Artikolu 22 📖 RĠPD (GDPR). Teħid ta' deċiżjonijiet individwali awtomatizzati, inkluż tfassil ta' profili

Artikolu 22 RĠPD (GDPR). Teħid ta' deċiżjonijiet individwali awtomatizzati, inkluż tfassil ta' profili

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

1. Is-suġġett tad-data għandu d-dritt li ma jkunx soġġett għal deċiżjoni bbażata unikament fuq ipproċessar awtomatizzat, inkluż it-tfassil ta’ profili, li jipproduċi effetti legali li jikkonċernaw lilu jew li bl-istess mod jaffettwa lilu b’mod sinifikanti.

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.

Kummentarju

(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. Il-paragrafu 1 ma għandux japplika jekk id-deċiżjoni:

2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply if the decision:

Kummentarju

(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) tkun meħtieġa biex wieħed jidħol f’kuntratt, jew iwettaq kuntratt, bejn is-suġġett tad-data u kontrollur tad-data;

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

Kummentarju

(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) tkun awtorizzata mil-liġi tal-Unjoni jew ta’ Stat Membru li għaliha jkun soġġett il-kontrollur u li tistabbilixxi wkoll miżuri adatti għas-salvagwardja tad-drittijiet u l-libertajiet u l-interessi leġittimi tas-suġġett tad-data; jew

(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

Kummentarju

(c) tkun ibbażata fuq il-kunsens espliċitu tas-suġġett tad-data.

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

Kummentarju Testi relatati

Kummentarju

(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.

Testi relatati

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. F’każijiet imsemmija fil-punt (a) u (c) tal-paragrafu 2, il-kontrollur tad-data għandu jimplimenta miżuri adatti biex jiġu salvagwardati d-drittijiet u l-libertajiet u l-interessi leġittimi tas-suġġett tad-data, mill-inqas id-dritt li jikseb intervent uman min-naħa tal-kontrollur, li jesprimi l-fehma tiegħu u li jikkontesta d-deċiżjoni.

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.

Kummentarju

(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. Id-deċiżjonijiet imsemmija fil-paragrafu 2 ma għandhomx ikunu bbażati fuq kategoriji speċjali ta’ data personali msemmija fl-Artikolu 9(1), sakemm ma japplikax il-punt (a) jew (g) tal-Artikolu 9(2) u ma jkunux fis-seħħ miżuri biex jiġu salvagwardati d-drittijiet u l-libertajiet u l-interessi leġittimi tas-suġġett tad-data.

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.

Kummentarju Testi relatati

Kummentarju

Testi relatati

Artikolu 9 RĠPD (GDPR). Ipproċessar ta' kategoriji speċjali ta' data personali

Article 9 GDPR. Processing of special categories of personal data

1. L-ipproċessar ta’ data personali, li jiżvela oriġini razzjali jew etnika, opinjonijiet politiċi, twemmin reliġjuż jew filosofiku, jew sħubija fi trade union, u l-ipproċessar ta’ data ġenetika, data bijometrika sabiex tidentifika b’mod uniku persuna fiżika, data dwar is-saħħa jew data dwar il-ħajja sesswali u l-orjentazzjoni sesswali ta’ persuna fiżika huma projbiti.

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. Il-paragrafu 1 ma għandux japplika jekk japplika wieħed minn dawn li ġejjin:

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

(a) is-suġġett tad-data jkun ta kunsens espliċitu għall-ipproċessar ta’ dik id-data personali għal fini speċifiku wieħed jew aktar, għajr fejn il-liġi tal-Unjoni jew il-liġi ta’ Stat Membru tipprevedi li l-projbizzjoni msemmija fil-paragrafu 1 ma tistax titneħħa mis-suġġett tad-data;

(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) l-ipproċessar ikun meħtieġ għal raġunijiet ta’ interess pubbliku sostanzjali, fuq il-bażi tal-liġi tal-Unjoni jew ta’ Stat Membru, li għandha tkun proporzjonata mal-għan segwit, tirrispetta l-essenza tad-dritt għall-protezzjoni tad-data u tipprevedi miżuri xierqa u speċifiċi sabiex tissalvagwardja d-drittijiet fundamentali u l-interessi tas-suġġett tad-data;

(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;

[…]

Regolament Ġenerali dwar il-Protezzjoni tad-Data (RĠPD, 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.

Kummentarju ISO 27701 Premessi Linji ta 'Gwida & Ġurisprudenza Ħalli kumment

Kummentarju

(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.].

(EN) […]

(EN) Sign in
to read the full text

(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.

(EN) […]

(EN) Sign in
to read the full text

Premessi

(71) Is-suġġett tad-data għandu jkollu d-dritt li ma jkunx soġġett għal deċiżjoni, li tista' tinkludi miżura, li tevalwa aspetti personali relatati miegħu li hija bbażata unikament fuq ipproċessar awtomatizzat u li tipproduċi effetti legali li jikkonċernaw lilu jew li taffettwah b'mod ugwalment sinifikanti, bħal rifjut awtomatiku ta' applikazzjoni għal kreditu online jew prattiki ta' reklutaġġ elettroniku mingħajr l-ebda intervent tal-bniedem. Tali pproċessar jinkludi “tfassil ta' profili” li jikkonsisti fi kwalunkwe forma ta' pproċessar awtomatizzat ta' data personali li tevalwa l-aspetti personali relatati ma' persuna fiżika, b'mod partikolari biex jiġu analizzati jew imbassrin aspetti li jikkonċernaw il-prestazzjoni fuq ix-xogħol, is-sitwazzjoni ekonomika, is-saħħa, il-preferenzi jew l-interessi personali, l-affidabbiltà jew l-imġiba, il-lokalizzazzjoni jew il-movimenti tas-suġġett tad-data, fejn dan jipproduċi effetti legali li jikkonċernaw lilu jew jaffettwah b'mod ugwalment sinifikanti. Madankollu, it-teħid ta' deċiżjonijiet ibbażat fuq tali pproċessar, inkluż it-tfassil ta' profili, għandu jkun permess fejn dan ikun espressament awtorizzat mil-liġi tal-Unjoni jew ta' Stat Membru li għaliha jkun soġġett il-kontrollur, inkluż għal monitoraġġ ta' frodi u evażjoni ta' taxxa u għanijiet preventivi li jsiru f'konformità mar-regolamenti, l-istandards u r-rakkomandazzjonijiet tal-istituzzjonijiet tal-Unjoni jew il-korpi ta' sorveljanza nazzjonali u biex jiġu żgurati s-sigurtà u l-affidabbiltà ta' servizz ipprovdut mill-kontrollur, jew meħtieġ biex wieħed jidħol f'kuntratt jew jeżegwixxi kuntratt bejn is-suġġett tad-data u kontrollur, jew meta s-suġġett tad-data jkun ta l-kunsens espliċitu tiegħu. Fi kwalunkwe każ, dan l-ipproċessar għandu jkun soġġett għal salvagwardji adatti, li għandhom jinkludu informazzjoni speċifika dwar is-suġġett tad-data u d-dritt li dan jikseb intervent uman, id-dritt li jesprimi l-fehma tiegħu, id-dritt li jikseb spjegazzjoni tad-deċiżjoni li tkun ittieħdet wara tali valutazzjoni u d-dritt li jikkontesta d-deċiżjoni. Tali miżura m'għandhiex tikkonċerna tfal.

(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.

Sabiex jiġi żgurat ipproċessar ġust u trasparenti fir-rigward tas-suġġett tad-data, b'kont meħud taċ-ċirkostanzi speċifiċi u l-kuntest li fih tiġi pproċessata d-data personali, il-kontrollur għandu juża proċeduri matematiċi jew statistiċi adegwati għat-teħid ta' profili, jimplimenta miżuri tekniċi u organizzattivi adatti biex jiġi żgurat, b'mod partikolari, li fatturi li jirriżultaw f'ineżattezzi fid-data personali jiġu kkoreġuti u jitnaqqas ir-riskju ta' żbalji, jiżgura d-data personali f'mod li jieħu kont tar-riskji potenzjali involuti għall-interessi u d-drittijiet tas-suġġett tad-data u li jipprevjeni, fost oħrajn, effetti diskriminatorji fuq persuni fiżiċi abbażi tar-razza jew oriġini etnika, opinjoni politika, reliġjon jew twemmin, sħubija fi trade union, stat ġenetiku jew tas-saħħa jew orjentazzjoni sesswali, jew li jirriżulta f'miżuri li jkollhom dan l-effett. It-teħid ta' deċiżjonijiet u t-teħid ta' profili b'mod awtomatizzat ibbażati fuq kategoriji speċjali ta' data personali għandhom ikunu permessi biss taħt kondizzjonijiet speċifiċi.

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) It-tfassil ta' profili huwa soġġett għar-regoli ta' dan ir-Regolament li jirregolaw l-ipproċessar tad-data personali, bħar-raġunijiet legali għall-ipproċessar jew prinċipji ta' protezzjoni tad-data. Il-Bord Ewropew għall-Protezzjoni tad-Data stabbilit minn dan ir-Regolament (il-“Bord”) għandu jkun jista' joħroġ linji gwida f'dak il-kuntest.

(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.

Linji ta 'Gwida & Ġurisprudenza

(EN)