Free IAPP CIPP-E Actual Exam Questions - Question 15 Discussion
subjects when collecting personal dat
a. However, both articles specify an exemption for situations in which the data subject already has
the information.
Which other situation would also exempt the data controller from this obligation under Article 14?
Not C, because just being public domain doesn’t automatically exempt the controller from informing the data subject. The key is whether it’s too much effort or if other conditions apply.
B imo, since the GDPR does allow skipping info duties if it’s too much effort, especially when alternative measures like public notices are in place. The question might not say it, but that’s the usual reasoning.
This one’s tricky, but I think going with B makes sense. The GDPR does allow skipping the info duty if it takes disproportionate effort, especially when the data is from public sources and alternative measures are taken. The question doesn’t say if those measures happened, but B covers a specific, recognized exemption. A sounds plausible but feels more about legal orders than this specific Article 14 exemption. So I’m with B on this one.
It’s B for me, but I’d add that the key here is the “disproportionate effort” aspect combined with taking alternative measures like public notices. The question doesn’t mention public notices explicitly, but Article 14 does require those as a condition to skip informing individuals. The other options don’t fit as well because A involves legal orders which are more about restrictions than exemptions, and C and D don't really match GDPR's exemptions on notification. So B makes the most sense with that context.
Guessing B here. The GDPR actually says you can skip informing the data subject if it involves disproportionate effort, especially when data comes from public sources. But this only applies if the controller takes reasonable steps like making the info public elsewhere. Options A and D seem too specific or unrelated, and C sounds close but I think the key is the effort involved rather than the number of sources. So B fits the exemption rule best, assuming the other conditions about public notice are met.
Probably A. If providing info would conflict with a police order, that seems like a clear legal barrier exempting the controller from notifying data subjects under Article 14.
B. The GDPR does mention disproportionate effort as a reason to exempt the controller, as long as they take alternative steps like public notices. It’s not just about skipping info outright.
Maybe B is the best fit here. The GDPR does allow skipping direct info to data subjects if it’s disproportionate effort, but only if the controller makes the info publicly available. That part is key and often missed in quick answers. Options A and D don’t really line up with known exemptions. C seems off because just being from public sources doesn’t automatically exempt the controller from informing individuals unless other conditions apply. The disproportionate effort one is definitely a recognized scenario where some alternative measures replace direct notice.
B/C? I think B fits better since GDPR talks about disproportionate effort as a legit excuse for not informing.