Limiting collection to necessary information

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

Today we will learn to limit collection to a particular handling need. Throughout the video, consider the difference between knowing a rule and applying it to a decision. We will work through an example, identify a possible failure and develop a response that can be used at work. Reports may contain information about reporters, persons concerned and bystanders. The GDPR, Latvian data-processing law and special reporting rules govern processing. Distinguish lawful handling from unjustified collection, sharing and retention.

Article 5 requires purpose limitation and minimisation. Technical access does not justify a whole mailbox or personal file. A new purpose requires assessment. Restricted reporting-file access does not mean that everything may be collected.

Apply the following rule: Section 6(1) requires identifying information for formal reports. However, since 2026 section 10(3) protects people initially reporting without those requirements who are subsequently identified as whistleblowers and meet the statutory features. Section 11 requires pseudonymisation after recognition subject to exceptions, restricted access and proper identity protection. Anonymity differs from confidentiality.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Connect information to a handling question. Choose necessary extracts or targeted requests. Justify need and lawfully address irrelevant data. Retention duties do not justify excessive initial collection. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

One invoice inquiry requests the whole health file. The team stops it and seeks invoice-processing material only. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Does possible future usefulness justify collecting everything? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. Establish necessity for the specific purpose first. Excessive data may harm people and obscure relevant analysis.

One mistake to avoid is: collecting data just in case.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The site promises anonymity but requires name and an identity-document copy. How should the contradiction be corrected?

Distinguish anonymous submission from formal reporting with section 6 data. Identification requirements do not themselves justify a document copy. Explain section 10(3) protection for a later-identified person and section 11 pseudonymisation. Align functionality, wording and minimisation.