SCENARIO

Anna and Frank both work at Granchester University. Anna is a lawyer responsible for data protection, while Frank is a lecturer in the engineering department. The University maintains a number of types of records

Student records, including names, student numbers, home addresses, pre-university information, university attendance and performance records, details of special educational needs and financial information.

Staff records, including autobiographical materials (such as curricula, professional contact files, student evaluations and other relevant teaching files)

Alumni records, including birthplaces, years of birth, dates of matriculation and conferrals of degrees. These records are available to former students after registering through Granchester's Alumni portal.

Department for Education records, showing how certain demographic groups (such as first-generation students) could be expected, on average, to progress. These records do not contain names or identification numbers.

Under their security policy, the University encrypts all of its personal data records in transit and at rest.

In order to improve his teaching, Frank wants to investigate how his engineering students perform in relational to Department for Education expectations. He has attended one of Anna's data protection training courses and knows that he should use no more personal data than necessary to accomplish his goal. He creates a program that will only export some student data: previous schools attended, grades originally obtained, grades currently obtained and first time university attended. He wants to keep the records at the individual student level. Mindful of Anna's training, Frank runs the student numbers through an algorithm to transform them into different reference numbers. He uses the same algorithm on each occasion so that he can update each record over time.

One of Anna's tasks is to complete the record of processing activities, as required by the GDPR. After receiving her email reminder, as required by the GDPR. After receiving her email reminder, Frank informs Anna about his performance database.

Ann explains to Frank that, as well as minimizing personal data, the University has to check that this new use of existing data is permissible. She also suspects that, under the GDPR, a risk analysis may have to be carried out before the data processing can take place. Anna arranges to discuss this further with Frank after she has done some additional research.

Frank wants to be able to work on his analysis in his spare time, so he transfers it to his home laptop (which is not encrypted). Unfortunately, when Frank takes the laptop into the University he loses it on the train. Frank has to see Anna that day to discuss compatible processing. He knows that he needs to report security incidents, so he decides to tell Anna about his lost laptop at the same time.

Which of the University's records does Anna NOT have to include in her record of processing activities?

SCENARIO

Please use the following to answer the next question: Joe is the new privacy manager for Who-R-U, a Canadian business that provides DNA analysis. The company is headquartered in Montreal, and all of its employees are located there. The company offers its services to Canadians only: Its website is in English and French, it accepts only Canadian currency, and it blocks internet traffic from outside of Canada (although this solution doesn't prevent all non-Canadian traffic). It also declines to process orders that request the DNA report to be sent outside of Canada, and returns orders that show a non-Canadian return address. Bob, the President of Who-R-U, thinks there is a lot of interest for the product in the EU, and the company is exploring a number of plans to expand its customer base. The first plan, collegially called We-Track-U, will use an app to collect information about its current Canadian customer base.

The expansion will allow its Canadian customers to use the app while traveling abroad. He suggests that the company use this app to gather location information. If the plan shows promise, Bob proposes to use push notifications and text messages to encourage existing customers to pre-register for an EU version of the service. Bob calls this work plan, We-Text-U. Once the company has gathered enough pre-registrations, it will develop EU-specific content and services. Another plan is called Customer for Life. The idea is to offer additional services through the company's app, like storage and sharing of DNA information with other applications and medical providers. The company's contract says that it can keep customer DNA indefinitely, and use it to offer new services and market them to customers. It also says that customers agree not to withdraw direct marketing consent. Paul, the marketing director, suggests that the company should fully exploit these provisions, and that it can work around customers' attempts to withdraw consent because the contract invalidates them. The final plan is to develop a brand presence in the EU.

The company has already begun this process. It is in the process of purchasing the naming rights for a building in Germany, which would come with a few offices that Who-R-U executives can use while traveling internationally. The office doesn't include any technology or infrastructure; rather, it's simply a room with a desk and some chairs. On a recent trip concerning the naming-rights deal, Bob's laptop is stolen. The laptop held unencrypted DNA reports on 5,000 Who-R-U customers, all of whom are residents of Canada. The reports include customer name, birthdate, ethnicity, racial background, names of relatives, gender, and occasionally health information.