BCS PDP9 Practice Test Questions Answers

Lawfulness of processing is not a factor that should be considered when looking at security of processing under Article 32 of the GDPR. Lawfulness of processing is a separate requirement that applies to all processing of personal data, regardless of the level of security. Security of processing under Article 32 of the GDPR should be based on the following factors:

The state of the art and the costs of implementation of the security measures;

The nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing;

The risk of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons;

Adherence to an approved code of conduct or an approved certification mechanism (as an element to demonstrate compliance). References:

Article 32 of the GDPR1

Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR2, p. 36

The principle of transparency requires that any processing of personal data is fair, lawful and transparent to the data subjects. This means that data subjects should be informed about the existence, nature, purpose and consequences of the processing, as well as their rights and choices regarding their data. Transparency is essential for ensuring accountability, trust and compliance in data processing. However, the use of AI can pose challenges to the principle of transparency, as AI can lead to invisible processing, with data subjects not being aware of its presence, or the logic, significance and implications of the processing. For example, AI can be used to profile, infer, predict or influence the behaviour, preferences, interests, emotions or personality of data subjects, without their knowledge or consent. AI can also be used to make automated decisions that affect data subjects, such as credit scoring, recruitment, health diagnosis or social benefits, without providing meaningful explanations or opportunities for human intervention. Therefore, it is important to ensure that data subjects are informed and empowered when AI is involved in the processing of their data, and that they can exercise their rights, such as the right to access, rectify, object, restrict, erase or port their data, or the right to challenge or contest automated decisions56. References:

Guidance on AI and data protection5

Explaining decisions made with AI6

Article 57 of the UK GDPR states that the tasks of the Commissioner include handling complaints raised by individuals/data subjects, providing general guidance to clarify the law, and advising UK Parliament on issues related to the protection of personal data, among other tasks. However, adopting consistency findings in cross-border data protection cases is not a task of the Commissioner, but of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), which is an independent body composed of the heads of the supervisory authorities of the EU and EEA member states and the European Data Protection Supervisor. The EDPB is responsible for ensuring the consistent application of the EU GDPR across the EU and EEA, and for issuing opinions and decisions on matters of general application or affecting more than one member state. The UK is no longer part of the EU or the EEA, and therefore the EDPB does not have jurisdiction over the UK GDPR or the Commissioner. The UK has its own mechanism for ensuring consistency and cooperation with other countries, which involves the Commissioner and the Secretary of State. References:

Article 57 of the UK GDPR1

Article 63 and 64 of the EU GDPR4

ICO guidance on the UK GDPR and the EU GDPR5

Data sharing is the disclosure of personal data from one or more organisations to a third party organisation or organisations, or the sharing of personal data within an organisation. Data sharing practices are governed by data protection law, which includes the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). The DPA 2018 contains specific provisions on data sharing, such as the power of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to issue a statutory Code of Practice on data sharing. The ICO has published a Data Sharing Code of Practice1 that provides practical guidance on how to share data in a fair, safe and transparent way, in compliance with the data protection principles and the rights of data subjects. The code is not legally binding, but it reflects the ICO’s interpretation of the law and it may be used as evidence in legal proceedings or investigations. The code also contains useful tools, case studies andexamples that can help organisations to share data effectively and responsibly. References:

Data Sharing Code of Practice1

The crime and taxation exemption in Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) provides an exemption from the UK GDPR’s transparency obligations and most individual rights, including the right of access, but only if complying with them would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. This means that the public authority does not need to disclose details of the investigation to the individual who submitted the subject access request, as doing so would be likely to hinder the investigation and enable the individual to evade justice. The public authority should assess the likelihood of prejudice on a case-by-case basis and document its reasons for relying on the exemption. The other options are incorrect because:

The legal and professional privilege exemption in Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 19 of the DPA 2018 applies to personal data that is subject to an obligation of confidentiality arising from the provision of legal advice or legal representation, or from the conduct of legal proceedings. This exemption does not apply to the information held by the public authority about the investigation, as it is not related to any legal advice or representation, or any legal proceedings.

The term “criminal offence data” refers to personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences, or related security measures. This type of data is subject to specific rules under Article 10 of the UK GDPR and Part 3 of the DPA2018. However, this does not mean that there is no obligation to disclose criminal offence data in response to a subject access request. The public authority still needs to consider whether any of the exemptions in the DPA 2018 apply, such as the crime and taxation exemption, before disclosing or withholding the data.

The right to be informed does apply in relation to criminal acts, as the UK GDPR requires controllers to provide data subjects with information about the processing of their personal data, including the purposes and legal basis of the processing, unless an exemption applies. The fact that the information has not yet been passed to the police does not affect the applicability of the right to be informed or the right of access. References:

Data Protection Act 2018, Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 21

ICO Guide to Data Protection, Crime and Taxation2

Data Protection Act 2018, Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 193

UK GDPR, Article 104

Data Protection Act 2018, Part 35

UK GDPR, Article 13 and 146