◇ OpenCyber Academy
Technical · Chapter 17 · English

Chapter 17 — Contained laboratory II

Open, free learning for anyone who wants to protect people and technology. No account is required to read this text or its worked answers.

Chapter 17 — Contained laboratory II

Lesson map

Lesson 17 published. Map, example, EX065.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["17.1 The synthetic patient"]
  N2["17.2 Access request"]
  N3["17.3 Erasure"]
  N4["17.4 Reporting gaps"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
  N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
  EX --> Q["Exercise EX065"]

Logical drawing

flowchart LR
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["17.1 The synthetic patient"]
  N2["17.2 Access request"]
  N3["17.3 Erasure"]
  N4["17.4 Reporting gaps"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX065"]
[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[17.1 The synthetic patient]
    |
    v
[17.2 Access request]
    |
    v
[17.3 Erasure]
    |
    v
[17.4 Reporting gaps]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX065]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) run an end-to-end test with a synthetic patient; (2) verify rights handling; (3) report gaps.

17.1 The synthetic patient

In the second contained laboratory, Leila creates a synthetic patient in Marlow's test environment who books online, receives a reminder, attends an appointment with an X-ray, pays, is referred to a specialist and leaves a review. The patient then exercises two rights: access under Article 15 and erasure of non-clinical data under Article 17 where it applies. The lab follows the patient's data through every system in the processing model, which tests whether the model and the controls hold together in practice. No real patient is involved.

17.2 Access request

Leila submits an access request as the synthetic patient. The response includes the practice-management record, the X-ray and the invoice, but misses the reminder history, the review service record and the referral letter in the shared mailbox. Leila notes that the missed items all sit in systems added or changed recently. She adds them to the access request checklist and recommends that any new integration, such as the review service, updates the checklist before going live, so access responses stay complete as systems change.

17.3 Erasure

The patient then asks to delete marketing and review data while clinical records are retained under professional rules. Leila checks each system: the marketing platform removes the patient, the review service removes the review after nine days, but the reminder database keeps the phone number until the yearly deletion rule removes it. She recommends that erasure requests trigger reminder deletion immediately. She also confirms that clinical records remain, and that the response letter explains clearly why they are kept. The letter lists each system.

17.4 Reporting gaps

Leila's lab report lists each system, the expected result, the observed result and a recommended fix. Three gaps are found: missing access items, slow reminder deletion and no record of the referral letter copy. All are assigned owners. The data protection officer asks for the lab to be repeated yearly. Mr. Okafor observes that a single synthetic patient exercised more of Marlow's privacy controls in one afternoon than months of document reviews, because the test followed real data paths end to end.

Worked example

Leila follows a synthetic patient through booking, treatment, referral and review, finds access responses missing three sources, finds slow reminder deletion and reports owned fixes.

Synthetic case. The patient is synthetic; GDPR Articles 15 and 17 are real.

Errors and limits

Erasure does not apply to records Marlow must keep by law; explain this clearly.

Exercises

Continue studying — lesson 17 (chapter 17 of 18)

← Chapter 16 · Course chapter index · Chapter 18 →

Continue to the next authored lesson.