3 ms·

Well, strictly speaking, automation is a key factor. If it's automated, it's always GDPR. If it's not automated, it's GDPR under the condition that the data i

Well, strictly speaking, automation is a key factor. If it's automated, it's always GDPR. If it's not automated, it's GDPR under the condition that the data is part of a filing system. So if you order your stone tablets alphabetically by their title, it's GDPR, but jumble a sufficiently large pile of stone tablets and you're in the clear. In practice, this means that if you have a warehouse full of unordered boxes full of unordered forms, then somebody exercising their right to be forgotten cannot force you to go through every single box to see if there is data in there. Conversely and frustratingly, if you have one gigantic folder of digital media, then you are technically required to actually go through that data, although I've heard of cases argued with authorities where this can be forgone in cases where it would be extremely uneconomical. I'm still anxiously waiting for the first big decision on e-mail, for example. In large-scale corporate environments, good luck identifying every email containing personal data of a particular person, should that person ever exercise their right to be forgotten. (Edit: no idea why you got downvoted, you raise an important point)

jacquesm 6y ago
That organizational aspect is actually not all that clear cut and I would hold off on making strong statements about what counts as a filing system. A stack of paper might qualify, ordered or not for instance when it pertains to similar data gathered on others, something that can be searched automatically would definitely qualify and so on. Finding out where that line is is probably going to be an interesting academic exercise which will result in lots of fines that could have been avoided easily: if you don't have a right to process certain data in an automated way pretend you don't have that right at all to stay safe. After all, once the data is sufficiently disorganized to be searched efficiently it is also sufficiently disorganized to keep it secure and a data leak of disorganized data would be just as big an issue as gathering the data itself.
- ckastner 6y ago
  I agree; what counts as a filing system remains to be seen. Hence why I used a "sufficiently large" pile of stone tablets, to put it beyond doubt that it's not organized regardless of how strict or relaxed the interpretation. I don't recall the source at the moment, but one convincing argument I've heard was that an amount of disorganized data that you can organize given a few hours time would probably be treated as equivalent to organized data in the eyes of the authorities, otherwise you'd have a trivial loophole.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    There is that and there are multiple cases where a single individual affected by a transgression already led to fines as well as the fairly low count that is used to determine if a transgression is a significant one (10!).
tempsolution 6y ago
If that was true, it would be hilarious. The law does only apply if the defendant keeps his records in order :D. Normally, you get fined extra. Like you get fined for not keeping order, then for being late at producing said document (first you need to find it in your mess after all) and then fined for the document being what it is.

jacquesm 6y ago

That organizational aspect is actually not all that clear cut and I would hold off on making strong statements about what counts as a filing system. A stack of paper might qualify, ordered or not for instance when it pertains to similar data gathered on others, something that can be searched automatically would definitely qualify and so on. Finding out where that line is is probably going to be an interesting academic exercise which will result in lots of fines that could have been avoided easily: if you don't have a right to process certain data in an automated way pretend you don't have that right at all to stay safe. After all, once the data is sufficiently disorganized to be searched efficiently it is also sufficiently disorganized to keep it secure and a data leak of disorganized data would be just as big an issue as gathering the data itself.

ckastner 6y ago
I agree; what counts as a filing system remains to be seen. Hence why I used a "sufficiently large" pile of stone tablets, to put it beyond doubt that it's not organized regardless of how strict or relaxed the interpretation. I don't recall the source at the moment, but one convincing argument I've heard was that an amount of disorganized data that you can organize given a few hours time would probably be treated as equivalent to organized data in the eyes of the authorities, otherwise you'd have a trivial loophole.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  There is that and there are multiple cases where a single individual affected by a transgression already led to fines as well as the fairly low count that is used to determine if a transgression is a significant one (10!).

tempsolution 6y ago

If that was true, it would be hilarious. The law does only apply if the defendant keeps his records in order :D. Normally, you get fined extra. Like you get fined for not keeping order, then for being late at producing said document (first you need to find it in your mess after all) and then fined for the document being what it is.