The processing of personal data in accordance with the principle of proportionality under EU general data protection regulation

Moreover, the principle of proportionality can be applied successfully, regardless of how personal data is utilized. However, it is important to consider the original purpose for which the data was collected because reusing personal data for different purposes may not comply with the principle of proportionality. For example, if the level of protection for the data is low, then it is processed disproportionately. In practice, for example, the reusing of personal data may be conducted by a database processor under company holding or at the behest of law enforcement agencies. However, this may lead to a legal paradigm shift regarding interference technology with the law because the processor is held under emerging technological transformation rather than the person concerned. This could also result a bias which needs to be better regulated and requires further legal intervention.

According to a study, it is important to distinguish the purpose of data processing and the legal means of achieving it. For example, in the case of biometric data, the legitimate purpose should be unique identification, which must be sufficient for determining whether personal data processing is prohibited or allowed under GDPR Article 9. The norm outlined in GDPR Recital 4 should be considered to ensure that this purpose is achieved. The study suggests that the necessity of data processing must be assessed as a precondition for proportionality, depending on the demands of the data processing subject, business. It also highlights that overreliance on personal data for identification purposes can compromise the protection of such data as the result of the restrictions. Accordingly, a study recommends that a business shall achieve data processing only if the running is decentralized and, hence, proportional not only to the business interest but also to the legitimate interest of a person. Exclusively by doing so, data credentials will be reached proportionally. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that the principle of proportionality is applied appropriately and in line with GDPR Recital 4 stipulations to protect personal data and prevent excessive processing.

It is crucial to note that the processing of personal data must be prohibited if it does not comply with the proportionality computation of the affected legitimate interest. In other words, proportionality measurement must prevent the processing of personal data that does not meet the legitimate interest affected. To clarify, the proportionality shall be based on a determination criterion. This means, taken for example, biometric data processing, the collection of unique characteristics mandate to be based on the necessity to achieve unique identification and collect data on the manner regardless whether that requires only one characteristic, such as a finger or face, or both. This is a critical measure that ensures compliance with proportionality and provides legal protection. For instance, in the first situation where only one characteristic is required, it is crucial not to over-collect data as that may result in the processing of data for other purposes, which is incompatible with the legitimate interest of the person. On the other hand, in the second situation where multimodal data usage is required, there is a more significant level of legal protection since both types of data were collected where centralized processing is with multimodal biometric data, unlike in the first situation.

To regulate the legitimate ways of personal data processing, the legislator has proposed authorization of a person concerned to agree with data processing action as one of the methods of proportionality application. However, a study argues that consent is not solid ground and lacks additional eligibility. The research suggests that consent goes against necessity, and businesses may abuse data processing installations by obtaining agreements. On the other hand, if a person expresses a desire for designation, but there is no immediate need, there will be contradictions. In such cases, the principle of proportionality should be applied. The study proposes that only the parties' mutual agreement should be relevant when there is no necessity. If there is a necessity but impossible to reach an agreement, personal data processing cannot be enforced based on human freedoms and human dignity respect. Otherwise, such processing is disproportionate, and the goal will be achieved, but the human resource will be levelled.

References

1. Amankwaa, A. (2020). Trends in forensic DNA database: transnational exchange of DNA data. Forensic Sciences Research, 5 (1), pp. 8-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2019.1565651.

2. Balboni, P. et al. (2019). Accountability and Enforcement Aspects of the EU General Data Protection Regulation. Methodology for the Creation of an Effective Compliance Framework and a Review of Recent Case Law [notes]. Indian Journal of Law and Technology, no. 15, 102 p.

3. Brkan, M. (2016). The Unstoppable Expansion of EU Fundamental Right to Data Protection. Little Shop of Horrors? Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 23(5), pp. 812-841. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X1602300505.

4. Bulgakova, D. (2021). Application of the Principle of Proportionality on Biometric Data Processing in European Union Law. University of International Business and Economics (UIBE), Law Faculty, Doctoral of Laws Degree Dissertation, pp. 1-371.

5. Bulgakova, D. (2022). Case Study on the Fingerprint Processing in a Workplace under GDPR Article 9 (2, b). Teise, no. 124, pp. 22-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Teise.2022.124.2.

6. Bulgakova, D. (2022). The Protection of Commodified Data in E-Platforms. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, 1 (2022), pp. 208-212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2022.01.39.

7. Cohen-Eliya, M., & Porat, I. (2010). American balancing and German proportionality: The historical origins. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 8 (2), pp. 263-286. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moq004.

8. Dlugosz, J. (2017). The Principle of Proportionality in European Union Law as a Prerequisite for Penalization. Przeglqd Prawniczy Uniwersytetu Im. Adama Mickiewicza, 7 (7), pp. 283-300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ppuam.2017.7.17.

9. Fuster Gonzalez, G. (2014). Fighting for Your Right to What Exactly - The Convoluted Case Law of the EU Court of Justice on Privacy and/or Personal Data Protection. Birkbeck Law Review, 2, 263 p.

10. Gill-Pedro, E., & Linderfalk, U. (2020) Proportionality in International Law: Whose Interests Count? Nordic Journal of International Law. Acta Scandinavica Juris Gentium, 89 (3-4), pp. 275-285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-89030001.

11. Hildebrandt, M. (2016). Law as Information in the Era of Data-Driven Agency: Law as Information. Modern Law Review, 79 (1), pp. 1-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12165.

12. Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and describing what we do: doctrinal legal research. Deakin Law Review, 17 (1), pp. 83-119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2012vol17no1art70.

13. Cheung, J. (2020). Balancing fundamental rights in private law through the double proportionality test. Nottingham Law Journal, 28 (2), p. 53.

14. Jasserand, C. (2018). Subsequent Use of GDPR Data for a Law Enforcement Purpose. European Data Protection Law Review (Internet), 4 (2), pp. 152-167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2018/2/6.

15. Jizeng, F. (2016). Rethinking the Method and Function of Proportionality Test in the European Court of Human Rights, Journal of Human Rights, 15 (1), pp. 47-52.

16. Krivogin, M. (2017). Peculiarities of Legal Regulating Biometric Personal Data. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, no. 2, pp. 80-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2017.2.80.89.

17. Lubin, A. (2020) The liberty to spy. Harvard International Law Journal, 61(1), pp. 185-243.

18. Macenaite, M. (2017). The "Riskification" of European Data Protection Law through a two-fold Shift. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 8 (3), pp. 506-540. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1017/err.2017.40.

19. Marchant, G., Allenby, B., & Herkert, J. (2011). The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight The Pacing Problem (G. Marchant, B. Allenby, & J. Herkert, Eds.; 1st ed. 2011). Springer Netherlands. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7.

20. Newton, M. (2018). Reframing the proportionality principle. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 51 (3), pp. 867-885.

21. Petersen, N. (2020). Alexy and the "German" Model of Proportionality: Why the Theory of Constitutional Rights Does Not Provide a Representative Reconstruction of the Proportionality Test. German Law Journal, 21 (2), pp. 163-173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2020.9.

22. Pohrebnyak, S. (2017). The Principle of Proportionality as the General Principle of Law, Law of Ukraine: Legal Journal, p. 39.

23. Saks, M., & Spellman, B. (2016). The Psychological Foundations of Evidence Law. New York University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18574/9780814768785.

24. Spadaro, A. (2016). Between reference models and legal innovations. Comparative and European Public Law, no. 2, 297 p.

25. Taylor, M. (2015). Safeguarding the Right to Data Protection in the EU, 30^th and 31^st October, 2014, Paris, France. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 31 (80), pp. 145-152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.cw.

26. Tsakirakis, (2011). Proportionality: violation of human rights? Comparative Constitutional Review, 2 (81), pp. 48-50.

27. Vadi, V. (2015). The migration of constitutional ideas to regional and international economic law: the case of proportionality. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 35 (3), 557 p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru