Seppe Vansteelant: ConsentStatus ImplicitlyGiven cannot be an option in the context of this model.

[michaelgeamanu]

Bij de enumeration ConsentStatus: ‘ImplicitlyGiven’ kan nooit een geldige manier zijn om toestemming te geven. Ik denk dat dit ook afkomstig is van een andere standaard, maar een impliciete of stilzwijgende toestemming kan nooit geldig zijn in het kader van de GDPR (in het contractenrecht daarentegen soms wel).

[GeertThijs]

As a concept it exists allright, as it is mentioned as well in GConsent as in the DPV ontology (named ImplicitlyGivenConsent and ImpliedConsent respectively). ImpliedConsent is for example the fact that if you walk by a "You are on CCTV" notice you implictly consent to be filmed. I agree that in the context of the GDPR this might not be enough to allow Processing, but this is just the information you need to come to that conclusion. So I would not leave it out. Real problem though is that an ImpliedConsent is classified as being ValidForProcessing in the codelist, which is just what you claim is incorrect. This is a result of mixing up consentType and consentStatus in the same codelist. I made issue #45 to report on this.

[SeppeVansteelant]

I understand. Although indeed for CCTV you are right, but this is only the case because there is specific law that allows this. This law (Wet van 21 Maart 2007 tot regeling van de plaatsing en het gebruik van bewakingscamera's) forms the basis of this processing activity and is lex specialis to the GDPR. It cannot be used as a general concept for other cases.