LuísRequicha, MárioNuno Mata, José Moleiro Martins, Pedro Neves Mata, Anabelabaptist, & Rui Miguel Dantas
There is a long way to go in practices and culture regarding the protection of personal data. There is a somewhat deficient and different implementation. Some companies have implemented detailed internal procedures, restructured and renewed the content of the databases, bet and invested in the most varied applications and services for massive e-mail sending. Helping one side to a widespread bet on new products, and the other side, to apply and improve by some service providers in their marketing tools - with a common objective: to guarantee a management capacity and demonstration of consent. For the GDPR, you can start a new beginning: with the decision to recover the total number of databases and guarantee the legitimacy for sending future electronic communications (direct marketing). Other significant ones for the development of new strategies, is to reverse the loss of data numbers. If it is true that consent was and remains the most widely used license basis for processing personal data, it is also true that companies often continue to require or consent from holders, when it is not allowed or allowed, creating a wrong test citizens that everything is dependent on their consent. The inevitable consequence: the holders project a right to withdraw a consent that is not actually necessary to have given. This factor does not generate a title claimed for something that, in fact, is not legally supported.