All Collections
GDPR FAQ
Why should we leave “general authorization” for Jobylon to engage sub-controllers?
Why should we leave “general authorization” for Jobylon to engage sub-controllers?
Aref Abedi avatar
Written by Aref Abedi
Updated over a week ago

Jobylon serves many customers and we are a personal data processor in relation to all of these. If we were to, e.g. change which company that provides us with storage space (server provider/host), or if we add a feature that requires a third party, we need to be able to do so without receiving previous explicit written approval from every customer as this would create a significant administrate burden and could halter our development process significantly. This because we would then be required to collect approval from each customer and hold all development until we have received the written approval. If one customer forgets to reply this could then stop the process for a unreasonable period of time However, with the general authorization we will always (as stated in our data processing agreement) inform you about any plans to add/remove/change a sub-processor, and you always have the right to object to a new sub-processor within 30 days from our notice.

Without the “general authorization” we also just want to remind you that you might miss out on the opportunity on using new and improved updates.

That said, Jobylon will of course never engage a sub-processor if we think there would be a reason for any of our customers not to agree.

Did this answer your question?