Assessing the Legal and Ethical Impact of Data Reuse:

Custers, Bart; Vrabec, Helena U.; Friedewald, Michaël

doi:10.21552/edpl/2019/3/7

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…of General Regulation (EU) 2016/679 sufficient for such elements to be deduced? Particularly, it can be argued that: (a) consumer's freedom to opt for choosing or refusing 10 the collecting and processing of personal data implies the controller's respecting of the real choice prerogatives 11 and the possibility of exercising real control by data subjects over the collected data (since the data subject's consent may be discretionarily withdrawn 12 ; (b) in cases where the data subject does not benefit from a real choice or feels constrained to accept to the data processing by the controller or there is a fear that the data subject will suffer negative consequences should the latter refuse the data processing 13 , the consent will not be validly expressed; similarly, a 'blank' acceptance of the general terms and conditions cannot be seen as a clear affirmative action of consenting to the use of personal data 14 ; (c) the provisions of General Regulation (EU) 2016/679 do not allow personal data controllers to provide pre-checked boxes or methods such as self-exclusion or 'voluntary exclusion' of consumers from the processing of personal data (opting-out consent), while prohibiting the means of presuming the existence of data subject's tacit consent, which require an intervention by the data subject to refuse the agreement (opt-out boxes) and which rely on the silence or data subject's passivity / non-assertively acceptance 15 .…”

Section: Introductory Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Granularity and Specificity of Consent and Implications Thereof for the Data Controller in the Light of the Principle of ‘Purpose Limitation‘

Goicovici

2023

iele

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study discusses the problematics of the granularity and specificity of the data subject's consent, in the light of the principle of 'purpose limitation' when collecting and processing personal data while distinguishing between the imperatives deriving from the principle of purpose limitations (i) form those arising from the incidence of the principle of storage limitations (ii). These issues remain highly important in litigious hypotheses of processing personal data of customers collected and stored unlawfully, including in terms of post-verification of the processing purposes. Secondly, the study focuses on the limits of the purpose limitation principle, set out in Article 5 para. ( 1), (b) of the GDPR, including bifurcated components: personal data must, on the one hand, be collected for determined, explicit, and legitimate purposes, and, on the other hand, not to be further processed in a manner which becomes incompatible with the initial collecting purposes. We argue that the mentioned principle aims to delimit as clearly as possible the use of personal data by ensuring a balance between respect for the fundamental rights of data subjects in terms of privacy and data protection and the recognition of certain flexibility in favor of the operator in the management of such data, as imposed by digitalization and its inherent risks. In its second component, which is of particular interest to us in the present study, the purpose limitation principle seeks to define the extent to which personal data collected for a particular purpose may be reused by companies, since any processing after collection must be considered as 'further processing' and must therefore meet, with certain exceptions, the purpose-compatibility requirements.

show abstract