“The margin between the edge of the world and infinite possibility”: Blockchain, GDPR and information governance
Abstract
Purpose: This paper aims to explore a paradoxical situation, asking whether it is possible to reconcile the immutable ledger known as blockchain with the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), and more broadly privacy and data protection. Design/methodology/approach: This paper combines doctrinal legal research examining the GDPR’s application and scope with case studies examining blockchain solutions from an archival theoretic perspective to answer several questions, including: What risks are blockchain solutions said to impose (or mitigate) for organizations dealing with data that is subject to the GDPR? What are the relationships between the GDPR principles and the principles of archival theory? How can these two sets of principles be aligned within a particular blockchain solution? How can archival principles be applied to blockchain solutions so that they support GDPR compliance? Findings: This work will offer an initial exploration of the strengths and weaknesses of blockchain solutions for GDPR compliant information governance. It will present the disjunctures between GDPR requirements and some current blockchain solution designs and implementations, as well as discussing how solutions may be designed and implemented to support compliance. Immutability of information recorded on a blockchain is a differentiating positive feature of blockchain technology from the perspective of trusted exchanges of value (e.g. cryptocurrencies) but potentially places organizations at risk of non-compliance with GDPR if personally identifiable information cannot be removed. This work will aid understanding of how blockchain solutions should be designed to ensure compliance with GDPR, which could have significant practical implications for organizations looking to leverage the strengths of blockchain technology to meet their needs and strategic goals. Research limitations/implications: Some aspects of the social layer of blockchain solutions, such as law and business procedures, are also well understood. Much less well understood is the data layer, and how it serves as an interface between the social and the technical in a sociotechnical system like blockchain. In addition to a need for more research about the data/records layer of blockchains and compliance, there is a need for more information governance professionals who can provide input on this layer, both to their organizations and other stakeholders. Practical implications: Managing personal data will continue to be one of the most challenging, fraught issues for information governance moving forward; given the fairly broad scope of the GDPR, many organizations, including those outside of the EU, will have to manage personal data in compliance with the GDPR. Blockchain technology could play an important role in ensuring organizations have easily auditable, tamper-resistant, tamper-evident records to meet broader organizational needs and to comply with the GDPR. Social implications: Because the GDPR professes to be technology-neutral, understanding its application to novel technologies such as blockchain provides an important window into the broader context of compliance in evolving information governance spaces. Originality/value: The specific question of how GDPR will apply to blockchain information governance solutions is almost entirely novel. It has significance to the design and implementation of blockchain solutions for recordkeeping. It also provides insight into how well “technology-neutral” laws and regulations actually work when confronted with novel technologies and applications. This research will build upon significant bodies of work in both law and archival science to further understand information governance and compliance as we are shifting into the new GDPR world.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Research has begun exploring DLT for auditing purposes in organizational contexts, and first results indicate feasibility of DLT for auditing AI.
“Owing to DLTs characteristics (e.g., decentralization, high tamper resistance), research has recently begun exploring the application of DLT for auditing purposes in organizational contexts (Hofman et al. 2019), while first research results also indicate the feasibility of DLT for the auditing of AI (Dillenberger et al. 2019).”
From Trustworthy artificial intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as Hofman et al. 2019
Cites
Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., Hsu, R., Katbamna, S., Olsen, R., Smith, L., et al. (2006) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-35 · Cited by 2,053 · see citing works
A Contextual Approach to Privacy Online
Nissenbaum, H. (2011) · Daedalus · doi:10.1162/daed_a_00113 · Cited by 649 · see citing works
Trusting records: is Blockchain technology the answer?
Lemieux, V. L. (2016) · Records Management Journal · doi:10.1108/rmj-12-2015-0042 · Cited by 521 · see citing works
Self-citationA Contextual Approach to Privacy Online
Nissenbaum, H. F. (2012) · IOS Press eBooks · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-057-4-219 · Cited by 444 · see citing works
Reviewing Literature in Bioethics Research: Increasing Rigour in Non‐Systematic Reviews
McDougall, R. J. (2015) · Bioethics · doi:10.1111/bioe.12149 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Information Governance: Concepts, Strategies, and Best Practices
Smallwood, R. F. (2014) · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Should ICT Regulation Be Technology-Neutral?
Koops, B. (2006) · Information technology and law series/Information technology & law series · doi:10.1007/978-90-6704-665-7_4 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Wirth, C., & Kolain, M. (2018) · Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI) · doi:10.18420/blockchain2018_03 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Information governance – beyond the buzz
Hagmann, J. (2013) · Records Management Journal · doi:10.1108/rmj-04-2013-0008 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Integrating Emotions Into the Critical Interpretive Synthesis
McFerran, K. S., Hense, C., Medcalf, L., Murphy, M., & Fairchild, R. (2016) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732316639284 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Access and Aggregation: Public Records, Privacy and the Constitution
Solove, D. J. (2002) · Minnesota law review · doi:10.24926/265535.1994 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
A Maturity Model for Information Governance
Proença, D., Vieira, R., & Borbinha, J. L. (2016) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43997-6_2 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Preserving the Archival Bond in Distributed Ledgers
Lemieux, V. L., & Sporny, M. (2017) · doi:10.1145/3041021.3053896 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citationA maturity model for information governance
Proença, D., Vieira, R., & Borbinha, J. L. (2016) · Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI) · doi:10.1109/cisti.2016.7521480 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Using Blockchain to strengthen the rights granted through the GDPR
van Geelkerken, F. W. J., & Konings, K. (2017) · Electronic Scientific Archive (Lviv Polytechnic) · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Lomas, E., & McLeod, J. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186452 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
ELECTRONIC CONSENT TO HEALTH RESEARCH IN CANADA
Kirby, E., Zawati, M. H., & Knoppers, B. M. (2013) · The Canadian Bar Review · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Why Information Governance Means Real Return on Investment (Updated) - Retired
Meehan, A. M. (2018) · Journal of AHIMA · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Seven Key Concepts Organizations are Getting Wrong About the Global Privacy Law
Blair, B. T. (2018) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Trustworthy artificial intelligence
Thiebes, S., Lins, S., & Sunyaev, A. (2021) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-020-00441-4 · Cited by 595 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hofman, D., Lemieux, V. L., Joo, A., & Batista, D. A.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Venue
- Records Management Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2019-03-11
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1/2
- Pages
- 240-257
- ISSN
- 0956-5698 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2911357324
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 54.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Records Management Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Digital Transformation in Law
- Keywords
- blockchain, General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR compliance, data protection, privacy, archival theory, immutability, information governance, personal data, data deletion, records management
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review