A charity asks whether Convention 108 still matters after the GDPR. Which assessment is most accurate for CIPP/E framework understanding?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
GDPR did not toss the old European scrapbook in the bin. Convention 108 (and 108+) is Council of Europe treaty DNA for automated personal-data protection, and it still matters historically and for parties beyond a pure EU-regulations-only view. Think foundation stones under a newer EU building, not a US consumer statute.
Full Explanation
Convention 108/108+ remains part of the European data-protection tradition—especially as Council of Europe treaty law and historical foundation—alongside the EU’s GDPR, including contexts beyond a purely EU-only lens. Charities studying CIPP/E should keep both strands visible: the GDPR as the central EU regulation within its scope, and Convention 108/108+ as enduring CoE framework and comparative foundation. Convention 108 was not repealed by the CCPA. It does not apply only inside the United States. After the GDPR it is not the only statute national courts may cite while the GDPR becomes advisory soft law. Exam caveat: “still matters” questions want coexistence and tradition, not US repeal myths or GDPR demotion. Operational check: in comparative privacy research for cross-border civic partnerships with non-EU CoE parties, note Convention 108/108+ status separately from GDPR transfer tools so counsel does not assume EU regulation mechanics apply unchanged. For municipal teams, keep a one-page decision note that states the governing instrument, why competing labels fail, and what evidence would change the conclusion. Document the decision trail so auditors can see how the civic team matched facts to the correct legal category rather than to a slogan.