Monitor without the fine or the blocked rollout

No product can do that, and any vendor saying otherwise is selling you a problem. Lawfulness depends on your purpose, your legal basis, your jurisdiction and your consultation duties. What this does is provide the controls those regimes ask about, versioned consent, transparency, appeal with human review, retention limits, an auditable access record, so the programme you design can be evidenced rather than merely asserted. The per-country guides describe what each regime expects, and they are guidance, not legal advice.

Typically: what is captured and why, how narrow the scope is, what employees can see about themselves, how somebody objects, how long data is kept, and who can look at it. Each of those maps to a feature here rather than to a paragraph, which shortens the conversation considerably, because the answer can be demonstrated.

Through the data lifecycle tooling: DSAR handling, erasure and retention windows are built in, with bulk export for portability. The relevant design decision is that deny-listed applications never generated data in the first place, so the smallest DSAR is the one with the least to disclose.

Capture policy is per team and per region, which is what makes that practical. The same deployment can capture screens in one country and nothing but activity categories in another. The 32 jurisdiction pages set out what each regime expects, and the differences are usually about notice, basis and consultation rather than about the technology.

Scope Sentinel and the capture policy engine refuse capture outside the configured scope, and configuration changes land on the hash-chained audit trail. The threat model that matters here is not the outside attacker but the well-meaning administrator with a deadline.