You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

November 1, 2022

Thailand: Operationalising PDPA – Lawful Basis, Sensitive Personal Data, and Data Processing Safeguards

Subscribe to Updates
OneTrust DataGuidance

Background

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act 2019 (‘PDPA’) is the country’s first unified data privacy legislation for personal data protection. Coming at a time when people around the world are increasingly aware of the risks and negative consequences of their personal data being compromised, the PDPA seeks to align with international standards, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) (‘GDPR’).

Prior to the enactment of the PDPA, privacy rights were recognised in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand. Beyond this, the handling of personal data was governed by specific regulations for a handful of sectors, such as telecommunications, financial institutions, securities, and life sciences.

The PDPA was announced in the Royal Gazette of the Kingdom of Thailand on 27 May 2019, with an exemption for the enforcement of its requirements in relation to the collection, use, disclosure, and transfer (‘process’ or ‘processing’) of personal data, as well as its provisions on data subjects rights. After some delays caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic over the past two years, the PDPA finally came fully into force on 1 June 2022.

Unlike most legislation in Thailand, the PDPA has an extraterritorial aspect whereby data controllers and data processors outside Thailand may be subject to the PDPA if the processing activities they undertake fall under the criteria prescribed in the PDPA.

The basics

The PDPA defines personal data as any data pertaining to a living natural person that enables the identification of that person, whether directly or indirectly, such as phone number, address, email address, or anything else that might enable the data subject’s identification. The PDPA applies to personal data in any form, whether digital or otherwise.

The PDPA introduces two main roles relating to the handling of others’ personal data: the data controller and the data processor. A data controller is a person or entity with power to make decisions regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data. A data processor is a person or entity that collects, uses, or discloses personal data on behalf of, or under the instructions of, the data controller. The data controller carries significant liability and obligations, while the data processor’s obligations and liabilities are very limited in comparison. The data processor only needs to process personal data in accordance with instructions from the data controller, while the data controller has to establish a lawful basis for the processing of personal data (e.g. request consent from the data subject) and notify the relevant data subjects about the processing.

Lawful basis

Similar to the EU’s GDPR, the key obligation for the processing of personal data under the PDPA is the lawful basis requirement. Under the PDPA, the data controller must obtain consent for the processing of personal data from the data controller, unless the processing activity can rely on other lawful bases, such as when the personal information is for educational, research, or statistics collection purposes (provided appropriate personal data protection measures are in place), or when it helps to prevent danger to a person’s life, body, or health. Also, certain contractual obligations do not require further consent. For instance, an agreement to sell goods and deliver them to various locations or email addresses would not need consent for handling each separate delivery address or email.

In addition, there is an exemption covering the ‘legitimate interest’ of the data controller or a third party. When the data controller wishes to rely on legitimate interest for processing personal data, the data controller must balance its own or another party’s legitimate interest with the need to uphold the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects.

When the processing of personal data needs to rely on consent as a lawful basis, the consent must be requested in accordance with the conditions prescribed in the PDPA. The consent must be requested before or at the time of collection of personal data, in writing or electronic form, and using clear and pain language. Moreover, it cannot be deceptive or cause the data subject to misunderstand.

Sensitive personal data

The PDPA also provides more protection to certain types of sensitive personal data by placing more restrictions on the processing of such sensitive personal data, which includes personal data pertaining to race, ethnic origin, political opinions, disability, creed, religious or philosophical beliefs, sexual behaviour, and criminal records, as well as health data, trade union information, genetic data, and biometric data. This list is not fixed, as the regulator under the PDPA, the Personal Data Protection Committee (‘PDPC’), may further identify other types of sensitive personal data in the future.

To process sensitive personal data, the data controller must obtain explicit consent from the data subject, unless the processing activity can rely on other lawful bases. The exemptions for the explicit consent requirement or other lawful bases that the data controller could rely on are very limited; they are not the same as the exemptions for the consent requirement for general personal data. Examples of the explicit consent exemption include that the processing of sensitive personal data is:

  • conducted to prevent danger to a person’s life, body, or health;
  • necessary for the establishment, compliance, exercise, or defence of legal claims; or
  • necessary for compliance with a law to achieve the purposes with respect to specific matters, including labour protection.

Appropriate safeguards for processing data

The PDPA also prescribes obligations for the data controller to comply with, when processing personal data. Their first obligation is to ensure that, throughout its processing, the personal data remains correct, up-to-date, complete, and not misleading. In terms of security and maintenance, the data controller must implement suitable measures to prevent the loss, unauthorised access, alteration, or disclosure of personal data. These measures must be reviewed whenever necessary, such as after the implementation of technological developments. The data must be recorded in a form – either written or electronic – that can be inspected by the data subject or an authorised party. When the storage period expires, the personal data is no longer relevant or exceeds the scope of necessity, or the consent is withdrawn, the data controller is also responsible for seeing that the personal data is erased.

When a data controller discloses or shares personal data with other persons, it must also implement measures to prevent unauthorised use and disclosure. If the data controller engages a data processor to do this upon its instructions, a data processing agreement must also be in place to ensure that the data processor will comply with the PDPA and the data controller’s instructions.

Furthermore, when personal data is to be transferred overseas, the data controller must ensure that the destination country has adequate personal data protection standards. If these standards are not adequate, the data controller may need to apply additional safeguards to personal data when it is transferred to the foreign country.

Conclusion and outlook

Some of the PDPA’s many new requirements and rules for the processing of personal data will become more precise with further clarifications from the PDPC. This process may affect data controllers and data processors – both abroad and in Thailand – and bring new understandings of how best to comply with the law. Business operators in Thailand and outside the country therefore need to stay informed about the enforcement of the PDPA and be prepared to adjust their compliance strategies accordingly.

Despite the challenges of adjusting to new regulatory requirements, businesses will likely find that the PDPA enables them to conduct their personal data-related operations more smoothly and according to internationally accepted standards.

 

This article was first published by OneTrust DataGuidance as part four of their “Operationalising PDPA” series. To view the original and browse other articles in the series, please visit the OneTrust DataGuidance website.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 19, 2024
Vietnam’s financial landscape is set to further transform on July 1, 2024, when the government’s long-awaited Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024 (“Decree 52”), will officially replace Decree No. 101/2012/ND-CP dated November 22, 2012, on non-cash payments (“Decree 101”). Decree 52 marks an important milestone by introducing the country’s first-ever legal definition of e-money. In addition, the decree brings forth new updates to regulations governing payment and intermediary payment services, laying the groundwork for more comprehensive guidance that will be provided in draft circulars now being developed by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV). Non-Cash Payment Instruments The new definition of non-cash payment instruments under Decree 52 expands upon the previous definition in Decree 101. Notably, it clearly specifies the issuing entities as payment service providers, financial companies licensed to issue credit cards, and e-wallet service providers. Additionally, the new definition further clarifies that bank cards include debit, credit, and prepaid cards, and adds e-wallets to the list of non-cash payment instruments. Unlawful non-cash payment instruments are still defined as those that are not otherwise specified. E-Money Prior to Decree 52, the concept of e-money lacked a precise legal definition, despite its growing prevalence in forms like prepaid cards and e-wallets. The absence of a clear framework for e-money led to confusion with terms like “cryptpcurrency” and “virtual currency” and left significant ambiguity on whether e-money includes certain instruments, such as online game cards and mobile money. Decree 52 addresses this issue by clearly defining e-money as value in Vietnamese dong (VND) stored electronically and prepaid by customers to banks, foreign bank branches, and e-wallet service providers. It also specifically designates e-wallets and prepaid cards as types of storage mechanisms for e-money. Non-Cash Payment Services Decree 52 categorizes non-cash payment services into services with and without client payment
Read More
June 19, 2024
On June 14, 2024, the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released a draft notification under the Personal Data Protection Act 2019 (PDPA), setting out criteria for how data controllers must delete, destroy, and de-identify personal data. According to the PDPA, a data subject can request that a data controller delete, destroy, or de-identify their personal data in any of the following circumstances: The personal data is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected, used, or disclosed. The data subject has withdrawn their consent for the processing of the personal data, and no other lawful basis for processing remains. The data subject has objected to the processing of their personal data on grounds of legitimate interests or official tasks, the data controller has no other compelling grounds to refuse the request, and the data is not needed for legal claims. The data subject objects to the processing of their personal data for direct marketing purposes. The processing of personal data is unlawful. The draft stipulates that data controllers respond to a data subject’s request to delete, destroy, or de-identify personal data immediately, and within 60 days of receiving the request. If the data controller cannot fulfill the request immediately, they must take interim measures to ensure that the personal data is made difficult to collect, use, or disclose. This includes implementing measures such as preventing access to the data and applying appropriate security measures to protect the data from unauthorized use or disclosure. De-identification or Anonymization of Personal Data In certain circumstances, a data controller may opt to de-identify or anonymize personal data, rather than delete or destroy it. If doing so, the data controller must satisfy the following criteria: There must be a structured process to remove or eliminate all direct identifiers linked to the
Read More
May 15, 2024
On May 1, 2024, Thailand’s National Cyber Security Committee (NCSC) published the draft NCSC Notification Re: Cloud Cybersecurity Standards for a public hearing period, which was open until May 14, 2024. These standards have been drafted to drive the country’s cloud-first policy with the aim of minimizing risks from cyber threats to cloud services utilized by government agencies, supervising or regulating organizations, and critical information infrastructure (CII) organizations. The key points of the draft Cloud Cybersecurity Standards are below. Scope The standards apply to government agencies, supervising or regulating organizations, and CII organizations under the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562 (2019), as well as cloud service providers (defined below). The standards prescribe cloud system cybersecurity measures for cloud service customers (defined below) and providers only to the extent that the service is provided to the in-scope organizations outlined above. Definitions Cloud service customers (CSCs): In-scope organizations that have a formal contractual agreement to use cloud services provided by a cloud service provider. Cloud service providers (CSPs): Persons who enable cloud services to be used by a cloud service customer, responsible for maintaining infrastructure, platforms, and software that enable provision of the cloud services and for managing these resources to ensure their accessibility, security, and scalability for their cloud service customers. Application In-scope organizations that will use or have been using cloud services must comply with the Cloud Cybersecurity Standards by taking into account their data or technology information systems’ level of impact, as specified in the previously issued Notification of the NCSC Re: Standards for Defining the Security Category for Data and Information Systems B.E. 2566 (2023). The impact level related to personal data is to be rated as being at least at the medium level, and the minimum standards for that level specified in the draft Cloud Cybersecurity Standards
Read More
May 13, 2024
On May 2, 2024, Vietnam’s Ministry of Justice published on its online platform the most recent version of the draft decree on administrative sanctions for violations in the field of cybersecurity (“Draft Sanction Decree”) to gather feedback and contributions from the community and stakeholders. After receiving the Ministry of Justice’s assessment, the Ministry of Public Security (“MPS”), in charge of drafting the Draft Sanction Decree, may make further revisions before submitting it to the government for review and final decision on enactment. The decree is expected to have an effective date of June 1, 2024. The stringent penalties for infringements involving personal data of the previous draft version remain in this Draft Sanction Decree—a sign of the proactive stance of the MPS in enforcing the Personal Data Protection Decree (“PDPD”). Effective Date and Transitional Provisions It is important to note that the Draft Sanction Decree does not impose any new obligations on organizations or individuals, and only sets out the administrative sanctions that could be imposed on violators as soon as June 1, 2024, which is indicated as the effective date in Article 49. This signals the MPS’s eagerness to begin taking enforcement actions against recalcitrant organizations and individuals that have not complied with the various obligations imposed on them under the Law on Network Information Security (enacted in 2015), the Law on Cybersecurity (enacted in 2018) and its guiding decree (Decree 53 – enacted in 2022), and the most recent PDPD (enacted in 2023). Article 50.1 of the Draft Sanction Decree outlines the transitional provisions regarding administrative violations in the cybersecurity field. It clarifies that the decree does not have retroactive effect, by stating that violations occurring before its effective date, but discovered or under review after such effective date will be subject to the regulations on administrative
Read More