Does a hyperlink to a privacy policy have to be available after the user agrees? A website that deals with personal user data is legally bound by CCPA Privacy Rights and GDPR Data Protection Rights. The user must agree to the privacy policy before the website has consent to share personal information with any third parties. The user must have access to the privacy policy to agree to it. After that, I am not sure where on the website is legally required to provide a link to the privacy policy, if at all. Question: Is a website required to provide a link to the privacy policy after the user has agreed to it?
gdpr The obligation to provide a privacy policy stems from GDPR Articles 13 and 14. When the information has to be provided depends on when personal data is obtained. Information under Art 13 (data obtained directly from the data subject) must be provided at the time when the personal data is being obtained. Since most websites will obtain personal data pretty much continuously, they will likely have to keep this information available continuously as well. Information under Art 14 (data obtained from other sources) must be provided within a reasonable time after obtaining the information, but at the latest when the data subject is contacted. So this depends very much on when data is obtained, and whether personal data is obtained directly from the data subject. E.g. a website generally obtains some personal data directly from the data subject every time a user visits the page, thus it will likely have to keep a minimal privacy policy available all the time, for all visitors (whether registered or not). In contrast, for individual instances of personal data processing, it may be sufficient to provide the information only once. For example, if we ask a user to enter information to enter a raffle, the privacy policy regarding the raffle might only have to be shown in context of the form where the user can enter data. However, all such approaches stink. Doing the bare minimum that's explicitly required is an easy way to run afoul of more foundational GDPR principles, e.g. the Art 5(1)(a) requirement that all data processing must be transparent (compare also Art 12(1)), and the Art 5(2) accountability principle: the data controller must be able to demonstrate how what they're doing is compliant. The Art 13 and 14 time frames are the latest point in time at which this information has to be actively provided to the user (compare also the guidelines on transparency WP260). But it would be entirely possible for a court to argue that the transparency principle implies that all such information must be available to the user for the duration of all related processing activities, possibly both before and after the data subject was explicitly informed. The WP260 document also emphasizes that the data controller must take the reasonable expectations of the users into account, and most users expect a “privacy policy” link in the footer of every page. As a more general point, the GDPR never requires that data subjects agree to a privacy policy. A privacy policy is largely unidirectional information, not a contract. Under some circumstances, the data controller may rely on consent as a legal bases for processing, and will then have to obtain consent from the data subject. In the course of this, it is necessary to provide information about the specific processing activities for which consent is being asked. Usually, this is done by a short summary with key information, and a link to the privacy policy for the full details (a layered privacy notice, compare the WP260 document and the EDBP guidelines on consent 05/2020). But valid consent can only be obtained for specific processing activities, not for a bundle of processing activities or a privacy policy in its entirety.
HIPAA seems comparable but only applies to medical data, but is there anything more general than that? Not really, at least at the national level. There is no comprehensive national regulation of data privacy in the United States. There are regulations related to health information (HIPAA), to educational records, to tax information, to census information, credit reporting agencies, and to banking records (as well, of course, as to national security information). There are also largely consistent restrictions at the state level related to the juvenile justice process. But data privacy is not a subject of general regulation in the U.S. Instead, the data privacy regulations of the U.S. consist of a patchwork of fragmentary state and federal laws and regulations, superimposed on a significant and not entirely consistent or well developed body of common law precedents such as the privacy torts set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which some states have adopted fully, some states have rejected almost completely, and some states have adopted in part or with significant modifications. The U.S. Constitutional law of the First Amendment also heavily colors how other legal limitations and authorizations are construed and drafted, because the right to distribute truthful information without restriction has long been considered one of the core protections of the First Amendment, even in the much less vigorously protected area of commercial speech. Some states have more general regulations, and the most important of these is California, both because it is a large and economically significant state, and because it is the home to many of the leading U.S. technology companies, many of which expressly adopt of the law of the State of California in choice of law clauses in their terms of service and contracts. The California law most similar to the GDPR is the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) which gives consumers rights with respect to the use of the personal information that businesses collect about them and the CCPA regulations that provide guidance on how to implement the law. The website of the State of California's attorney general provides some answers to frequently asked questions about this law.
Consent in the GDPR sense? No. Consent in the more general sense of “agreement”? Sure. Under the GDPR, consent is only one of many legal bases for processing personal data. Consent requires an unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes through a clear statement or affirmative action. Thus, consent cannot be “hidden” in another document – it would be ambiguous whether the data subject just wanted to agree to boilerplate terms of service or specifically consent to a particular purpose of processing. Indeed, Art 7(2) GDPR explicitly requires that “the request for consent shall be presented in a manner which is clearly distinguishable from the other matters”. Another legal basis is Art 6(1)(f) legitimate interest. A legitimate interest requires some interest that outweighs the data subject's rights and interests. This balancing test must consider whether the data subject can reasonably expect the processing to occur, given the data subject's relationship with the data controller. I would argue that an event venue does have a legitimate interest to film and photograph events, and that this interest outweighs the data subject's rights and interests at least for larger shots, but not necessarily for close-ups, portraits, etc. The event participants can reasonably expect the audience to be filmed and photographed. Indeed, the linked privacy policy (linked just after the part that you quoted) is very thorough and explains in detail what is happening. The table starting on page 9 describes the purposes of processing, the data being used for that purpose, and the legal basis for that purpose. Here, the relevant entry is: Purpose: Photographs of crowds at our festivals and/or events Type of data: (a) Identity Legal basis: (a) Necessary for our legitimate interests (to capture footage of artists performing at our festivals and events which feature crowd or to record images of our festivals and events for showreel and marketing purposes) This means: they are not asking for consent in the GDPR sense. They are relying on a “legitimate interest” instead. They have to inform you in advance about the processing of personal data – which they evidently did by providing the privacy notice – but they don't have to ask you. So what is that consent about then? The consent you quoted is more about personality rights: you would consent to “being photographed, filmed and sound recorded as an audience without payment, and to [your] image being exploited in any and all media for any purpose at any time throughout the world”. This is essentially a model release.
Your title is not necessarily consistent with your example. Can a website demand acceptance of non-essential cookies to allow access? As you have found, GDPR prohibits conditioning the provision of service on consent to the processing of personal data. Cookie walls without alternative means of access are generally considered violations of the GDPR. Can a website demand acceptance of non-essential cookies to allow free access? The situation of a &quot;consent or pay&quot; scheme (or &quot;cookie paywalls&quot;) is more uncertain and has not been clearly settled at the EU level. There are data protection authorities that do not consider such scheme necessarily a GDPR violation (Austria, France) if a reasonable alternative access, without requiring non-essential cookies, is provided. For what it is worth, the French data protection authority (CNIL) held initially that all cookie walls are illegal, but on appeal from publishers and advertisers, the French supreme administrative court annulled CNIL's initial guidelines for being too absolute. German and Italian authorities are still examining the validity of such scheme. More reading: Consent or Pay: Privacy Considerations with Cookiewall-Paywall Hybrid Solution, https://securiti.ai/blog/cookie-paywall/ Is the use of a cookie wall allowed in European Countries, https://www.iubenda.com/en/help/24487-cookie-walls-gdpr
(Assuming the jurisdiction is the US.) Your question I was wondering whether there are any limitations on using photos of private individuals on websites. is the least of your potential problems. Photos of the public taken in public are mostly legal to use and publish, and you own the copyright on the photo, and generally don't need a model release. But your plan of posting the photo with accompanying information about (alleged) fraud: There's a fraud conducting business in my state and I want to create a website that warns others of his fraudulent practices. is potentially legally problematic. As phoog indicates in his comment, you need to be aware of defamation, both at the federal level and among states, as some have criminalized defamation (Wikipedia). Libel is the publication of provably false facts by one person about another person. For a full outline of defamation (libel and slander, and including private and public figures), see Libel and Slander | Nolo.com. What you want to do is publish "facts" about this alleged fraud on the website with a photo of the individual, linking the fraud allegations to them. That is potentially libelous. The facts of the fraud may be provably true, or they may be provably false; that remains to be seen. But the facts don't matter when considering what actions the person can take against you if you publish such information on your website. If this business and the individual(s) feel they are not committing fraud, they can sue you for libel in civil court, alleging that you have damaged their reputation and impacted their business by publishing those facts on your website with the photo identifying the person and their business. If they take legal action, and you can prove the business and the individual(s) are committing fraud with provable facts - hard evidence of fraud, such as legal documents and court judgments - than you should (no guarantees) be able to successfully defend yourself in a libel suit brought against you by that person. Even if the business and the individual(s) are aware of facts that prove their fraud, and know they will probably not prevail in court, they can still take you to court, and it will cost you whatever time and money it takes to defend yourself. My responses above concern what legal actions the alleged could take against you if you published the website with the photo and information about the alleged fraud. No one here is advising you to put up the website with the photo and the "facts" as you see them, even if you have hard proof of the facts of the fraud; you should find legal representation before taking any action with the website. And, no one here is advising you to open any legal action against the person; that's your choice in terms of determining your case and if you can show actual harm that was caused by the alleged fraud by the individual, and you should find legal representation before taking any action.
IANAL. (1) GDPR is certainly relevant. (2) This is certainly "personal data" under the definition in GDPR article 4. (3) Maintaining this data is probably lawful under article 6 sections 1(a) (consent) - provided that the Terms and Conditions of the site make clear that the user by signing up is consenting to this information being held (3) There is certainly an obligation under article 14 to disclose that the information exists, and to say how it used. (4) Article 15 says that data subjects are entitled to see the information and know what recipients or categories of recipient have access to the information (I don't know whether it's enough to just say "moderators", or whether the moderators need to be identified). (5) I can't see any reasons why the obligations under articles 16, 17, and 18 regarding rectification, erasure, and restriction of processing aren't relevant. This is exactly the kind of situation that GDPR is designed to address. If you're restricting the service available to particular users based on a record of their behaviour or on judgements made by moderators, then they absolutely have a right to know, and a right of redress.
Is there any sources of information where extraction of data from a closed source application and provided to a data subject is further defined? No, the GDPR is based on &quot;general principles&quot; and does not concern itself with implementation details for such matters. It's possible there's EU case law on this, but I can't find any. Am I within my rights to insist on this, even if to comply they would have to do some software development? Yes you can demand it, but they don't have to comply with your demand. The information only has to be provided in a &quot;concise, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language.&quot; and they only have to provide the information electronically where &quot;reasonably practical&quot; to do so, and they only have to take &quot;reasonable steps&quot; to do all this per Section 52 of the Data Protection Act 2018 which implements GDPR into UK law. You can complain to the Information Commissioner's Office, and they will decide if Section 52 has been complied with or not. 52 Form of provision of information etc (1) The controller must take reasonable steps to ensure that any information that is required by this Chapter to be provided to the data subject is provided in a concise, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. (2) Subject to subsection (3), the information may be provided in any form, including electronic form. (3) Where information is provided in response to a request by the data subject under [the Right of access by the data subject], the controller must provide the information in the same form as the request where it is practicable to do so.
First of all, in a GDPR contest, the process described is not strong anonymization. It may be hard for an outsider to go from the stored record to any PII, it is much easier for an outsider to &quot;single out&quot; an individual. This means that given a known individual, one can determine whether that person is among those listed in the records, or can determine this to a significant degree of probability. For this only the algorithm and the rotating salts are needed, one need not break the hash. Note also that the GDPR specifies that if a person can be singled out with the assistance of the site operator the data is not considered anonymized. Thus this data needs a lawful basis under the GDPR, and the various other GDPR requirement all apply. However, even if the data were totally anonymized, and say just added to a count of users with this or that User Agent, the process of reading local data (including but not limited to cookies) itself requires informed consent, and so a cookie banner or other interaction with similar info under the e-Privacy directive (EPD). The EPD, being a directive and not a regulation, must be implemented by national laws, and the exact provisions in those laws may differ somewhat from country to country. But I believe that all of them require consent before any local data is read.