Does the process of anonymizing web server logs count as &#39;Processing&#39; under GDPR? As far as I believe, it is permitted under GDPR to record and store non-anonymized web server access logs, as these can be useful for security reasons. I am looking to implement a log anonymization solution, where IP addresses, user agents and referrers in the logs will be anonymized before being written to disk. Then, these anonymized logs will be fed into an analytics tool to provide stats on unique visitors, page hits, etc. My question is whether this anonymization process counts as processing personally identifiable data under GDPR? Since I'm allowed to record the data for security reasons, I don't usually need to ask for permission or provide a privacy notice, etc. However, does this extra anonymization process on top then take it over the line meaning that consent and a privacy notice would be required? If I were to anonymize the logs and continue to use them exclusively for security reasons, would that change anything? Or does it not matter what I do with them once they are anonymized? To clarify, this question is specifically about the 'Processing' involved in the anonymization process. It's not a generic question about whether I'm allow to record IPs or not.
You wrote: As far as I believe, it is permitted under GDPR to record and store non-anonymized web server access logs, as these can be useful for security reasons. True, Recital 49 GDPR: The processing of personal data to the extent strictly necessary and proportionate for the purposes of ensuring network and information security, i.e. the ability of a network or an information system to resist, at a given level of confidence, accidental events or unlawful or malicious actions that compromise the availability, authenticity, integrity and confidentiality of stored or transmitted personal data, and the security of the related services offered by, or accessible via, those networks and systems, by public authorities, by computer emergency response teams (CERTs), computer security incident response teams (CSIRTs), by providers of electronic communications networks and services and by providers of security technologies and services, constitutes a legitimate interest of the data controller concerned. This could, for example, include preventing unauthorised access to electronic communications networks and malicious code distribution and stopping ‘denial of service’ attacks and damage to computer and electronic communication systems. You asked: My question is whether this anonymization process counts as processing personally identifiable data under GDPR? IP addresses are personal data in some cases, so yes, you're processing personal data. Then, these anonymized logs will be fed into an analytics tool to provide stats on unique visitors, page hits, etc. These are purposes considered compatible with initial purposes according to Article 5.1.(b): Personal data shall be (...) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; further processing for (...) statistical purposes shall, in accordance with Article 89(1), not be considered to be incompatible with the initial purposes (‘purpose limitation’); As a matter of fact, you might be required to anonymize the data for those purposes, see Article 89.1: Processing for (...) statistical purposes, shall be subject to appropriate safeguards, in accordance with this Regulation, for the rights and freedoms of the data subject. Those safeguards shall ensure that technical and organisational measures are in place in particular in order to ensure respect for the principle of data minimisation. Those measures may include pseudonymisation provided that those purposes can be fulfilled in that manner. Where those purposes can be fulfilled by further processing which does not permit or no longer permits the identification of data subjects, those purposes shall be fulfilled in that manner. If I were to anonymize the logs and continue to use them exclusively for security reasons, would that change anything? No, you would be processing data in a manner compatible with initial purposes (ensuring network and information security). Or does it not matter what I do with them once they are anonymized? Yes, it does. If you're not using them for &quot;archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes&quot; then you're using them for purposes incompatible with initial purposes. You would need to find new legal basis for processing. does this extra anonymization process on top then take it over the line meaning that consent and a privacy notice would be required? It depends on what you want to do with anonymized data. In your case, for security purposes or security and statistical purposes, you don't need the consent and there is no requirement for the privacy notice (but sure, it would be nice to publish one). For other purposes it might be different.
Keeping logs of chats would not necessarily be against the GDPR as you have suggested. For the IRC service provider/operator: these chats/logs would be within scope if EU-based users are involved and this means the data controller/processors would have legal obligations to comply with GDPR. The IRC service provider/operator would be the data controller and would be held ultimately responsible for the data stored/processed through the IRC service, including backups and logs kept etc, and this would mean any sub-processors they select (such as hosting provider) would also have to be GDPR compliant. Due to the nature of IRC chats being entirely public in the same way forum board posts and comments are public, the contract terms between the IRC service provider and the IRC users would need to be very clear that this is the case, and the IRC users would need to give consent for this processing (this is more complicated for children, see Article 8 regarding consent from the holder of parental responsibility). For IRC users (personal use): If you wish to keep the chat records for personal use only (i.e. not in connection with a business or your employment at a business), then an exemption applies: This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: ... (c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity; ... (GDPR, Article 2: Material Scope, Paragraph 2(c), p.32) For IRC users (commercial/business use): In this case I don't think you would have any legal basis to store/process these chats/logs if they contain personal data without a legal agreement with the data controller which would require you to put in place the same protections they have to under GDPR but then allow your business to access the data for specific purposes. While the information may be published or considered to be in the 'public domain', for you to take a copy of it without permission and use it for a purpose they haven't consented to would not be allowed under GDPR. Additionally, to go through the process of removing personal data from the chats/logs would in itself be considered 'processing' under GDPR and therefore would be unauthorised without a legal agreement with the data controller. Practically therefore, your best options under this circumstance would be if: The IRC service provider implemented a 'favourites' feature to save within their own system the chat conversations you wish to retain and refer back to in future. Since they hold the data and you already have a user agreement with them there is no further complications (this is probably the best option); The IRC service provider implemented a feature to download an anonymized copy of a chat conversation (not ideal as there are no guaruntees a user will not include personal data in their messages, though the user agreement could state that message content will be considered to exclude personal data, in a similar way to how StackExchange do for this website, see the paragraph titled "Information You Choose to Display Publicly on the Network" on the StackExchange Privacy Policy). Your business considered an alternative communications solution, such as hosting its own real-time chat system or forum boards system, in which case your business would be the data controller, and while subject to GDPR you could then define the purposes for which the data will be used in your own user agreement.
The GDPR doesn't generally distinguish public from non-public personal data. If you have a good reason to contact the professor, do send them an email. GDPR does not prevent this. If you're sending this email for “purely personal or household purposes”, then GDPR doesn't apply anyway. There are rules in the ePrivacy Directive against unsolicited emails, but these specifically relate to emails for direct marketing purposes. A company is not allowed to send out spam marketing, regardless of whether they obtained the email address from a public data source. Companies can send email marketing to their own existing customers, or to people who have given consent. Consent is defined in a fairly restrictive way (as a specific, informed, freely given, and unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes), so that mere publication of an email address cannot be interpreted as consent to receive marketing from a particular company.
The GDPR does not have specific rules on passwords. Instead, the GDPR imposes a more general requirement to ensure data protection by implementing “appropriate” technical and organizational measures, “[t]aking into account the state of the art, 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” (c.f. Art 24, 25, 32 GDPR). As of 2021, the state of the art for password storage is a special password hashing function such as Argon2, bcrypt, or scrypt. However, the nature and context of processing could reasonably lead to the conclusion that the usual hashed password storage is not appropriate, for example because the ability to find links between user accounts is more important. There is a trade-off between different aspects of security, and the data controller could reasonably arrive at an unusual conclusion. However: The data controller would still have to implement appropriate measures to protect these plaintext passwords, for example by storing them in an encrypted manner, keeping unforgeable access logs, and limiting access to plaintext passwords to specially trained staff. Encryption is one of the few things that are explicitly required whenever appropriate. The data controller better have a good analysis that shows that this unusual approach to security is appropriate. Even if not explicitly required, an Art 35 data protection impact assessment could be useful. The data controller has the burden of proof to show that these processing activities are GDPR-compliant. So is this data controller breaking the law or doing morally dubious stuff? Not necessarily! It is possible to find a scenario where they are doing the right thing. However, such a scenario is far-fetched and rather unlikely. Without further background, the most likely explanation is that the presented password handling scheme does not comply with GDPR.
It is in this context important to recall what a data controller and a data processor is. The data controller is the person or entity responsible for the data processing. They determine the purposes and means of this processing. A data processor merely performs data processing on the controller's behalf. The processor must not process data for their own purposes, but can make low-level decisions about the means of processing. For example, a controller may specify the purpose of ensuring the security and integrity of the services, or the purpose of creating basic statistics. The processor might implement this in part through the means of keeping a logfile. Often, such purposes are agreed upon via a data processing agreement or the terms of service, leading to the legal fiction that the processor was instructed by the controller. In your scenario, the controller is presumably not subject to the GDPR1, and therefore does not need a clear purpose or a legal basis for their processing activities. However, the EU-based data processor is bound by the GDPR, and can only process data as instructed by the controller. The processor has to comply with the GDPR with respect to how they carry out the processing activities, but the processing activities themselves don't have to be GDPR-compliant. Thus, it might be perfectly fine for an EU-based hosting provider to keep logfiles with IP addresses, even if those logfiles wouldn't be GDPR-compliant. 1: Whether GDPR applies to a non-EU data controller depends not on whether processing occurs in the EU, but on whether the controller is offering goods or services to people in the EU, or observing behaviour of people in the EU – see Art 3(2) GDPR. The cited guidelines continue to enumerate which provisions of the GDPR would still apply to EU processors working on behalf of non-EU data controllers (pages 12–13). These requirements are about how the controller and processor work together and relate to internal compliance of the data processor, but they do not affect the processing activities themselves. You mention that you would link to the hosting provider's privacy policy and direct data subject requests to the hoster. This misunderstands the role of the data processor. The data controller is the single point of contact for data subjects. The data processor is not a data controller in this scenario. They cannot issue a privacy policy for the controller's processing activities, and cannot respond to data subject requests. Their only relationship is with the data controller. If the hosting provider were to post a privacy policy for these processing activities, they would act like a controller (possibly a joint controller) and could bring the processing activities within scope of the GDPR – not what you are intending. However, since GDPR does not apply to the processing activities in this scenario, the data subject rights in the GDPR do not apply. As far as GDPR is concerned, no privacy policy is needed and no data subject requests have to be answered. If the data processor receives such requests, their only obligation is to forward them to the controller, who can then handle them (possibly ignoring them).
This is a good question, as it raises an issue which places the controller's interest in providing a smoothly functioning customer sign up process against customers' right not to have their data leaked. Note that it is not necessary to consider &quot;enumeration&quot; here. Even just being able to check whether one person has a registered account raises the issue. The relevant provisions of the EU GDPR (or in the UK, the UK GDPR as defined in sections 3(1) and 205(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018) are (emphasis added): Article 4(2): 'processing’ means any operation or set of operations which is performed on personal data or on sets of personal data, whether or not by automated means, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction So, disclosure of the fact that a user has a registered account amounts to &quot;processing&quot;. Article 6(1): Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies: (a) the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes; (b) processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract; (c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject; (d) processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person; (e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller; (f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. Of these, only (a) and (f) are likely to be of any relevance: (a) is not too useful since it isn't feasible to design a sign-up system that depends on the user's consent (which they may not give). That leaves us with (f). As noted by the Information Commissioner's Office, &quot;Legitimate interests is the most flexible lawful basis for processing, but you cannot assume it will always be the most appropriate. It is likely to be most appropriate where you use people’s data in ways they would reasonably expect and which have a minimal privacy impact, or where there is a compelling justification for the processing.&quot;. The legitimate interest here would be that you need a sign up system which prevents duplicate registrations. Remember though that the processing has to be &quot;necessary&quot; for the purposes of the legitimate interest. One might argue that it is not since you could design the system to give the appearance of accepting the duplicate registration followed by sending an email to the account holder to inform them. On the other hand this will result in a less user friendly experience which could itself be a legitimate interest. Ultimately this is a balancing exercise and it is hard to say whether you have struck the right balance until someone complains to the ICO or the court and a decision is issued. The fact that the practice is widespread among well-resourced and large companies would tend to indicate that it is lawful albeit this is not conclusive in the absence of a court decision. I'm not aware of any cases involving this particular issue but would be interested to hear from others on this point. If the processing is unlawful then Article 18 is applicable: The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller restriction of processing where one of the following applies: [...] (b) the processing is unlawful and the data subject opposes the erasure of the personal data and requests the restriction of their use instead Where processing has been restricted under paragraph 1, such personal data shall, with the exception of storage, only be processed with the data subject’s consent or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims or for the protection of the rights of another natural or legal person or for reasons of important public interest of the Union or of a Member State. In other words, the data subject could ask you not to disclose their registration status via the sign up page, and you would be obliged to comply with the request. Separately from the above points, in order to be lawful you must provide the data subject with certain prescribed information at the time when the data is collected. Of particular relevance here are the following items: Article 13(1): Where personal data relating to a data subject are collected from the data subject, the controller shall, at the time when personal data are obtained, provide the data subject with all of the following information: [...] (c) the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the processing; (d) where the processing is based on point (f) of Article 6(1), the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party; So even if you conclude that the processing will be lawful you will have to give some consideration to the basis so that you can comply with the above provision.
This question shows a misconception of GDPR. GDPR creates an obligation not just towards the data subject but also towards the authorities of the relevant state(s). The data subject cannot waive your responsibility to safeguard data, document internal processes, etc. GDPR is not a blanket ban on the handling of personally identifying information (PII). Informed consent is one of the ways to get permission to process and store this data. If your data subjects are prepared to give your sweeping permissions, ask for consent (informed, revocable, etc.), document the consent, and go from there. The data subject does not get to decide what classification data falls under. If you collect, say, medical data, then you are subject to increased restrictions and safeguards.
GDPR &amp; EPD require user consent before storing a users personal information. Wrong. User consent is one of the ways that justify storing personal information, but there are others. You may check art.6 to see the several reasons that allow to store personal information. In this case, it seems reasonable to justify it under the paragraph f (f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. Of course, that means that the data has to be used for this purpose. Avoiding spammers and other banned users would be such a purpose, but you should ensure that you do not send those e-mail address commercial information or even a Christmas greeting. In any case, be careful with anything you store. If along with the e-mail you stored more info, this could be interpreted as excessive and beyond the scope of paragraph f. For example, imagine storing &quot;User wrote nazi statements&quot; explaining why the e-mail is banned; EU laws are very restrictive about storing information about political or religious beliefs.