So why do the ferders simply pass on personal data to software developers instead of “closing envelopes”? Why do they force their suppliers to access confidential data instead of keeping it closed and secure? By ensuring an adequate level of security, the processing manager can avoid unnecessary disclosure of “potential access” data and avoid confusion between actual data processing (on the basis of a legal obligation) and inappropriate disclosure (due to the negligence of the person in charge of the processing). To be on the same page with readers, I propose to bear in mind that data processing is a bilateral obligation constituted by the right of the processing manager to require a treatment benefit and the corresponding obligation of the subcontractor to perform the treatment in accordance with the instructions of the processing manager which were provisionally accepted by the subcontractor. In other words, the processing is the offer of a controller that is accepted by the processor. If so, what is the motivation for processing managers to enter into a data processing agreement with as many suppliers as possible? As a general rule, the statement retracts the following argument: “The seller may have access to our production environment, which may result in some processing of the personal data of the person in charge of the processing.” Is there a clear objective and legal basis for such data processing as “potential disclosure to suppliers,” which is communicated to all concerned in the data protection statement? If this is not the case – this goes against the spirit and the letter of the RGPD: if the person in charge of the processing reveals personal data without fully informing the persons concerned so that they can make a rational decision on the secondary use or disclosure of their data in the interest of the person in charge of the processing, this person responsible for the treatment denies the individual the right to control the dissemination of his personal data. Such disclosure of the person`s data is not consistent with the RGPD. To download the privacy add, As part of its global data protection services, Box Consulting is introducing a new compliance consulting commitment to help clients prepare, understand and address development compliance requirements such as DSGVO, PCI DSS, FedRAMP and HIPAA from the perspective of cloud content management. The engagement team is made up of boxing technology and compliance experts who work with a team of clients to create a practical governance framework using the box application. 9. TESTING AND PROOF OF COMPLIANCE9.1.

Bizzabo provides the customer with all the information necessary to prove compliance with the obligations of Article 28 of the RGPD with respect to the processing of personal data by Bizzabo and its subprocessers in accordance with this data protection authority. 9.2. Bizzabo will authorize and contribute to carrying out audits, including inspections carried out by the client or by any other legal auditor mandated by the client under Bizzabo`s obligations in accordance with this data protection authority. Bizzabo can meet the audit obligation under this section 9.2 by providing the client with certificates, certificates and summaries of audit reports by accredited external auditors. Audits carried out by the client are subject to the following conditions: (i) the examination is pre-scheduled in writing with Bizzabo, at least forty-five (45) days in advance and is not carried out more than once a year (except for an examination after a violation of personal data); (ii) the statutory auditor imposes an undisclosed and non-competitive obligation on Bizzabo; (iii) the legal account controller does not have access to non-customer data (iv) the client ensures that the audit does not affect or damage Bizzabo`s business activities and information and network systems; (v) the client bears all costs and assumes responsibility and responsibility for the audit; and (vi) the client only receives the report from the legal auditor, excluding the