Category: Privacy Governance & Design
Article 25
Simply put
The evidence provided does not contain any material relating to Article 25 in the context of data privacy or the GDPR. The supplied sources concern the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution (presidential disability and succession) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India (freedom of conscience and religion), neither of which is relevant to the privacy or GDPR meaning of 'Article 25'. A reliable definition cannot be generated from this evidence packet.
Formal definition
No definition can be produced from the provided evidence. In the GDPR context, 'Article 25' generally refers to the provision on data protection by design and by default; however, none of the supplied sources address that provision, and this system does not invent article content or attributes not present in the evidence. To create an accurate entry, evidence drawn from the official GDPR text or authoritative privacy guidance would be required, and the definition should be verified against the current official Regulation text.
Why it matters
The evidence packet supplied for this entry does not contain any material relating to Article 25 in the data privacy or GDPR context. The sources address the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (presidential disability and succession) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India (freedom of conscience and religion). Neither concerns data protection, so no reliable statement about the privacy meaning of 'Article 25' can be drawn from this material.
In general usage within the GDPR, 'Article 25' is understood to refer to the provision on data protection by design and by default, which is a significant compliance obligation for controllers. However, because none of the supplied sources address that provision, this entry cannot responsibly describe its scope, requirements, or practical effect. Presenting a definition on the basis of unrelated constitutional sources would risk introducing inaccurate or fabricated content into a compliance program.
To produce an accurate and citable entry, evidence should be drawn from the official GDPR text or authoritative privacy guidance, and the resulting definition should be verified against the current official Regulation text. Readers should not treat this placeholder as a statement of the law.
Who it's relevant to
Compliance and editorial reviewers
This entry currently lacks supporting evidence relevant to data privacy. Reviewers should flag it for re-sourcing from the official GDPR text or authoritative privacy guidance before it is published or cited in any compliance program.
Readers seeking the GDPR meaning
Readers looking for the data protection meaning of Article 25 should be aware that this entry cannot yet provide it. The supplied sources concern unrelated constitutional provisions, and any definition should be confirmed against the current official Regulation text.
Inside Article 25
Data protection by design
An obligation on the controller to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures, such as pseudonymisation, at the time of determining the means of processing and at the time of the processing itself, in order to give effect to the data protection principles and integrate necessary safeguards. The measures are assessed against factors including the state of the art, cost of implementation, and the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing, as well as the risks to the rights and freedoms of individuals.
Data protection by default
A related obligation requiring the controller to implement measures ensuring that, by default, only personal data necessary for each specific purpose of the processing is processed. This generally extends to the amount of data collected, the extent of processing, the period of storage, and accessibility, so that by default personal data is not made accessible to an indefinite number of persons without the individual's intervention.
Addressee of the obligation
The obligations in this Article are generally directed at the controller, who determines the purposes and means of processing. Processors and product or service providers are not the direct addressees, though controllers typically rely on their design choices in practice; the boundary here is a recognised point of discussion.
Risk-based and contextual assessment
The required measures are not fixed but depend on a balancing of enumerated factors, meaning the appropriate safeguards vary case by case and are subject to assessment rather than prescribed in a single form.
Relationship to certification
The Article contemplates that an approved certification mechanism may be used as an element to demonstrate compliance with these requirements, subject to how such mechanisms are established under the Regulation.
Common questions
Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about Article 25.
Does Article 25 require me to buy special privacy-enhancing technology or use a particular vendor product?
No. Article 25 sets out the principles of data protection by design and by default, but it does not mandate any specific technology, tool, or vendor. The Regulation refers generally to appropriate technical and organisational measures, and it expressly frames the choice of measures against factors such as the state of the art, the cost of implementation, and the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing, as well as the risks to individuals. What is appropriate is therefore context and risk dependent, and organisational measures (such as policies, training, and access governance) count alongside technical ones. Any vendor framing that presents a single product as delivering Article 25 compliance should be treated with caution and assessed against your own processing.
Is data protection by design something I only need to think about once, when a system is first built?
No. Article 25 is generally understood to apply both at the time of determining the means of processing and at the time of the processing itself, which points to an ongoing obligation rather than a one-off design exercise. In practice this means revisiting measures as systems, purposes, risks, and the state of the art change over time. The 'by default' element also concerns the operational settings that govern how much personal data is processed in day-to-day use, which can drift as products evolve. You should verify the precise wording against the current official text, and note that regulatory guidance on how far the ongoing obligation extends can develop.
How does data protection by default differ from data protection by design in practice?
The two are related but distinct. Data protection by design generally concerns building appropriate measures and safeguards into processing activities and systems from the outset and throughout their lifecycle. Data protection by default generally concerns ensuring that, without individual intervention, only personal data necessary for each specific purpose is processed. In practice, 'by default' often surfaces in configuration and settings decisions, such as the volume of data collected, the extent of processing, retention periods, and accessibility. The distinction matters because a system can be well-designed in principle yet still ship with overly permissive default settings, or vice versa.
How does Article 25 relate to a Data Protection Impact Assessment under Article 35?
They are separate obligations that often work together but should not be conflated. Article 25 addresses data protection by design and by default across processing generally, while a Data Protection Impact Assessment under Article 35 is a specific process required where processing is likely to result in a high risk to individuals. In practice, a DPIA can be a useful vehicle for identifying and documenting the measures needed to satisfy Article 25, and design decisions may in turn inform a DPIA, but performing one does not automatically discharge the other. Treat them as complementary rather than interchangeable, and confirm the article references against the current text.
Who is responsible for meeting Article 25 obligations?
Article 25 is generally directed at the controller, as the party that determines the purposes and means of processing. That said, controllers typically need to consider these principles when selecting processors and when specifying requirements in a Data Processing Agreement under Article 28, since processing arrangements and the tools used affect whether design and default measures can be met. Processors and product vendors are not the direct addressees of Article 25 in the same way, though their choices can practically affect a controller's ability to comply. Allocation of responsibility should be assessed against the specific roles and contractual arrangements in each case.
How can an organisation demonstrate that it has met Article 25?
Demonstrability generally connects to the broader accountability principle, so documentation is central. Organisations typically evidence Article 25 through records of design decisions, risk assessments, data minimisation and default-setting choices, retention configurations, and the rationale for the measures selected in light of state of the art, cost, and risk. Where relevant, DPIAs, records of processing, and policies can support the picture. The Regulation also refers to the potential role of approved certification mechanisms as an element that may be used to demonstrate compliance, though availability and weight of such mechanisms can vary. What is sufficient will depend on context, and regulators may take differing views on the depth of documentation expected.
Common misconceptions
Data protection by design requires the use of a specific named technology or tool.
The Article does not mandate any particular technology. It requires appropriate technical and organisational measures determined by an assessment of factors such as the state of the art, cost, and the risks involved. Pseudonymisation is cited as an example, not a universal requirement, and the appropriate measures vary by context.
The obligation applies directly to software vendors and product manufacturers.
As drafted, the obligation is generally addressed to the controller rather than to processors or product providers. While controllers in practice depend on the design of third-party products, the direct legal responsibility under this Article typically rests with the controller, and the position on other actors is a recognised area of debate and guidance.
Data protection by design and data protection by default mean the same thing.
They are distinct but related requirements. By design concerns integrating safeguards and the data protection principles into processing from the outset, while by default concerns ensuring that, without further action, only data necessary for each specific purpose is processed, including limits on amount, extent of processing, storage period, and accessibility.
Best practices
Document the assessment behind your design choices, recording how factors such as the state of the art, cost of implementation, nature and purposes of processing, and risks to individuals were weighed, since the standard is contextual rather than fixed.
Address these requirements at the point of determining the means of processing, not only after a system is built, so that safeguards are considered when design decisions are still open.
Configure systems so that, by default, only personal data necessary for each specific purpose is collected and processed, and review default settings for data volume, extent of processing, retention periods, and who can access the data.
Apply data minimisation and consider techniques such as pseudonymisation where appropriate to the risk, treating them as example measures to be justified rather than mandatory controls.
Coordinate with any relevant data protection impact assessment where required, so that identified risks feed into the design and default measures, while keeping the two exercises distinct.
Where you rely on third-party products or processors, evaluate and record how their design supports your obligations as controller, and verify the current position and any regulator guidance rather than assuming responsibility shifts to the provider.