DPIA

General goal and planning

As a part of the ethics management in DE4A, the project is required to provide a data protection impact assessment (DPIA), that satisfies the requirements of European data protection law (principally the GDPR).

This is not a formal deliverable, but delivery was a recommendation in our ethics review, and DE4A has committed to provide it.

A DPIA must contain:

(a) a systematic description of the envisaged processing operations and the purposes of the processing

(b) an assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the processing operations in relation to the purposes

(c) an assessment of the risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects

(d) the measures envisaged to address the risks, including safeguards, security measures and mechanisms to ensure the protection of personal data and to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR

The wiki will be used principally to collect inputs on points c and d; points a and b can be based on existing deliverables.

Timeline

Given that the DPIA is not a formal deliverable, there is some flexibility. However, in order to be useful, the DPIA should be done by mid December at the latest. This will also allow its content to be re-used in the deliverable D7.2 (Initial Report on legal and ethical recommendations and best practices), which must be submitted by the end of December.

For that reason, the following timeline will be followed:

Step	Description	Deadline
1	Initial wiki set-up - collecting initial inputs from prior deliverables	5/11/2021
2a	Draft inputs collected from pilot participants and Member States	26/11/2021
2b	WP7 team collects data on points a and b of the DPIA (see introduction above)	26/11/2021
3	WP7 bundles, reviews and completes first draft DPIA, containing all four points above	5/12/2021
4	Draft is circulated to pilot participants and Member States	6/12/2021
5	Feedback and review	13/12/2021
6	Finalisation	17/12/2021

Objectives and principles

All DE4A partners may provide inputs and suggestions. Examples of risks include:

- illegitimate access to data (loss of confidentiality);

- unwanted change (loss of integrity);

- disappearance (loss or corruption) of data (loss of availability);

- disproportionate collection of data;

- unlawful monitoring or crosslinking of data

- inadequate transparency on data collection, use or access

- disregard of data subject rights (loss of access or deletion rights)

- unlawful data sharing or re-use

- disproportionate retention

However, for the avoidance of doubt:

- a DPIA should identify risks for data subjects. Risks for systems, data, or public administrations can be included only if they are presented from the perspective of the data subject. E.g. rather than saying "the government database could be corrupted", consider saying "the citizen's data could get corrupted"; rather than saying "the servers could go offline", consider saying "the citizen may not be able to use the e-government service".

- when describing risks, the fact that other Member States lawfully use data differently than in the citizen's home country is not a risk. E.g. if data is retained for 5 yeas and cannot be shared with other administrations in Member State A, but Member State B allows retention for 20 years and sharing with designated other administrations, that is not considered a risk, since it is lawful and remains within the confines of the GDPR.

- the scope of the DPIA is DE4A (not the SDGR), and specifically our implmentation of the technical system (not building blocks that we re-use, or national infrastructures). The objective is not to assess e-government in the EU in general (or any Member State specific elements).

Current inputs on data protection risks

This section summarises current inputs on the risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects (needed for point d above). The table should be concise - the goal is to collect inputs, not to draft the DPIA here.

Inputs from D2.1 and D2.2 have been taken into account; as well as inputs from the wiki; also inputs from the Commission's draft DPIA on the draft implementing act; and inputs provided for the DBA pilot area.

Description of the data protection risk	Likelihood (low, medium, high)	Severity (low, medium, high)	Applicable to all pilot areas, or pilot specific?	Have the risks been mitigated? Are any risks remaining?
Identity mapping of the user relies on imperfect model - no guarantee that the evidence relates to the exact user	Low	High	All pilots	Some mitigation through best practices for identity mapping; but risks remain. User intervention pattern mitigates this too.
Powers of representation/mandates has no mature system	High	Medium	Pilot specific - DBA (representation of companies), or representation of families	Mitigation through national infrastructure (national eID linked to national company registers); but this becomes difficult cross border.
Preview with evidence requesting administration, rather than per data source. Requires all data providers to maintain perfect compliance	High	Low	All pilots	Not mitigated
SSO towards evidence providers - no reidentification allowed, reliance on eIDAS identification	High	Low	All pilots	Not mitigated (other than via identity mapping, which has its own risks)
Structured and unstructured evidences - requires original and canonical evidence, which could mismatch	Medium	Medium	All pilots	Both are exchanged, but this imposes a duty of diligence on the data requester
Translation and misinterpretation - semantics	High	Medium	All pilots	Semantic work is ongoing, but requires long term sustained commitment.
Identity fraud by using outdated evidence - evidence is exchanged successfully, but changes afterwards; the receving administration is not notified.	High	Low	All pilots	Can be mitigated through the subscription and lookup patterns; but this is not explicitly supported under the SDGR.
Data minimisation not perfectly implemented - standardised rather than tailored data is exchanged	Medium	Low	All pilots	The problem is not worse than for traditional paper based exchanges
Evidence duplication - multiple sources, which could contain conflicting data, leading to evidence shopping	Low	Low	All pilots	The problem is not worse than for traditional paper based exchanges
Evidence is outdated or inaccurate	Medium	High	All pilots	Mitigated by preview requirement, but this is controlled by users only. No overview of authoritative sources (or their guarantees) exists at this stage.
Data control is removed from the user after the exchange - receiving administrations can use evidence as required by their own laws	High	Low	All pilots	The risk is inherent to cross border exchanges. Does not qualify as a risk as long as the receiving administration respects its own laws.