MAINSYSTEMS 
apply data minimisation when receiving and handling reports
1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards
Today we will learn to apply data minimisation when receiving and handling reports. 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. Case files may contain information about reporting persons, witnesses and people concerned. The Polish Act and GDPR require assessment of purpose, scope and access. The course also covers retention, rights and incidents, distinguishing registers, case documentation and records in other proceedings.
Data minimisation requires adequate, relevant information limited to what is necessary. Avoid excessive collection and remove clearly irrelevant data under applicable rules. This does not authorise destruction of relevant evidence or silent alteration of a document. Document the decision, preserve necessary material intact and use redacted copies where appropriate.
Apply the following rule: Article 7 allows anonymous reports. The procedure defines the chosen approach, subject to specific provisions. Later identification and retaliation do not exclude protection where Article 6 conditions are met. Confidentiality restricts disclosure to unauthorised persons; it is not a promise that identity can never lawfully be disclosed in proceedings. User information must match the channel’s actual functions.
2. Practical Implementation & Procedure
Review form fields and the need for attachments. At intake, identify clearly unrelated information, decide what to do and record the decision without reproducing deleted data. Obtain competent assessment if relevance or retention is uncertain. Do not use reporting to create parallel worker information databases without a legitimate purpose. 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
A large file includes a relevant invoice and private records about other people. The team identifies unnecessary material and applies the deletion rule rather than waiting for closure. 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: May every item be retained until proceedings end? 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. Irrelevant data have a separate requirement for deletion without delay, subject to the statutory limit. Necessity must be assessed rather than presumed.
One mistake to avoid is: confusing case integrity with indiscriminate retention of everything received.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The form always requires a name and an identity-document copy although the page promises anonymity. What must change?
Check the adopted approach under Article 7 and the channel’s actual functions. Do not collect an unnecessary identity copy for technical convenience. Correct the form and public information together. Explain anonymous versus confidential reporting. Assess information already received under necessity and the applicable deletion process.