Personal Data Use in Employment

📌 Employee Data under GDPR vs. CCPA: When Privacy Enters the Workplace Not all personal data belongs to customers. What about employees? Whether you're running HR for a European startup or a California tech firm, privacy law has plenty to say about the people behind the screen. Let’s break it down 👇 🇪🇺 GDPR: Full Rights for Employees In the EU, employees are fully-fledged data subjects - just like consumers. They enjoy the full suite of rights: ✅ Access to personnel files ✅ Rectification of errors ✅ Erasure (in some cases) ✅ Right to object - when processing (e.g. monitoring/profiling) is based on legitimate interest ✅ DPIAs - required when processing is high risk (e.g. surveillance, biometrics) 🧠 Consent? Not ideal. Per Recital 43, consent is unlikely to be freely given in situations of power imbalance - like between an employer and an employee. → Employers should rely on legal obligation or legitimate interest, with safeguards. 🧪 Example: A German company uses facial recognition to track attendance. This biometric data triggers a DPIA, requires a valid legal basis, and additional safeguards. 💡 Bottom Line: In Europe, workplace privacy is an extension of fundamental rights. Employers must justify why and how they process employee data. 🇺🇸 CCPA: Employees as Consumers California’s CCPA includes employees, contractors, and job applicants under the term “consumer.” This means California employers must now uphold: 📋 Right to know what’s collected 🧽 Right to delete (with exceptions) 🛠️ Right to correct 🚫 Right to opt out of sale/sharing 🛑 Right to limit use of sensitive personal info ⚠️ Key points: – No formal DPIA requirement – Consent is still valid in many cases – No specific rules yet on employee surveillance, though broader CCPA rules apply 🧪 Example: A California employer tracks geolocation via mobile app. This may count as sensitive personal info, and employees could limit its secondary use. 💡 Bottom Line: California now extends privacy rights to employees - but within a consumer rights framework, not a fundamental rights regime. 🎯 The Core Difference GDPR → Rights-based, principle-heavy, accountability-focused CCPA → Consumer-centric, flexible, still evolving 🌍 What This Says About Privacy Culture 🇪🇺 “An employee is a rights-holder - regardless of role.” 🇺🇸 “An employee is a consumer - now entitled to more transparency and control.” Same desk. Different philosophies. 👇 Want a follow-up on: 🔹 Vendor risk - how third-party liability plays out under GDPR vs. CCPA? 🔹 What businesses need to consider before EU-U.S. data transfers? #GDPR #CCPA #CPRA #EmployeeData #WorkplacePrivacy #HRCompliance #CIPPE #CIPPUS #PrivacyProfessional #EUUSPrivacySeries #DataRights #GlobalPrivacy #LinkedInLearning #InfoSec #DataProtection

Most professionals know they have a credit report. Almost none know they have an employment dossier: updated every two weeks, held by Equifax, and queried by lenders and employers without you ever seeing it. It's called The Work Number. It contains: your full employment history, job titles, start/end dates, and in most cases your exact gross earnings for every pay period going back years. It's built directly from payroll data: no direct consent, no notification, no opt-in. This matters most when you're: 🔹 Actively job searching 🔹 Applying for a mortgage or car loan 🔹 Onboarding somewhere new and hitting unexpected delays Errors in this report don't announce themselves. They just quietly create friction at the worst possible time. The fix: Request your free Employment Data Report at https://lnkd.in/dqpyWbNV. It shows you every data point on file and every entity that has queried your record in the last 24 months. Mine ran 49 pages. Yours might too. Dispute errors. Freeze income access if you want it. At minimum — know what's out there. Consider yourself informed and happy hunting. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/dqpyWbNV #DataPrivacy #EmploymentVerification #CareerTips #KnowYourRights

Your company just got fined €80,000 for using employee personal phones as work tools. I analyzed a fresh GDPR enforcement case from Spain (Agencia Española de Protección de Datos - AEPD) that every HR and privacy leader needs to understand. Majorel SP SOLUTIONS required employees to provide personal mobile numbers for two-factor authentication to access a client's platform. No corporate devices offered. No real choice given. The Spanish DPA ruled this unlawful. Here's why: The company argued "contract performance" as legal basis under Article 6(1)(b). The authority rejected this completely. Three critical failures: 1. Employers must provide work tools - personal devices cannot substitute corporate infrastructure when less intrusive alternatives exist 2. The ***Data Protection Officer warned against *** this practice months earlier - management ignored the advice 3. 203 of 364 employees had personal numbers exposed to a third party without valid consent The National Court had already established this principle: if two-factor authentication is required, the employer provides the necessary tools. Period. What makes this case significant for businesses? India's DPDP Act implementation is approaching. Similar principles around employer-employee data handling will apply. Organizations using personal devices for work authentication need to reassess their practices now. The fine was reduced to €48,000 after voluntary payment and acknowledgment. But the reputational damage? That stays. Is your organization using employee personal phones for work authentication? What's your legal basis?

A VP at one of my clients swore she uses Claude every day. Her usage logs said otherwise. I was trying to help her team get more out of the tool, so I pulled the data. She'd used it a handful of times in the past month. She'd been logging into her personal Claude account on her work laptop. Most of her actual usage was with that account. Including uploading corporate docs to ask questions about vendor contracts. Whoops. This is more common than people think. If you're already signed into a personal Google account in the browser, you can land on the personal AI account without realizing it. The next time you open the app, it just remembers you. For mid-market leaders, this matters. Personal accounts don't have the data protections of enterprise tiers. Customer data, contracts, financials, anything you wouldn't paste into a personal Gmail probably shouldn't be in there either. Worth doing this week: ask your team which AI tools they use, then ask which account they're logged into. Pull a usage report from your enterprise admin. See if the story matches the data. Nobody in this story was doing anything wrong. They were just trying to get work done. But the data still ended up somewhere.

🚀 𝐄𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐎𝐘𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐈: 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐀𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐀𝐍 𝐑𝐄𝐆𝐔𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐘 𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓🚀 AI is already reshaping our lives. One of the most profound transformations is happening in the workplace. AI is changing how we do our jobs—and soon, it will change which jobs exist at all. Some roles will disappear, while new ones emerge. Naturally, unions are concerned—not just about job losses, but about mental health, workplace safety, and the risks of unregulated AI adoption. They have been vocal in demanding that workers be at the centre of AI adoption decisions. We are at a crossroads: how do we balance AI-driven productivity gains with the impact on workers? 📢 The House Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training has released a report on the digital transformation of workplaces, examining the rapid rise of automated decision-making and machine learning in employment. 107 pages of insights, challenges, and, crucially, 21 recommendations. There's a lot in there, but some key details include: 📌 Regulating AI in employment – The report recommends that AI used in employment decisions (such as hiring and termination) be classified as high-risk, ensuring stronger oversight and safeguards against unfair or biased outcomes. 📌 Strengthening worker privacy protections – It's clear the current privacy laws fail to protect workers’ privacy. At the same time, the Fair Work Act does not contain dedicated privacy protections. The report recommends: 🔹 Banning high-risk uses of workers data, such as providing it to AI developers. 🔹 Prohibiting the sale to third parties of workers’ personal data. 🔹 Requiring transparency in workplace surveillance and data use. 🔹 Empowering the Fair Work Commission to handle privacy-related complaints. 📌 Ensuring worker consultation on AI adoption – Employers should be obligated to consult workers throughout AI adoption, ensuring that new technologies are implemented fairly and do not unfairly disadvantage employees. 📌 Mandating independent AI audits – Government audits of AI are recommended to monitor bias, fairness, and compliance, ensuring AI decisions meet ethical and legal standards. The industrial relations fire has long been burning between unions, employees, and employers—and AI is accelerant. We must strike the balance between AI adoption and worker protections. The employee records exemption leaves many workers without real privacy protections. If AI is to be used fairly in workplaces, reforms here will be just as important as AI-specific regulation. It's inevitable that many workers will be impacted by the AI revolution, but get policies right—and Australia wins. Support AI-driven innovation while ensuring retraining, transparency, and fairness. Get it wrong—and we risk exacerbating job insecurity, discrimination, and workplace inequality - we all lose. #AI #FutureOfWork #Privacy #CyberSecurity #ArtificialIntelligence #EmploymentLaw #DigitalTransformation #AIRegulation

HR folks ‼️ We neeeeed to talk about employee data and AI. With the recent Anthropic code leak and a major software supply chain attack hitting developer tools this week, it's got me thinking about privacy and how I'm seeing HR teams use AI. 🚨 If you're putting real employee or candidate details into ChatGPT, Claude or similar tools, it doesn't matter if the model doesn't train on the data. Sending it could be the problem. Where people get caught out 😅 - The moment you hit send on employee or candidate info, you've disclosed it to a third party. Without authorisation and a lawful basis, this triggers Privacy Act obligations - "Not used for training" is not a legal safety net - Free and personal paid plans are consumer tier and unlikely to include a Data Processing Agreement. No DPA means you have no contractual basis to process employee data 👉 ps: a Data Processing Agreement is a contract that legally governs how a third party handles your data, including compliance with privacy laws like the Australian Privacy Act and GDPR. We like DPAs 😍 Common examples I've seen 👀 - Drafting responses to employee complaints with real details - Sense checking performance issues - Uploading engagement survey data - Pasting CVs or interview notes with candidate details against role requirements What to do instead 💡 - Check whether your plan's terms actually include a DPA and don't assume a paid plan or "pro" tier will have it. - De-identify before using any tool without a DPA. Remove anything that could realistically identify someone 🕵 - Use synthetic data to test new platforms or your homemade vibe coded tools (I can share mine, just drop me a DM) If you're using AI to streamline P&C work (honestly who isn't...), this is very much worth looking into.

Ever heard of employee marketing? This involves promoting a company’s products or services through the company’s or employees' social media accounts. It can significantly enhance a company's organic reach by humanizing the brand and fostering authenticity. While this strategy is effective for brand promotion, there are critical data protection considerations. Recently, there has been a rise in complaints from former employees regarding the use of their personal data such as images on social media after they leave the company. Recently, Amaron Batteries Kenya (ODPC Complaint No. 679 of 2024) was ordered to pay KSH 750,000 in compensation to a former employee for failing to remove his images upon request and not providing proof that consent for their use had been freely given. The company argued that the employee had consented and even engaged with comments on the posts. However, they could not provide adequate proof of consent, and the Data Commissioner raised concerns about the nature of consent in an employer-employee relationship, given the inherent power imbalance. Employees may feel compelled to agree out of fear of potential repercussions, such as job loss or workplace consequences. Here’s how you can best use employee marketing without breaching data protection laws, both during and after employment: 📌 Obtain explicit, freely given consent: Ensure employees are fully aware of how their personal data, including images, will be used, and that they can refuse without fear of repercussions. Consent should be documented and revisited periodically.  📌 Limit use to employment tenure: Clearly outline that employee marketing will only apply during their tenure. Upon exit, promptly remove any personal data, including images, from marketing materials unless separate consent for continued use is obtained. 📌 Provide clear opt-out mechanisms: Allow employees to withdraw their consent at any time and ensure a smooth process for them to request the removal of their data, even during employment. 📌 Use alternative lawful bases: When consent is not appropriate or cannot be freely given, consider relying on other lawful bases for processing, such as legitimate interests, but ensure this does not override employees' rights. 📌 Review and update marketing content: Regularly audit marketing materials that include employee data, especially when employees exit, and promptly comply with any data subject rights requests, including requests for erasure. What are your thoughts on this? #dataprotection #dataprivacy #compliance

Are you using your personal phone for work? I recently spoke with someone who got let go from their job. It came as a surprise and so did the fact that IT had remotely wiped out half of their professional contacts during offboarding.  If you're using your personal phone for work, this could happen to you. When your employer asks you to install work email or Slack on your personal device, it seems convenient. But what most employees don't realize is that Mobile Device Management (MDM) software gives your company significant control over your device, including the ability to wipe data. The issue is particularly problematic with contacts. If you save a client or colleague's information through your work email system, those contacts are legally considered company property. When you leave, the company can remove that data. And sometimes personal contacts get caught in the crossfire. What you can do about it: Keep accounts separate. Never save contacts to your work email account. Use your personal iCloud or Google account exclusively, even for work contacts. Back up regularly. Export your contacts monthly to a personal cloud service. Ask before you install. What MDM software does the company use? Can they wipe your entire phone or just the work container? What happens when you leave? Request a company device. If your role depends on maintaining professional relationships, push for a separate work phone. Many companies will provide one if you ask. Document your network separately. Keep a spreadsheet or CRM with key contacts and relationship notes outside your phone. Your professional network took years to build. Don't let it disappear in seconds because of a checkbox you didn't read carefully in your onboarding paperwork. Before you install that next work app on your personal phone, ask yourself: Is the convenience worth the risk?  I am not a fan of Slack or any team chat on my phone but curious what people are doing these days.  Would you carry two phones?

ICYMI, the CFPB warned employers that FCRA can apply when using AI or software generated scores for employees. Here's what to know and check ⬇️ The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released a circular addressing how the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) applies in the employment context, including when employers make employment decisions using #AI or algorithmic generated scores, background "dossiers", or other third-party consumer reports. In general, the circular indicates that these practices are all potentially subject to FCRA when an employer obtains the scores, dossiers, or reports from a third-party source. It shares a number of examples of data types that may be subject to FCRA when used by employers, including reports or insights from third parties, or third-party algorithm-produced scores or assessments about employees where those services use data from sources other than the employer to generate the scores or assessments. To identify whether your organization has unidentified HR or #recruitment related FCRA obligations based on this guidance, consider:   🔹Checking in with HR and Recruitment teams to understand what third-party software, services, and data sources they obtain and how they use them; 🔹Assessing whether the software or services include any scoring or assessment capabilities or external data sources; 🔹Determining if third-party data providers share data used for #employment or #hiring purposes; 🔹Confirming existing contracts with third-party software and service providers have helpful provisions (like representations and warranties that third-party data isn't used to help score or assess employees/candidates if de-scoping FCRA is the objective); 🔹Sharing this circular and doing targeted training to stakeholders like HR, employment legal, and procurement so they're aware of the issue when evaluating and contracting for third-party solutions in this space; and 🔹Validating that existing #privacy assessment processes would identify this issue when assessing employee and candidate related software, services, and data sources. If FCRA applies, it includes a number of processes and employee rights that will need to be honored, such as potentially obtaining consent to obtain the information, notices and transparency requirements including before adverse actions are taken, and dispute processes related to the information used.   See the CFPB circular (https://lnkd.in/gmTuipXe) and press release (https://lnkd.in/gbYiDCBs) for more details.