Mandatory Privacy Impact Assessments for Dutch govt IT projects

UPDATE 2015-03-17: US DHS also performs PIAs and has an excellent page on what a comprises a PIA in their context and how they carry it out; including guidance and template documents.

UPDATE 2013-11-03: regarding the EU-proposed PIA, the UK Deputy Information Commissioner David Smith stated: “It might sound scary, but it should help organisations to design systems that respect individuals’ privacy and so command the confidence of customers and the wider public.” That’s exactly right!

In 2011 the Dutch government published the “I-Strategy 2012-2015” document; see Trust, Privacy & Security in Dutch Govt “I-Strategy”. The I-Strategy describes the Rutte-cabinet coalition agreement on information strategy for the period 2012-2015. One of the topics covered in the strategy is that the requirements for the content of project plans (including legislative proposals) for large IT projects (26 643, nr. 135) would be “supplemented with the demand to state whether the project involves privacy-sensitive data and linkage or data enrichment. The project plan will state, with arguments, whether a Privacy Impact Assessment or a similar instrument applies.

As of September 1st 2013 in the Netherlands, a new rule applies to all `large’ (?) ICT proposals initiated by the national-level government entities (Ministries, etc.): ICT project proposals must now include a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA). In June 2013, the Dutch administration proposed a PIA model (.pdf, in Dutch).

Within two years (before September 2015), it will be evaluated to what extent the PIA supports:

  1. improvement of legislative quality;
  2. realization of the I-Strategy.

For purposes of international comparison, discussion, etc., I hereby provide an English translation of the entire PIA model drafted by the Dutch government. For clarity of exposition I do not include the original Dutch text in-line.

Please send corrections / suggestions for improvement to @mrkoot (Twitter) or to koot at cyberwar dot nl (e-mail).

On July 9th 2013, the Dutch Senate responded (.pdf, in Dutch) to the proposed PIA model and points out that improvements are needed. First, here’s my translation of the Senate’s response:

The members of the Senate Committee for Security and Justice (V&J) received the letter dated June 22nd 2013 on the proposed model for Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA). This template is an elaboration on and implementation of the coalition agreement, the motion of Senator Franken et al. (EK 31051, D), the commitment to further development of a PIA (T01516) and the measures announced in the I-Strategy 2012-2015 to strengthen the attention to privacy in large ICT projects. The members of the committee have a few questions.

These members note that the proposed PIA model only covers the risk-identification part of a PIA is addressed. This is a good and appropriate step, but a full PIA must also covers the next stage. The proposed European privacy regulation [0] assumes a full PIA. Can the government explain how they see the relationship of the proposed Dutch PIA model with the PIA of Article 33 of the proposed European privacy regulation? The third paragraph of the proposed Article 33 requires that the PIA also includes an assessment of the risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, the measures envisaged to reduce the risks and ensure security, and mechanisms that ensure the protection of personal data and that proof compliance with this European regulation. These requirements are not automatically covered in the PIA model proposed by the Dutch government. These members would like to receive a response from the government on this point.

The proposed model is based primarily on the Dutch Data Protection Act (DPA) anyhow and new elements of the proposed European privacy regulation are not included, such as the requirement to apply principles of “privacy by design” and “privacy by default”. Although the text of the proposed European privacy regulation is not yet final, the expectation is justified that such mandatory application of these principles will also be included in the final text. Why has the government not been able to include such obligations in the PIA, and is the government willing to do so now?

Furthermore, the committee members questioned whether the government sufficiently considered the consequences of answering the questions in the PIA model. It is by no means in all cases clear what impact a particular answer has. For example, the first question of part II.1 reads: “Did you establish the specific purpose(s) for the intended processing of personal data?” This is an important question. However, the meaning of a “no”-answer is left open and no consequences are attached. Does this then mean that a risk is only identified? What are the consequences? The key questions seem to be designed to apply the current Dutch DPA, rather than to the examination of privacy risks of those whose personal data is processed. What is the government’s perspective on this? Is the government willing to make a next revision of the proposed model more in agreement with the intended purpose of a PIA, as well as with the requirements in the expected European privacy regulation?

The members of the committee are looking forward to your answers to these questions within four weeks. An identical letter was sent to the Secretary of Housing.

[0] 2012-01-25, European Commission, COM(2012)11 final, E120003, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) (.pdf, in English)

The government did not yet respond to the letter, except for stating (.pdf, in Dutch) that it would not be able to respond with four weeks to due summer recess.

I will update this post when the government has responded to the Senate’s questions.

Finally, here is my translation of the proposed Dutch official PIA model to which the Senate’s criticism still applies. Hyperlinks and parts in [] are mine. (Note: Google Translate was remarkably accurate in translation of some paragraphs.)

WARNING: this is an unofficial translation.

Dutch national govt Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) model


A. Introduction

1. What is a PIA?

1. A Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) is a tool for identifying, in a structured and clear way, privacy risks in policy development, and the associated legislation or construction of ICT systems and construction of databases. The PIA model is specifically aimed at the [Dutch] national government and intended to be used in all areas of policy and in all areas of law.

2. The PIA is in the form of a test model / questionnaire. It includes both factual and technical questions and questions that are based on national and European legal requirements. It is aimed at establishing, at an early stage, attention to all parts of the intended processing of personal attention that require attention and elaboration.

3. A PIA is not voluntary survey. In particular, the questionnaire content is intended to be both direction-giving and corrective. In addition, the answering process as such should stimulate awareness of the various privacy issues that need to be considered when developing legislation and policy, and the development of ICT systems and databases in that context.

4. A PIA is direction-giving in the sense that the (exhaustive) series of questions may indicate relevant privacy risks that (perhaps yet) have not been identified in the early stages of policy or system development. If that is the case, the relevant question must be understood as a necessity to take these aspects into consideration.

5. A PIA is also corrective. By the order of the questions it will often be necessary to reconsider provisional answers to previous questions and consider an alternative (less privacy-invasing) solution. It will frequently happen that the considerations and decisions made at an earlier stage of policy or system development cannot be substantiated well enough on closer inspection due to the associated privacy risks.

6. Because of the direction-giving and corrective character of a PIA, filling in the questionnaire will often a dynamic process, where draft (policy) solutions or concept-functional system designs are gradually tightened.

7. A PIA should be used in addition to, and in coordination with, other tools for development of legislation and policy, and associated construction of ICT systems and construction of databases. Hence, a PIA does not replace these existing instruments, and is not intended to overlap with those.

8. If the PIA is performed in the context of developing policies that will result in legislation, the `Guidelines for alignment with Dutch DPA’, included in the IAK, must be used.

9. If the PIA is performed in the context of developing policy that (also) provision the construction of data files or the construction of ICT systems, attention should also be given to the control measures described in the `handbook portfolio for Dutch govt projects with a large ICT component’.

10. Answering the PIA questionnaire results in a written document.

2. When is the processing of personal data by the Dutch national govt, including independent administrative bodies [=Dutch “ZBO’s”], necessary? (and is a PIA relevant at all)?

1. Use of personal data, including use by the government, is in many cases a limitation of the fundamental right to protection of privacy (Article 10, paragraphs 2 and 3 Constitution, Article 8 of the ECHR, Article 8 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights).

2. Once this comes into consideration in the context of development of policy and legislation, and the associated construction of ICT systems and construction of databases, it must first be determined whether processing of personal data is necessary for the intended goal. This concerns both subsidiarity and proportionality.

3. With regard to the subsidiarity, the (pre-)question is: is it only through processing of personal data possible to achieve the desired policy outcome? Are there any practical or effective technical alternatives that do not intervene in privacy? (This may, for example, include considering not handling personally identifiable information for aspects of the proposal that only capture general trends or patterns.) If alternatives to processing of personal data with the same policy results are available, those should be chosen.

4. For the development of policy and legislation, the answering of the questions of subsidiarity of personal data processing can be done using the `Guidelines for alignment with Dutch DPA’, included in the IAK, on alignment with (international) (classical) fundamental rights.

5. If the (preliminary) finding is that alternatives to processing of personal data do not exist, it is important to use the PIA model. Thus, all questions related to proportionality of the processing of personal data are clearly mapped and solutions can be formulated that do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the desired outcome. These may include, for example, differentiating measures (is the processing of same data needed for all aspects of the policy proposal?), or allowing the possibility of an “opt-out” to those involved in certain specific circumstances.

6. A PIA must thus be used as early as possible in the process of developing policy that provisions processing of personal data, whether or not accompanied by legislation or construction of ICT systems.

3. How should a PIA be used?

1. Policy initiatives and legislative initiatives within the national government to process personal data have many forms. On the one hand, it may be an entirely new database or system in which a new set of data for a new purpose will be processed. On the other hand, it may involve adding a new type of personal data to be processed in an existing IT system, or linking several existing databases or systems to achieve a new purpose. It may also involve new forms of distribution, exchange, disclosure and (multiple) use of data.

2. The PIA questionnaire was prepared for the entire spectrum of new forms of data processing. The privacy risks to be identified using the PIA questionnaire will however greatly depend on the nature of the policy or bill or proposed IT system or database. It will therefore differ from case to case which of the PIA questions must be answered.

3. It is not necessary to complete the full questionnaire when the following is involved:
– Expansion of the database within an existing IT system (it suffices to answer the questions in Sections I and IV)
– Using an existing database or ICT system for additional or new goals (it may suffice to answer the questions in section II and IV)
– Linking various existing databases or ICT systems for existing or additional or new  new purposes (sufficient answering the questions in sections II-V)
It goes without saying that in the performance of such a “PIA-light”, it is sensible to refer to any previous pieces (previous PIAs, other impact assessments, explanations).

4. In all other cases, given the relationship between the aforementioned questions, and the direction-giving and corrective nature of the PIA, the entire questionnaire should be completed.

5. The final answers to the PIA questions will have to serve as the basis and source for technical, policy-related and legal justification of choices (see further below at 5).

4. Who? Implementation and coordination

1. The PIA questionnaire must be completed by the staff members or legal drafter of the Minister who, or independent administrative body [=Dutch “ZBO’s”] that is or will be “responsible” for the processing of personal data within the meaning of the Dutch DPA.

2. “Responsibility” exists, in terms of the DPA, if this department of the national government is the entity that determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data.

3. A PIA does not have to be performed by policy makers and legal drafters of the Ministry or the part of the national government that only acts as “processor” within the meaning of the DPA, i.e., if only at request of a responsible party. In case of uncertainty, please contact the legal department of your Ministry.

4. The Data Protection Officer (DPO) within your department is responsible for the independent supervision of implementation and compliance with the DPA. You can contact the DPO for advice when answering the questionnaire or on the results of the answer. The DPO can identify issues and help identify risks.

5. If your policy or legislative proposal relates to the construction of an ICT system or the creation of a data file, please also contact your departmental Chief Information Officer (CIO) at an early stage. The CIO gives an opinion at the start of a project or interim change, as stated in I-Strategy. Part of this is the examination of whether the project plan states whether the project includes the collection of privacy sensitive data or linking or enriching of data, and whether it is argued whether a PIA is required.

5. Use and accountability of PIA results

1. A seriously performed PIA will have worked direction-giving and corrective. Plans are focused and developed. This means that in the preparation of legislation, policies and government ICT systems, privacy aspects as such have become part of the deliberation process. Considering that adjustments based on decisions in the PIA process will already be included in the final answer to the PIA questions, only the final answers are used in the further development of policies and systems.

2. The considerations and choices reflected in the final answers will vary by legislative or policy proposal or IT system. To account for the final use of personal data, ??previous policy choices and solutions in other contexts will have to be referenced. In addition, new aspects or elements that deviate from the choices (e.g., more data than before, a different system than before, etc.), will require further consideration.

3. Results of a PIA should be sent to the involved DPO and the CIO. Depending on the context in which the PIA is performed, the results are processed in different ways.

4. Where policies are involved that provision the construction of ICT systems or the construction of databases, the DPO on this basis can provide advice in determining the necessary measures and safeguards to be set out in policies, instructions, manuals and procedures. In addition, the CIOs can use the results for advising on information security and system design. Also, the PIA results provide input for any notice of the proposed processing to the Dutch Data Protection Authority [=CBP] or the DPO, which are made ??public according to the relevant rules.

5 . In legislation, a passage is included about PIA results in the Explanatory Memoranda. It can be a summary of the main considerations and choices. This passage can be added to the already required considerations of the constitutional framework and the review of the Data Protection Act (see above, under A) . Although a fully standardized accountability section can therefore not be given, a model-element of the Explanatory Memoranda can be:
“Given the nature of this proposal, a Privacy Impact Assessment is carried out at the stage of policy development (see also Kamerstuk I 2010/11, 31051, No. D , motion-Franken) . Using this, the necessity of data processing is reviewed, and the implications of the measure(s) are identified in a structured manner. In particular, attention is given to the principles of data minimization and purpose limitation, the requirement of a good security, and to the rights of those involved. <Description of specific aspects and the judgments made in this case>”

B. Questionnaire

Processing of personal data has a strong legal framework. On the other hand, the text of the DPA is often experienced to be abstract and inscrutable. In this light, the questionnaire below contains both practical questions and questions of legal nature. The practical questions are meant to map the entire trajectory of data processing, and the agencies involve. When it comes to legal questions, the wording of the questions is crucial. In that case, it is attempted insofar as possible to explain this, and to add examples. If uncertainty exists about the content of the question, it is sensible to contact the DPO at your Ministry or the legal department.

I. Basic information: type of personal data, type of processing and necessity / data minimization

1. Do you, as responsible party, intend to use personal data for provisioned data processing? If so, what type of personal data?

Notes: Definition of `personal data’: any information relating to an identified or identifiable person (Art. 1 of Dutch DPA) .
Definition of `particular (sensitive) personal data’: data on religion or belief, race, political opinions, health, sexual life, trade union membership, criminal record; Cf . definition in Art. 16 of Dutch DPA: A representative is a natural person, legal person or any other person who or the governing body that alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data.
Note: If your organization only acts as a processor (the one who processes data at request of the responsible party, without being subject to his direct authority), this questionnaire must be completed not by you, but by the responsible party.
Definition of `processing’: any operation or set of operations performed upon personal data, including at least the collection, recording, organization, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or any other form of making available, alignment or combination, interrelation, blocking, exchange or destruction of personal data.

2. Other specific personal data?
2a. Will data be processed about the financial or economical situation of those whose data is processed, or other data that might lead to stigmatization or exclusion?

Notes: this includes, for example, data about  (problematic) debts, gambling addiction, school performance, or problems at work or in a relationship.

2b. Will data be processed about vulnerable groups or persons?

Notes: this includes, for example, minors, mentally disabled, people who are dealing with stalking, whistleblowers or informants for police and prosecution.

2c. Will usernames, passwords and other credentials be processed?

Explanation: The possible consequences for those involved depend on the processing of personal data and where the credentials grant access to. It should be taken into account that many people reuse passwords for different purposes.

2d. Will uniquely identifying information be processed, such as biometric data?

Explanation: This type of data is not formally classified as `sensitive data’ in the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46 or in the Dutch DPA, but has become to be treated as such in the national and European legal and practical context. Pending European proposals for adjustment of data protection regulations continue this trend by categorizing the processing of biometric data as a specific risk.

2e. Will the SSN [=”BSN” in Dutch] or another personal number be processed?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 24) provides that a law-prescribed number for identification of a person in the course of data processing is only processed for the purpose of implementing the law or the purposes determined by law. If necessary, refer the `Decree on use of SSN and Dutch DPA’ of 15 August 2001.

3. For each of the types of personal data specified in answer to question I.1 and I.2, can it be substantiated that its processing is technically or by policy directly relevant and indispensable for achieving the intended outcome of the policy? What exactly would not be clear if deciding not to process certain information? Explain for each type of personal data.

Explanation: The Dutch DPA provides the so-called `principle of data minimization’. Personal data may only be processed if a necessity exists (Art. 8). Art. 11, paragraph 1 also provides that personal data may only be processed if it is, given the purposes for which they were collected or subsequently processed, adequate, relevant and not excessive (relevance requirement). It is also important that the processing of sensitive personal data is, in principle, prohibited (Art. 16-23), and only permitted under strict(er) conditions.

4. When it comes to sensitive personal data, can the same policy effect or technical result be achieved in one of the following ways: (a) through (combined) use of normal data, (b) by using anonymous or pseudonymous data?

Notes: Anonymization means removal of all direct and unique identifying data. Pseudonymization means systematic replacement of directly identifying personal data, for instance by a code that permits certain authorized parties to still add data, but that does not allow identification of a person. This can e.g. be done by processing data through a specific algorithm directly after collection, where analysis and comparison remains possible but the source of the data themselves cannot, in principle, be traced.

5 . In what broader legal, policy and technical framework is the policy / database / information system to be developed and what kind(s) of  processing of personal data is going to be part of the planned trajectory? Are ?(new) technology or information systems used?

Notes: Enumerate all processing of personal data, and responsibilities, and clearly display the entire trajectory, for example by means of a visualization, so that the entire trajectory of data processing is transparent.

II. Purpose limitation, linkage, quality and profiling

Purpose limitation and linkage

1. Did you decide, in detail, on the specific purpose(s) for which you intend to process personal data? Is it one and the same specific purpose?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 7) provides that personal data may only be collected for specific, explicit and legitimate purposes. For example, it can be indicated in legislation that personal data are processed for the limited purpose of combating illegal immigration. The processing must be justified based on grounds of the DPA (Art.). If multiple objectives are pursued by the collection of personal data, then those must all be made explicit, and for each objective it must be substantiated why the (entire) set of data is necessary to reach it.

2. Does the project/system involve the use of new data for an existing objective, or existing objectives within existing systems? (scenario of addition of new data).

Explanation: The Dutch DPA provides the so-called `principle of data minimization’. Art. 11, paragraph 1 provides that personal data may be processed only insofar they are, given the purposes for which they were collected or subsequently processed, adequate, relevant and not excessive. This means that if the data to be processed in an existing system is expanded, justification must exist for each of the new personal data to be processed. For a review of the data to be added, also see questions I.1-4 above.

3. Does the project/system involve the pursuit of new/additional objectives by using, comparing, sharing, linking or otherwise further process existing personal data, or collections thereof? (scenario of addition of purposes) . If so, do all persons/agencies/systems involved in processing have the same objective with processing of the personal data, or may tension exist, considering their position or interest? Do the same objectives apply to the entire trajectory?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 9 , paragraph 1) states that data may not be processed (e.g. in the form of linkage or comparison with other data, or adding other data to achieve a specified goal) in a manner that is incompatible with the objective(s) for which they were obtained initially. Walk through the entire planned trajectory of the personal data, and state for each part whether an objective exists other than the objective for which the data was collected.

4. If you have answered positively to questions II.2 and II.3, how is such intended use (i.e., addition of new personal data to existing systems or use of existing personal data for new purposes) reported to: (a) the DPO, or (b) the Dutch Data Protection Authority [=”CBP” in Dutch] if there is no DPO?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 62) provides the possibility to appoint a DPO. This officer supervises the processing of personal data. The supervision by that official extends to the processing of personal data by the controller who appointed him. The officer may make recommendations to the responsible party for better protection of the processed data. According to Art. 27, paragraph 3, planned processing of data shall be reported to the DPO. If no DPO exists, this should be reported to the CBP.

5. If you have answered positively to questions II.2 and II.3, what (further) controls are foreseen on such use (i.e., use of new data in existing systems or use of existing personal data for new purposes)?

Notes: see notes to questions II.2 and II.3. An example could be the planning an internal review, or an external evaluation.


6. Which periodic and occasional checks are provided for examining the correctness, accuracy and timeliness of the data processing foreseen in the policy proposal, the bill, or IT system?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 11, paragraph 2) states that measures should be taken to ensure that personal data are correct and accurate, given the purposes for which data were collected or further processed.


7. Will the collected/processed data be used to identify and/or asses and/or predict the behavior, presence or performance of people? Are the subjects whose data is processed aware of this? Do the data originate from different (possibly external) sources, and were they originally collected for other purposes?

8. Does this analysis/assessment/prediction involve the use of technically automated comparison of personal data (i.e., is it not performed by humans)? If so, what procedure is in place to ensure that concrete action is only taken after the intervention and (second) control of (human) staff?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 42, paragraph 1 ) states that no one may be subjected to a decision that carries legal consequences if that decision is taken solely on the basis of the automated processing of data intended to evaluate certain aspects of his/her personality.

III. Relevant authorities/systems and responsibility

1. What internal and external body/bodies and/or systems is/are involved in the data processing foreseen in each of the various phases identified under I.5? Which providers are there, and which recipients? What files or partial files, and which infrastructures?

2. Is it clear, at every stage, who is responsible for the processing of the personal data? If yes, is this person or organization adequately prepared and equipped to respect the necessary provisions and measures, including resources, policies, responsibilities, procedures and internal control?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 1d) appoints as responsible party the natural or legal person or any other person or the governing body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data.

3. Who exactly within your organization, and each of the other organizations involved, get access to the personal data? Is it possible that use of the data could result in the data becoming accessible to unauthorized parties?

4. Does a restriction apply to one or more of the authorities involved on the ability to process data due to confidentiality obligations (related to function/law)?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 9, paragraph 4) states that the processing of personal data is omitted insofar as a duty of confidentiality by virtue of office, profession or legal provision is in the way. Such a duty of confidentiality may for instance apply to physicians and (youth) aid workers.

5 . Are all stages of processing, meaning the data types and exchanges, mapped or possible to be mapped, such that to those whose data is processed it is clear who, why and how personal data are processed?

Explanation: The characteristics of the processing should always be available as a condition for being “in control” as a responsible party, in particular with regard to the notification and information obligations of those whose data is processed (Art. 27, first paragraph, and Art. 30, paragraph 3 of Dutch DPA).

6. Are policies and procedures foreseen that provide for the creation and maintenance of a collection of the personal data that you want to use? If so, how often and by whom will the processing be monitored? Does the processing include a collection that is performed on your behalf (e.g. by a subcontractor)?

7. Is there a transfer of personal data to a (government) agency outside the EU/EEA involved? Does this country have an adequate level of data protection as decided by the European Commission or the Dutch Minister of Security and Justice? Are all or is a part of the data transfered?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 76) provides that personal data may be transferred only to a country outside the EU/EEA if that country ensures an adequate level of data protection. As for the U.S., the European Commission states that organizations that have obliged themselves to comply with the so-called `safe harbor’ principles are also supposed to guarantee adequate protection. A complete list of Commission’s decisions on the adequacy of protection in other third countries (such as Israel, Argentina and Australia) can be found at the following website:

IV. Security and retention/destruction


1. Is the policy on data security in your organization in order? If so, who/which department(s) is/are responsible for making, implementing and enforcing of that policy? Is this policy specifically focused on data protection and data security?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 13) requires that organizational and technical measures are taken to protect against any form of unlawful processing of personal data.

2. If (a part of) the processing takes place at a processing party, how you will ensure the data security, and supervision thereof, at that processing party?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 14, paragraph 1) requires the responsible party to ensure that a processing party, if it takes upon itself (a part of) the processing, takes sufficient technical and organizational measures. In accordance with paragraph 2, a processing contract must be drawn up. Based on the DPA, compliance with the measured must the supervised (Art. 14, paragraph 1) .

3. What technical and organizational security measures are taken to prevent unauthorized or unlawful processing/abuse of (a) data that exists in an automated format (e.g., password protection, encryption) and (b) data that are recorded manually (e.g. putting locks on cabinets)? Does a higher level of protection exist for protection of sensitive data?

Explanation: To determine the appropriate level of risk, see the “Guidelines for Security of Personal Data”, 2013, at:

4. What procedures exist in the event of breaches of security regulations, and to detect such breaches? Does an emergency plan exist to deal with an unforeseen event in which personal data are lost, or exposed to unlawful processing?


5. How long will the data be stored? Does the same retention period apply for each of the types of personal data collected? Is the project subject to any statutory/sectoral requirements regarding retention?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 10, paragraph 1) states that personal data are not kept in a form which permits identification than is necessary to achieve the purposes for which the personal data are collected and processed.

6. Which policy-related and technical reasons require this storage period?

7. What measures are planned to destroy the data after the retention period expires? Are all personal data, including log data, destroyed? Is the destruction supervised, and by whom?

V. Transparency and rights of data subjects


1. Is the purpose of the data processing known to those whose data is processed, or can it be made known? What is the procedure for informing the subjects, if needed, about the purpose of the processing of their personal data?

Explanation: The obligation of transparency provided here is distinct from (and is in addition to) the legal knowability requirement (reporting on the purpose of a data in legislation itself). The purpose of this transparency obligation is to inform subjects about the processing at a place/time related to the (proposed) processing. For example, does the form include information about the purposes of the data collection? Or are roadside signs provided that announce video surveillance?

2. If you obtain the data directly from the data subject, how do you inform them about your identity and the purpose of the processing prior the processing it?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 33) lays down specific rules for this type of notification to subjects. The transparency obligation referred to here is distinct from (and is in addition to) the legal knowability requirement (reporting on the purpose of a data in legislation itself). The purpose of this transparency obligation is to inform subjects, whether or not at their request, at a place/time related to the (proposed) processing.

3. If you obtain the personal data via another (government) organization, how will the data subjects be notified about your identity and the purpose of the processing at the time of processing?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 34) lays down rules for notification of subjects. The transparency obligation referred to here is distinct from (and is in addition to) the legal knowability requirement (reporting on the purpose of a data in legislation itself). The purpose of this transparency obligation is to inform subjects, whether or not at their request, at a place/time related to the (proposed) processing.

Rights of data subjects

4. If you ask the subject’s consent for processing personal data (opt-in), can the person revoke his/her consent at a later time (opt-out)? In case the subjects refuses or revokes consent, what is the implication for that person?

Explanation: In accordance with the Dutch DPA (Art. 8, paragraph 1 ), unambiguous consent of the data subject is one of the possible justifications for processing personal data. Such consent must be specific, informed, and given freely.

5 . What procedure exists for the data subjects to ask the responsible party to inform them whether their personal data is processed?
How are third parties, who may have objections to providing that information, given the opportunity to give their view on this?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 35, paragraphs 1 and 2) provides the data subject the right to freely, and with reasonable intervals, ask the responsible party to state whether their personal data are processed. The responsible party must inform the subject within four weeks. Article 35, paragraph 3 states that third parties who may have objections to such a notice, must be allowed to give their views in advance  unless this would require a disproportionate effort.

6. How can a request from a data subject for correction, addition, deletion or blocking of personal data be treated?

Explanation: The Dutch DPA (Art. 36) provides a right of correction or blocking, and also a right to object to processing in connection with special personal circumstances (Art. 40).


2 thoughts on “Mandatory Privacy Impact Assessments for Dutch govt IT projects

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *