Whether processing for a new purpose is compatible with the purpose of collection is decided by weighing, among other things, the link between the purposes, the context of collection and the relationship with the data subject, the nature of the data (special category or criminal offence data), the possible consequences, and safeguards such as encryption or pseudonymisation. Further processing is treated as compatible where the data subject consents to a specified, explicit and legitimate new purpose; where it is research, archiving or statistics under Article 84B; where it ensures or demonstrates compliance with Article 5(1); where an Annex 2 condition is met (disclosure on request for a public task, archiving disclosures of consent-based data, public security, emergencies, crime, vital interests, safeguarding vulnerable individuals, tax, legal obligations); or where it is necessary for an Article 23(1)(c) to (j) objective and authorised by law. Data collected on consent may be reused only with fresh consent or for compliance, or under Annex 2 or an authorised objective where consent cannot reasonably be sought.
This control maps to 3 controls across 2 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 3 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.