It's well-known that the General Data Protection Regulation says that IP addresses should be treated as personal data because they can be used to single out individuals for different treatment, even if not to actually identify them.
The General Data Protection Regulation's Article 4(1) establishes six principles for any processing of personal data. It's interesting to compare how federated authentication – where a student authenticates to their university/college, which then provides relevant assurances to the website they want to access – performs against those principles when compared with traditional direct logins to websites.
[UPDATE] A recording of the webinar is now available
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will require all organisations to examine their processing of personal data. Understanding why and how data are being processed, and what the appropriate legal basis is for the processing, will be essential if organisations are to meet the GDPR’s requirements for information provision and data subject rights.
I was recently invited by EDUCAUSE to present a webinar on GDPR to their community of mostly North American universities and colleges. The number of participants indicates that European data protection law is a topic of interest. But the most common question was why, as non-EU organisations, they should care about GDPR. So I wrote a blog post, which EDUCAUSE have now published...
I've had a number of questions recently about how long help desks should keep personal data about the queries they receive. The correct answer is "as long as you need, and no longer". But I hope the following examples of why you might need to keep helpdesk tickets are more helpful than that bare statement:
Collections of free text – whether in database fields, documents or email archives – present a challenge both for operations and under data protection law. They may contain personal data but it's hard to find: whether you're trying to use it, to ensure compliance with the data protection principles, or to allow data subjects to exercise their legal rights. Some level of risk is unavoidable in these collections, but there are ways to reduce it.
Although the Article 29 Working Party seem to have had applications such as incident response in mind when drafting their guidance on exports, that guidance could also be helpful in the field of federated authentication.
When incident response teams (CSIRTs) detect an attack on their systems, they normally report details back to the network or organisation from which the attack comes. This can have two benefits for the reporter: in the short term, making the attack stop; in the longer term helping that organisation to improve the security of its systems so they are less likely to be used in future attacks.
The Article 29 Working Party's guidance on Breach Notification suggests some things we should do before a security breach occurs. The GDPR expects data controllers, within 72 hours of becoming aware of any security breach, to determine whether there is a risk to individuals and, if so, to report to the national Data Protection Authority. It seems unlikely that an organisation that hasn't prepared is going to be able to manage that.
Article 22 of the GDPR contains a new, and oddly-worded, "right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing". This only applies to decisions that "produce[] legal effects … or similarly significantly affect[]" the individual. Last year, the Article 29 Working Party's draft guidance on interpreting this Article noted that an automated refusal to hire a bicycle – because of insufficient credit – might reach this threshold.