CNIL: Gui­de­lines on the fur­ther use of data by order processors

The French regu­la­tor, CNIL, on Janu­ary 12, 2022. Gui­de­lines for the fur­ther use of per­so­nal data pro­ce­s­sed on behalf by order pro­ces­sors published (“Sous-trai­tants : la réuti­li­sa­ti­on de don­nées con­fiées par un responsable de traitement”).

The CNIL starts from the prin­ci­ple that order pro­ces­sors must pro­cess per­so­nal data Only on the docu­men­ted ins­truc­tion of the per­son respon­si­ble but not for their own pur­po­ses and on their own initia­ti­ve (sub­ject to legal obli­ga­ti­ons that requi­re dif­fe­rent pro­ce­s­sing). Other­wi­se, the order pro­ces­sor beco­mes the respon­si­ble par­ty and has cor­re­spon­ding lia­bi­li­ty and sanc­tion risks.

Howe­ver, order pro­ces­sors often have the under­stan­da­ble need to keep order data also for own pur­po­ses to use, espe­ci­al­ly in the area of IT ser­vices based on a form of Machi­ne Lear­ning are based. The respon­si­ble par­ty may per­mit such use under cer­tain con­di­ti­ons, and at the same time the order pro­ces­sor is depen­dent on this consent.

This is whe­re the CNIL comes in – the respon­si­ble par­ty would have to pro­ce­ed as follows:

  • Com­pa­ti­bi­li­ty test: To the ext­ent that the fur­ther use by the pro­ces­sor ser­ves a dif­fe­rent pur­po­se than the pur­po­se that justi­fi­ed the ori­gi­nal coll­ec­tion (acqui­si­ti­on), the con­trol­ler must check whe­ther this new pur­po­se is com­pa­ti­ble with the ori­gi­nal pur­po­se (unless the data sub­ject has con­sen­ted to the pro­ce­s­sing for the new pur­po­se or the fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing is excep­tio­nal­ly legal­ly requi­red). CNIL explains the cri­te­ria of this com­pa­ti­bi­li­ty test and pro­vi­des the fol­lo­wing exam­p­le (trans­la­ti­on by DeepL):

    A pro­ces­sor wants to reu­se data to per­form its Impro­ve cloud com­pu­ting ser­vices. This reu­se could be con­side­red as rela­ted to the ori­gi­nal pro­ce­s­sing com­pa­ti­ble be con­side­red, sub­ject to appro­pria­te gua­ran­tees such as the anony­mizati­on of the data, if the­se iden­ti­fy­ing data are not neces­sa­ry. In con­trast, their fur­ther use for a pur­po­se of the com­mer­cial adver­ti­sing the “com­pa­ti­bi­li­ty test” only with dif­fi­cul­ty meet </blockquote

  • No gene­ric appr­oval in advan­ceThe com­pa­ti­bi­li­ty test must be car­ri­ed out spe­ci­fi­cal­ly for a par­ti­cu­lar pro­ce­s­sing. A pri­or, gene­ral aut­ho­rizati­on for fur­ther use is the­r­e­fo­re not lawful.
  • Wri­tingThe appr­oval must be in wri­ting (also in elec­tro­nic form).
  • Infor­ma­ti­on: The ori­gi­nal data con­trol­ler must inform the data sub­jects and, in par­ti­cu­lar, indi­ca­te whe­ther it is pos­si­ble to object to fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing. Howe­ver, it is also pos­si­ble to dele­ga­te the infor­ma­ti­on to the new con­trol­ler (i.e. the processor).
  • Lega­li­ty: The new per­son in char­ge must ensu­re that his pro­ce­s­sing com­plies with the regulations.

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be