[ad_1]
Attendance Registration
Fingerprints were collected to register providers present at the Werkbedrijf Voorne Putten Werkt, where people receiving social assistance from the municipalities of Brielle, Hellevoetsluis, Nissewaard and Westvoorne are employed to maintain the benefits of the municipalities. Beneficiaries who refused to give their fingerprints would be threatened with benefit reductions. Blokhuizen decided to report it to the Dutch data protection authority, who then challenged the municipality of Nissewaard.
For security reasons only
According to the Dutch Data Protection Authority, which carries out further investigations as a result of the report, fingerprints, irises and other recordable physical characteristics need not be used for presence checks. "According to AVG's implementation law, access control using biometrics is allowed if it is necessary for security purposes," according to a spokesman for the Dutch authorities. Data protection. "A strict test is then necessary to determine whether the use of biometrics is proportionate to the invasion of privacy."
Absence of legal basis
The Municipality of Nissewaard Announces through the intermediary of a spokesperson RTV Rijnmond knows that he needs the permission of the Dutch Data Protection Authority to collect fingerprints for presence checks and says this has changed as a result of the General Data Protection Regulation (in force since 2016). . However, investigations with the Dutch Authority for the protection of personal data reveal that, although the municipality did indeed report the storage of personal biometric data to the authority under the Data Protection Act personal data, a report does not provide a legal basis. This is required in all cases.
Reduction of discounts
RTV Rijnmond reports that after the Blokhuizen report, the municipality immediately asked the company to stop the collection and storage of fingerprints . Voorne Putten Werkt has now responded to this request and destroyed the relevant data. Blokhuizen believes that the municipality should apologize to the victims who are victims, and also notes that the cuts that have been imposed because benefit recipients have refused to give a fingerprint must be canceled.
Misunderstanding
A spokesman for the Municipality of Nissewaard points out before the Domestic Administration that the municipality received a letter from the Data Protection Authority of the time (the predecessor of the Dutch Data Protection Authority). which indicated that the municipality had complied with its statutory reporting obligation. "That did not mean what we did not do.It may be that there is a difference between being informed that you are complying with the reporting obligation and the Obtaining permission to collect data In this case, there was a misunderstanding, but it is strange that we have not been informed at the time that we are not allowed to collect these data. "
" Fingerprints for usability "
spokesperson also pointed out that it was Voorne Putten Works and not the municipality Nissewaard who collected fingerprints. "Voorne Putten Werk did this for usability. People with physical or mental disabilities also work there, and a numeric or other code is not helpful. To the spokesperson's knowledge, there is no threat in the short term. "However, I can not exclude that either, and we are now trying to find out if this is the case and if rebates were imposed because people refused to hand over their fingerprints." According to the spokesman , we can blame the municipality for not being aware of the fingerprints.We have done a lot to verify this.A quick scan after the May deadline has not shown that this is in conflict with the law. "
Source link
