EPP

Angelika Winzig

Amendment Analysis

3
Amendments total
67%
Reduce Privacy
-2
Score

2 worsen Data Privacy

1 are neutral for Data Privacy

0 improve Data Privacy

2
1

0 combine improved Data Privacy with simplification

2 decrease privacy and add complexity

2
1

1 push back against weakening the existing GDPR.

0 violate Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

3 GDPR-relevant amendments by Angelika Winzig

#284 Recital 32

Authored by

Text proposed by the Commission
(32) The processing of personal data for scientific research purposes and the application of the GDPR’s provisions on scientific research are conditional on the adoption of appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects, pursuant to Article 89(1) GDPR. To that end, the GDPR balances the right to protection of personal data, pursuant to Article 8 CFREU, with the freedom of science, pursuant to Article 13 CFREU. The processing of personal data for the purpose of scientific research therefore pursues a legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, provided that such research is not contrary to Union or Member State law. This is without prejudice to the obligation of the controller to ensure that all other conditions of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as well as all other requirements and principles of that Regulation are met.
Amendment
(32) The adoption of appropriate safeguards ensuring the rights and freedoms of data subjects pursuant to Article 89(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/679, is necessary in order to process personal data for scientific research purposes and to apply the provisions on scientific research of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. To that end, the GDPR seeks to ensure a proportionate balance between the right to protection of personal data, pursuant to Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘CFREU’), and the freedom of science, pursuant to Article 13 CFREU. The processing of personal data for the purpose of scientific research therefore pursues a legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, provided that such research is not contrary to Union or Member State law. This is without prejudice to the obligation of the controller to ensure that all other conditions of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as well as all other requirements and principles of that Regulation are met.
Logo of noyb.eu

noyb's comment:

Unclear what the impact of this amednment would be.

Have feedback? Write us!

#314 Recital 34

Authored by

Text proposed by the Commission
(34) Biometric data, as defined in Article 4(14) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, means processing of certain characteristics of a natural person through a specific technical means and which allows or confirms the unique identification of that person. The notion of biometric data includes two distinct functions, namely the identification of a natural person or the verification (also called authentication) of his or her claimed identity, both of which rely on different technical processes. The identification process is based on a ‘one-to-many’ search of the data subject’s biometric data in a database, while the verification process is based on a ‘one-to-one’ comparison of biometric data provided by the data subject, who is thereby claiming his or her identity. Derogating from the prohibition to process biometric data under Article 9(1) of the Regulation should also be allowed where the verification of the claimed identity of the data subject is necessary for a purpose pursued by the controller, and suitable safeguards apply to enable the data subject to have sole control of the verification process. For example, where the biometric data are securely stored solely at the side of the data subject or are securely stored at the side of the controller in a state-of-the-art encrypted form and the encryption key or equivalent means is held solely by the data subject, that processing is not likely to create significant risks to his or her fundamental rights and freedoms. The controller does not gain knowledge of the biometric data or only for a very limited time during the verification process.
Amendment
(34) Biometric data, as defined in Article 4(14) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, is personal data that result from processing certain characteristics of a natural person through a specific technical means, and that allow or confirm the unique identification of that person. The notion of biometric recognition includes two distinct functions, namely the identification of a natural person or the verification (also called authentication) of their claimed identity, both of which rely on different technical processes. The identification process is based on a ‘one-to-many’ search of the data subject’s biometric data in a database, while the verification process is based on a ‘one-to-one’ comparison of biometric data provided by the data subject, who is thereby claiming their identity. Derogating from the prohibition to process biometric data under Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed where the verification of the claimed identity of the data subject is necessary and proportionate for a legitimate purpose pursued by the controller, and subject to appropriate safeguards laid down under Union law. The required proportionality entails choosing the least intrusive of the equally effective means available. The appropriate safeguards shall ensure that the biometric data are under the sole control of the data subject so that the data subject can effectively decide when and how their biometric data are used for verification, without the controller having the technical capacity to access such biometric data in decrypted form or process them outside the strictly limited comparison process necessary for verification. This would for example be the case where the biometric data are securely stored solely on the device of the data subject or are securely stored by the controller in a state-of-the-art encrypted form and the encryption key or equivalent means is securely held solely by the data subject and subject to measures ensuring the overall security of processing, including during the enrolment phase of the data subject’s biometric data during the verification process. Such verification may in particular be required in the context of electronic identification systems and trust services under Union law. Other examples of appropriate safeguards are ensuring that end-to-end encryption is used when data are transmitted over a communication channel and providing data subjects with the possibility to securely rectify or delete their biometric data at any time.
Justification
Redrafted to align with the definition of biometric data in Article 4(14) GDPR.
Logo of noyb.eu

noyb's comment:

The amendment improves the Commission's proposal by reducing its scope of application but remains a decrease of protection compared to the current Article 9.

Have feedback? Write us!

#1069 Article 12 – paragraph 3 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new))

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 12 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
3a. in Article 12, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: '3. The controller shall provide information on action taken on a request under Articles 15 to 22 to the data subject without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of the request. That period may be extended by two further months where necessary, taking into account the complexity and number of the requests. The controller shall inform the data subject of any such extension without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of the request, together with the reasons for the delay. Where the data subject makes the request by electronic means, the information shall be provided by electronic means unless impossible despite the controller’s continuous efforts, unless otherwise requested by the data subject.'
Logo of noyb.eu

noyb's comment:

Limitation on the right to get a response via electornic means.

Have feedback? Write us!