Gary LaFever | March 8, 2019

Does Encryption Enable GDPR Compliant Data Use?

Does Encryption Enable GDPR - Anonos BigPrivacy GDPR CCPA_

The IAPP published an article: Is encrypted data personal data under the GDPR?  The article is a great summary of issues related to encryption as a means to protect data when not in use. The issues change, however, when a data controller wants to actually make use of the data. As soon as the data is decrypted, it is then indisputably personal data and (as decrypted data) will not be protected against misuse.

Encryption Does Not Support GDPR Compliant Data Use

Encryption does not protect personal data in use because when decrypted the data is exposed and vulnerable to misuse. Similarly, Differential Privacy, Static Tokenisation and data masking do not protect personal data from unauthorized re-identification when data sets are combined and used for multiple use purposes via the "Mosaic Effect." In contrast, Pseudonymisation has gained attention  with its explicit codification in the GDPR. Legal experts have highlighted the potential for new Pseudonymisation technologies to address the unique privacy issues raised for legal possession and processing of personal data.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0f2f119-57be-42b6-baea-7329bb0d330e

Article 4(5) of the GDPR now specifically defines Pseudonymisation as “the processing of personal data in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person.”

Static Tokenisation (where a common token is used to replace different occurrences of the same value – e.g., replacing all occurrences “James Smith” with “ABCD”) fails to satisfy GDPR definitional requirements since unauthorized re-identification is “trivial between records using the same Pseudonymised attribute to refer to the same individual.”

https://www.pdpjournals.com/docs/88197.pdf

As a result, Static Tokenisation does not satisfy the “Balancing of Interest” test necessary to satisfy Article 6(1)(f) requirements for Legitimate Purpose processing nor is it included in the technical safeguards listed in Article 6(4) to help ensure that secondary processing like Analytics, AI & ML is a lawful compatible purpose. The Article 29 Working Party has highlighted “the special role that safeguards play in reducing the undue impact on the data subjects thereby changing the balance of rights and interests to the extent that the data controller’s legitimate interests will not be overridden” and “safeguards may include technical and organizational measures to ensure functional separation” and ”Pseudonymisation…will play a role with regard to the evaluation of the potential impact of the processing on the data subject, and thus, may in some cases play a role in tipping the balance in favour of the controller.”

https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp217_en.pdf

The Article 29 Working Party further highlights that “functional separation includes secure key-coding personal data transferred outside of an organization and prohibiting outsiders from re-identifying data subject” by using “rotating salts” or “randomly allocated” dynamic versus static, persistent or recurring tokens.

https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2013/wp203_en.pdf

GDPR compliant Pseudonymisation, represents a unique means to help support the actual use of data in the form of lawful secondary processing like Analytics, AI & ML by technically enforcing functional separation protection.

Anonos technology is the only technology that has been certified by EuroPrivacy as satisfying GDPR requirements for Pseudonymisation.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/anonos-saveyourdata-software-officially-certified-by-europrivacy-meets-the-requirements-of-the-eu-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr-300741945.html

Are you facing any of these 4 problems with data?

You need a solution that removes the impediments to achieving speed to insight, lawfully & ethically

Roadblocks
to Insight
Are you unable to get desired business outcomes from your data within critical time frames? 53% of CDOs cannot achieve their desired uses of data. Are you one of them?
Lack of
Access
Do you have trouble getting access to the third-party data that you need to maximise the value of your data assets? Are third-parties and partners you work with worried about liability, or disruption of their operations?
Inability to
Process
Are you unable to process data due to limitations imposed by internal or external parties? Do they have concerns about your ability to control data use, sharing or combining?
Unlawful
Activity
Are you unable to defend the lawfulness of your current data processing activities, or data processing you have done in the past?
THE PROBLEM
Traditional privacy technologies focus on protecting data by putting it in “cages,” “containers,” or limiting use to centralised processing only. This limitation is done without considering the context of what the desired data use will be, including decentralised data sharing and combining. These approaches are based on decades-old, limited-use perspectives on data protection that severely minimise the kinds of data uses that remain available after controls have been applied. On the other hand, many other new data-use technologies focus on delivering desired business outcomes without considering that roadblocks may exist, such as those noted in the four problems above.
THE SOLUTION
Anonos technology allows data to be accessed and processed in line with desired business outcomes (including sharing and combining data) with full awareness of, and the ability to remove, potential roadblocks.