Renew

João Cotrim De Figueiredo

Amendment Analysis

12
Amendments total
84%
Reduce Privacy
-9
Score

10 worsen Data Privacy

1 are neutral for Data Privacy

1 improve Data Privacy

10
1
1

0 combine improved Data Privacy with simplification

10 decrease privacy and add complexity

10
2

3 push back against weakening the existing GDPR.

2 violate Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

12 GDPR-relevant amendments by João Cotrim De Figueiredo

#265 Recital 30 a (new)


Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(30a) Processing of personal data may be necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller, including where such processing is carried out by a Member State in relation to military, defence or national security purposes, as referred to in Article 4(2) and 47 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with Article 4(2) TEU national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State. This Regulation should therefore not affect the ability of Member States to carry out processing operations that are necessary for the safeguarding of such essential Member State functions.
Logo of noyb.eu

noyb's comment:

Highlighting the limtiations of the GDPR. While this can be read as a mere restatement, it can have impact in business-to-governemnt processing situations, that can be covered by the GDPR so far.

Have feedback? Write us!

#294 Recital 32 a (new)


Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(32a) The training of AI systems and AI models can constitute a legitimate interest of the controller within the meaning of Article 6(1), point (e), where such training is necessary for the development of AI systems and AI models.
Justification
This amendment clarifies, at the level of general principle in Article 6(1) GDPR, that the training of AI systems and AI models can constitute a legitimate interest of the controller. Embedding this clarification directly in Article 6’s recital provides legal certainty for controllers developing AI systems across the full range of processing activities covered by the GDPR.
Logo of noyb.eu

noyb's comment:

The amendment proposes to consider training of AI systems and AI models as a processing activity that can be conducted under legitimate interest across the board. This would be more limited thatn the COM proposal, but would still give AI training a clear basis in law, compared to the current GDPR.

Have feedback? Write us!

#430 Recital 44 – paragraph 2


Text proposed by the Commission
The storing of personal data, or the gaining of access to personal data already stored, in a terminal equipment should continue to be allowed only on the basis of consent. Similar to the approach in Directive 2002/58/EC, this requirement should not preclude storing of personal data, or gaining of access to personal data already stored, in the terminal equipment of a natural person, when that is based on Union or Member State law within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and if it fulfils all conditions of lawfulness laid down in that provision, and is done for the objectives laid down in Article 23(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment
The storing of personal data, or the gaining of access to personal data already stored, in a terminal equipment should continue to be allowed only on the basis of consent. Similar to the approach in Directive 2002/58/EC, this requirement should not preclude storing of personal data, or gaining of access to personal data already stored, in the terminal equipment of a natural person, when that is based on Union or Member State law within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and if it fulfils all conditions of lawfulness laid down in that provision, and is done for the objectives laid down in Article 23(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, provided that any such measure is necessary and proportionate and does not require the general identification of users, nor the weakening of anonymity, encryption or other protective tools on which users, including journalists, activists and other persons at risk, rely.
Logo of noyb.eu

noyb's comment:

Overall partly goes down the avenue of the Commissioni proposal, which brings a lot of legal uncertainty.

Have feedback? Write us!

#443 Recital 44 – paragraph 3


Text proposed by the Commission
With a view to reducing the compliance burden and providing legal clarity to controllers, and given that certain purposes of processing pose a low risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects or that such processing may be necessary to provide a service requested by the data subject, it is necessary to define a limitative list of purposes for which the processing should be permitted without consent. As regards storing of personal data, or the gaining of access to personal data already stored, in a terminal equipment, and subsequent processing that is necessary for those purposes, this Regulation should therefore provide that the processing is lawful. The controller, such as a media service provider, may mandate a processor, such as a market research company, to carry out the processing on its behalf.
Amendment
With a view to reducing the compliance burden and providing legal clarity to controllers, and given that certain purposes of processing pose a low risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects or that such processing may be necessary to provide a service requested by the data subject, it is necessary to define a limitative list of purposes for which the processing should be permitted without consent. As regards storing of personal data, or the gaining of access to personal data already stored, in a terminal equipment, and subsequent processing that is necessary for those purposes, this Regulation should therefore provide that the processing is lawful. Those purposes should be interpreted narrowly and should not serve as a basis for tracking, profiling or the large-scale monitoring of the online activity of data subjects. The controller, such as a media service provider, may mandate a processor, such as a market research company, to carry out the processing on its behalf.
Logo of noyb.eu

noyb's comment:

Relies on further exceptions to the current legal framework, even if they should be interpreted "narrowly".

Have feedback? Write us!

#451 Recital 44 – paragraph 4


Text proposed by the Commission
For the subsequent processing of personal data for other purpose than those defined in the limitative list, Article 6 and, where relevant, Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be applied. It is the responsibility of the controller in the light of the principle of accountability to choose the appropriate legal basis for the intended processing. In order to be able to rely on legitimate interest under Article 6(1), point f, of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as a ground for the subsequent processing of personal data, the controller must show that it pursues the controller’s or third parties’ legitimate interest, the processing is necessary in order to achieve the purpose of that legitimate interest, and the interests or fundamental rights of the data subject do not override the interests pursued by the controller. In this context, controllers should take outmost account of the following elements: whether the data subject is a child; the reasonable expectations of data subject; the impact on the individual either because of the scale of data processed or the sensitivity of the data processed; the scale of the processing at issue in the sense that the processing cannot be particularly extensive either because of their amount or the range of categories of data; the processing should be based on data limited to what is necessary and cannot be based on monitoring of large parts of the online activity of the data subjects; and other relevant factors as appropriate. The processing should not give rise to the continuous monitoring of the data subject’s private life.
Amendment
For the subsequent processing of personal data for other purpose than those defined in the limitative list, Article 6 and, where relevant, Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be applied. It is the responsibility of the controller in the light of the principle of accountability to choose the appropriate legal basis for the intended processing. In order to be able to rely on legitimate interest under Article 6(1), point f, of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as a ground for the subsequent processing of personal data, the controller must show that it pursues the controller’s or third parties’ legitimate interest, the processing is necessary in order to achieve the purpose of that legitimate interest, and the interests or fundamental rights of the data subject do not override the interests pursued by the controller. In this context, controllers should take outmost account of the following elements: whether the data subject is a child; the reasonable expectations of data subject; the impact on the individual either because of the scale of data processed or the sensitivity of the data processed; the scale of the processing at issue in the sense that the processing cannot be particularly extensive either because of their amount or the range of categories of data; the processing should be based on data limited to what is necessary and cannot be based on monitoring of large parts of the online activity of the data subjects; and other relevant factors as appropriate. The processing should not give rise to the continuous monitoring of the data subject’s private life. Where age assurance is necessary, it should rely on privacy-preserving and data-minimising techniques, and should not undermine the anonymity or confidentiality of communications.
Logo of noyb.eu

noyb's comment:

Adds information on age assurance, but otherwise relies on the permissive Commission proposal.

Have feedback? Write us!

#942 Article 4 – point 1 – second part (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a)


Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 4 – point 1 – second part

Text proposed by the Commission
Information relating to a natural person is not necessarily personal data for every other person or entity, merely because another entity can identify that natural person. Information shall not be personal for a given entity where that entity cannot identify the natural person to whom the information relates, taking into account the means reasonably likely to be used by that entity. Such information does not become personal for that entity merely because a potential subsequent recipient has means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person to whom the information relates.
Amendment
Information relating to a natural person is not necessarily personal data for every other person or entity, merely because another entity can identify that natural person. Information shall not be personal for a given entity where that entity cannot identify the natural person to whom the information relates, taking into account the means reasonably likely to be used by that entity. Such information does not become personal for that entity merely because a potential subsequent recipient has means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person to whom the information relates. The parameters of a trained AI model do not constitute personal data where, taking into account the means reasonably likely to be used, a natural person whose personal data was processed during training cannot be identified from the model.
Justification
In line with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECLI:EU:C:2025:645), the training of an AI model should not be considered as processing of personal data solely on the ground that its output may contain references to personal data. Such an output constitutes the statistically most probable result generated by the model, rather than the retrieval or reproduction of personal data as such.
Logo of noyb.eu

noyb's comment:

The amendment includes more derogations than the Commission's proposal.

Have feedback? Write us!

#963 Article 4 – point 38 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b)


Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 4 – point 38

Text proposed by the Commission
(38) “scientific research” means any research which can also support innovation, such as technological development and demonstration. These actions shall contribute to existing scientific knowledge or apply existing knowledge in novel ways, be carried out with the aim of contributing to the growth of society´s general knowledge and wellbeing and adhere to ethical standards in the relevant research area. This does not exclude that the research may also aim to further a commercial interest.
Amendment
(38) “scientific research” means any research which can also support innovation, such as technological development and demonstration. These actions shall contribute to existing scientific knowledge or apply existing knowledge in novel ways, be carried out with the aim of contributing to the growth of society´s general knowledge and wellbeing and adhere to ethical standards in the relevant research area. This does not exclude that the research may also aim to further a commercial interest. The development, training, testing and validation of new technologies, such as AI systems, AI models and AI agents may be topics of scientific research where it meets the conditions of this point.
Justification
Clarifying that the development of new technologies, such as the training of an LLM, may also be considered as scientific research.
Logo of noyb.eu

noyb's comment:

Suggests that AI trainging is "research", which goes beyond current understanding.

Have feedback? Write us!

#991 Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2)


Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission
collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes shall, in accordance with Article 89(1), be considered to be compatible with the initial purposes, independent of the conditions of Article 6(4) of this Regulation, (‘purpose limitation’);
Amendment
collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes or for the development, training, testing, validation or use of new technical solutions based on aggregated data, including AI systems and AI models, subject to the safeguards in Article 88c and without prejudice to Article 9 shall, in accordance with Article 89(1), be considered to be compatible with the initial purposes, independent of the conditions of Article 6(4) of this Regulation, (‘purpose limitation’);
Justification
Data collected for one purpose can be reused for research, statistics, archiving, or for training, testing, or using AI systems on data from which individuals are not identifiable, and this reuse is deemed compatible with the original purpose (so no separate legal basis is needed under Art. 6(4)), provided the Article 88c safeguards apply and it doesn't override Article 9 (special category data protections).
Logo of noyb.eu

noyb's comment:

This amendment proposes a derogation from the purpose limitation principle for AI, which is not in line with Article 8 and 52 of the CFREU.

Have feedback? Write us!

#1005 Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new))


Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e

Present text
Article 6, paragraph 1(e)
Amendment
2a. In Article 6, paragraph 1, point e, the following sentence is added: "This is the case, when processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out by a Member State related to national security (Article 4(2) TEU)."
Justification
It should be made possible for Member State authorities to make use of the necessary personal and non-personal (mixed) datasets if it is used for national security purposes. This amendment is however, not intended to narrow the existing exclusion or invite GDPR oversight of national security processing.

#1376 Article 88a – paragraph 2 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15)


Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 88a – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission
(2) Paragraph 1 does not preclude storing of personal data, or gaining of access to personal data already stored, in the terminal equipment of a natural person, based on Union or Member State law within the meaning of, and subject to the conditions of Article 6, to safeguard the objectives referred to in Article 23(1).
Amendment
(2) Paragraph 1 does not preclude storing of personal data, or gaining of access to personal data already stored, in the terminal equipment of a natural person, based on Union or Member State law within the meaning of, and subject to the conditions of Article 6, to safeguard the objectives referred to in Article 23(1), provided that any such measure is necessary and proportionate and does not require the general identification of users, nor the weakening of anonymity, encryption or other protective tools on which users, including journalists, activists and other persons at risk, rely.
Logo of noyb.eu

noyb's comment:

Clarification that limitations to rights need to be within certain boundries which are newly defined.

Have feedback? Write us!

#1407 Article 88a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15)


Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 88a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph

Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(da) In Article 88a, paragraph 3, the following sentence is added: 'The purposes listed in this paragraph shall be interpreted narrowly and shall not serve as a basis for tracking, profiling or the large-scale monitoring of the online activity of data subjects.'
Logo of noyb.eu

noyb's comment:

Validates the exceptions proposed by the Commission, but limits their interpretation.

Have feedback? Write us!

#1582 Article 88c – paragraph 2 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15)


Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 88c – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission
Any such processing shall be subject to appropriate organisational, technical measures and safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the data subject, such as to ensure respect of data minimisation during the stage of selection of sources and the training and testing of AI an system or AI model, to protect against non-disclosure of residually retained data in the AI system or AI model to ensure enhanced transparency to data subjects and providing data subjects with an unconditional right to object to the processing of their personal data.
Amendment
Any such processing shall be subject to appropriate organisational, technical measures and safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the data subject, such as to ensure respect of data minimisation during the stage of selection of sources and the training and testing of AI an system or AI model, to protect against non-disclosure of residually retained data in the AI system or AI model to ensure enhanced transparency to data subjects and providing data subjects with an unconditional right to object to the processing of their personal data. Where age assurance is necessary, it should rely on privacy-preserving and data-minimising techniques, and should not undermine the anonymity or confidentiality of communications.
Logo of noyb.eu

noyb's comment:

The amendment does not include any new substantive element other than safeguards in the case of age assurance is needed for a processing activity.

Have feedback? Write us!