125 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2022
    1. It should be emphasized that in relation to the above-mentioned of persons, there is still a high risk of unlawful use of their personal data, as the purpose for which the person or unauthorized persons took action resulting in the infringement of personal data protection is unknown. Data subjects may therefore suffer material damage, and the very breach of data confidentiality is also non-pecuniary damage (harm). The data subject may at least feel the fear of losing control of their personal data, of identity theft or identity fraud, or of financial loss.

      risk factors:

      • likelihood and severity of harm
      • type of harm (damage)
      • harm specification
    2. name and surname, level of education, e - mail address, employment data, e-mail address of the person whose loan the client wants to recommend, personal data regarding earnings, data on marital status, telephone number (landline, mobile, previously used telephone number), PESEL number, nationality, NIP number, password (mistakenly, as indicated by the Company, stored in open text), place of birth, correspondence address, registered address , telephone number to the place of work and bank account number

      risk factors:

      • kind of data
      • data specification
    3. in order to remedy the breach and minimize the negative impact on data subjects, customers and potential customers had been informed that their login passwords had been reset. In order to minimize the risk of recurrence of the breach, e.g. firewall operation has been restored.

      remedies:

      • notification of data subjects
      • password reset (operational/internal)
      • firewall operation restored (operational/internal) & risk assessment & risk mediation for the future
  2. Jul 2021
    1. not to impose a penalty in the form of an administrative fine and to replace it with the penalty of a warning under Article 76. 3 of the LOPDGDD in relation to Article 58.2 b) of the RGPD.

      warning, NOT administrative fine, due to remedial action/diligence post-factum

    2. in view of the diligence carried out by VOX with regard to the prompt communication of the security violation to this Spanish Data Protection Agency, as well as the initiation of actions aimed at minimizing the negative consequences of the aforementioned security violation, and as indicated in proven facts six and seven of this resolution, which show that following the security incident and the reports commissioned by the security experts, the entity has remedied the vulnerabilities identified and the level of security has been improved

      remedial action

    3. Contrary to what VOX indicates in its allegations to the agreement of initiation, this Agency is not considering the personal data subject to the security breach as ideological data that deserve to be subsumed under the umbrella of Art. 9 of the RGPD which, under the heading "Special categories of data", includes as such personal data that reveal (...), political opinions (...), but the type of data that has been exposed and the specific type of exposure, i.e., on the Internet, reveals a certain risk that must be taken into account, as indicated below. The data in question is related to the subscription to a newsletter on the activity of the political party, and that, although it does not necessarily imply data of an ideological nature, the public exposure of this information through the Internet may give rise to certain combinations with other information - also published on the Internet or by other sources, such as comments on social networks, participation in forums, monitoring of certain user profiles on social networks, etc., - and place its headlines in a certain position in that sense. On the possibility of combining information on a holder of personal data, we can mention Opinion 4/2007 of the Article 29 Working Party, "On the concept of personal data" which, although it analyses the possibilities of identifying someone through combinations with other information, is very clear when we refer to the risk of attributing a certain political ideology, starting only from the data of a subscriber to the information of that party, and combining it with another. In particular, it indicates the following: (...)when we speak of "indirectly" identified or identifiable, we are generally referring to the phenomenon of "unique combinations", be they small or large. In cases where, at first sight, the available identifiers do not make it possible to single out a particular person, that person may still be 'identifiable', because that information combined with other data (whether or not the data controller is aware of them) will make it possible to distinguish that person from others. This is where the Directive refers to "one or more specific elements characteristic of their physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity". Some of these characteristics are so unique that they make it possible to identify a person effortlessly (the "current Prime Minister of Spain"), but a combination of details belonging to different categories (age, regional origin, etc.) can also be conclusive enough in some circumstances, especially if one has access to additional information of a certain kind. This phenomenon has been extensively studied by statisticians, always ready to avoid any breach of confidentiality (...) Thus, the different pieces that make up the personality of the individual are brought together in order to attribute to him/her certain decisions (...) As indicated above, in this case, a search on the Internet, for example, of the name, surname or e-mail address of one of the affected parties may offer results that, combined with the subscription to receive news about the activity of the political party, i.e. those who have been the object of the security breach, reveal to us a certain political ideology, the revelation of which does not have to have been consented to by the owner. This possibility entails a risk that must be assessed when processing certain data with this characteristic and which increases the demand for the degree of protection in relation to the security and safeguarding of the integrity and confidentiality of these data. This risk must be taken into account by the controller and, on the basis of this risk, measures must be established which would have prevented the controller from losing control of the data and, therefore, of the holders of the data who provided them to the controller.

      risk assessment - personal data & political ideology - combination of data/sources

    4. From the actions carried out, it has been verified that the security measures that the investigated entity had in place in relation to the data it was processing, were not adequate at the time of the data breach, since, according to the report provided (...) several serious confirmed vulnerabilities were found that must be corrected and that in general have to do with the validation of the input parameters, and that must be corrected as soon as possible (...)

      finding of not adequate security measures

  3. May 2021
  4. Apr 2021
    1. As described above, this was information about the well-being, learning outcomes and social conditions of 18 undergraduate students. To a large extent, the information related to something that was lacking in them and in one case that the child welfare authorities had interfered with the person concerned. This included health information, but according to point 3 (b). Article 3 Act no. 90/2018, such information, both in terms of physical and mental health, is considered to be sensitive.

      sensitive personal data

    2. It is clear that the security breach in question involved a significant reduction in the privacy rights of the students concerned in the light of the nature of the personal information in question.

      how the data breach affected privacy right of data subjects

    3. educational lectures for most staff

      for whole paragraph: did staff training pre-exist the data breach? or these training took place after the breach and notification of the DPA? not clear from machine translation

    4. the students' well-being, learning outcomes and social conditions were taken into account. To a large extent, the information related to something that was lacking in them and in one case to the fact that the child protection authorities had interfered with the person in question. Then, in one case, there was information about mental health and in another case physical health.

      sensitive personal data: physical health, mental health, learning outcomes, social conditions, etc.

      esp. regarding students, so vulnerable data subjects!

    1. it is noted that, as is clear from the documentation acquired during the preliminary investigation, the University limited itself to accepting the design choices of the company that provided the whistleblowing application which did not provide for the encryption of personal data

      is this lack of operational readiness? or just preliminary organizational mistake/business decision?

    2. Therefore, considering the permanent nature of the offense, which is, moreover, of an omissive nature, the applicable discipline must be identified with reference to that in force at the date of completion of the case, to be recognized precisely at the time of the cessation of the conduct, which occurred after the aforementioned date of 12 December. 2018, when both the aforementioned Regulation and the internal adjustment regulations (Legislative Decree 101 of 2018) already applied.

      ommissive nature of offence and applicability of GDPR

    3. dispute relating to the "failure to comply with current and more specific rules to ensure the protection of rights and freedoms with regard to the processing of employees' personal data in the context of employment relationships

      kind of data subject: employees ?

    1. The GDPR does not prevent an organisation from implementing third party scripts. Rather, the GDPR requires that each organisation assess the risks arising in the circumstances of their own implementation and put controls in place to protect the personal data that it processes. Ticketmaster has shown very limited knowledge at the date of the Incident of the risk of implementing third party scripts into a payment page, despite it being widely known and documented at that time. A fortiori, Ticketmaster has not evidenced that it deployed appropriate and proportionate controls to manage this risk.

      risk assessment required for data controller - here absent

      ticketmaster neglected the profound risk

    2. Despite the notifications by, amongst others, Monzo and Commonwealth Bank of Australia of possible fraud involving the Ticketmaster website, the integrity of the chat bot was not initially checked, assessed or otherwise tested to ensure that it has not been compromised. Indeed, it took Ticketmaster approximately nine weeks from the date of Monzo's notification of possible fraud involving the Ticketmaster website for Ticketmaster to run a payment through its payment page and monitor the network traffic thereon.

      initial lack of post-factum remedial action

    3. the costs of implementation and the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risk of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons

      appropriate organisational measures

    4. Ticketmaster have been unable to provide the Commissioner with a breakdown of the individuals affected during the period from 25 May 2018 to 23 June 2018.

      not enough mitigation efforts

    5. Further, Ticketmaster stated: "As part of Ticketmaster's GDPR readiness programme, Ticketmaster invested £2.5 million on an internal privacy portal to deal with data subject rights issues, including complaints.e"

      operational readiness

    6. It was because of Ticketmaster's business decision to include the chat bot on its payment page that the chat bot was able to unlawfully process the personal data of customers. An attacker directed its attack at the Inbenta servers and inserted malicious code into the JavaScript for the chat bot.

      data controller's business decision lead ultimately to the unlawful processing (infringement)

      lack of diligence: business decision + notifications from card companies and users, no thorough investigation of all notified incidents/suspicions (as above)

      organizational measures in place + 3rd party forensics team, but diligence is lacking

      so, type of breach: third-party from Inbenta OR business decision and lack of diligence of controller?

    7. On 22 June 2018 at 8.53pm, Ticketmaster received a notification from Barclaycard regarding around 37,000 instances of known fraud. As set out below, this is the date from which Ticketmaster has stated that it had knowledge of the Personal Data Breach in its personal data breach reports submitted to the Commissioner.

      actual incident on which the notification of the DPA is based

      what type of breach? data exposed online? fraud?

    8. the infringements constitute a serious failure to comply with the GDPR and, accordingly, that the imposition of a penalty is appropriate

      serious infringement and penalty

    9. an incident from 25 May 2018 to 23 June 2018, affecting personal data processed by Ticketmaster during that period (the "Incident")

      infringement - actual breach

    1. Following the inspection, Karolinska University Hospital has begun work to ensure that needs and risk assessments are carried out throughout the organization. Among other things, a needs and risk analysis has been carried out for the Perioperative Medicine and Intensive Care function in accordance with Karolinska University Hospital Guidelines.

      some organizational measures have been taken, after the inspection (and instruction?)

    2. hospital had started work on an action plan and a needs and risk analysis.

      the hospital replied they had started working on relevant action plan for (instructed) risk analysis

    3. Previous review of Karolinska University Hospital's authorisation management The Swedish Data Protection Authority has previously conducted an inspection of Karolinska University Hospital's access control etc. By the Data Inspectorate Decision 920-2012, notified on 26 August 2013, states that Karolinska University Hospital was instructed, among other things, to carry out a needs and risk analysis as a basis for assigning authorisations in TakeCare.

      in 2013 the Hospital was instructed to carry out a risk analysis - have they acted on the DPA's instruction?

    4. does not have limited user permissions for accessing the medical record system TakeCare to what is needed only for the user to be able to carry out their duties

      lack of limited user permission; lack of restricted access to what is only needed for the carer's duty

      ADD TAG

    1. With regard to the degree of cooperation with the supervisory authority, the restricted session noted the company's perfect cooperation, both in facilitating the CNIL's investigations and in taking into account the rapporteur's observations, even before the restricted session's decision. It also notes that the company complied with the rapporteur's legal analysis of all the shortcomings noted, even in cases where a difference of opinion remained.
    2. With regard to the nature, seriousness and duration of the breach, it considers that this criterion is particularly characterized for several breaches, in particular those relating to the duration of the storage of personal data, the modalities of exercising rights and the deposit of cookies.

      indirect consequences of breach

    3. Accordingly, the restricted session considers that the failure to implement mandatory pre-authentication following the discovery of the vulnerability - when this measure had been identified and is the only measure to completely prevent the risk - constitutes a breach of section 32 of the Regulation.

      failure to implement appropriate security measures, i.e. mandatory pre-authentication

  5. Mar 2021