Controller / processor issue again ....
Company A is conducting research. Companies B C D .... hold personal data. Companies B C D ... agree to pseudonymise the data they hold and submit the pseudonymised data to Company A.
Assume there is no problem with a legal basis - all subjects freely give fully compliant and informed consent.
Company A requires B C D ... to sign a data processing agreement acknowledging that in carrying out the pseudonymisation A is controller since it is determining purpose and method and B C D are just processors. Does that make ANY sense?
In the draft on my desk it leads to some bizarre consequences which A has clearly not thought through. For example one clause requires that B C D ... limit access to the personal data to those carrying out the pseudonymisation which would mean that the data was unavailable to other staff for B C D...'s pre-existing purposes! Is it just that clause (and similar) which are wrong or, as I believe, regarding B C D ... as processors when they are working on their own data is a fallacy.
PS Drafted by smart US lawyers ...
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)