Article 28 requires that a processing contract must "allow for audits".
If processor seeks to restrict the right and controller agrees can that still be said to comply with Art 28?
Specifically a processor only wants to allow controller to audit (1) in the event of a data breach or (2) if controller can provide prior evidence of non-compliance or (3) if ICO requires one(!). The second point of course seems to usurp the very purpose of an audit in the first place ...
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/subscribercommands.html
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)