Article 32 📖 GDPR. Security of processing

Article 32 GDPR. Security of processing

Data Privacy Office

Are you keen on GDPR? Welcome on online GDPR Data Privacy Professional course. Start – August 30

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:

Guidelines & Case Law Related

Guidelines & Case Law

Documents

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

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) the pseudonymisation and encryption of personal data;

ISO 27701 Guidelines & Case Law

ISO 27701

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.

[…]

Guidelines & Case Law

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

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

ISO 27701

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.

[…]

(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

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.

[…]

(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

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.

[…]

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 Recitals

ISO 27701

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.

[…]

Recitals

(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. 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 Related

ISO 27701

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.

[…]

Article 40 GDPR. Codes of conduct

Article 42 GDPR. Certification

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

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.

[…]

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.

Recitals Guidelines & Case Law Leave a comment

Recitals

(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.

(85) Нарушение безопасности персональных данных, если оно не было надлежащим образом и вовремя устранено, может повлечь физический, материальный или моральный вред физическим лицам, как, например, потеря контроля над их персональными данными или ограничение их прав, дискриминация, кража личности или ее мошенническое использование, финансовые потери, несанкционированная повторная идентификация псевдонимизированных данных, ущерб репутации, нарушение конфиденциальности персональных данных, защищенных профессиональной тайной, или любой другой значительный экономический или социальный вред, нанесенный физическому лицу. Поэтому, как только контролёру становится известно о нарушении безопасности персональных данных, он обязан уведомить о таком нарушении надзорный орган без неоправданной задержки и, по возможности, не позднее 72 часов, за исключением случаев, когда контролёр может подтвердить, в соответствии с принципом подотчетности, что нарушение безопасности персональных данных с малой вероятностью может представлять риск нарушения прав и свобод физических лиц. В случаях, когда подобное уведомление не может быть сделано в течение 72 часов, причины такой задержки должны сопровождать уведомление и информация может предоставляться поэтапно без дополнительной задержки.

(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) 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.

Guidelines & Case Law