On November 25, 2010, the German data protection authorities responsible for the private sector (also known as the “Düsseldorfer Kreis”) issued a resolution on the minimum requirements for the qualifications and independence of company data protection officers (“DPOs”). This initiative follows inspections carried out within companies that revealed a generally insufficient level of expertise among DPOs given data processing complexities and the requirements set by the Federal Data Protection Act. The DPAs recognize that a DPO’s workload depends primarily on the size and number of data controllers the DPO supervises, industry-specific factors related to data processing and the level of protection required for the types of personal data being processed. Changes with respect to these factors frequently increase the burden on DPOs without a compensating increase in resources needed to ensure proper oversight.
The DPA’s resolution sets forth certain minimum requirements for company DPOs, as detailed below.
Expertise Required Under Section 4f(2) of the Federal Data Protection Act
The law requires that individuals must have certain necessary qualifications and be reliable in order to be appointed DPO, but does not elaborate on what this means. In light of the increased requirements for the DPO position, individuals must have the following knowledge of data protection law as well as technical and organizational knowledge.
Regardless of the industry sector or the size of the data controller, a DPO should have a general command of data protection law. This includes the following:
- Basic knowledge of the personality rights (Persönlichkeitsrechte) granted by the German constitution to customers and employees of the data controller
- Comprehensive knowledge of the Federal Data Protection Act as applicable to the data controller, including technical and organizational rules
- Knowledge of the relevant technical provisions of the law, in particular of the security requirements outlined in the Federal Data Protection Act
Depending on the data controller’s size, industry sector, IT infrastructure and the sensitivity of the personal data being processed, the DPO should have:
- Comprehensive knowledge of relevant industry sector-specific legal provisions
- Knowledge of information and telecommunications technologies, and of data security issues (e.g. physical security, cryptography, network security and malicious software)
- Basic business expertise in areas such as HR management, accounting, sales, management and marketing
- Knowledge of the company’s technical and organizational structure, including company policies and procedures
- Expertise in the practical aspects of data protection management (e.g. conducting audits, consulting, strategy development, inventories, risk management, analysis of security concepts, works council agreements, CCTV, cooperation with the works council, etc.)
As a rule, a DPO should have the necessary minimum legal, technical and organizational knowledge before being appointed as DPO, having acquired the relevant skills through appropriate training, professional development seminars and exams.
Independence Required Under Section 4f(3) of the Federal Data Protection Act
According to Section 4f(3) of the Federal Data Protection Act, DPOs must be free to the apply their data protection expertise without interference from the company. In order to ensure the DPO’s independence, certain of company internal organizational measures are necessary:
- DPOs must be directly subordinate to the data controller’s head of management
- DPOs must not be penalized for actions taken to carry out DPO functions, including in cases where the appointment as DPO has been withdrawn
- DPOs are bound to confidentiality about the identity of the data subjects, as well as the circumstances under which they obtained information about a data subject, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the data subject in question
Data Controller Infrastructure Requirements Relevant to DPO Qualifications and Independence
- To carry out the assessment duties required by data protection compliance law, DPOs must have full access and inspection rights within the company.
- DPOs must be involved in all relevant business planning and decision processes.
- DPOs maintain the internal data processing inventories pursuant to law, and must be provided with the information necessary to do so.
- In order to maintain the appropriate qualifications, the company has to enable the DPO to participate in professional educational seminars and events, and cover costs associated with such training.
- Internal company DPOs must be allowed adequate time necessary to complete their tasks and to maintain their qualifications.
- Data controllers must provide appropriate support to the DPO, in particular by providing, personnel, office space, equipment, devices and means (Section 4f(5) Federal Data Protection Act).
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- Iowa
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott H. Kimpel
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code