Post by juthi52943 on Jan 8, 2024 3:56:34 GMT
So he asks the applicant to read aloud his name, surname, PESEL number and residential address. All this in the presence of other petitioners. Despite employee training in the field of personal data protection, a significant number of officials do not understand the difference between the persons consent to the processing of his or her personal data and the legal provision that replaces such consent.
The sad reality of some offices is that they keep a consent form Job Function Email List for the processing of personal data just in case. If the applicant begins to demand the right to privacy, they provide him with a de facto fictitious consent to sign. Why fictional? There is a provision that requires the applicant to provide personal data. For the official, the matter is solved - he has consent to the processing of the applicants personal data.
However, the problem will return like a boomerang when the applicant realizes that he has the right to withdraw such consent at any time. And then what? Most often, it turns out that consent was not needed. However, the fact remains that the official misled the petitioner and discredited the entire office in the eyes of at least this one citizen. Therefore, I believe that office employees, in order to consciously protect our personal data, should, in addition to personal data protection training, undergo a mandatory test at the end of it.
The sad reality of some offices is that they keep a consent form Job Function Email List for the processing of personal data just in case. If the applicant begins to demand the right to privacy, they provide him with a de facto fictitious consent to sign. Why fictional? There is a provision that requires the applicant to provide personal data. For the official, the matter is solved - he has consent to the processing of the applicants personal data.
However, the problem will return like a boomerang when the applicant realizes that he has the right to withdraw such consent at any time. And then what? Most often, it turns out that consent was not needed. However, the fact remains that the official misled the petitioner and discredited the entire office in the eyes of at least this one citizen. Therefore, I believe that office employees, in order to consciously protect our personal data, should, in addition to personal data protection training, undergo a mandatory test at the end of it.