This pattern covers in detail the legal and social obligations surrounding a data subject's consent to processing of their data in specific circumstances. Every use of the subject's personal data should be covered by an explicit agreement in which the data subject was made aware of the implications of their consent.
Where data controllers (e.g. organisations) aim to provide a service (or product) to users, there may be opportunities to reuse data, gather feedback, or make use of user data to further their system's value. Many controllers seek to continually collect and utilise this data, often in ways which warrant privacy concerns. For any data processing (including collection), controllers should first obtain consent from the users in question.
There are social norms surrounding the use of personal data which need to be adhered to if an controller wishes to avoid scrutiny. Users do not inherently trust controllers to handle their personal data with care for privacy. Without clearly defined boundaries, these users may have justifiable concerns about what is learned about them, and how this information may be used. Additionally, various jurisdictions supply varying compliance requirements, and these controllers need to cater to every market they provide to.
Doing otherwise, possibly by disinterest or negligence, may have financial consequences in addition to potential public outcry. Despite this, controllers regularly consider the impact that their decisions may have on competitive edge and resulting profits. The link between better decision making, possibly less sharing, and reduced monetary gains sways some controllers into unlawful forms of consent.
Concerned controllers aim to promote trust in any number of ways, potentially including an Awareness Feed and or Privacy Dashboard to properly inform their users. The controller in this context may wish to adhere to the corresponding laws for their users, or above that, genuinely value their users' rights to self-determination.
An controller aims to maximise the value of their services by gathering as much sharing and participation as possible, potentially seeing user consent as a barrier to functionality and efficiency. They may inadvertently subvert notions of consent by unnecessarily bundling together desirable services with needs for personal information, or downplaying the significance of the data involved. They undermine self-determination at the risk of losing trust from their users, and attracting legal investigations which may rule their practices unlawful.
- Controllers want to encourage participation, and thus may be less concerned with investigating or revealing tradeoffs
- Controllers may be tempted to bundle various services under a single broad consent request, pressuring users into agreements they might not otherwise accept
- Users often want to make use of new and exciting features, and therefore easily overlook downplayed privacy risks
- Some users avoid certain services as they realise the potential privacy risks are not being acknowledged
A user should be given every opportunity to assess their sharing choices prior to making their consent. The controller should aid the user in comprehending the tradeoffs apparent in using each of their services, without over-burdening the user. These consented services should be purposed-separated, so that users may make use of functionality without first granting unnecessary consent.
Controllers need to ensure that anything they do with a user's sensitive or potentially identifying data is legal. This pertains to lawfully obtained consent, for purposes which are clear and lawful in their own right. Additionally, anything they do should be resistant to backlash from users.
Services should be separated into distinct processes for which distinct consent is acquired. Each purpose requires its own consent. These permissions need to be given subsequent to ascertaining sufficient awareness in the user about the consequences of that consent.
Providing too much information may also intimidate users into making uninformed decisions, and thus awareness must be garnered in a way which is broadly accessible (see Awareness Feed). Opportunities for further reading should be available, though should not be necessary to understand the trade-offs involved.
In more personal services (i.e. one-on-one), personal privacy policies may undergo a formal negotiation. As opposed to user preferences (both at sign-up and through appropriate defaults), understanding a user's personal privacy requirements may benefit from the facilitation of a human representative. This, however, suffers from it's own drawbacks where the representative may misunderstand the user's requirements. Even in interpersonal exchanges, controllers should err on the side of caution. Where available, explicit signing of an agreement aids in proving consent.
With the ability to choose exactly what tradeoffs are agreeable to them, users will be more content, and trusting of the system. They may as a result use more services, and participate more than they otherwise would. Being aware of what information is actually needed to perform certain functionality may also prevent its use, but rightfully so as to prevent backlash.
The need for certain information for some services will bring inappropriate business processes to the foreground to be rectified, or otherwise questioned. This will likely bring the controller towards better practices, and may affect others as well. Once the public sees the controller's willingness to cooperate, trust will grow even further.
Overall adoption will grow for controllers who are shown to be trustworthy and upfront about their data processing practices. This may very well offset the costs involved in maintaining transparency.
Allowing informed and specific consent prevents controllers from soliciting misplaced consent, which greatly reduces the adoption of invasive services. These are often the most profitable services.
Lawful Consent is a compound pattern of various other consent-based patterns. Therefore it may use a combination of Informed Consent for Web-based Transactions, Obtaining Explicit Consent, and Sign an Agreement to Solve Lack of Trust on the Use of Private Data Context (or simply, Contractual Consent).
Since it contains crucial elements from each of its constituents, with the potential for additional focus based on context, this compound pattern is useful for every pattern that needs to consider user consent. As such, the list of patterns which must use this pattern is extensive and listed here non-exhaustively. Within patterns for Control they include:
- Decoupling [content] and location information visibility;
- Discouraging blanket strategies;
- Single Point of Contact;
- Buddy List;
- Reasonable Level of Control;
- Outsourcing [with consent];
- Private link
- Active broadcast of presence;
- Pay Back;
- Selective Access Control;
- Enable/Disable Functions;
- Incentivized Participation; and
- Support Selective Disclosure.
Explicit Consent / Obtaining Explicit consent via privacy agreement / Permission to Use Sensitive Data via Privacy Agreement / Sign an Agreement to Solve Lack of Trust on the Use of Private Data Context
- Privacy Dashboard;
- Policy Matching Display;
- Visual Cues;
- Accessible Policies; and
- Awareness Feed.
European Parliament, & Council of the European Union. (2015). General Data Protection Regulation. Official Journal of the European Union. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1487245302979&uri=CELEX:32016R0679
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. (2007). Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data. Working Party Opinions. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Opinion+4+/+2007+on+the+concept+of+personal+data#0
J. Porekar, A. Jerman-Blažič, and T. Klobučar, “Towards organizational privacy patterns,” Proceedings - The 2nd International Conference on the Digital Society, ICDS 2008, 2008.
C. Bier and E. Krempel, “Common Privacy Patterns in Video Surveillance and Smart Energy,” in ICCCT-2012, 2012, pp. 610–615.