Categories: Insights, Practice


25 Jun 2018

Lawfulness of the personal data processing through GPS, but with limitations

With its Decision No. 441 of 29 May 2018, the Data Protection Authority has admitted the possibility of personal data processing through a geographic positioning system installed on tablets and smartphones given to the employees of a company that renders private security guard and money & valuables transport services. The above provided that the company adopts a series of necessary measures, amongst which one may find: (a) the system configuration in such a way that (i) an icon is placed on the device showing that the localisation features is active, (ii) the deactivation of the localisation feature is allowed during the breaks granted from the respective jobs, and (iii) it is possible to black out the visibility of the geographic position, after a certain period of inactivity of the operator on the screen at the operations centre; (b) the identification of the time during which the data actually processed will be kept, by taking into account the pursued aims; (c) the appointment of the software supplier as outside data processor. Furthermore, the security guards will not have to be directly identified by the system and the access in real time to the localisation data made by the authorised staff from the operations centre will only be foreseen in case of need and emergency. In short, in order for geographic positioning systems to be lawful, the latter must not entail the tracking of staff and, therefore, the employer must not use them to observe the movements of employees.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

1 Oct 2026

Corporate e-mail and defensive monitoring: when the GDPR and employment law lead to different outcomes 

The Piaggio case clearly illustrates how the same set of facts can give rise to profoundly different assessments depending on the perspective adopted. In its decision of 13…

1 Oct 2026

NASpI and Reinstatement: the Employee’s Election Causes Loss of the Benefit 

Headnote   In its recent judgment No. 24981 of 3 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal is set aside with an order of reinstatement…

1 Oct 2026

Did you know that… testimony given in court may have disciplinary relevance and, in the most serious cases, justify dismissal? 

The Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, by order no. 25687 of 22 September 2026, addressed the issue of the disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee in…

29 Sep 2026

Shadow AI in the workplace: how to govern risks, data, and security (Agenda digitale, 29 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Martina De Angeli)

The spread of artificial intelligence tools used without corporate authorization exposes businesses to risks involving personal data, confidential information, know-how, and cybersecurity. To govern Shadow AI, organizations need…

24 Sep 2026

The concept of “territorial scope” in a non-compete agreement (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 24 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Alessandro Ferrari)

Interpretative issues in light of the most recent case law on the nullity of non-compete agreements due to the indeterminacy of territorial scope By an order issued on…

16 Sep 2026

Did you know that… repeated violations of company procedures may justify the dismissal of a store manager?

The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…