Under the GDPR, legitimate interest is a valid lawful basis but requires a balancing test. A documented Legitimate Interests Assessment (LIA) is a critical, practical first step to demonstrate accountability, assess necessity, and evaluate the impact on individuals’ rights. This documented analysis is essential for compliance and would be the first thing a regulator would ask to see, providing a defensible position even amidst varying national interpretations.

The GDPR mandates that data be provided in a structured, commonly used, and machine-readable format, and recommends facilitating the right of access. An automated, secure self-service portal for verified users is a leading practice that enhances efficiency, reduces human error, improves user experience, and demonstrates compliance with both the letter and spirit of the regulation (promoting data portability). Manual compilation is resource-intensive and prone to error, while providing direct database access poses a severe security risk. Charging fees for access requests is generally prohibited under the GDPR.

The landmark Schrems II ruling clarified that the use of SCCs is not a rubber stamp. The data exporter (your company) bears the responsibility to conduct a case-by-case assessment of the laws and practices of the third country to determine if the SCCs can be complied with in practice. If the protection is not essentially equivalent, the exporter must implement supplementary technical, contractual, or organizational measures before the transfer proceeds. Relying on SCCs alone is insufficient, and halting all transfers may be an overreaction before the assessment is done.

Data minimization requires limiting processing to what is directly relevant and necessary for the specified purpose. The primary purpose is fall detection and alerting. Processing data locally on the device and only transmitting the essential alert (rather than the continuous raw data stream) minimizes the data exposed, reduces privacy risk, and aligns perfectly with the principle. Streaming all data, storing it with location, or even anonymization for secondary research all involve processing more data than is strictly necessary for the core function.

Transparency is a fundamental principle of data protection law. A clear policy fulfills the obligation to inform data subjects (employees) about the processing of their personal data. It builds trust, sets expectations, and is a legal requirement. While consent might be part of a solution, it is often not a valid lawful basis for employee monitoring due to the power imbalance. Technical measures like excluding certain sites are important for proportionality but come after establishing transparency. A pilot is operational but doesn’t address the core legal requirement of transparency.

Article 33 of the GDPR is very specific: In the case of a personal data breach, the controller shall notify the competent supervisory authority without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of it. The 72-hour deadline is a strict, primary compliance requirement, subject to limited exceptions if reasons for the delay are provided.

The GDPR specifically identifies the processing of biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a person as a type of processing likely to result in a high risk to rights and freedoms, thus triggering the need for a DPIA. The core privacy risk is the intrusive nature of biometric processing, which requires a compelling justification (necessity and proportionality) and robust safeguards. The other options represent operational or security concerns, but they are not the fundamental, systemic privacy risk posed by the nature of the data and its processing purpose.

The principle of purpose limitation requires that data not be used for new purposes incompatible with the original one. Sending marketing newsletters is generally not considered compatible with the administrative purpose of sending order updates. Therefore, a new lawful basis is required. For direct marketing, consent or legitimate interest are typical bases, but they must be properly established. Legitimate interest would require a fresh assessment and balancing test. A simple opt-out is insufficient if the original lawful basis does not cover the new purpose.

Transparency is a key principle, and it applies to all data subjects, including children. The GDPR Recital 58 specifically mentions that information for children should be in clear and plain language. The UK’s Age Appropriate Design Code (and similar guidelines globally) stress the need for child-centric communication, using layered notices, icons, animations, or videos to explain data practices in an understandable way. Relying solely on a legalistic policy or only informing parents does not meet the obligation to be transparent with the child user.

Under the GDPR, legitimate interest is a valid lawful basis but requires a balancing test. A documented Legitimate Interests Assessment (LIA) is a critical, practical first step to demonstrate accountability, assess necessity, and evaluate the impact on individuals’ rights. This documented analysis is essential for compliance and would be the first thing a regulator would ask to see, providing a defensible position even amidst varying national interpretations.0