Is it ok to use slack in EU without data residency option? Since you can only setup Slack data residency in EU on the most expensive plans, is it ok to use their service still under GDPR rules without that option? Would signing a DPA stating they are compliant would be enough?
When you are the data controller, and are transferring data under your control into non-European countries, you need to protect that transfer. Slack proposes that you use the “standard contractual clauses” (SCCs) mechanism, which is incorporated into their DPA. To enter into SCCs, you as the controller must be convinced that the data importer on the other end is also able to enter into these SCCs. This cannot be the case if the data importer is subject to non-European laws that could require disclosure without legal basis. In the Schrems II judgement, the partial adequacy decision for the United States was invalidated. SCCs can still be a valid transfer tool. However, exactly the same reasons that invalidated the adequacy decision also call into question whether US-based companies can enter into SCCs: electronic communications services can be compelled to disclose personal data to US intelligence agencies without suitable options for redress by the data subjects. Slack is such an US-based company that is probably within scope of these spy laws. If no sufficient legal protections are available, SCCs might still be permissible by implementing supplemental measures that effectively prevent access to the personal data by US intelligence agencies, such as end to end encryption with keys that never leave Europe. The EDPB has issued recommendations on such measures. However, such technical measures are generally incompatible with SaaS services such as Slack. Thus, you must perform an analysis of the available legal and technical measures: If you find that Slack is subject to relevant US laws and that you cannot implement supplemental measures, then the data transfer is probably illegal. Otherwise, a transfer based on SCCs combined with suitable supplemental measures might be legal. In this answer, “Europe” means the UK for the UK GDPR, and EU/EEA for the EU GDPR.
If a data controller fails to fulfil your data subject rights, lodge a complaint with your data protection authority. In Hamburg, the appropriate form is here. However, they are not required to investigate your complaint. Independently from a complaint, you could consider suing Wordpress for compliance – Automattic has a subsidiary in Ireland so this might actually be feasible. I'm not quite sure though that Automattic is indeed the data controller for wordpress.org, as opposed to the .com domain – the privacy policy isn't quite GDPR compliant. While your GDPR Art 17 Right to Erasure might not apply in this case, there's a definite GDPR violation because the data controller failed to respond to your request within a month as per Art 12(4). That your posts on the bugtracker were deleted doesn't look like an issue in this context, what does matter is that they didn't respond to emails to the addresses mentioned in their privacy policy. Whether you have a right to erasure depends on the legal basis for storing your data. In general, you have a right to erasure if: the data is no longer necessary; processing is based on consent (because you can always withdraw consent); or processing is based on a legitimate interest and they have no overriding legitimate grounds to continue processing despite your objection (Art 21). The data is still necessary to identify you for your actions on the bugtracker, but depending on your particular situation you may be able to object successfully and force them to anonymize your posts.
The tricky bit from a GDPR standpoint is that the US has a law that says a US-based company must hand over data to US government agencies even if the data is stored outside the US. This is US specific and a case where the US government gives itself jurisdiction outside the US but the EU can't directly do anything against it (outside of international negotiations). As you noticed this means if you store data at a US data processor there is no real difference whether the data is physically stored in the US or the EU. So to avoid transferring EU consumer data to the US several steps are needed. First the servers have to be physically located in the EU and second the company needs to be non-US based, EU based seems the obvious choice. AFAIK constructions of a US-based company creating a fully owned EU-based subsidary are currently used to achieve the second part. Whether this is sufficient may have to be decided in court.
There is no requirement about "data" in the GDPR, so provided this is just "data", no. An empty form with fields for personal data contains no personal data. On the other hand, if the form is filled in by the user with personal data (as defined in GDPR article 4), and you receive a copy of the filled in form and process these personal data (as defined in GDPR article 4) - then the answer is: Yes. However, if you do not process the personal data (i.e. the form is just printed out on paper and filled in with a pen, and nobody except the data subject has access to the piece of paper with the filled in form - then the answer again is "no").
You could certainly allow twitter to delete the exchange, unless it is part of some record that the law in the relevant country require to be retained, which would be quite unusual. That would depend on the nature of the exchange, and the particular law requiring that records be retained. However, if the request is to be able to demand that Twitter delete the exchange, that would be much harder. In general a person or business is entitled to retain copies of communications, such as emails, sent to that person or entity. There is the &quot;right to be forgotten&quot; which applies under EU law, but that would not apply to records which a business needed to retain for its own legitimate purposes, and was not posting publicly, as I understand it. In any case Twitter is not an EU business, so I am not sure if the right would apply at all. (Twitter has an office in Amsterdam, so teh GDPR and other EU law clearly applies to it.) There might be some other basis on which such a demand could be made, depending on the detailed circumstances and the specific jurisdiction, but I cannot think of one offhand.
The data processor is not responsible for complying with the GDPR. You are ultimately responsible, since you are the data controller. The data processor is merely required to assist you, but it's unclear what that means in the presented scenario. Per Art 28(3)(e) GDPR, the DPA must require the data processor to provide reasonable assistance: That contract or other legal act shall stipulate, in particular, that the processor: […] taking into account the nature of the processing, assists the controller by appropriate technical and organisational measures, insofar as this is possible, for the fulfilment of the controller’s obligation to respond to requests for exercising the data subject’s rights laid down in Chapter III; However, per Art 28(1) you can only engage processors that you deem sufficient to protect the data subject's rights: the controller shall use only processors providing sufficient guarantees to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures in such a manner that processing will meet the requirements of this Regulation and ensure the protection of the rights of the data subject. Here, it seems that your company failed to ensure that the processor provides the features you need for compliance. Many companies claim to be GDPR-compliant, but that doesn't mean that your use of their services will be GDPR-compliant as well. Depending on how the Art 28(3)(e) requirement was implemented in the DPA you may have a right to assistance even if the processor doesn't implement necessary features in their software, but enforcing this contract could require a lawsuit in a foreign jurisdiction (but that's par for the course for international B2B contracts). It is worth noting that the GDPR right to erasure doesn't always apply. In a processing activity where no erasure right is likely to arise, it would be perfectly fine to use a data processor that doesn't offer any possibility for erasure. Similarly, it can sometimes be legal to use technologies like Blockchain or Git that make erasure difficult or impossible. However, it is the responsibility of the data controller to analyze the impact of such a choice up front, before commencing the processing activities. In some cases, this could require a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). Note that transfers of personal data into the US are illegal or at least questionable in the wake of the 2020 Schrems II ruling. The Privacy Shield is no longer a legal basis for such transfers. Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) are technically allowed, but only “on condition that enforceable data subject rights and effective legal remedies for data subjects are available” (cf Art 46). The ECJ's judgement calls this into question. This could be a further incentive to migrate to a more GDPR-compliant service.
The GDPR applies to such sites if they offer services in the EU/EEA. If they clearly wanted to avoid being subject to the GDPR, they should block visitors from the EEA. For the GDPR, only location matters. Other concerns like residence or citizenship are generally irrelevant. Personal data does not turn non-personal just because it was public. So the GDPR still applies when the data was collected from public sources. However, the data controller (who determines the purpose of processing) often has to balance your rights and interests against other interests (e.g. when using legitimate interest as a legal basis for some processing). For the purpose of publicly displaying your data, only showing data that was already public anyway makes it easier to argue that this is fine. But when the GDPR applies, you have data subject rights. Relevant rights include: a right to access, to see all the data they have about you a right to rectification, to correct wrong data they hold about you a right to restriction, effectively an opt-out a right to erasure (also known as the right to be forgotten) These rights apply both against the website and against Google Search (arguably, both are doing the exact same thing). Google correctly points out that they can't remove information from the Web, but they can hide information from search results. If you feel that your requests have not been resolved correctly, you can issue a complaint with your country's data protection authority. In theory you can also sue them. In practice, GDPR enforcement against overseas data controllers can be quite difficult and has not yet happened.
I understand that storing any hash or IP that can identify &quot;user uniquely&quot; is against GDPR. That is not correct. However any data which is identifiably associated with a an individual human, including any data which could be used to identify that human, is generally &quot;Personal data&quot;, and may not be processed (which includes storing it) without a lawful basis, if the GDPR applies. Any of the six lawful bases allowed by the GDPR may be used, including consent, and the legitimate interest of the data controller. The GDPR does not generally specify that particular technological solutions are permitted or forbidden. If this usage pattern could reasonably be used to identify a particular person, or to single out a person from among a group of people, it is probably personal data, and a lawful basis would be required. Otherwise, not. As for whether such a person is &quot;identifiable&quot; if use of this technique permits the Data Controller to identify two visits at separate times as having been made by the same person, when the later visit is still in progress or is recent, the IP for that visit will still be available, and thus could be associated with the first visit as well. And even if that is not done, such a technique could permit building a profile of such a person, including the actions taken on different visits. I think that would be enough to make this &quot;personal data&quot;.