Chapter 2 — Privacy and data protection: advanced seminar
Lesson map
Lesson 02 published. Map, example, EX008.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["2.1 What access is for"]
N2["2.2 Access and privacy theory"]
N3["2.3 Identity checks"]
N4["2.4 Seminar discussion"]
N5["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5
N5 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX008"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["2.1 What access is for"]
N2["2.2 Access and privacy theory"]
N3["2.3 Identity checks"]
N4["2.4 Seminar discussion"]
N5["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> Q["EX008"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[2.1 What access is for]
|
v
[2.2 Access and privacy theory]
|
v
[2.3 Identity checks]
|
v
[2.4 Seminar discussion]
|
v
[Synthesis]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX008]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) explain the purpose of the right of access; (2) connect access rights to privacy theory; (3) evaluate where speed conflicts with security.
2.1 What access is for
In Dr. Pritchard's seminar the class reads the EDPB access guidelines, which describe the right of access as a way for people to know whether and how their data are processed and to check its lawfulness. Access is often the first step toward other rights such as rectification or erasure. Hana realises that a fast answer that is incomplete would fail this purpose. Her study therefore needs a quality check as well as a timing measure. She adds a completeness review of a sample of answers, judged against the Article 15 list of information that must be provided.
2.2 Access and privacy theory
The seminar links access to wider theory. Solove (2006) classifies problems such as exclusion, where people are not told about or allowed to participate in how their data are used, under information processing. Access requests are a direct remedy for exclusion. Nissenbaum's contextual integrity offers another lens: customers who gave addresses for delivery may be surprised to find them used for profiling, and an access answer reveals such flows. Acquisti, Brandimarte and Loewenstein (2015) remind the class that people are often uncertain about their own privacy preferences, which makes clear access answers even more valuable.
2.3 Identity checks
Speed can conflict with security. If the portal releases data to anyone who types an email address, an attacker could obtain a customer's order history. The EDPB guidelines say identity checks must be proportionate: a controller should not demand more data than needed and may rely on existing authentication, such as a customer account login. Hana records that the portal uses the existing account login and asks for extra proof only for requests from people without an account. She adds misdirected disclosure as a safety outcome, because a faster process that leaks data would be worse than a slow one.
2.4 Seminar discussion
The class debates whether automation removes useful human judgement. A classmate argues that staff may notice when a request comes from an abusive former partner seeking another person's data. Hana agrees and designs the portal to route requests with unusual signals, such as a request for a household account, to a trained person. She notes that the GDPR allows limits where rights of others would be harmed, as Article 15(4) states for copies. The discussion convinces her that her study must report not only on-time rates but also how exceptions are handled and how often they arise.
Worked example
Hana adds a completeness check against Article 15, a misdirected-disclosure safety outcome and an exception route to her design after the seminar.
Synthetic case. Classmates and the portal are synthetic; Solove (2006), Nissenbaum (2004), Acquisti et al. (2015), GDPR Article 15(4) and EDPB Guidelines 01/2022 are real.
Errors and limits
Theory frames the question but does not measure it. Exception routes can become slow back doors if not monitored.
Exercises
- EX008 — Purpose of access. What purpose does the EDPB attribute to the right of access? Rubric: 3 = knowing whether and how data are processed and checking lawfulness;; 2 = mentions transparency;; 1 = says it is customer service;; 0 = none.
- EX009 — Exclusion. Which Solove problem does an access request remedy directly? Rubric: 3 = exclusion;; 2 = names information processing;; 1 = names a wrong category;; 0 = none.
- EX010 — Proportionate checks. What makes an identity check proportionate? Rubric: 3 = it asks for no more than needed and reuses existing authentication;; 2 = mentions minimal data;; 1 = demands ID always;; 0 = none.
- EX011 — Safety outcome. Why add misdirected disclosure as an outcome? Rubric: 3 = a faster process that leaks data to the wrong person would be a net harm;; 2 = mentions security;; 1 = ignores it;; 0 = none.
- EX012 — Exception routing. Why route household-account requests to a person? Rubric: 3 = to catch requests that may harm others, as Article 15(4) contemplates;; 2 = mentions abuse;; 1 = automates all;; 0 = none.
- EX013 — Preference uncertainty. How does Acquisti et al. (2015) support clear access answers? Rubric: 3 = people are uncertain about preferences, so seeing actual data helps them decide;; 2 = mentions behaviour;; 1 = cites wrongly;; 0 = none.
- EX014 — Completeness standard. Against what does Hana judge an answer complete? Rubric: 3 = the Article 15 list of required information;; 2 = mentions Article 15;; 1 = gut feeling;; 0 = none.
Synthesis
Chapter 2 widens the outcome set to quality and safety. Chapter 3 designs the study with ethics and reproducibility.
Continue studying — chapter 02 of 08
← Chapter 01 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 03 (draft) →