GDPR Article 6(1): Lawful Bases for Processing
Theme: Foundations · 7 sentences.
GDPR-001 · GDPR Article 6(1): Lawful Bases for Processing
S925 When the person consents to the processing of that person's personal data, the processing is permitted.
S926 When a contract requires the processing of a person's personal data, the processing is permitted.
S927 When a legal rule requires the processing of a person's personal data, the processing is permitted.
S928 When a person's vitality is in danger, the processing of that person's personal data is permitted.
S929 When governance has official authority over the processing of a person's personal data, the processing is permitted.
S930
When another party has ~rightful-interest in processing a person's personal data, the processing is permitted.
S931
The rule is not a self-evident truth / but the rule has not comprehended the boundary among consent, contract, legal obligation, authority, and ~legitimate-interest.
Batch Summary
Entries: S925–S931 · New vocabulary: none
| Entry | Tonesu | Written form | Key feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| S925 (GDPR-001-A) | go {la-i-zo-li ne ne-vo-wi lo-ka-to-ki lo-to-si ne i-zo-li}, lo-ka-to-ki lo-to-si ne i-zo-li no-wi-fe-ka |
go {laizoli ne nevowi lokatoki lotosi ne izoli}, lokatoki lotosi ne izoli nowifeka |
Consent as act-specific relation |
| S926 (GDPR-001-B) | go {la-ne-to-fe ne wi-fe lo-ka-to-ki lo-to-si ne i-zo-li}, lo-ka-to-ki lo-to-si ne i-zo-li no-wi-fe-ka |
go {lanetofe ne wife lokatoki lotosi ne izoli}, lokatoki lotosi ne izoli nowifeka |
Contract basis |
| S927 (GDPR-001-C) | go {la-wi-fe-su ne wi-fe lo-ka-to-ki lo-to-si ne i-zo-li}, lo-ka-to-ki lo-to-si ne i-zo-li no-wi-fe-ka |
go {lawifesu ne wife lokatoki lotosi ne izoli}, lokatoki lotosi ne izoli nowifeka |
Legal obligation basis |
| S928 (GDPR-001-D) | go {la-i-zo-li zo-ra de}, lo-ka-to-ki lo-to-si ne i-zo-li no-wi-fe-ka |
go {laizoli zora de}, lokatoki lotosi ne izoli nowifeka |
Vital-interests emergency basis |
| S929 (GDPR-001-E) | go {la-ka-li-su ne wi-ra lo-ka-to-ki lo-to-si ne i-zo-li}, lo-ka-to-ki lo-to-si ne i-zo-li no-wi-fe-ka |
go {lakalisu ne wira lokatoki lotosi ne izoli}, lokatoki lotosi ne izoli nowifeka |
Public-task / official-authority basis |
| S930 (GDPR-001-F) | go {la-ze ne ~vo-ne lo-ka-to-ki lo-to-si ne i-zo-li}, lo-ka-to-ki lo-to-si ne i-zo-li no-wi-fe-ka |
go {laze ne ~vone lokatoki lotosi ne izoli}, lokatoki lotosi ne izoli nowifeka |
Legitimate-interests catch-all as ~-category |
| S931 (GDPR-001-G) | la-wi-fe ne no-su-to / ke, la-wi-fe no to-su-ki lo-to-fe {ne-vo-wi ; ne-to-fe ; wi-fe ; wi-ra ; ~vo-ne} |
lawife ne nosuto / ke, lawife no tosuki lotofe {nevowi ; netofe ; wife ; wira ; ~vone} |
Structural verdict on category overlap |
Key structural findings:
Finding 1: Article 6(1) is a permission battery. Every basis ends in the same result: no-wi-fe-ka over the same processing act. The list is therefore not a taxonomy of processing kinds, but a set of independent ways prohibition can be suspended.
Finding 2: contract, rule, and authority are distinct norm-sources. S926, S927, and S929 look superficially similar in English legal prose, but Tonesu distinguishes them by source: bounded agreement (ne-to-fe), rule structure (wi-fe-su), and official authority (wi-ra).
Finding 3: consent is relational, not atmospheric. ne-vo-wi attaches to the act. That keeps consent from drifting into a vague pro-attitude and preserves its legal role as act-specific authorization.
Finding 4: "legitimate interests" is the article's built-in ~ term. S930 is the only basis that is honestly rendered with structural approximation from the start. The catch-all works politically and administratively precisely because its boundary is soft.
Finding 5: the article functions better than it classifies. S931 gives the batch verdict: the list works as law, but it is not su-to. The categories overlap and the rule does not fully comprehend their boundary relations.
Generated from registry/entries.yaml.