Editing CE - N° 432656

From GDPRhub

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 72: Line 72:
  
 
===Facts===
 
===Facts===
On May 13th, 2019 the French government adopted a decree 2019-452 allowing the creation of a common biometric authentication system for several government and public service websites applications<ref>https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000038475477/</ref>. This system is part of the FranceConnect project which allows to login public service websites using your login and password of another public service website<ref>https://franceconnect.gouv.fr/</ref>.
+
On May 13th, 2019 the French government adopted a decree 2019-452 allowing the creation of a biometric authentication system for government and public service application<ref>https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000038475477/</ref>. This system is part of the FranceConnect project which allows to login public service websites using your login and password of another public service website<ref>https://franceconnect.gouv.fr/</ref>.
  
 
The french organization La Quadrature du Net (LQDN) which promotes digital rights and defends freedom of citizens challenged the legality of the decree. The organization argued that the decree is not based on a lawful consent as described in [[article 4 GDPR#11|article 4(11)]] and [[article 7 GDPR#4|article 7(4)]] GDPR and required in article [[article 9 GDPR#2#a|article 9(2)(a)]] when dealing with sensitive data. LQDN also argued that the data collection was disproportionate to the purpose of the processing.
 
The french organization La Quadrature du Net (LQDN) which promotes digital rights and defends freedom of citizens challenged the legality of the decree. The organization argued that the decree is not based on a lawful consent as described in [[article 4 GDPR#11|article 4(11)]] and [[article 7 GDPR#4|article 7(4)]] GDPR and required in article [[article 9 GDPR#2#a|article 9(2)(a)]] when dealing with sensitive data. LQDN also argued that the data collection was disproportionate to the purpose of the processing.

Please note that all contributions to GDPRhub are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (see GDPRhub:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To edit this page, please answer the question that appears below (more info):

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

Template used on this page: