Recently, Exonar organised a webinar hosted by the IAPP. ‘Thriving in Generation Privacy: Capitalising on DSAR Data from the Field’ was a great event with a large number of attendees and a thought-provoking programme that raised a number of questions from the floor. The webinar summary was as follows:
With the introduction of the EU GDPR, the CCPA and other global privacy laws, people have increased expectations of how their personal data will be handled and protected. This is driving up the number of inquiries for data subject access requests and requests to exercise the right to be forgotten. We commissioned our own research into how businesses are coping with the increased demand; the findings of which were remarkable.
If you missed the webinar, you can find it here: http://exo.nr/Watch-IAPP-Webinar
Due to time constraints, it was not possible to address all the questions asked during the webinar, so we’ve gone through them all and you can find a complete list of questions and our answers below:
Q1. Is there any clarity (under EU GDPR Guidance etc) on what personal data can be safely classed under Legal Privilege and therefore remain undisclosed to data subject?
Answer: Where Legal Privilege protects sensitive content within confidential or privileged documents, the sensitive content is to be redacted when providing copies of the documents to the data subject if they have requested to access their personal information for legitimate reasons. Personal information within confidential and sensitive documents still belong to the individual and they have a right to request access to it. For instance, an ex employee requesting access to emails about their performance, the contents of which also contain the sensitive information of the client that their performance relates to. The organisation is to redact the sensitive information relating to the client, and satisfy the access request to access their performance related data.
Q2. Common challenges (Identifying the data subject) and fake SARs could be a real challenge too – how is this handled?
Answer: The steps you take to identify the individual will be particular to your organisation. In summary, ensure that you are asking for the same amount of verification as you would if that individual were to request their information for any other reason. Practically speaking, this will mean the key identifying information regarding them and potentially some form of identity verification.
Q3. Is unstructured data covered by GDPR?
Answer: Yes, all personal data relating to EU citizens is covered by GDPR.
Q4. What is the percentage of SARs for which you know, explicitly, the reason for submission, as there is no requirement for the individual to state the reason they want the data?
Answer: In practise, with the SARs we handle, it is only occasionally stated as to why the individual is requesting their data. Sometimes it becomes obvious during the review process and it may be appropriate to intervene in a different way (for example, it becomes evident that they are a customer who has a grievance).
Q5. Do you have any recommendations to streamline the SAR intake process?
Answer: Yes, pay close attention to what data you are providing, spread the load and invest in automation where appropriate. We often find organisations default to disclosing lots of context (i.e. contents of files and emails). In reality, the regulation requires that you disclose the personal data you hold, the purpose, where it is stored, and third parties you have provided it to. It may be appropriate to provide more information to diffuse a situation but it isn’t a requirement. Exonar can help automate this process. It needn’t take days; it can be achieved in minutes using their platform.
Q6. How do the regulators prioritise SARs? Aren’t they far busier with data breaches and other more “serious” incidents? In short, if they are inundated with SARs, it could take a long time for a data subject to get a response.
Answer: Satisfying the right to access through SARs is very high on the ICO’s priority list. Jonathon Bamford, the director of strategic policy at the ICO told us this at a recent Westminster eForum: “Well, actually, the biggest issue that’s raised is subject access, and it isn’t about little changes around if you can charge a fee, or how long it takes or things like that. It’s the core thing about securing somebody’s right to have access to their data, and that’s the biggest thing that we’ve got there, so when I’m talking about data protection back to basics it’s that one. I think the fact that we’ve got Subject Access Request (SAR) complaints up by 98% tells me something.Complaints have increased significantly since May and we’re on track to receive over 43,000 individual complaints by the end of the year, and certainly by the end of quarter 2 we’d received 94% more complaints than we had the year before. So that’s interesting. I think from May to October I think we got 16,000, nearly 17,000 complaints, in the previous period in 2017 that was 7,000. The biggest issue that’s raised is subject access”.
Q7. Are the panel aware of any significant increase in SARs as a result of equal pay (and similar) reporting requirements? For example, if the company holds an employee name and + or – average salary. Are there any exemptions to disclosure that could apply here?
Answer: We’ve asked around and we’ve not encountered this use case before, but in theory, an employee would be able to ask for their ‘relation to average salary’ data if it existed. That employee couldn’t access the details of other individual employees, and can otherwise access aggregate salary details in company reports, so the answer for the organisation is ‘don’t create politically toxic categories of personal data that employees and customers could potentially ask for’.
Q8. Is there any easy way to automate consent management in addition to the information itself?
Answer: There are automated consent management solutions on the market, and we’d be happy to give you our opinion on the solutions we have seen if that helps you.
Q9. Might we see the courts (and potentially the CJEU) eventually rule on SARs that are used abusively and contrary to the spirit, even if not letter, of the GDPR?
Answer: The GDPR already gives organisations the right to challenge the scope and legitimacy of a data subject access request to counter the types of trolling or excessive requesting that some might have expected. There has yet to be a high-profile instance of such an abuse of the SAR rules and I imagine that privacy regulators will respond if that threat does indeed materialise. To this point I don’t think the courts have been given any meaningful incentive to tighten those rules.
Q10. As a non-European/non-American, how do I know if I’m subject to GDPR or CCPA?
Answer: You are subject to GDPR if you hold any data regarding EU citizens.
Q11. How do you collect enough information to verify the data subject without creating another record by receiving that information?
Answer: Under GDPR there are six lawful bases for processing personal data. One of these is legal obligation. As it is your legal obligation to comply with a SAR, this is the basis for processing this information.
Q12. How do you verify the identity of the person requesting the SAR? A qualifier for my question; I’m referring of course to complaints to the regulator concerning unfulfilled SARs.
Answer: See Q2.
Q13. Can a SAR ask for details of technical and organisational measures taken to protect their data?
Answer: The right of access does not include disclosure as the methods used to protect information. However, taking appropriate measures is a legal obligation in itself.
Q14. Don’t SARs also apply to paper records?
Answer: Yes, GDPR is technologically neutral. The regulation applies in two situations; firstly, where processing of personal data is conducted by “automated means,” and/or where processing of personal data is not conducted by automated means, but it forms part of a filing system or is intended to form part of a filing system. This second condition clearly applies to paper filing systems.
Q15. From the average cost of SARs being £525, did any of the organisations who were involved with those SARs who took part in the survey ask the data subject for a reasonable fee? £525 seems very costly to small organisations.
Answer: It is illegal under the GDPR to request a fee for fulfilling a SAR. It is for this reason that organisations must quickly move from a highly costly manual process into embedding an automated SAR solution that can reduce this financial burden long term.
Q16. There are some data breaches caused by a mishandling of SARs, such as the Amazon/Alexa case in Germany. Could you please talk a bit about this? Are there any other similar cases you might share with us, please?
Answer: Your response to a SAR is likely to contain a highly concentrated profile of personal information about the data subject. Using your data privacy impact assessment process, you should classify your SAR response communications as high risk, and apply the high risk security controls your organisation uses to protect other high risk communications and data transfer e.g. using secure file shares, encrypting the file, sending keys separately etc. Our advice is, therefore, to apply the high-risk security controls used for other high risk personal information transfers.
Q17. Given the pending final guidelines on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3), how should entities outside of the EU who are unsure of their nexus respond to a SAR? With regards to Article 3(2).
Answer: GDPR applies to any organisation holding personal data relating to EU citizens. If this is you, you will need to respond to the SAR or you will be in breach of the regulation.
Q18. Is there a danger that some organisations are asking for too much information to confirm proof of identity? Some insist on copy of passport – something I might not be happy to share with a company I might already be unhappy with?
Answer: The IAPP has a great article on this. https://iapp.org/news/a/how-to-verify-identity-of-data-subjects-for-SARs-under-the-gdpr/