Conducts pre-DPIA threshold screening to determine whether a full Data Protection Impact Assessment is required under GDPR Article 35. Applies the EDPB WP248rev.01 nine-criteria test, national supervisory authority blacklists, and organisational risk appetite to produce a documented screening decision. Keywords: threshold screening, DPIA trigger, pre-DPIA, WP248, Article 35(1), blacklist, screening decision.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Article 35(1) GDPR requires a DPIA when processing is "likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons." This skill provides a structured screening methodology to make that determination before committing to a full DPIA.
Processing that meets two or more of the following criteria generally requires a DPIA:
| # | Criterion | GDPR Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Evaluation or scoring | Art. 35(3)(a) |
| 2 | Automated decision-making with legal/similar effect | Art. 35(3)(a) |
| 3 | Systematic monitoring | Art. 35(3)(c) |
| 4 | Sensitive data or data of highly personal nature | Art. 9, Art. 10 |
| 5 | Data processed on a large scale | Recital 91 |
| 6 | Matching or combining datasets | WP248 |
| 7 | Data concerning vulnerable data subjects | WP248 |
| 8 | Innovative use or applying new technological solutions | WP248 |
| 9 | Processing that prevents data subjects from exercising a right | Art. 22, Art. 35(3)(b) |
A DPIA is always required for:
Each EU/EEA supervisory authority publishes a list of processing operations requiring a DPIA. The screening must check the relevant national blacklist based on the controller establishment.
IF any Art. 35(3) mandatory trigger is met → DPIA REQUIRED
ELSE IF processing appears on national SA blacklist → DPIA REQUIRED
ELSE IF 2+ WP248 criteria are met → DPIA REQUIRED
ELSE IF 1 WP248 criterion is met → DPIA RECOMMENDED (risk-based decision)
ELSE → DPIA NOT REQUIRED (document exemption)
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Implements 42 CFR Part 2 protections for substance use disorder patient records. Covers written consent requirements stricter than HIPAA, re-disclosure prohibition, court order procedures, qualified service organization agreements, and 2024 amendments aligning Part 2 with HIPAA. Keywords: 42 CFR Part 2, substance use disorder, SUD records, re-disclosure, consent, Part 2 amendments.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Guides assessment of third-country adequacy decisions under GDPR Article 45 for international data transfers. Covers the current EC adequacy decisions list, adequacy assessment criteria, partial adequacy handling, and monitoring of adequacy decision reviews. Keywords: adequacy decision, Article 45, third country, adequate protection, EC adequacy list.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Implements age-gating mechanisms for online services to restrict access based on user age. Covers hard gates versus soft gates, neutral age prompts, re-verification triggers, circumvention prevention, and regulatory requirements under GDPR, COPPA, UK Online Safety Act, and DSA. Keywords: age gate, age restriction, neutral prompt, children, online services, access control.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Evaluates and implements age estimation and verification technologies for online services. Covers facial age estimation, digital ID verification, self-declaration with risk assessment, AI-based age estimation, and the accuracy versus privacy tradeoff. Includes ICO guidance and euCONSENT framework. Keywords: age verification, age estimation, facial analysis, digital ID, children, online safety.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Preparing EU AI Act compliance documentation for high-risk AI systems. Covers Annex III classification, technical documentation under Art. 11, conformity assessment, risk management systems, and CE marking requirements. Keywords: EU AI Act, high-risk AI, Annex III, conformity assessment, CE marking.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Implements GDPR Art. 22 automated decision-making and AI Act Art. 14 human oversight requirements for AI systems. Covers identification of solely automated decisions, meaningful human intervention design, logic explanation mechanisms, and contestation procedures. Keywords: Art. 22, automated decision, human oversight, AI Act, profiling, contestation.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。