@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix edu: <https://knobit.org/def/> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix schema: <https://schema.org/> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .

<https://knobit.org/id/task/dg-standards-procedures/C1> a edu:Question ;
    rdfs:label "C1 (2 points)"@en ;
    dcterms:license <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/> ;
    schema:hasPart <https://knobit.org/id/register/data-governance#DG-350>,
        <https://knobit.org/id/register/data-governance#DG-351> ;
    schema:identifier "C1" ;
    schema:position 1 ;
    schema:text "The policy conflict, 1 each. (a) PO-011 (customer data used for direct marketing only with the customer's recorded consent; scope: all personal data about customers used for direct marketing by Bank AS or any group company) and PO-012 (customer data in the CRM shared with Bank AS Leasing and Bank AS Insurance so that every customer can be offered the group's products) cannot both hold for a customer who has not consented to marketing: offering group products from shared CRM data is direct marketing. The answer reports the conflict naming both policies - each reads well alone. (b) The conflict is sent for a ruling - an open question to GB-001 and/or both owners (RO-005, RO-008), possibly with the DPO - rather than settled by the model. Proposing a resolution (for example PO-012 limited to customers with a recorded consent for group marketing) is good, but only if it is marked proposed and raised for a decision. Retiring either policy, or silently narrowing one, earns nothing here."@en .

edu:Question rdfs:label "Question"@en,
        "Küsimus"@et .

<https://knobit.org/id/register/data-governance#DG-350> rdfs:label "dg-standards-procedures C1: PO-011 and PO-012 conflict on customers without consent"@en .

<https://knobit.org/id/register/data-governance#DG-351> rdfs:label "dg-standards-procedures C1: the consent conflict is sent for a ruling"@en .