Could the GDPR 'Right to Access' Make Personal Data More Vulnerable?
Under the EU's GDPR consumers may request a copy of the data companies have collected from them. But if a bad actor takes control of that account, it could put the data at greater risk.
January 23, 2019 at 10:30 AM
4 minute read
In life there's always a catch-22, only in the case the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) it's more like an Article 23. The Right of Access established in the European Union's landmark privacy regulation allows consumers to request a copy of all the data that an organization has collected them.
But in doing so, the GDPR may have inadvertently made that same data more vulnerable to bad actors or identity thieves who surreptitiously take control of an EU citizen's account, and make the request on their behalf. What's more, the GDPR doesn't make it easy for businesses to verify a consumer's true identity.
“It raises the stakes, that's for sure,” said Robert Braun, a partner at Jeffer Mangels Butler and Mitchell LLP.
By handing over data to a impersonator, companies could potentially be dealing with a double-edged sword — the ramifications of both a data breach and failure to adequately verify a consumer's identity. To make matters even more complicated, the GDPR doesn't specify what steps a company or an organization needs to take in order to ascertain the veracity of a request made under the Right to Access provision — just that steps have to be taken.
Braun said that many companies are falling back on whatever identity verification process they used to establish a consumer's account in the first place, but that those measures typically don't amount to much. In the event of a consumer's data being handed over to an imposter, the adequacy of a company's identify verification process would be viewed almost exclusively in hindsight.
“You'll have to defend what you did and that could be a challenge,” Braun said.
But while Right to Access presents a challenge, it may not be a complete game changer.
Jennifer Beckage, founder of the Beckage firm, doesn't think that hackers need take advantage of the GDPR in order to gain access to someone's personal information. If they want something, they'll figure out a way to get it.
“I've been practicing in this space for a really long time before data breaches were data breaches and impersonation and fraud have been around since the beginning of time. We're always going to see those things at play but the ability to access data is not entirely new,” Beckage said.
Potentially of more concern to businesses is the verification process itself, which runs the risk of violating the GDPR's data minimization principle. Article 23 of the regulations stipulates that organizations should collect or process only as much data as is necessary to complete a given task.
Imagine the last time you had to reset the password to your social media or online banking accounts. There's usually at least one pre-established question you to correctly answer in order to verify your identity, only this time it doesn't hinge on the name of somebody's first pet.
“[Companies] don't want to collect information more than what they already have or try to collect sensitive information that they may not need to authenticate,” Beckage said.
She suggests that companies consider the type of information that they are trafficking in when establishing an infrastructure to deal with Right to Access requests. A social security number may require more stringent verification procedures than an address.
“Rome wasn't built in a day and it's going to take time for organizations to find out what's working and not working and going through the assessment process and determining the best methods,” Beckage said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1John Deere Annual Meeting Offers Peek Into DEI Strife That Looms for Companies Nationwide
- 2Why Associates in This Growing Legal Market Are Leaving Their Firms
- 3Visa's Defense of DOJ Antitrust Case Suffers Setback After Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
- 4Greenberg Traurig Combines Digital Infrastructure and Real Estate Groups, Anticipating Uptick in Demand
- 5Trump Administration Faces Legal Challenge Over EO Impacting Federal Workers
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250