IcelandAct No. 90/2018 Article 22, Automated Decisions in Iceland
In force since .
A data subject rights rule binding public and private bodies.
- Audit expectation
- none
What it requires
- Where a decision based solely on automated processing about a person in Iceland rests on a contract with them or on their explicit consent, put suitable safeguards in place, at least the right to obtain human intervention, to express their point of view and to contest the decision, under the incorporated General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Article 22(3).NIST Privacy FrameworkCT.DM-P10
- Do not subject a person in Iceland to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, that produces legal effects concerning them or similarly significantly affects them, unless the decision is necessary for entering into or performing a contract with them, is authorised by a law that also lays down suitable measures to safeguard their rights, or rests on their explicit consent, under the incorporated GDPR Article 22(1) and (2).NIST Privacy FrameworkCT.DM-P10
- Do not base a solely automated decision with legal or similarly significant effects on a person in Iceland on the special categories of personal data in the incorporated GDPR Article 9(1), unless they gave explicit consent or the processing is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest on the basis of a proportionate law, and suitable measures to safeguard their rights are in place, under the incorporated GDPR Article 22(4).NIST Privacy FrameworkCT.PO-P1
- If you make solely automated decisions about a person in Iceland of the kind the incorporated GDPR Article 22(1) and (4) describe, including profiling, tell them so and give them meaningful information about the logic involved and the significance and envisaged consequences for them: when you collect their data, within the Article 14(3) period where you obtained it from someone else, and in answering their access request, under the incorporated GDPR Articles 13(2)(f), 14(2)(g) and 15(1)(h).NIST Privacy FrameworkCM.AW-P1
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.
In the frameworks
- NIST Privacy Framework
- CT.PO-P1Policies, processes, and procedures for authorizing data processing (e.g., organizational decisions, individual consent), revoking authorizations, and maintaining authorizations are established and in place.
- CT.DM-P10Stakeholder privacy preferences are included in algorithmic design objectives and outputs are evaluated against these preferences.
- CM.AW-P1Mechanisms (e.g., notices, internal or public reports) for communicating data processing purposes, practices, associated privacy risks, and options for enabling individuals’ data processing preferences and requests are established and in place.
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST Privacy Framework, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
What record it asks for
Logging duty
Article 22 of the Act gives the data subject a right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing and points to Article 22 of the Regulation for the exceptions and safeguards (human intervention, expressing a view, contesting the decision). The safeguards and the information duties in Articles 13(2)(f), 14(2)(g) and 15(1)(h) are rights and notices, and nothing in them requires the controller to keep a record, a log or documentation of the decision. No scope clause is stated in the cited provisions.
- Kind
- None
- As of
What this law does
Act No. 90/2018 gives Regulation (EU) 2016/679 the force of law in Iceland (art. 2), and its own article 22 restates the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, that produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects a person, pointing to Article 22 of the Regulation for its exceptions.
Where such a decision rests on a contract or explicit consent, the controller must at least let the person obtain human intervention, express their point of view and contest the decision.
Under the Regulation's Article 22(4), such a decision may not rest on the special categories of personal data in Article 9(1) unless the person gave explicit consent or the processing is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest on the basis of a proportionate law, with suitable safeguards in place.
Its Articles 13(2)(f), 14(2)(g) and 15(1)(h) require the controller to tell the person that such decision-making takes place, with meaningful information about the logic involved and its significance and envisaged consequences for them, at collection, within the Article 14(3) period where the data came from another source, and on an access request.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app makes high-risk automated decisions.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .