Processing of personal data relating to the health of the data subject in a pandemic situation

Glimpse ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-99
Author(s):  
Juan Francisco Rodriguez Ayuso ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The State ◽  
Community Level ◽  
Interested Party ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
The Public ◽  
Vital Interest ◽  
Data Subject

This study offers a systematic, exhaustive and updated investigation of the declaration of the state of alarm and the processing of personal data relating to the health of citizens affected and/or potentially affected by the exceptional situation resulting from COVID-19. Specifically, it analyses the distinction between the state of alarm and the states of exception and siege and the possible effect on the fundamental right to the protection of personal data in exceptional health crisis situations and the effects that this declaration may have on the applicable regulations, issued, at a Community level. Next, and taking into consideration all the general and sectorial regulations applicable to data protection and health, we proceed to the analysis of the legitimate bases and the exceptions that, applicable to situations of health emergency such as the present one, enable the processing, taking into account the nature of the person who intervenes as the controller, making special emphasis on the public interest pursued by the Public Administrations and on the vital interest of the interested party.

Article 25 Data protection by design and by default

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee A. Bygrave
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Historical Research ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
The Public ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Data Subject

Article 4(5) (Definition of ‘pseudonymisation’) (see too recital 28); Article 5(2) (Accountability) (see too recital 11); Article 6(4)(e) (Compatibility); Article 22 (Automated individual decision-making, including profiling) (see too recital 71); Article 24 (Responsibility of controllers); Article 28 (Processors) (see too recital 81); Article 32 (Security of processing) (see too recital 83); Article 34(3)(a) (Communication of personal data breach to data subject) (see too recitals 87–88); Article 35 (Data protection impact assessment) (see too recital 84); Article 40 (Codes of conduct); Article 83(2)(d) and 83(4) (Fines); Article 89(1) (Safeguards relating to processing of personal data for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes).

Article 9 Processing of special categories of personal data

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ludmila Georgieva ◽  
Christopher Kuner
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Genetic Data ◽  
Biometric Data ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
Vital Interest ◽  
Data Portability ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Data Subject

Article 4(1) (Definition of personal data); Article 4(2) (Definition of processing); Article 4(11) (Definition of consent); Article 4(13) (Definition of genetic data, see also recital 34); Article 4(14) (Definition of biometric data); Article 4(15) (Definition of data concerning health, see also recital 35); Article 6(4)(c) (Lawfulness of processing, compatibility test) (see too recital 46 on vital interest); Article 13(2)(c) (Information to be provided where personal data are collected from the data subject); Article 17(1)(b), (3)(c) (Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’)); Article 20(1)(a) (Right to data portability); Article 22(4) (Automated individual decision-making, including profiling); Article 27(2)(a) (Representatives of controllers or processors not established in the Union); Article 30(5) (Records of processing activities); Article 35(3)(b) (Data protection impact assessment) (see too recital 91); Article 37(1)(c) (Designation of the data protection officer) (see too recital 97); Article 83(5)(a) (General conditions for imposing administrative fines).

Conditions of the Right to Erasure

2020 ◽  
pp. 196-274
Author(s):  
Jef Ausloos
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Historical Research ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
The Right ◽  
Data Subject

This chapter zooms in on Article 17 GDPR, on the right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’). It meticulously dissects the three paragraphs of this provision. The first paragraph lists six rights-to-erasure triggers which can be summarized as: (a) purpose expiration; (b) withdrawal of consent; (c) right to object; (d) unlawful processing; (e) legal obligation; and (f) withdrawal of consent by minors in the online environment. The second paragraph comprises an odd extension of the right to erasure, enabling data subjects to request that controllers who have made the personal data public, communicate potential erasure to anyone else processing that same personal data. The third paragraph lists five exemptions to the right to erasure, summarized as: (a) freedom of expression and information; (b) legal obligation or task carried out in the public interest or official authority; (c) public interest in the area of public health; (d) public interest archiving, scientific and historical research, or statistical purposes; and (e) legal claims. What becomes clear right away is how both the right-to-erasure’s triggers and exemptions all refer to other legal provisions in and outside the GDPR. As such, the right to erasure can be seen as a central hub in the GDPR, bringing together key data protection principles from the perspective of data subject empowerment.

Article 19 Notification obligation regarding rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gloria González Fuster
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Historical Research ◽  
Information Communication ◽  
The Public ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Data Subject

Article 4(9) (Definition of ‘recipient’); Article 12 (Transparent information, communication and modalities for the exercise of the rights of the data subject); Article 16 (Right to rectification), Article 17(1) (Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’)); Article 18 (Right to restriction of processing); Article 58(2)(g) (Powers of supervisory authorities); Article 89(3) (Safeguards and derogations relating to processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes).

Article 16 Right to rectification

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cécile de Terwangne
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Data Accuracy ◽  
Historical Research ◽  
Information Communication ◽  
The Public ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Data Subject

Article 5(d) (Principles relating to processing of personal data—accuracy) (see too recital 39); Article 12 (Transparent information, communication and modalities for the exercise of the rights of the data subject) (see too recital 59); Article 19 (Notification obligation regarding rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing); Article 23 (Restrictions) (see too recital 73); Article 89 (Safeguards and derogations relating to processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes) (see too recital 156).

scholarly journals COVID-19 Research: Navigating the European General Data Protection Regulation (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regina Becker ◽  
Adrian Thorogood ◽  
Johan Ordish ◽  
Michael J.S. Beauvais
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
Sensitive Data ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
The Public ◽  
General Data ◽  
High Standards ◽  
National Legislatures

UNSTRUCTURED Researchers must collaborate globally to rapidly respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. In Europe, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regulates the processing of personal data, including health data of value to researchers. Even during a pandemic, research still requires a legal basis for the processing of sensitive data, additional justification for its processing, and a basis for any transfer of data outside Europe. The GDPR does provide legal grounds and derogations that can support research addressing a pandemic, if the data processing activities are proportionate to the aim pursued and accompanied by suitable safeguards. During a pandemic, a public interest basis may be more promising for research than a consent basis, given the high standards set out in the GDPR. However, the GDPR leaves many aspects of the public interest basis to be determined by individual Member States, which have not fully or uniformly made use of all options. The consequence is an inconsistent legal patchwork that displays insufficient clarity and impedes joint approaches. The COVID-19 experience provides lessons for national legislatures. Responsiveness to pandemics requires clear and harmonized laws that consider the related practical challenges and support collaborative global research in the public interest.

scholarly journals Biobank and Biomedical Research: Responsibilities of Controllers and Processors Under the EU General Data Protection Regulation

2021 ◽  
pp. 61-89
Author(s):  
Ana Nordberg
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Historical Research ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
The Public ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Eu

AbstractBiobanks are essential infrastructures in current health and biomedical research. Advanced scientific research increasingly relies on processing and correlating large amounts of genetic, clinical and behavioural data. These data are particularly sensitive in nature and the risk of privacy invasion and misuse is high. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) developed and increased harmonisation, resulting in a framework in which the specific duties and obligations of entities processing personal data—controllers and processors—were defined. Biobanks, in the exercise of their functions, assume the role of controllers and/or processors and as such need to comply with a number of complex rules. This chapter analyses these rules in the light of Article 89 GDPR, which creates safeguards and derogations relating to ‘processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes’. It identifies key compliance challenges faced by biobanks as data controllers and processors, such as determining whether the GDPR is applicable and its intersection with other regulations; when a biobank should be considered controller and processor; and what are the main duties of biobanks as data controllers and processors and options for compliance.

scholarly journals COVID-19 Research: Navigating the European General Data Protection Regulation

10.2196/19799 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. e19799 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regina Becker ◽  
Adrian Thorogood ◽  
Johan Ordish ◽  
Michael J.S. Beauvais
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
Sensitive Data ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
The Public ◽  
General Data ◽  
High Standards ◽  
National Legislatures

Researchers must collaborate globally to rapidly respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. In Europe, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regulates the processing of personal data, including health data of value to researchers. Even during a pandemic, research still requires a legal basis for the processing of sensitive data, additional justification for its processing, and a basis for any transfer of data outside Europe. The GDPR does provide legal grounds and derogations that can support research addressing a pandemic, if the data processing activities are proportionate to the aim pursued and accompanied by suitable safeguards. During a pandemic, a public interest basis may be more promising for research than a consent basis, given the high standards set out in the GDPR. However, the GDPR leaves many aspects of the public interest basis to be determined by individual Member States, which have not fully or uniformly made use of all options. The consequence is an inconsistent legal patchwork that displays insufficient clarity and impedes joint approaches. The COVID-19 experience provides lessons for national legislatures. Responsiveness to pandemics requires clear and harmonized laws that consider the related practical challenges and support collaborative global research in the public interest.

100 Years of State Pension: Learning from the Past

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 483-501
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
The State ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Past ◽  
Tangible Evidence ◽  
State Pension

The President (Mr R. S. Bowie, F.F.A.): Tonight's topic is ‘100 years of state pension: — learning from the past’. I am reminded of the expression: why are the bankers so keen to find new ways of losing money when the old ways seem to have worked perfectly well!The state pension has been going in a recognisable form for only 100 years and only for the last 60 as a universal pension; and only for the last 30 years in the form that we all might recognise today.If the Actuarial Profession can bring value to something from the past, it is to bring a perspective and a context to it so that we can learn from it. In this way, the Profession can create an informed climate within which public debate on matters of public interest can take place. As you will all know, the Financial Reporting Council are pressing the Profession hard to give tangible evidence of its commitment to the public interest, and this book falls into that category, creating an informed background for debate on a matter of huge public interest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document