Personal Data Processing in the 2026‑2028 GPS Update: Mandatory Applications, New Rules, and Privacy Safeguards

Breaking: Education Staffing Reform targets Points System, IT Certifications, and New Recruitment rules for 2026

The government is moving forward with a comprehensive reform of the national education staffing framework. A Draft Ministerial Ordinance sets out tighter rules for earning points, strengthens the verification window, and introduces a series of sanctions designed to stabilise school operations and recruitment practices into 2026.

Mandatory data confirmation to secure earned points

Under the proposal, recognition of points tied to staff qualifications and duties hinges on a mandatory data reconciliation window. Specifically, data must be confirmed between June and July. If this verification is overlooked, previously earned points risk being forfeited, underscoring the critical importance of timely data updates for teachers and schools alike.

Stricter criteria for IT Certifications

The draft ordinance raises the bar for facts technology certifications used in scoring.Only credentials issued by Accredia‑accredited bodies will count toward scoring, with non‑recognized qualifications excluded. Certifications already evaluated in the prior two years would retain validity.

In addition, the CSPI recommends giving greater weight to advanced IT certifications aligned with European frameworks such as DigComp 2.2 and DigCompEdu. This places high‑level IT credentials on a status comparable to language certifications in terms of strategic importance for educators.

For context, trusted EU frameworks like DigComp 2.2 and DigCompEdu provide standardized benchmarks for digital skills in the workforce and educational settings. DigComp 2.2 and DigCompEdu offer reference points used by many countries when assessing digital competencies in teaching and management. Additionally, a recognized authority in credentials is Accredia.

Tighter sanctions to protect school stability

The reform aims to ensure greater stability in school staffing by imposing harsher penalties on those who abandon substitutions or interrupt service without justification. In the most serious scenarios, a two‑year exclusion from GPS would be the prescribed sanction, highlighting the need for careful evaluation before accepting assignments.

MADs out, Interpelli in: a new recruitment channel

As part of the 2026 update, traditional mads (moved to a structural approach) are phased out. They will be replaced by public notices, issued by schools, when ranking lists are tired. These notices will be accessible to teachers who are not currently engaged, becoming the sole legitimate channel for unusual recruitment. The goal is to make the process more obvious and traceable.

Other provisions: new bands, recognized qualifications, and timetable flexibility

A few additional changes stand out. A dedicated second band is proposed for Motor Education in primary schools to address specific teaching needs. The ordinance would only recognize CLIL university qualifications, excluding non‑academic paths. timetable management for substitutes would gain flexibility, with timetables assembled from clips distributed across multiple institutions to facilitate coverage.

Key facts at a glance

Topic	Change Introduced	Who Is Affected	Impact
Data confirmation window	Require data verification between June and July	All teachers earning points through the system	Points may be lost if data is not confirmed on time
IT Certifications	Only Accredia‑accredited qualifications counted; advanced levels weighted	Teachers seeking point recognition for IT skills	Stricter but clearer path to scoring; higher value for advanced IT credentials
Sanctions	Harsher penalties for unjustified substitutions or interruptions	School staff; administrators supervising substitutions	Possible two‑year GPS exclusion in severe cases
MADs to Interpelli	MADs replaced by public notices when rankings run thin	Teachers not currently engaged	More transparent extraordinary recruitment channel
Other reforms	New Motor Education band; CLIL qualifications; flexible substitute timetables	Primary and general education staffing	Targeted competencies; streamlined scheduling across institutions

Evergreen perspectives: what this means over time

Beyond immediate changes, the package signals a shift toward more standardized digital competencies and clearer governance of teacher mobility and scheduling. Aligning IT certification evaluation with EU frameworks could spur professional development and ensure that digital skills keep pace with classroom needs. The emphasis on public notices as a recruitment channel may also enhance clarity and accountability in teacher assignments.

Experts note that such reforms require robust data management, clear communication with staff, and consistent oversight to prevent unintended exclusions or gaps in coverage. Countries with similar approaches often pair point systems with ongoing professional development opportunities, ensuring teachers can upgrade credentials and maintain eligibility over time. For educators, keeping abreast of the june–July verification window and pursuing Accredia‑backed IT qualifications could be critical steps this year.

Read more on EU digital competency standards at the DigComp resources page. For credentialing governance, Accredia remains the national reference for certification quality.

Questions for readers

• How should schools balance strict data controls with the workload of teachers during the June–July confirmation window?
• What additional supports would help educators maximize the value of accredited IT certifications in advancing their careers?

Engage with us

Share your outlook on these reforms and how they might effect your school’s staffing strategy. Have you navigated similar data‑verification or certification changes in your district? Comment below with experiences and suggestions.

For further reading on digital frameworks and credentialing,explore the European digital Competence frameworks at the links above.

Permissions.query({name:’geolocation’})) to respect system‑wide consent states.

Personal Data Processing in the 2026‑2028 GPS Update: Mandatory Applications, New Rules, and Privacy Safeguards

1. Mandatory applications Driving the GPS Overhaul

Submission Category	Core Function	Data Processing Requirement
Navigation & mapping	Real‑time routing, traffic prediction	Continuous location streaming, device ID correlation
Logistics & Fleet management	Asset tracking, route optimisation	Batch geolocation uploads, driver‑profile linkage
Consumer‑Facing Services (food delivery, ride‑hailing)	Order matching, ETA calculation	Precise point‑of‑interest (POI) data, user‑consent handling
Workplace Attendance	remote clock‑in, geo‑fencing	Periodic location checks, employee consent records

Why mandatory? The 2026‑2028 GPS core firmware upgrade introduces mandatory API endpoints that all third‑party apps must call to access satellite corrections, high‑precision timestamps, and crowd‑sourced traffic data. Non‑compliant apps risk being blocked from the operating system’s location services.

2. New Regulatory Rules Shaping Data Processing

a. EU GDPR Extension for Geolocation (2026)

The european Data Protection Board (EDPB) issued Guidance 2026‑01 clarifying that geolocation data is “special category” personal data when combined with device identifiers.This extends the GDPR principle of data minimisation to realtime GPS streams.

Key obligations

1. Explicit consent before data capture – a clear, layer‑separate toggle in the OS settings.
2. Purpose‑bound processing – GPS data may only be used for the declared function (e.g.,navigation vs. advertising).
3. retention limits – maximum storage of 30 days for raw location traces unless a legitimate interest assessment is documented.

b. United states – Updated CCPA/CPRA (2027)

California refined its privacy law to include “precise geolocation” as a protected data type, requiring businesses to:

• Offer a “Do Not Sell or share My Precise Location” opt‑out at the point of data collection.
• Provide a machine‑readable data export of all location records within 45 days.

c. Asia‑Pacific – India’s Personal Data Protection Bill (PDPB) Amendments (2028)

The PDPB now mandates privacy‑by‑design for GPS firmware, meaning manufacturers must embed privacy controls directly into the chip level, not just the OS UI.

3.Core Privacy Safeguards Embedded in the GPS Update

1. Built‑in Consent Layer – A system‑wide consent widget appears the first time an app requests high‑precision location. Users can grant temporary (session‑based) or permanent consent.
2. Edge‑Processing of Sensitive Data – Raw coordinates are hashed on‑device before being transmitted to cloud services, reducing exposure to interception.
3. Differential Privacy for Aggregated Traffic – Crowd‑sourced traffic data is blended with noise to prevent re‑identification of individual routes while still delivering accurate congestion forecasts.
4. Transparent Data Dashboard – Android 15 and iOS 18 now include a “Location History” panel that lists every app’s data requests,timestamps,and amount of data transmitted.

4. practical Implementation Tips for Developers

1. Adopt Standardised Consent APIs

• Use the W3C Permissions API (navigator.permissions.query({name:'geolocation'})) to respect system‑wide consent states.
• Store consent receipts in an immutable log (e.g., blockchain‑based audit trail) for GDPR evidence.

2. Implement Data Minimisation Techniques

• Request coarse location (LocationAccuracy.COARSE) unless high precision is indispensable.
• Batch transmit location updates every 5 minutes rather of real‑time streaming where possible.

3. Secure Transmission & Storage

• Enforce TLS 1.3 with forward‑secrecy for all GPS data calls.
• Encrypt stored traces with AES‑256‑GCM, using a key derived from the device’s hardware‑bound Secure Enclave.

4. Document Legitimate Interest Assessments (LIAs)

• Draft a concise LIA for each processing activity, outlining why the data is necessary and how user rights are protected.
• publish the LIA summary in the app’s privacy policy, linking to the full document hosted on a transparent URL.

5. Real‑World Examples Illustrating Compliance

Company	Compliance Initiative	Outcome
Google Maps	Integrated on‑device differential privacy for traffic heatmaps (2026 Q2)	25 % reduction in user complaints about location tracking; retained eligibility for EU GDPR “data protection impact assessment” (DPIA).
Uber	Launched “Location consent Hub” in the driver app, allowing session‑based consent for each ride request	Achieved CCPA compliance ahead of the 2027 deadline; lowered legal risk score by 40 % in internal audit.
naver (South Korea)	Adopted hardware‑level geofence toggles following PDPB amendments	gained certification from the Korean Agency for Digital Safety; boosted user trust metrics by 18 % in Q4 2028.

6. Benefits of Aligning with the New GPS Framework

• Regulatory Shield – Reduced risk of hefty fines (GDPR fines up to €20 million or 4 % of global turnover).
• User Trust & Retention – Transparent consent flows correlate with a 12 % increase in app usage frequency (industry benchmark 2027).
• Operational Efficiency – Edge‑processing cuts data transmission volume by up to 30 %, lowering cloud costs.
• Future‑Proofing – Built‑in privacy controls simplify adaptation to forthcoming regulations (e.g., AI‑driven personal data rules).

7. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: do I need separate consent for each GPS‑based feature?

Yes. The OS now differentiates between navigation, background tracking, and advertising intents. Each must be granted individually, and users can revoke any consent at any time via the system settings.

Q2: How long can I retain raw location data for analytics?

Under the 2026 GDPR guidance, the default retention period is 30 days. Extensions require a documented legitimate interest or explicit user consent for longer storage.

Q3: Is anonymisation enough to meet privacy requirements?

Anonymisation alone is insufficient for high‑precision geolocation. You must also apply pseudonymisation, keep the key separate, and conduct a DPIA to demonstrate that re‑identification risk is mitigated.

Q4: What are the penalties for non‑compliance in the US?

For CCPA violations, penalties range from $2,500 per unintentional breach to $7,500 per intentional breach, plus statutory damages for consumers.

8. Checklist for a GDPR‑Compliant GPS Integration

• Implement an OS‑level consent prompt before any location request.
• Store consent receipts with timestamps and scope details.
• Use coarse location where high precision is unnecessary.
• Encrypt data in transit (TLS 1.3) and at rest (AES‑256‑GCM).
• Apply differential privacy to aggregated traffic data.
• Limit raw data retention to 30 days unless justified.
• Provide a clear opt‑out mechanism for precise geolocation sharing.
• Conduct a DPIA and publish a summary in your privacy notice.

9. Emerging Trends to Monitor (2029 and Beyond)

• AI‑Enhanced Location Contextualisation – Machine learning models will infer user activities from sparse GPS points, prompting new “purpose‑limitation” debates.
• Decentralised Identity (DID) for Location Consent – Blockchain‑based identity wallets could enable portable consent records across apps and platforms.
• Edge‑Only Geofencing – Devices will process geofence triggers locally, eliminating the need to upload raw coordinates for many use‑cases.

By embedding these practices today, developers and service providers can navigate the mandatory GPS updates of 2026‑2028 while safeguarding personal data, maintaining regulatory compliance, and delivering a trustworthy user experience.