## 5 Analysis of the Results and Discussion  
In the survey, we collected feedback from 19 (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain) out of the 27 EU member states. The responses were collected between April 2020 and June 2021 in many repeated solicitations of supervisory authorities to participate in the survey. We compared the collected data with the complementary data from [12; 13] previously mentioned in the related work section. The most similar data collected and, therefore, the most appropriate for comparison were the data regarding the age of consent for children and the additional regulations surrounding the data of the deceased. The consent age, which we could compare with both other studies, was identical in all three studies except for the information on the Czech Republic. The result from [13] indicates the consent age is 13, while our inquiry and that of the [12] received information that it is 15. We were able to confirm from a separate source that the consent age in the Czech Republic is, in fact, 15 years of age. The information on the additional legislation surrounding the processing of deceased person data was only collected in [12], and we could therefore only compare our results to theirs. The cross-section of the collected results in the two studies did not show any mismatch. The two points of comparison give us high confidence in the trustworthiness of the data collected in our study. Table 1 represents the collected data from the supervisory authorities. In the table columns are the 19 member states that we have collected the data for. Rows represent the topics (i.e., questions in the survey) for which we have collected data. Rows or rather topics are marked with the same numbers and letters as previously listed in the survey outline section. For example, any specific legislation on video surveillance is marked with \(2a\) because in the previous section, \"Any other specific legislation on privacy, specifically with relation to\" is numbered with a 2 and \"Video surveillance\" is under point \(a\). The answers \"yes\" (the member state has additional or more specific legislation on the topic) and \"no\" (the member state does not have additional or more specific legislation and the original GDPR applies) that are represented by the cross-section between the member states and topics in Table 1, are colour-coded green and red, respectively. Topics marked from 1 to 4 contain the information on whether or not a member state has additional/specific legislation on that topic. How many of the topics are covered with other or additional legislation (number of green squares for each of the member states) is summed in a row marked as \"SUM\". Topics marked with the numbers 5 and 6 are specific questions regarding the use of biometrics, and we do not include them in the analysis of specific or additional legislation in the member states. They are also different because the green colour of a cell in these two rows means that a member state allows the use of (not that it has additional legislation on like in previous rows) biometrics for the electronic acquisition of handwritten signatures (row marked with No. 6) or biometrics in a work environment (row marked with No. 7). The very last parameter (row marked with No. 7) is the consent age--the age after which individuals no longer need parental consent. We also produce the total number of green cells across all member states included in the survey for each topic. This information is in the far most right column (marked \"SUM\"). It gives information on how commonly a certain topic is covered in additional legislation (topics marked 1-4) or how frequently the use of biometrics is allowed for collecting signatures or in a work environment (topics marked with No. 5 and 6) across the member states. The results show that in the majority of the cases, member states do not have many additional/specific legislations.