Take-Aways (AI)
  • Data con­trol­lers must inform data sub­jects about data coll­ec­tion in a trans­pa­rent, easi­ly under­stan­da­ble and addres­see-ori­en­ted man­ner (Art. 13 – 14, Art. 12 GDPR).
  • Infor­ma­ti­on obli­ga­ti­ons app­ly throug­hout the enti­re pro­ce­s­sing life­cy­cle; in the case of indi­rect coll­ec­tion, no later than one month after coll­ec­tion or upon first notification.

Back­ground

The GDPR sti­pu­la­tes in Art. 13 and 14 that the con­trol­ler must pro­vi­de the data sub­jects with cer­tain infor­ma­ti­on in con­nec­tion with a plan­ned data pro­ce­s­sing at a cer­tain point in time. Art. 13 GDPR con­cerns the coll­ec­tion direct­ly from the data sub­ject, Art. 14 con­cerns the coll­ec­tion from other sources. The fol­lo­wing applies:

  • Direct coll­ec­tion (Art. 13) means (i) com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on by the data sub­ject and (ii) coll­ec­tion from the data sub­ject, e.g. by came­ras and other sensors;
  • Indi­rect coll­ec­tion (Art. 14) means com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on by or coll­ec­tion from a third-par­ty source.

Art. 12 then con­ta­ins gene­ral pro­vi­si­ons that also app­ly to the duty to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on under Art. 13 f. GDPR app­ly. Art. 5 par. 1 GDPR final­ly estab­lishes the gene­ral prin­ci­ple of trans­pa­ren­cy, and Art. 83 para. 5 lit. b GDPR pro­vi­des for fines in the event of injury.

In Decem­ber 2017, the Art. 29 Data Pro­tec­tion Working Par­ty published the Draft working paper WP260 on trans­pa­ren­cy (“Gui­de­lines on trans­pa­ren­cy under Regu­la­ti­on 2016/679”) published; comm­ents can still be sub­mit­ted until Janu­ary 23, 2018.

Sub­ject of the information

The WP260 con­ta­ins in the appen­dix a tabu­lar over­view of the requi­red infor­ma­ti­on with fur­ther comm­ents. Details can also be found

The WP29 also recom­mends that, over and abo­ve the legal mini­mum, details of

  • to the Con­se­quen­ces of pro­ce­s­singnot only about the most pro­ba­ble con­se­quen­ces, but abo­ve all about the most dra­stic ones;
  • Depen­ding on the cir­cum­stances, fur­ther infor­ma­ti­on, e.g. publi­ca­ti­on of a Data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment.

Trans­mis­si­on of infor­ma­ti­on: pre­sen­ta­ti­on and manner

Com­pre­hen­si­ble for­mu­la­ti­on and presentation

The man­da­to­ry infor­ma­ti­on (Art. 13 and 14 GDPR) need easy to under­stand be. This requi­res (espe­ci­al­ly with child­ren) addres­see-ori­en­ted, con­cise, easy-to-under­stand for­mu­la­ti­ons wit­hout com­pli­ca­ted sub­or­di­na­te clau­ses, wit­hout “lega­le­se” and wit­hout over­ly tech­ni­cal expres­si­ons. Inde­ter­mi­na­te for­mu­la­ti­ons such as “could”, “more often”, “pos­si­bly”, “some” or “cer­tain” etc. should be avo­ided. This is espe­ci­al­ly true for the infor­ma­ti­on on the pur­po­ses of processing.

Insuf­fi­ci­ent are accor­ding to WP29 appro­xi­m­ate­ly the fol­lo­wing information:

  • We may use your per­so­nal data to deve­lop new ser­vices”. (as it is unclear what the ser­vices are or how the data will help deve­lop them);
  • We may use your per­so­nal data for rese­arch pur­po­ses”. (as it is unclear what kind of rese­arch this refers to); and
  • We may use your per­so­nal data to offer per­so­na­li­sed ser­vices”. (as it is unclear what the per­so­na­lizati­on entails).

When pre­sen­ting the infor­ma­ti­on, it is important to ensu­re clear Struc­tu­re to pay atten­ti­on, e.g. by enu­me­ra­ti­ons and Titeiel.

In addi­ti­on, the man­da­to­ry dis­clo­sures of other infor­ma­ti­on – out­side of data pro­tec­tion law – are to be distin­gu­ish. They are also available in all Lan­guages to be spo­ken by the noti­fi­ed affec­ted persons.

Form

The­re are no for­mal requi­re­ments. Infor­ma­ti­on is fre­quent­ly pro­vi­ded in text form, but other forms are also per­mis­si­ble or, depen­ding on the cir­cum­stances, requi­red, e.g., text form.

  • oral infor­ma­ti­on among per­sons pre­sent or (also auto­ma­ti­cal­ly) via tele­pho­ne (even if the iden­ti­ty of the per­sons con­cer­ned is not [yet] known, despi­te Art. 12 para. 1 GDPR);
  • Audio details for a device wit­hout a screen;
  • Infor­ma­ti­on on paper, e.g. through leaf­lets or fly­ers or in ope­ra­ting ins­truc­tions enc­lo­sed with a product;
  • Video details, e.g. for elec­tro­nic ins­truc­tions in an app;
  • Mes­sa­ges through SMS or e‑mail;
  • public infor­ma­ti­on, e.g. in a news­pa­per adver­ti­se­ment (such as in the case of dro­ne pho­to­graphs, pro­vi­ded that per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed in the process);
  • Infor­ma­ti­on on a poster, e.g. in the case of video sur­veil­lan­ce of a store.

Most often, the infor­ma­ti­on is pro­vi­ded in Elec­tro­nic form trans­mit­ted. The decisi­ve fac­tor in each case is that the for­mat cho­sen is sui­ta­ble under the cir­cum­stances for effec­tively informing the data sub­jects and that the per­son respon­si­ble docu­ments the infor­ma­ti­on. Depen­ding on the cir­cum­stances, com­bi­na­ti­ons of dif­fe­rent means are recommended.

Also Icons may be used, also in addi­ti­on to other forms of infor­ma­ti­on (Art. 12 para. 7 GDPR). The working paper con­ta­ins fur­ther infor­ma­ti­on on this, inclu­ding on the inter­pre­ta­ti­on of the term “machi­ne-rea­da­ble”, which is also used else­whe­re in the GDPR is used (Art. 20 para. 1 regar­ding data portability).

Laye­red information

The WP29 recom­mends – as well as the FDPIC -, more com­plex infor­ma­ti­on gra­ded to be com­mu­ni­ca­ted. At a first level, the points that have the grea­test impact on the data sub­jects must be men­tio­ned so that the con­se­quen­ces of the pro­ce­s­sing can be under­s­tood wit­hout fur­ther infor­ma­ti­on. More detail­ed infor­ma­ti­on can be com­mu­ni­ca­ted at down­stream levels.

Infor­ma­ti­on on websites

The infor­ma­ti­on must be pre­sen­ted in such a way that it is easy to find; the data sub­ject should not have to search for it. Noti­ces on a web­site may suf­fice, but pro­ba­b­ly only if the data sub­jects are direc­ted to the web­site. Some sort of access prin­ci­ple is likely to app­ly to such noti­ces. The WP29 sta­tes in this regard:

The “easi­ly acce­s­si­ble” ele­ment means that the data sub­ject should not have to seek out the infor­ma­ti­on; it should be imme­dia­te­ly appa­rent to them whe­re this infor­ma­ti­on can be acce­s­sedfor exam­p­le by pro­vi­ding it direct­ly to them, by lin­king them to itby cle­ar­ly sign­po­sting it or as an ans­wer to a natu­ral lan­guage que­sti­on (for exam­p­le in an online laye­red pri­va­cy statement/ noti­ce, in FAQs, by way of con­tex­tu­al pop-ups which acti­va­te when a data sub­ject fills in an online form, or in an inter­ac­ti­ve digi­tal con­text through a chat­bot inter­face etc.).

Refe­ren­ces to a web­site can accor­ding to WP29 e.g. by a QR code on a device, e.g., for IoT appli­ca­ti­ons (cf. the Opi­ni­on 8/2014 on Recent Deve­lo­p­ments on the Inter­net of Things dated 16.9.2014which remains valid). The link must lead direct­ly to the pri­va­cy policy.

At Online tran­sac­tions the­re should be a link to the pri­va­cy poli­cy at the cus­to­mer inter­face, unless the man­da­to­ry infor­ma­ti­on is repro­du­ced direct­ly on the page in question.

The fol­lo­wing are also recommended

  • the use of a “Pri­va­cy Dash­boards”, via which data sub­jects can mana­ge data pri­va­cy set­tings cen­tral­ly and inde­pendent­ly of the device;
  • just in time” mes­sa­ges, which, for exam­p­le, trans­mit rele­vant infor­ma­ti­on at the rele­vant time during an online purchase.

Spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­ons in apps

In apps, pri­va­cy noti­ces should be available befo­re the down­load. In instal­led apps, noti­ces should never be more than two clicks or taps away, e.g., via a “Pri­va­cy” link in a menu.

Exer­cise of data sub­ject rights

Art. 12 par. 2 GDPR and Reci­tal 59 requi­re that data sub­jects be faci­li­ta­ted in exer­cis­ing their rights. The WP29 sta­tes that, depen­ding on the cir­cum­stances, dif­fe­rent means should be made available for exer­cis­ing the rights of the data sub­ject. In the case of web­sites, for exam­p­le, the use of a form for requests for infor­ma­ti­on is recom­men­ded; mere­ly refer­ring to cus­to­mer ser­vice is bad practice.

Trans­mis­si­on of the infor­ma­ti­on: Time

The trans­pa­ren­cy obli­ga­ti­on is not limi­t­ed to a spe­ci­fic point in time. Rather, it applies during the enti­re life­cy­cle of pro­ce­s­sing, i.e., befo­re the pro­ce­s­sing starts, during the pro­ce­s­sing, e.g., when com­mu­ni­ca­ting with data sub­jects about their rights, and in the event of cer­tain events, e.g., a data breach. In par­ti­cu­lar, the requi­re­ments of Art. 12 app­ly to all communications.

Time for direct survey

The man­da­to­ry infor­ma­ti­on accor­ding to Art. 13 GDPR must “zuZeitpunkdeErhebung of the­se data” (Art. 13 para. 1).

Time for indi­rect survey

In the case of indi­rect coll­ec­tion, the man­da­to­ry data must be as quick­ly as pos­si­ble take place, at the latest but (depen­ding on which is earlier):

  • one month after survey;
  • at the time of the first com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on to the data subject;
  • upon the first com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on to ano­ther per­son (ano­ther con­trol­ler, a joint co-con­trol­ler or a pro­ces­sor, but not an employee).

The­se maxi­mum peri­ods should, accor­ding to WP29 but should not be exhau­sted, and the per­son in char­ge should make his or her rele­vant con­side­ra­ti­ons docu­ment.

Refres­hing the information

The WP29 recom­mends that the man­da­to­ry infor­ma­ti­on for con­ti­nuous ser­vices be sub­mit­ted again after a lon­ger peri­od of time, even wit­hout chan­ges (but wit­hout spe­ci­fy­ing cer­tain intervals).

Noti­fi­ca­ti­on of changes

Time

At Chan­ges of the cir­cum­stances under­ly­ing the infor­ma­ti­on, the same requi­re­ments app­ly to the noti­fi­ca­ti­on of chan­ges as to the ori­gi­nal noti­fi­ca­ti­on. In par­ti­cu­lar, the chan­ges should be made in a sepa­ra­te com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on, i.e. not as part of a gene­ral newsletter:

[…] the con­trol­ler should take all mea­su­res neces­sa­ry to ensu­re that the­se chan­ges are com­mu­ni­ca­ted in such a way that ensu­res that most reci­pi­en­ts will actual­ly noti­ce them. This means for exam­p­le that a noti­fi­ca­ti­on of chan­ges should always be com­mu­ni­ca­ted by way of an appro­pria­te moda­li­ty (e.g. email/ hard copy let­ter etc.) spe­ci­fi­cal­ly devo­ted to tho­se chan­ges (e.g. not tog­e­ther with direct mar­ke­ting con­tent), with such a com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on mee­ting the Artic­le 12 requi­re­ments of being con­cise, intel­li­gi­ble, easi­ly acce­s­si­ble and using clear and plain language. 

The GDPR does not make any state­ments on the Timeto which chan­ges are to be com­mu­ni­ca­ted. The WP29 recom­mends noti­fi­ca­ti­on as ear­ly as pos­si­ble for important chan­ges, espe­ci­al­ly for chan­ges that affect the core of the pro­ce­s­sing, e.g., noti­fi­ca­ti­on to addi­tio­nal cate­go­ries of reci­pi­en­ts or dis­clo­sure to third count­ries). Again, con­trol­lers should con­sider their con­side­ra­ti­ons at the time of the noti­fi­ca­ti­on docu­ment.

Infor­ma­ti­on in case of chan­ge of purpose

In the case of (com­pa­ti­ble!) chan­ges of pur­po­se, Art. 13 para. 3 and Art. 14 para. GDPR to pro­vi­de the “rele­vant infor­ma­ti­on” in each case in accordance with para­graph 2 of the pro­vi­si­on. Accor­ding to WP29 are, howe­ver, in prin­ci­ple in each case all spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­ons in accordance with para­graph 2. In addi­ti­on, the per­sons con­cer­ned must also be infor­med about the Com­pa­ti­bi­li­ty ana­ly­sis (Art. 6 para. 4 GDPR) to the ext­ent that the new pur­po­se is not cover­ed by con­sent or is based on a basis in the EU- or mem­ber sta­te law, as the case may be.

This infor­ma­ti­on must be pro­vi­ded pri­or to the start of pro­ce­s­sing for the new pur­po­se, and the data sub­jects should be pro­vi­ded with enough time to form an opi­ni­on and, if neces­sa­ry, to exer­cise their rights (e.g. the right to object).

Excep­ti­ons to the obli­ga­ti­on to pro­vi­de information

Infor­ma­ti­on alre­a­dy available

Both for Direct sur­vey as well as with indi­rect sur­vey the obli­ga­ti­on to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on does not app­ly if and to the ext­ent that the data sub­ject alre­a­dy has the rele­vant infor­ma­ti­on. This excep­ti­on should only app­ly if the data con­trol­ler can docu­ment its requi­re­ments. The WP29 also recom­mends that all infor­ma­ti­on be pro­vi­ded to the data sub­jects in each case, inclu­ding that which it alre­a­dy has.

Addi­tio­nal excep­ti­ons for indi­rect collection

Only in the case of indi­rect coll­ec­tion does the obli­ga­ti­on to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on not app­ly, inso­far as their ful­fill­ment impos­si­ble would be (Art. 14 para. 5 lit. b GDPR). The WP29 under­stands this excep­ti­on nar­row­ly; it allo­ws impos­si­bi­li­ty to app­ly only if the infor­ma­ti­on is effec­tively impos­si­ble, which is very rare­ly the case. Abo­ve all, systems and pro­ce­s­ses must be desi­gned in such a way that the infor­ma­ti­on can be pro­vi­ded; other­wi­se, a vio­la­ti­on of the Pri­va­cy-by-Design prin­ci­ple are available. This also applies, for exam­p­le, when data from dif­fe­rent sources are mer­ged; in this case, the respon­si­ble par­ty must ensu­re that it remains pos­si­ble to spe­ci­fy the respec­ti­ve source.

Fur­ther­mo­re, the duty to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on does not app­ly if its ful­fill­ment is dis­pro­por­tio­na­te effort would cau­se (Art. 14 para. 5 lit. b GDPR). This excep­ti­on should only app­ly if this effort results pre­cis­e­ly from the fact that the data are not coll­ec­ted from the data sub­ject; this exclu­des the WP29 from the fact that Art. 13 GDPR does not pro­vi­de for a cor­re­spon­ding excep­ti­on. In addi­ti­on, the respon­si­ble par­ty is obli­ged to weigh the effort against the inte­rest in infor­ma­ti­on. docu­ment.

In addi­ti­on, the obli­ga­ti­on to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on does not app­ly in the case of indi­rect coll­ec­tion if the infor­ma­ti­on does not affect the make it impos­si­ble or serious­ly impair the ful­fill­ment of the pur­po­se of pro­ce­s­sing would. In this case, howe­ver, the data sub­ject must be infor­med at least in gene­ral terms about the cor­re­spon­ding data collection.

In the case of indi­rect coll­ec­tion, the obli­ga­ti­on to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on also does not app­ly if this is based on the Right of the EU or of a Mem­ber Sta­te is based on Art. 14 Para. 5 lit. c GDPR). Howe­ver, the data sub­ject must be infor­med here about the data pro­ce­s­sing in accordance with this legal basis.

Final­ly, the duty to inform does not app­ly if you have a legal sec­re­cy which, in turn, results from the right of the EU or of a Mem­ber Sta­te (Art. 14 (5) (d) GDPR).