Okay, I've reviewed the options a few times now. I'm leaning towards "prescribed consent" as the best answer, since that directly gives the data subject control over additional uses of their personal information.
I think the "finality" provision is the key here. The requirement that the purpose be directly related to the collector's function seems like a strong way to uphold the purpose limitation principle.
I'm a bit confused on the difference between "public domain" and "prescribed consent." I'll need to re-read those sections of the law to understand how they relate to the purpose limitation principle.
The notice requirement makes sense to me as a way to strengthen the purpose limitation principle. If the data subject is informed of the purpose, that should help ensure the data is only used for that purpose.
This seems like a tricky question. I'll need to carefully review the provisions of the PDPO to determine which one strengthens the purpose limitation principle.
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The diagram seems simple enough, but I'm not sure which of these options is the best next step in refining the model.
Okay, I've got it. Using third-party confirmations to support management's representations is a standard audit procedure, not an example of professional skepticism. The other options involve more critical thinking and challenging of management's assertions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Log in to Pass4Success
Sign in:
Report Comment
Is the comment made by USERNAME spam or abusive?
Commenting
In order to participate in the comments you need to be logged-in.
You can sign-up or
login
Magnolia
4 months agoJamal
4 months agoJonell
4 months agoNatalya
4 months agoMattie
4 months agoMarjory
5 months agoAlethea
5 months agoMalcom
5 months agoPortia
5 months agoJanella
5 months agoLawrence
5 months agoLeana
5 months agoLeslie
5 months agoTamar
5 months agoMerri
6 months agoKerry
6 months agoBrittney
6 months agoCaprice
6 months ago