The Analysis News & Opinions


‘Consent not the only reason for processing under GDPR’


The information commissioner has insisted that creditors and collectors will continue to have a range of reasons for justified data processing under new GDPR rules. Writing a ‘myth-busting blog’, Elizabeth Denham confirmed that consent was not the only acceptable reason for data processing under the new rules. She said: “So let us be clear. Consent is


one way to comply with the GDPR, but it is not the only way. Headlines about consent often lack context or understanding about all the different lawful bases businesses and organisations will have for processing personal information under the GDPR. “Not only has this created confusion, it


has left no room to discuss the other lawful bases organisations can consider using under the new legislation. “For processing to be lawful under the


GDPR, you need to identify a lawful basis before you start.


“Local authorities processing council tax information, banks sharing data for fraud protection purposes, insurance companies processing claims information. Each one of these examples uses a different lawful basis for processing personal information that is not consent.” She added: “The new law provides five


other ways of processing data that may be more appropriate than consent. ‘Legitimate interests’ is one of them and we recognise that organisations want more information about it.”


Meanwhile, she insisted that credit and


collections professionals could already start working towards the new consent rules, despite the fact that final guidance has not yet been published. She said: “Businesses want certainty and


assurance of harmonised rules. Waiting until Europe-wide consent guidelines have been agreed before we publish our final guidance


Elizabeth Denham


is key to ensuring consistency. The current timetable is December. “But the ICO’s draft guidance on consent


is a good place to start right now. It is unlikely that the guidance will change significantly in its final form.”


‘Data Protection Bill risks being the death knell for small firms’


A business trade association is calling on government to form a working group to consider the impact on small businesses of the proposed GDPR legislation following the announcement of the bill to be discussed in parliament after the Summer recess. The Forum for Private Business (FPB)


believes that a lack of clarity on what small firms can and cannot do in terms of data use will lead to inertia through fear of breaking the new rules. It said only larger firms, with in-house compliance guidance or the funds to employ consultants, have paid any attention to what the implications of the legislation are. Inadequate guidance had been given by


the Information Commissioner’s Office to help small businesses, and there appeared to be areas of the bill that are open to


September 2017


interpretation, which did not give the clarity that small businesses need. It also claimed the way that many small


businesses operated relied on electronic communication with existing customers and prospects. Many relied on e-mail lists for their marketing. The prospect of obtaining consent, and maintaining consent records, was one firms would not be able to cope with. Small and micro businesses already faced


a “disproportionate cost of complying with regulations” when compared to larger firms.


www.CCRMagazine.co.uk


The potential for many of them now to have to employ, or train, staff to deal with compliance on data management, or buy online data management tools, would be a burden that some would simply not be able to accommodate, and the threat of the draconian fines that attach to breaches of GDPR would be sufficient to lead some firms simply to close down. FPB chief executive Ian Cass, said: “There


is the potential for this legislation to impact the way many of these businesses operate and market themselves, and even force them to close down. The minister’s comments in his press statement reassuring that ‘businesses will be protected’ gives no comfort whatsoever whilst there is so much uncertainty about what will be allowed, and what actions will be heavily fined.”


9


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52