If you have once granted access to a platform to share data with another platform, and you subsequently stop paying attention to it, a problem slowly develops that does not feel acute but does add up: at some point you no longer know which platform has which version of your data. The consequence is not a fine or sanction — that is up to the supervisor and depends on the situation — but rather outdated information that circulates in multiple places at once, and the time it takes to restore order.
This is different from forgetting to disable a connection once. It is about structurally failing to keep track of who has access at this moment, why that access was granted in the first place, and whether it is still necessary. Without that overview, responsibility shifts in an inconvenient way: you think a platform is using current data, while in reality it is still reading an old version.
Why this is different from forgetting to disable a connection
A single connection that you forget to revoke is a concrete, demonstrable moment: you knew that access existed, and failed to end it. The absence of management is broader and more insidious. It is about the question of whether you systematically know which platforms are currently using data from each other, for what purpose, and since when. With a single connection, the question is: is this still necessary? With the absence of management, the question is: do I even know which connections exist? That second one is harder to solve, because you cannot revoke what you no longer have in mind.
What practically goes wrong
The most common consequence is inconsistency: a platform displays an address, Chamber of Commerce number, or product data that has since changed, because the updated version never came through. You often only notice this when someone — a customer, an auditor, a supervisor — asks a question about data that no longer match. A second consequence is double work: because nobody knows exactly what each connection is for anymore, data are re-entered manually out of caution, which undermines the whole point of data sharing. A third consequence is that access which was once justified no longer needs to be — for example after a change of supplier or platform — but remains active anyway because nobody pays attention to it anymore.
None of these consequences is dramatic in itself. Added together, they cost time, lead to unnecessary confusion, and make it harder to explain to a supervisor or auditor at some point where your data comes from. For the question of whether this has consequences for a specific obligation in your situation, the competent supervisor or a lawyer is the right contact — reglia does not make any statement about that itself.
Who remains responsible
A platform that shares data with another platform does not do so on its own: that happens on the basis of a choice you made at some point. That choice remains in principle your responsibility, even if you have long since forgotten about it. That does not mean you must continuously actively monitor, but it does help if there is somewhere you can see at a glance which connections exist — so you can assess it yourself instead of it running along quietly somewhere.
How reglia helps
Reglia does not explain rules itself and does not determine whether something is mandatory — the platforms and supervisors do that. What reglia does offer is a place where you can see which data you have entered and which platforms have access to it, so that you do not need to depend on your own memory for that overview. how reglia handles your data explains what exactly happens when you share data and what doesn't. On the page about security and privacy is how those data are stored. And in the frequently asked questions you'll find answers to practical questions that often come up here.
Would you like to know which platforms there are and how that data sharing works in practice? Check out which platforms there are and what each of them does.