MAINSYSTEMS 
1. Core Concepts and Legal Context
In this video we will work through a concrete decision: identify everyone who may be identifiable. The aim is to explain the criterion used and apply it to a workplace situation. We will start with the concept, move to the procedure and finish with a case to solve. The GDPR applies alongside Maltese reporting rules. Collection, access and retention require purpose and lawful basis. Protection also covers people named in reports, without removing lawful confidentiality safeguards.
A file contains data about reporting and concerned people, witnesses and third parties. Health or offence data need particular legal assessment. A case identifier does not automatically anonymise data.
Apply the following rule: Article 2 covers improper practices including various legal breaches, corruption, health, safety, environment and Union-law areas. Work-related connection, reasonable grounds under article 9, particular routes and exclusions apply. Very minor or trivial matters are excluded. Also examine special rules for certain services, professional privilege, classified information and criminal procedures. Choosing a form category does not establish protection.
2. Practical Application and National Rule
Map fields, attachments, messages and technical records. Identify purposes, roles and bases. Check special categories and restrictions. 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.
Consider how a colleague taking over tomorrow would understand the decision. Identify the verified information and its source, who is authorised to decide and who checks the result. The record should connect the decision to the material actually used rather than repeat the whole file. State critical gaps and assign a specific action to resolve them. This makes continuity independent of one person’s memory. Apply the proposed organisational steps within legal powers. In the case, distinguish observation, conclusion and hypothesis. An observation describes available evidence, a conclusion explains what can reasonably be inferred and a hypothesis still needs checking. Do not infer motives merely from unusual behaviour. Identify which further information could change the decision and whether it can be obtained lawfully and proportionately. Incomplete knowledge justifies neither certainty of guilt nor indifference to an actual risk.
For Malta, use article 21A: retain records only while necessary and proportionate for the Act or other legal requirements. This permits neither indefinite storage nor a fixed five-year period. Check pending proceedings and document any reason to suspend deletion. Article 6A requires that manifestly irrelevant data not be collected and, if accidentally collected, be deleted without undue delay. Address copies and exports alongside the main file.
An attachment contains unrelated health information about a third party, noticed during initial assessment. 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.
3. Case Study and Key Decision Points
The exercise is as follows: Is every attachment necessarily part of the required file? 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. Examine relevance and lawful processing, applying article 6A to irrelevant data.
One mistake to avoid is: treating everything received as necessary.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A report is automatically considered protected because it includes the word corruption. Which check is missing?
Examine the facts, work-related context and Maltese protection conditions. The form label helps organise information but does not decide legal scope. If the case falls outside scope, identify a suitable procedure without unnecessary disclosure.
Remember these three points. First: All data subjects. Second: Special categories. Third: Clear purpose.
To apply this learning, retrieve the procedure used in your organisation or consider how you would create it. Identify one difference between that procedure and the case we have just resolved. Write down the change you would propose and the information needed to justify it. You can complete this short task in the handout accompanying the video.
The expected outcome of this unit is the ability to identify everyone who may be identifiable. Review the explained answer whenever you are unsure and keep the summary to support a future decision.
In the worksheet, connect your proposal to this video's national rule. Identify the document or platform field that would need to change and who should approve the change. If you conclude that it is good practice, explain the risk you intend to reduce. If you conclude that there is a legal duty, record its source and scope.