Reliable CIPP-E Test Voucher, New CIPP-E Test Question
The CIPP-E PDF file contains the real, valid, and updated IAPP CIPP-E exam practice questions. These are the real CIPP-E exam questions that surely will appear in the upcoming exam and by preparing with them you can easily pass the final exam. The CIPP-E PDF Questions file is easy to use and install. You can use the CIPP-E PDF practice questions on your laptop, desktop, tabs, or even on your smartphone and start CIPP-E exam preparation right now.
The CIPP-E certification is offered by the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). The IAPP is the world's largest privacy organization, dedicated to helping professionals manage and protect sensitive data. The CIPP-E Certification program is designed to cover the foundational elements of data protection and privacy, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other relevant European privacy laws.
>> Reliable CIPP-E Test Voucher <<
New IAPP CIPP-E Test Question | Latest CIPP-E Examprep
You will gain a clear idea of every IAPP CIPP-E exam topic by practicing with Web-based and desktop IAPP CIPP-E practice test software. You can take IAPP CIPP-E Practice Exam many times to analyze and overcome your weaknesses before the final IAPP CIPP-E exam.
IAPP Certified Information Privacy Professional/Europe (CIPP/E) Sample Questions (Q36-Q41):
NEW QUESTION # 36
When does the GDPR provide more latitude for a company to process data beyond its original collection purpose?
Answer: B
Explanation:
Section: (none)
Explanation
The GDPR provides more latitude for a company to process data beyond its original collection purpose when the data has been pseudonymized, which means that the data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information. Pseudonymization is a technique that reduces the linkability of personal data with the data subject, and enhances the security and privacy of the data processing. According to the GDPR, pseudonymization is one of the measures that can help the company to implement the principles of data protection by design and by default, and to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR obligations. Moreover, the GDPR states that the further processing of pseudonymized data for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes is not considered to be incompatible with the initial purposes, provided that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the rights and freedoms of the data subjects. Therefore, pseudonymization can enable the company to use the data for other purposes that are beneficial for society or for innovation, without compromising the privacy of the individuals. Reference:
GDPR, Article 4 (5), Article 5 (1) (b), Article 6 (4) (e), Article 25, Article 32 (1) (a), Article 40 (2) (d), Article 89 Free CIPP/E Study Guide, page 17, section 2.4.1 CIPP/E Certification, page 12, section 1.1.3 Cipp-e Study guides, Class notes & Summaries, document "CIPP/E Exam Summary 2023", page 45, section 2.4.1
[Pseudonymisation techniques and best practices]
NEW QUESTION # 37
Which GDPR principle would a Spanish employer most likely depend upon to annually send the personal data of its employees to the national tax authority?
Answer: A
Explanation:
According to Article 6 of the GDPR, the processing of personal data is only lawful if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:
the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes; processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract; processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject; processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person; processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller; processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.
In this case, the Spanish employer would most likely depend on the legal obligation of the employer as the lawful basis for sending the personal data of its employees to the national tax authority. This is because the employer is subject to the tax laws and regulations of Spain, which require the employer to report the income and deductions of its employees to the tax authority on an annual basis. The employer must comply with this legal obligation, and the processing of the employees' personal data is necessary for this purpose. The employer does not need to obtain the consent of the employees, as consent is not a valid basis for processing personal data where there is a clear imbalance between the data subject and the controller, such as in the context of employment. The employer also does not need to rely on the legitimate interest of the public administration, as this is not a specific purpose for which the employer is processing the personal data, but rather a general interest that may be served by the tax authority. The employer also does not need to invoke the protection of the vital interest of the employees, as this basis only applies in situations where the processing is necessary to protect someone's life, such as in a medical emergency. Reference: Article 6 GDPR - Lawfulness of processing - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Lawful basis for processing | ICO, Legal obligation as a lawful basis for processing personal data under the GDPR, [Consent in the employment context | ICO], [Vital interests | ICO]
NEW QUESTION # 38
SCENARIO
Please use the following to answer the next question:
Liem, an online retailer known for its environmentally friendly shoes, has recently expanded its presence in Europe. Anxious to achieve market dominance, Liem teamed up with another eco friendly company, EcoMick, which sells accessories like belts and bags. Together the companies drew up a series of marketing campaigns designed to highlight the environmental and economic benefits of their products. After months of planning, Liem and EcoMick entered into a data sharing agreement to use the same marketing database, MarketIQ, to send the campaigns to their respective contacts.
Liem and EcoMick also entered into a data processing agreement with MarketIQ, the terms of which included processing personal data only upon Liem and EcoMick's instructions, and making available to them all information necessary to demonstrate compliance with GDPR obligations.
Liem and EcoMick then procured the services of a company called JaphSoft, a marketing optimization firm that uses machine learning to help companies run successful campaigns. Clients provide JaphSoft with the personal data of individuals they would like to be targeted in each campaign. To ensure protection of its clients' data, JaphSoft implements the technical and organizational measures it deems appropriate. JaphSoft works to continually improve its machine learning models by analyzing the data it receives from its clients to determine the most successful components of a successful campaign. JaphSoft then uses such models in providing services to its client-base. Since the models improve only over a period of time as more information is collected, JaphSoft does not have a deletion process for the data it receives from clients. However, to ensure compliance with data privacy rules, JaphSoft pseudonymizes the personal data by removing identifying information from the contact information. JaphSoft's engineers, however, maintain all contact information in the same database as the identifying information.
Under its agreement with Liem and EcoMick, JaphSoft received access to MarketIQ, which included contact information as well as prior purchase history for such contacts, to create campaigns that would result in the most views of the two companies' websites. A prior Liem customer, Ms. Iman, received a marketing campaign from JaphSoft regarding Liem's as well as EcoMick's latest products. While Ms. Iman recalls checking a box to receive information in the future regarding Liem's products, she has never shopped EcoMick, nor provided her personal data to that company.
For what reason would JaphSoft be considered a controller under the GDPR?
Answer: B
Explanation:
According to the GDPR, a data controller is the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data (Art 4(7) of GDPR). A data processor is the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller (Art 4(8) of GDPR). In this case, JaphSoft would be considered a controller under the GDPR because it uses the personal data it receives from Liem and EcoMick to improve its own products and services through machine learning. This means that JaphSoft determines the purposes and means of this processing activity, which is not covered by the agreement with Liem and EcoMick. JaphSoft also decides how long to retain the personal data, which is another indication of its controller role. The other options are not sufficient to establish JaphSoft as a controller, as they could also apply to a processor. Having access to personal data in the MarketIQ database does not imply that JaphSoft determines the purposes and means of the processing. It could be acting on behalf of Liem and EcoMick, who are the controllers of the data in the database. Making decisions regarding the technical and organizational measures necessary to protect the personal data is also a duty of a processor, who must implement appropriate security measures in accordance with the GDPR and the instructions of the controller (Art 28 and Art 32 of GDPR). Reference:
GDPR, Art 4, Art 28, Art 32
Free CIPP/E Study Guide, p. 15
European Data Protection Law & Practice, p. 123
What is a data controller or a data processor?
CNIL publishes guidance on data processing roles under EU GDPR
Guide for multi-controller situations under the GDPR
NEW QUESTION # 39
Which of the following countries will continue to enjoy adequacy status under the GDPR, pending any future European Commission decision to the contrary?
Answer: A
Explanation:
Adequacy is a term that the EU uses to describe other countries, territories, sectors or international organisations that it deems to provide an 'essentially equivalent' level of data protection to that which exists within the EU. An adequacy decision is a formal decision made by the EU which recognises that another country, territory, sector or international organisation provides an equivalent level of protection for personal data as the EU does. The effect of such a decision is that personal data can flow from the EU (and Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland) to that third country without any further safeguard being necessary12.
The European Commission has so far recognised Andorra, Argentina, Canada (commercial organisations), Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Israel, Isle of Man, Japan, Jersey, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, the United Kingdom under the GDPR and the LED, the United States (commercial organisations participating in the EU-US Data Privacy Framework) and Uruguay as providing adequate protection13. On 28 June 2021, the EU Commission published two adequacy decisions in respect of the UK: one for transfers under the EU GDPR; and the other for transfers under the Law Enforcement Directive (LED)2. These decisions contain the European Commission's detailed assessment of the UK's laws and systems for protecting personal data, as well as the legislation designating the UK as adequate. Both adequacy decisions are expected to last until 27 June 20252.
Among the four options given, only Switzerland has been granted an adequacy decision by the EU, which means that it will continue to enjoy adequacy status under the GDPR, pending any future European Commission decision to the contrary. Greece is a member state of the EU, so it does not need an adequacy decision to receive personal data from the EU. Norway is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), which also includes Iceland and Liechtenstein, and has incorporated the GDPR into its national law, so it also does not need an adequacy decision. Australia has not been recognised as adequate by the EU, so transfers of personal data from the EU to Australia require appropriate safeguards or derogations13. Therefore, the correct answer is D. Switzerland. Reference:
https://pages.iapp.org/Free-Study-Guides_CIPPE-PPC-EU.html https://data-privacy-office.eu/courses/cipp-e-official-training-course/
NEW QUESTION # 40
Which marketing-related activity is least likely to be covered by the provisions of Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (Directive 2002/58/EC)?
Answer: C
Explanation:
Reference https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02002L0058- 20091219&from=RO
NEW QUESTION # 41
......
For there are some problems with those still in the incubation period of strict control, thus to maintain the CIPP-E quiz guide timely, let the user comfortable working in a better environment. You can completely trust the accuracy of our IAPP CIPP-E Exam Questions because we will full refund if you failed exam with our training materials.
New CIPP-E Test Question: https://www.passleader.top/IAPP/CIPP-E-exam-braindumps.html
