:

1. Taking into account the state of the art, the costs of implementation and the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risk of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller and the processor shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk, including inter alia as appropriate:

Vadlīnijas & Case Law Savienojumi

Vadlīnijas & Case Law

(EN)

Documents

EDPB, Guidelines 3/2019 on Processing of Personal Data through Video Devices (2020).

Savienojumi

Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection by Design and by Default Version 2.0.

2.1.3.1 “state of the art”

18. The concept of “state of the art” is present in various EU acquis, e.g. environmental protection and product safety. In the GDPR, reference to the “state of the art” [8] is made not only in Article 32, for security measures,[9][10] but also in Article 25, thus extending this benchmark to all technical and organisational measures embedded in the processing.

_{[8] See German Federal Constitutional Court’s “Kalkar” decision in 1978: https://germanlawarchive.iuscomp.org/?p=67 may provide the foundation for a methodology for an objective definition of the concept. On that basis, the “state of the art” technology level would be identified between the “existing scientific knowledge and research” technology level and the more established “generally accepted rules of technology”. The “state of the art” can hence be identified as the technology level of a service or technology or product that exists in the market and is most effective in achieving the objectives identified.}

_{[9] https://www.enisa.europa.eu/news/enisa-news/what-is-state-of-the-art-in-it-security}

_{[10] www.teletrust.de/en/publikationen/broschueren/state-of-the-art-in-it-security/}

19. In the context of Article 25, the reference to “state of the art” imposes an obligation on controllers, when determining the appropriate technical and organisational measures, to take account of the current progress in technology that is available in the market. The requirement is for controllers to have knowledge of, and stay up to date on technological advances; how technology can present data protection risks or opportunities to the processing operation; and how to implement and update the measures and safeguards that secure effective implementation of the principles and rights of data subjects taking into account the evolving technological landscape.

20. The “state of the art” is a dynamic concept that cannot be statically defined at a fixed point in time, but should be assessed continuously in the context of technological progress. In the face of technological advancements, a controller could find that a measure that once provided an adequate level of protection no longer does. Neglecting to keep up to date with technological changes could therefore result in a lack of compliance with Article 25.

21. The “state of the art” criterion does not only apply to technological measures, but also to organisational ones. Lack of appropriate organisational measures can lower or even completely undermine the effectiveness of a chosen technology. Examples of organisational measures can be adoption of internal policies; up-to date training on technology, security and data protection; and IT security governance and management policies.

22. Existing and recognized frameworks, standards, certifications, codes of conduct, etc. in different fields may play a role in indicating the current “state of the art” within the given field of use. Where such standards exist and provide a high level of protection for the data subject in compliance with – or go beyond – legal requirements, controllers should take them into account in the design and implementation of data protection measures.

a) personas datu pseidonimizāciju un šifrēšanu;

(a) the pseudonymisation and encryption of personal data;

ISO 27701 Vadlīnijas & Case Law

ISO 27701

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

Here is the relevant paragraph to article 32(1)(a) GDPR:

7.4.5 PII de-identification and deletion at the end of processing

Control

The organization should either delete PII or render it in a form which does not permit identification or re-identification of PII principals, as soon as the original PII is no longer necessary for the identified purpose(s).

Implementation guidance

The organization should have mechanisms to erase the PII when no further processing is anticipated.

…

Pieslēgties
lai piekļūtu pilnam tekstam

Vadlīnijas & Case Law

(EN) Spanish data protection authority (AEPD), Introduction to the hash function as a personal data pseudonymisation technique (2019).

b) spēju nodrošināt apstrādes sistēmu un pakalpojumu nepārtrauktu konfidencialitāti, integritāti, pieejamību un noturību;

(b) the ability to ensure the ongoing confidentiality, integrity, availability and resilience of processing systems and services;

ISO 27701

(EN) ISO/IEC 27701, adopted in 2019, added a requirement additional to ISO/IEC 27001, section 6.1.2.

Here is the relevant paragraphs to article 32(1)(b) GDPR:

5.4.1.2 Information security risk assessment

6.1.2 c) 1) is refined as follows:

The organization shall apply the information security risk assessment process to identify risks associated with the loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability, within the scope of the PIMS.

…

Pieslēgties
lai piekļūtu pilnam tekstam

c) spēju laicīgi atjaunot personas datu pieejamību un piekļuvi tiem gadījumā, ja ir noticis fizisks vai tehnisks negadījums;

(c) the ability to restore the availability and access to personal data in a timely manner in the event of a physical or technical incident;

ISO 27701

(EN) ISO/IEC 27701, adopted in 2019, added a requirement additional to ISO/IEC 27002, section 12.3.1.

Here is the relevant paragraphs to article 32(1)(c) GDPR:

6.9.3.1 Information backup

Implementation guidance

The organization should have a policy which addresses the requirements for backup, recovery and restoration of PII (which can be part of an overall information backup policy) and any further requirements (e.g. contractual and/or legal requirements) for the erasure of PII contained in information held for backup requirements.

…

Pieslēgties
lai piekļūtu pilnam tekstam

d) procesu regulārai tehnisko un organizatorisko pasākumu efektivitātes testēšanai, izvērtēšanai un novērtēšanai, lai nodrošinātu apstrādes drošību.

(d) a process for regularly testing, assessing and evaluating the effectiveness of technical and organisational measures for ensuring the security of the processing.

ISO 27701

(EN) ISO/IEC 27701, adopted in 2019, added a requirement additional to ISO/IEC 27002, section 18.2.1.

Here is the relevant paragraphs to article 32(1)(d) GDPR:

6.15.2.1 Independent review of information security

Implementation guidance

Where an organization is acting as a PII processor, and where individual customer audits are impractical or can increase risks to security, the organization should make available to customers, prior to entering into, and for the duration of, a contract, independent evidence that information security is implemented and operated in accordance with the organization’s policies and procedures.

…

Pieslēgties
lai piekļūtu pilnam tekstam

2. Novērtējot atbilstīgo drošības līmeni, ņem vērā jo īpaši riskus, ko rada apstrāde, jo īpaši nejauša vai nelikumīga nosūtīto, uzglabāto vai citādi apstrādāto personas datu iznīcināšana, nozaudēšana, pārveidošana, neatļauta izpaušana vai piekļuve tiem.

2. In assessing the appropriate level of security account shall be taken in particular of the risks that are presented by processing, in particular from accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed.

ISO 27701 Apsvērums

ISO 27701

(EN) ISO/IEC 27701, adopted in 2019, added a requirement additional to ISO/IEC 27001, section 4.3.

Here is the relevant paragraphs to article 32(2) GDPR:

5.2.3 Determining the scope of the information security management system

When determining the scope of the PIMS, the organization shall include the processing of PII.

…

Pieslēgties
lai piekļūtu pilnam tekstam

Apsvērums

(83) Lai saglabātu drošību un novērstu tādu apstrādi, kurā tiek pārkāpta šī regula, pārzinim vai apstrādātājam būtu jānovērtē apstrādei raksturīgie riski un jāīsteno pasākumi šo risku mazināšanai, piemēram, šifrēšana. Minētajiem pasākumiem, ņemot vērā tehniskās iespējas un īstenošanas izmaksas, būtu jānodrošina atbilstošs drošības līmenis, tostarp konfidencialitāte, attiecībā uz apstrādei raksturīgo risku un aizsargājamo personas datu īpatnībām. Novērtējot datu drošības risku, vērā būtu jāņem riski, ko rada personas datu apstrāde, piemēram, nejauša vai nelikumīga nosūtīto, uzglabāto vai citādi apstrādāto personas datu iznīcināšana, nozaudēšana, pārveidošana, neatļauta izpaušana vai piekļuve tiem, kas var izraisīt fizisku, materiālu vai nemateriālu kaitējumu.

(83) In order to maintain security and to prevent processing in infringement of this Regulation, the controller or processor should evaluate the risks inherent in the processing and implement measures to mitigate those risks, such as encryption. Those measures should ensure an appropriate level of security, including confidentiality, taking into account the state of the art and the costs of implementation in relation to the risks and the nature of the personal data to be protected. In assessing data security risk, consideration should be given to the risks that are presented by personal data processing, such as accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed which may in particular lead to physical, material or non-material damage.

3. Atbilstību apstiprinātam rīcības kodeksam, kā minēts 40. pantā, vai apstiprinātam sertifikācijas mehānismam, kā minēts 42. pantā, var izmantot kā elementu, ar ko apliecina šā panta 1. punktā izklāstīto prasību izpildi.

3. Adherence to an approved code of conduct as referred to in Article 40 or an approved certification mechanism as referred to in Article 42 may be used as an element by which to demonstrate compliance with the requirements set out in paragraph 1 of this Article.

ISO 27701 Savienojumi

ISO 27701

(EN) ISO/IEC 27701, adopted in 2019, added a requirement additional to ISO/IEC 27001, section 4.1.

Here is the relevant paragraph to article 32(3) GDPR:

5.2.1 Understanding the organization and its context

The organization shall include among its interested parties (see ISO/IEC 27001:2013, 4.2), those parties having interests or responsibilities associated with the processing of PII, including the PII principals.

…

Pieslēgties
lai piekļūtu pilnam tekstam

Savienojumi

40 pants VDAR. Rīcības kodeksi

Article 40 GDPR. Codes of conduct

42 pants VDAR. Sertifikācija

Article 42 GDPR. Certification

4. Pārzinis un apstrādātājs veic pasākumus, lai nodrošinātu, ka jebkura fiziska persona, kas darbojas pārziņa vai apstrādātāja pakļautībā un kam ir piekļuve personas datiem, tos neapstrādā bez pārziņa norādījumiem, izņemot, ja minētajai personai tas jādara saskaņā ar Savienības vai dalībvalsts tiesību aktiem.

4. The controller and processor shall take steps to ensure that any natural person acting under the authority of the controller or the processor who has access to personal data does not process them except on instructions from the controller, unless he or she is required to do so by Union or Member State law.

ISO 27701

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

Here is the relevant paragraph to article 32(4) GDPR:

7.2.1 Identify and document purpose

Control

The organization should identify and document the specific purposes for which the PII will be processed.

Implementation guidance

The organization should ensure that PII principals understand the purpose for which their PII is processed. It is the responsibility of the organization to clearly document and communicate this to PII principals.

…

Pieslēgties
lai piekļūtu pilnam tekstam

Vispārīgā datu aizsardzības regula (VDAR)

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.

Apsvērums Vadlīnijas & Case Law Atstājiet savu komentāru

Apsvērums

(74) Būtu jāparedz pārziņa pienākumi un atbildība par ikvienu personas datu apstrādi, ko veic pārzinis vai pārziņa vārdā. Jo īpaši, pārzinim būtu jāuzliek pienākums īstenot piemērotus un efektīvus pasākumus, un viņam vajadzētu spēt uzskatāmi parādīt, ka apstrādes darbības notiek saskaņā ar šo regulu, tostarp, ka pasākumi ir iedarbīgi. Minētajos pasākumos būtu jāņem vērā apstrādes raksturs, piemērošanas joma, konteksts un nolūki un risks, ko tā rada fizisku personu tiesībām un brīvībām.

(74) The responsibility and liability of the controller for any processing of personal data carried out by the controller or on the controller's behalf should be established. In particular, the controller should be obliged to implement appropriate and effective measures and be able to demonstrate the compliance of processing activities with this Regulation, including the effectiveness of the measures. Those measures should take into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing and the risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons.

(75) Risku fizisku personu tiesībām un brīvībām – ar atšķirīgu iespējamību un nopietnību – var radīt personas datu apstrāde, kas var izraisīt fizisku, materiālu vai nemateriālu kaitējumu, jo īpaši, ja apstrāde var izraisīt diskrimināciju, identitātes zādzību vai viltošanu, finansiālu zaudējumu, kaitējumu reputācijai, ar dienesta noslēpumu aizsargātu personas datu konfidencialitātes zaudēšanu, neatļautu pseidonimizācijas atcelšanu vai jebkādu citu īpaši nelabvēlīgu ekonomisko vai sociālo situāciju; ja datu subjektiem var tikt atņemtas viņu tiesības un brīvības vai atņemta iespēja kontrolēt savus personas datus; ja tiek apstrādāti personas dati, kas atklāj rases vai etnisko piederību, politiskos uzskatus, reliģisko vai filozofisko pārliecību, piederību arodbiedrībai, un ja tiek apstrādāti ģenētiskie dati, veselības dati vai dati par dzimumdzīvi, vai sodāmību un pārkāpumiem vai ar tiem saistītiem drošības pasākumiem; ja tiek izvērtēti personiskie aspekti, jo īpaši analizējot vai prognozējot aspektus attiecībā uz personas sniegumu darbā, ekonomisko situāciju, veselību, personīgām vēlmēm vai interesēm, uzticamību vai uzvedību, atrašanās vietu vai pārvietošanos, lai izveidotu vai izmantotu personiskos profilus; ja tiek apstrādāti neaizsargātu fizisku personu, īpaši bērnu, personas dati; vai ja apstrāde ietver lielu personas datu daudzumu un ietekmē lielu skaitu datu subjektu.

(75) The risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, of varying likelihood and severity, may result from personal data processing which could lead to physical, material or non-material damage, in particular: where the processing may give rise to discrimination, identity theft or fraud, financial loss, damage to the reputation, loss of confidentiality of personal data protected by professional secrecy, unauthorised reversal of pseudonymisation, or any other significant economic or social disadvantage; where data subjects might be deprived of their rights and freedoms or prevented from exercising control over their personal data; where personal data are processed which reveal racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religion or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, data concerning health or data concerning sex life or criminal convictions and offences or related security measures; where personal aspects are evaluated, in particular analysing or predicting aspects concerning performance at work, economic situation, health, personal preferences or interests, reliability or behaviour, location or movements, in order to create or use personal profiles; where personal data of vulnerable natural persons, in particular of children, are processed; or where processing involves a large amount of personal data and affects a large number of data subjects.

(76) Riska iespējamība un nopietnība attiecībā uz datu subjekta tiesībām un brīvībām būtu jānosaka, atsaucoties uz apstrādes raksturu, piemērošanas jomu, kontekstu un nolūkus. Risks būtu jāizvērtē, pamatojoties uz objektīvu novērtējumu, ar ko nosaka, vai datu apstrādes darbības ietver risku vai augstu risku.

(76) The likelihood and severity of the risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subject should be determined by reference to the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing. Risk should be evaluated on the basis of an objective assessment, by which it is established whether data processing operations involve a risk or a high risk.

(77) Norādījumus par piemērotu pasākumu īstenošanu un par pārziņa vai apstrādātāja atbilstības uzskatāmu parādīšanu, sevišķi attiecībā uz tāda riska identificēšanu, kas saistīts ar apstrādi, tā novērtēšanu, ņemot vērā avotus, raksturu, iespējamību un nopietnību, un paraugprakses apzināšanu, lai mazinātu risku, varētu sniegt, jo īpaši izmantojot apstiprinātus rīcības kodeksus, apstiprinātus sertifikātus, kolēģijas sniegtas pamatnostādnes vai aizsardzības speciālista sniegtas norādes. Kolēģija var sniegt arī pamatnostādnes par apstrādes darbībām, kuras uzskata par tādām, kas nevarētu radīt augstu risku fizisku personu tiesībām un brīvībām, un norāda, kādi pasākumi var būt pietiekami šādos gadījumos, lai novērstu šādu risku.

(77) Guidance on the implementation of appropriate measures and on the demonstration of compliance by the controller or the processor, especially as regards the identification of the risk related to the processing, their assessment in terms of origin, nature, likelihood and severity, and the identification of best practices to mitigate the risk, could be provided in particular by means of approved codes of conduct, approved certifications, guidelines provided by the Board or indications provided by a data protection officer. The Board may also issue guidelines on processing operations that are considered to be unlikely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons and indicate what measures may be sufficient in such cases to address such risk.

Vadlīnijas & Case Law

(EN)

Document

Working Party 29, Opinion 2/2006 on privacy issues related to the provision of email screening services (2006).

CNIL (France): CNIL Guide. Security of Personal Data (2018).

Data Protection Commission (Ireland): Guidance for Controllers on Data Security (2020).

IT Security Association Germany (TeleTrusT) , Guideline “State of the Art”. Technical and organisational measures (2020).

EDPB, Guidelines on the use of location data and contact tracing tools in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak (2020).

EDPB, Guidelines 3/2020 on the Processing of Data Concerning Health for the Purpose of Scientific Research in the Context of the Covid-19 Outbreak (2020).

EDPB, Guidelines 3/2019 on Processing of Personal Data through Video Devices (2020).

Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO, Great Britain), Right of Access (2020).

DPC (Ireland), Guidance for Individuals who Accidentally Receive Personal data (2020).

Case Law

CJEU, Worten – Equipamentos para o Lar SA/Autoridade para as condições de trabalho, C-342-12 (2013).

ICO, Ticketmaster UK Limited (Penalty Notice) (2020).

The ICO found that the company failed to put appropriate security measures in place to prevent a cyber-attack on a chat-bot installed on its online payment page.

The ICO found that Ticketmaster failed to:

Assess the risks of using a chat-bot on its payment page

Identify and implement appropriate security measures to negate the risks

Identify the source of suggested fraudulent activity in a timely manner

Atstājiet savu komentāru

[js-disqus]