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
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|