Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Member state of the European Union’

Do you know what is your child’s age requirement to sign up online?

May 27, 2013 1 comment

As the Internet permeates every aspect of the economy and society, it is also becoming an essential element of our children’s lives. While it can bring considerable benefits for their education and development, it also exposes them to online risks such as access to inappropriate content, harmful interactions with other children or with adults, and exposure to aggressive marketing practices.

Children online can also put their computer systems at risk and disseminate their personal data without understanding the potential long-term privacy consequences.

In addition, there are other risks for children using online environments, such as:

Privacy risks

-cyber-bullying

-cyber-stalking

-age-inappropriate content

-online grooming

-identity theft

-emotional implications.

Beside support and guidance from parents when using the online environment, an appropriate mental development and understanding is important for a child when using an online platform. For these reasons, in both the United States and the European Union, a minimum age requirements for accessing the “online world” was set as a legal requirement.

E-Crime Expert thinks that the minimum age requirements a child should meet when signing up for an email account, Facebook, etc., should be a topic of interest for parents. For these reasons, we researched the minimum age requirements on some of the most popular online sites and platforms.

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) in United States applies to the online collection of personal information by persons or entities under U.S. jurisdiction from children under 13 years of age. It details what a website operator must include in a privacy policy, when and how to seek verifiable consent from a parent or guardian, and what responsibilities an operator has to protect children’s privacy and safety online including restrictions on the marketing to those under 13. While children under 13 can legally give out personal information with their parents’ permission, many websites altogether disallow underage children from using their services due to the amount of work involved.

In the European Union, the European Commission released in January 2012, a Proposal on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).

This Proposal has specific requirements with regards to Children. They deserve specific protection of their personal data, as they may be less aware of risks, consequences, safeguards and their rights in relation to the processing of personal data. To determine when an individual is a child, this Regulation should take over the definition laid down by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

“Article 8
Processing of personal data of a child

For the purposes of this Regulation, in relation to the offering of information society services directly to a child, the processing of personal data of a child below the age of 13 years shall only be lawful if and to the extent that consent is given or authorised by the child’s parent or custodian. The controller (i.e. the person in charge with the collection, use and disclosure of personal data) shall make reasonable efforts to obtain verifiable consent, taking into consideration available technology”.

Following, are the minimum age requirements for children using different Internet websites or Social Networking Services and other online platforms:

facebook-age-restriction

 1.      Facebook:

How old do you have to be to sign up for Facebook?

In order to be eligible to sign up for Facebook, you must be at least 13 years old.

The minimum age requirement on Facebook is more or less enforceable. Simply lying about your birthdate easily circumvents the policy.

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) mandates that websites that collect information about users aren’t allowed to sign on anyone under the age of 13. As a result, Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities require users of the social network to be at least 13 years old (and even older, in some jurisdictions).

According to MinorMonitor, over 38 percent of children with Facebook accounts are 12-years-old and under. Even more worryingly, 4 percent of children on Facebook are reported to be 6-years-old or younger, which translates to some 800,000 kindergarteners on Facebook.

These results come from a survey of 1,000 parents of children under 18-years-old who use Facebook. The company provides a free, web-based parental tool that gives parents a quick view into their child’s Facebook use, including potential dangerous activities such as the friending of online predators, cyberbullying, violence, drug and alcohol use, as well as sexual references.

2.      Google:

Age requirements on Google Accounts:

  •  United States: 13 or older
  •  Spain: 14 or older
  •  South Korea: 14 or older
  •  Netherlands: 16 or older
  •  All other countries: 13 or older

Some Google products have specific age requirements. Here are a few examples:

  • YouTube: When a YouTube video has been age-restricted, a warning screen is displayed and only users who are 18 or older can watch it. Learn more about age-restricted videos.
  • Google Wallet: 18+
  •  AdSense: 18+
  •  AdWords: 18+

3.      Yahoo

When a child under age 13 attempts to register with Yahoo!, they ask the child to have a parent or guardian create a Yahoo! Family Account to obtain parental permission.

Yahoo! does not contact children under age 13 about special offers or for marketing purposes without a parent’s permission.

Yahoo! does not ask a child under age 13 for more personal information, as a condition of participation, than is reasonably necessary to participate in a given activity or promotion.

Yahoo! is concerned about the safety and privacy of all its users, particularly children. For this reason, parents of children under the age of 13 who wish to allow their children access to the Yahoo! Services must create a Yahoo! Family Account. When you create a Yahoo! Family Account and add your child to the account, you certify that you are at least 18 years old and that you are the legal guardian of the child/children listed on the Yahoo! Family Account. By adding a child to your Yahoo! Family Account, you also give your child permission to access many areas of the Yahoo! Services, including, email, message boards and instant messaging (among others). Please remember that the Yahoo! Services is designed to appeal to a broad audience. Accordingly, as the legal guardian, it is your responsibility to determine whether any of the Yahoo! Services areas and/or Content are appropriate for your child.

4.      Hotmail

As on Hotmail’s Terms of Use is no reference to the age requirements to join the service, we did our own registration and it appears that 13 is the age requirement for joining Hotmail, as shown below:

I.                   Attempt indicating the user is 6 years old

Step 1   

1

Step 2                        

2

Step 3

3

 

II.                Second attempt, indicating the user is 13 years old.

Step 1

4Step 2

5

 

5.        MySpace 

  • You must be at least 13 years old to have a Myspace profile
  • If you’re under 16 years old, you’re not allowed to list your age as over 16 and make your profile public (your profile must be set to private)
  • If you’re under 18, you’re not allowed to list your age as over 18
  • Users under 18 are not able to make changes to their listed age

Notes & Tips

  • If you break any of the above rules, MySpace will be forced to delete your profile for safety and security reasons (it’s all in their Terms of Use)

6.      Skype

Skype not directly sets up an age restriction within their Terms of Use.

“Jurisdiction’s Restrictions: If the law of Your country prohibits You from downloading or using Skype Software because You are under the age limit or because the Skype Software is not allowed in Your country, please don’t use it”.

According to this, for US the minimum age requirement is 13 + (COPPA).

7.      LinkedIn

PRIVACY POLICY, 18!

In terms of LinkedIn’s Privacy Policy:

 ”Children are not eligible to use our service and we ask that minors (under the age of 18) do not submit any personal information to us or use the service.”

8.      Twitter

Age screening on Twitter

Age screening is a way for brands and others to determine online whether a follower meets a minimum age requirement, in a way that is consistent with relevant industry or legal guidelines. This makes it easier for advertisers and others with content not suitable for minors (e.g. alcohol advertisers) to advertise on Twitter.

There apparently, is now age restriction for setting up an account on Twitter (as we set it up without being asked about our age). See below:

Step 1

6

Step 2: Done!

7

For more advice on how children could stay safe online (you could also share this with your child), click here to visit the material E-Crime Expert specially created for this purpose.

Any questions can be submitted to: dan@e-crimeexpert.com

Additional information can be found at: www.e-crimeexppert.com

Hit the “subscribe” button in order to be notified when new videos and Articles are posted on this blog.

Beyond Data Protection – published today!

January 31, 2013 Leave a comment

Dan Manolescu is glad to announce his contribution to the Beyond Data Protection book, published by Springer and available to the public from today, January 31, 2013. You could find Dan’s contribution under the “Data Protection Enforcement: The European Experience – Case Law” chapter.

 This book provides practical approach to address data protection issues in businesses and daily life. It also compares, contrasts and substantiates the different principles and approaches in Asia, Europe and America  and recommends leading best practices to practitioners and stakeholders based on divergent of technologies involved.

​I strongly recommend you to purchase this book considering the excellent material and contribution of several top scholars in the privacy and data protection fields.

You could find  more info about this book here.

cda_displayimage

This great opportunity would not have been possible without the tremendous work of Noriswadi Ismail, an excellent data protection and privacy scholar and practitioner. He is also the Mastermind behind Quotient Consulting, a boutique firm, which focuses on array of data protection and privacy consulting services such as: Data Diagnosis, Privacy Impact Assessment, Data Protection & Privacy Strategy, Training, Data Protection & Privacy Certification, Public & Private Consultations

In addition, Philipp Fischer’s contribution to this book is remarkable. Philipp is also an outstanding data protection and privacy scholar and professional and he is the CEO of SuiGeneris Consulting, which provides privacy and data security practice, data-use business models and how data flows generate profits. He has extensive underlying subject matter experience at the interface between information security requirements, data protection & – privacy law and economics; especially in information security, quality management, consumer protection, intellectual property, software programming and risk assessment. That enables him to provide strategic business consulting on all aspects of information policy, including privacy, information security and records management.

Last but not least, E-Crime Expert signed  strategic partnerships with Quotient Consulting (with subsidiary in London, UK), and withSuiGeneris Consulting (based in Munich, Germany).

 If you have additional questions, please contact us: dan@e-crimeexpert.com

Data Protection: one Directive and two perspectives

December 4, 2012 Leave a comment

Data Protection: the economic value and the fundamental human rights perspectives

Related to our latest Blog post on Privacy vs Data Protection, today E-Crime Expert presents a short history and rational behind the Data protection legislation in the European Union.

Did you think that the EU Data Protection legislation was drafted and proposed by the European Union’s Directorate General Justice (because of its Human Rights dimension)?Actually, it was not as the Directive 95/46/EC was drafted and proposed by the DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL MARKET AND SERVICES DG MARKET.

Why? In order to find out please read bellow the rationals described in the Preamble of the Directive 95/46/EC:

The establishment and functioning of an internal market in which, in accordance with Article 7a of the European Union’s Treaty, the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured require not only that personal data should be able to flow freely from one Member State (MS) to another, but also that the fundamental rights of individuals should be safeguarded. In other words, there should be a proper balance between the free flow of personal data and the protection of fundamental human rights.

Furthermore, the economic and social integration resulting from the establishment and functioning of the internal market leads to a substantial increase in cross-border flows of personal data between all those involved in a private or public capacity in economic and social activity in the MemberStates and the exchange of personal data between undertakings in different Member States is considerable increasing. Also, the increase in scientific and technical cooperation and the new telecommunications networks in the Community necessitate and facilitate cross-border flows of personal data.

Considering the difference in levels of protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals (privacy), with regard to the processing of personal data afforded in the Member States, it could prevent the transmission of such data from the territory of one Member State to that of another Member State, which constitutes an obstacle to the pursuit of a number of economic activities at Community level, distort competition and diminishes the economic value of a such exchange of data.

Last but not least, in order to remove the obstacles for the flow of personal data, which is vital to the internal market, it is aimed to ensure that the cross-border flow of personal data is regulated in a consistent manner that is in keeping with the objective of the internal market.

Considering the above rationales as outlined in the Preamble of the Directive 95/46/EC, we can easily observe that the Data Protection legislation in the EU does not manly has a human rights dimension but an economic one as the Directive 95/46/EC was drafted and proposed by the DG Market and not by the DG Justice or DG Home, aiming to not only stop but to increase the free flow of data between the Member States by giving legal certainty to the EU citizens and providing a legal framework uniformly implemented among the MS.

The second part of this Blog Post continues with the Directive 95/46/EC human rights dimension  by explaining data protection terminology, principles, rights of data subjects and data transfer mechanisms.

 1)      data protection terminology and definitions

  • ‘personal data’ = any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); and who can be identified:
    • directly
    • indirectly,
    • in particular by reference to an identification number
    • or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity
  • ‘processing of personal data’ = any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, such as: collection, 
    • recording,
    • organization,
    • storage,
    • adaptation or alteration,
    • retrieval,
    • consultation,
    • use,
    • disclosure by transmission,
    • dissemination or otherwise making available,
    • alignment or combination,
    • blocking, erasure or destruction;
  • ‘personal data filing system’ (‘filing system’) = any structured set of personal data which are accessible according to specific criteria, whether centralized, decentralized or dispersed on a functional or geographical basis;
  • ‘controller’ = the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data;
  • ‘processor’ = a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller;
  • ‘third party’ = any natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body other than the data subject, the controller, the processor and the persons who (e.g. subcontractor), under the direct authority of the controller or the processor, are authorized to process the data;
  • ‘recipient’ = a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body to whom data are disclosed, whether a third party or not;
  • ‘the data subject’s consent’ = any freely given specific and informed indication of his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being processed.

 2)      Principles related to data protection:

  • processed
  • fairly (data subjects informed) and
  • lawfully (based on a legal act)
  • collected for:
    • specified,
    • explicit
    • legitimate purposes
    • no further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes
  • adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed;
  • accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date;
  • kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected
  • the data subject has unambiguously given his consent
  • processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract
  • processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject
  • processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject
  • processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed

 3)      Information to be given to the data subjects (fair processing)

  • the identity of the controller and of his representative, if any;
  • the purposes of the processing for which the data are intended;
  • any further information such as
    • the recipients or categories of recipients of the data,
    • whether replies to the questions are obligatory or voluntary, as well as the possible consequences of failure to reply,
    • the existence of the right of access to and the right to rectify the data concerning him

4)      Rights of data subjects:

  • Right of access
  • Right to object
  • Right to modification
  • Right to deletion

 5)      Notification

  • Those processing personal data shall provide that the controller or his representative, if any, must notify the supervisory authority (of a member states) before carrying out any wholly or partly automatic processing operation or set of such operations intended to serve a single purpose or several related purposes.

 6)      Transfer mechanisms:

  • Freely to Canada, Argentina, whole EU, etc BUT not to US (does not confer the same level of data protection as EU-because of the Patriot Act)
    • Binding Corporate Rules (for US. Set of rules agreed by the EU Commission when transferring data outside EU)
    • Safe Harbor Agreement (for US that certifies those part of this agreement comply with the EU data protection rules)

 Any questions can be submitted to: dan@e-crimeexpert.com

Additional information can be found at: www.e-crimeexppert.com

Hit the “subscribe” button in order to be notified when new videos and Articles are posted on this blog

 

Privacy versus Data Protection

November 27, 2012 6 comments

Today, E-Crime Expert presents the main similarities and differences between privacy and data protection concepts mainly from two different legislative perspectives:  Canada and the European Union (EU), and briefly from the United States (US).

Also, this blog post provides the main privacy and data protection legislative acts from Canada and EU as a useful resource for those interested or working in this field.

Last but not least, you could find bellow the full EU Data protection revision 2012 package.

I.      US versus EU versus Canada

-The United States (US) and European Union (EU) have different concepts regarding personal information and private data, such as Privacy in the US versus Data Protection in the EU.

US’s approach to privacy focuses on narrowly applicable legislation.

  • sector-based,
  • with a mix of legislation,
  • regulation and self-regulation,
  • focusing on the protection of personal information by specifically addressing a particular industry sector (i.e. medical information, online transactions, credit check, etc)
  • regulating data collected by the federal government

EU has a more comprehensive approach.

  • set of rights and principles for personal data treatment (processing),
  • without considering that the data is held in the public or private sector,
  • protects just natural persons not legal entities
  • the relation between data protection and the economic value as a proper balance between fundamental rights and free flow of information (which has economic value).
  • by granting data protection as a fundamental right, the aim is to protect the individuals but also to encourage the free flow of information, giving data subjects legal certainty and encouraging them to not negatively affect the exchange of information and data

-Canada – similar level of protection to the EU one.

  • Privacy is regulated by the government at the federal and provincial level:
    • The Privacy Act (federal level for private information held by the gov),
    • PIPEDA (federal level for private sector),
    • PIPA (provincial level for private sector, Alberta for example),
    • FOIP (provincial level for public sector, Alberta for example),
    • HIPA (federal level for health information),
    • HIA (provincial level for health information, Alberta for example)
  • The difference between Canada and EU
    • Canada’s legislation regulates both organizations and individuals privacy rights and access
    • EU’s legislation regulates the individuals’ rights (no organizations)
    • Canada gives to the individual the right to access their data or other individuals’ or organizations data along with their privacy protection right under the same Act (The Privacy Act, FOIP)
    • EU gives to the data subject the right to protection of their personal data under one single act (Directive 95) and to access data for public interest under the Transparency Regulation (1049)-no others personal data could be accessed in the private sector (just for law enforcement)
  • Canada enacted different acts for different data categories (private-PIPA, public-FOIP, health-HIA, children-Child, Youth&family enhancement act, etc)
  • EU has the same Legislative Act (e.g. Directive) but with different degrees of protection and limitations based on the data categories sensitivity (identification, medical, criminal, etc).
  • Canada sets forth a minimum time for information retention when EU sets forth a maximum time for data retention
  • in Canada information sharing is done based on Information Sharing Agreements (local, federal, international)
  • in EU the data transfer has three layers of protection for exchange locally within the same institutions, bodies, organizations, between EU member states, or internationally (with third countries).

 II.      Privacy versus data protection

  • The concept of privacy and data protection is not the same.
  • Data protection has a privacy dimension, but it is narrower in scope than the privacy concept, “as the privacy encloses more than personal data” (i.e. private life, private home, private correspondence, etc.)
  • From a different angle, it encloses a wider area, “since personal data are protected not only to enhance the privacy of the subject, but also to guarantee other fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of expression, or the right to know what data is gathered about you,  to have access to your data, to ask for modification or deletion of your data, etc”
    • Furthermore, data protection gives individuals the right to know
  • What personal data is collected,
  • on what legal grounds,
  • how it is used, for how long it used and kept,
  • and by whom.
    • specifically grants data subjects with the rights to access, modify,   update or ask for deletion of such data

 III.      EU legislative framework

IV.      EU Data protection revision 2012 (to reflect the new technological developments and to provide a consistent legislative framework across EU):

Click here to access the new proposed EU Data Protection regulation

  • It was proposed a Regulation versus the existing Directive. A Regulation is better, as it is immediately and more uniformly implemented into the Member States national law.
  • Data subjects
    • increasing responsibility and accountability – companies would have to notify their clients of any theft or accidental release of personal data
    • clarifying that where someone’s consent is required before a company reuses their personal data, they need to give that consent explicitly – people would also have access to their own private data and be able to transfer it to another service provider more easily
    • reinforcing the ‘right to be forgotten’ – people will be able to have their personal data deleted if a business or other organization has no legitimate reasons for keeping it
    • applying EU rules when personal data is processed outside Europe – people would be able to involve the national data protection authority in their country, even when their data is processed by a company based outside the EU
    • People will have easier access to their own data and be able to transfer personal data from one service provider to another more easily (right to data portability). This will improve competition among services
  • Good for business
    • A single set of rules would encourage a more consistent application of the law across the EU. Businesses would have clear rules on how to treat personal data
    • Companies would only have to deal with a single national data protection authority in the EU country where they have their main operations (saving businesses an estimated €2.3bn a year)
    • The obligation of appointment of a data protection officer for organizations with 250 employees and over (private sector
    • Instead of the current obligation of all companies to notify all data protection activities to data protection supervisors – a requirement that has led to unnecessary paperwork and costs businesses €130 million per year, the Regulation provides for increased responsibility and accountability for those processing personal data
    • Companies and organisations must notify the national supervisory authority of serious data breaches as soon as possible (if feasible within 24 hours)
    • Organisations will only have to deal with a single national data protection authority in the EU country where they have their main establishment. Likewise, people can refer to the data protection authority in their country, even when their data is processed by a company based outside the EU. Wherever consent is required for data to be processed, it is clarified that it has to be given explicitly, rather than assumed
    • EU rules must apply if personal data is handled abroad by companies that are active in the EU market and offer their services to EU citizens
    • Independent national data protection authorities will be strengthened so they can better enforce the EU rules at home. They will be empowered to fine companies that violate EU data protection rules. This can lead to penalties of up to €1 million or up to 2% of the global annual turnover of a company
  • Better enforcement
    • The new rules would give national data protection authorities powers to enforce the EU rules more rigorously
    • A new Directive will apply general data protection principles and rules for police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The rules will apply to both domestic and cross-border transfers of data. For the new Directive click here.
  • Next steps
    • The proposals is aimed to encourage more online commerce by improving consumer trust – contributing to economic growth and job creation. The new Data protection proposed legal framework (Regulation+Directive) must be approved by the European Parliament and Council before becoming law.
  • Commission Proposals on the data protection reform: legislative texts

Source: Directorat General Justice of the European Commission

Any questions can be submitted to: dan@e-crimeexpert.com

Additional information can be found at: www.e-crimeexppert.com

Hit the “subscribe” button in order to be notified when new videos and Articles are posted on this blog

EU Member States’ national Data Protection Laws

December 16, 2011 1 comment

As announced in the last blog post here, E-Crime Expert presents today the National Data Protection Legal Acts of each Member State as required by the implementation of the Directive 95/46. This could be helpful for anyone interested as there are significant differences among the Member States DP national legal frameworks, acquired during their implementation  process of  the Directive 95/46. In this regards, for a company running commercial activities in Belgium, their compliance when processing personal data in Belgium, should be subject to the Belgian DP national Law. The Directive 95/46 has no direct implication or relation to their processing operations in Belgium or in any other member States. This Directive sets forth the general European legal framework with the minimum protection requirements  for the national DP laws implemented by each member State in their own ways. Therefore, for any interested party, company or data subject, it is useful to know which DP Laws particularly applies when running businesses, doing electronic commerce or any other activities that require processing of personal data.

Transposition of the Directive 95/46 requirements into national laws.

Here you can find the national laws of each member state:

Austria

Data Protection Act 2000, Austrian Federal Law Gazette part I No. 165/1999

Belgium

Act of 8 December 1992

Royal Decree

Bulgaria

Personal Data Protection Act

Cyprus

The Processing of Personal Data (Protection of Individuals)
Law 138(I)2001

Czech Republic

Act on Protection of Personal Data (April 2000) No. 101

Denmark

Act on Processing of Personal Data, Act No. 429, May 2000.

Estonia

Personal Data Protection Act of 2003
 

Finland

 Personal Data Act (523/1999)

Act on the amendment of the Personal Data Act (986/2000)

France

Data Protection Act of 1978 (revised in 2004)

Germany

Federal Data Protection Act of 2001

Greece

Law No.2472 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data, April 1997.

Hungary

Act LXIII of 1992 on the Protection of Personal Data and the Publicity of Data of Public Interests

Ireland

Data Protection Act 1988.

Data Protection (Amendment) Act 2003.

Italy

Data Protection Code of 2003

Processing of Personal Data Act, January 1997

Latvia

Personal Data Protection Law, March 23, 2000.

Lithuania

Law on Legal Protection of Personal Data (June 1996)

Luxembourg

Law of 2 August 2002 on the Protection of Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data.

Malta

Data Protection Act (Act XXVI of 2001), Amended March 22, 2002, November 15, 2002 and July 15, 2003

The Netherlands

Dutch Personal Data Protection Act 2000

Poland

Act of the Protection of Personal Data (August 1997)

Portugal

Act on the Protection of Personal Data (Law 67/98 of 26 October)

Romania

Law No. 677/2001 for the Protection of Persons concerning the Processing of Personal Data and the Free Circulation of Such Data

Slovakia

Act No. 428 of 3 July 2002 on Personal Data Protection.

Slovenia

Personal Data Protection Act , RS No. 55/99.

Spain

ORGANIC LAW 15/1999 of 13 December on the Protection of Personal Data

Sweden

Personal Data Protection Act (1998:204), October 24, 1998

United Kingdom

UK Data Protection Act 1998

Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003

E-Crime Expert would like to thank you for reading this Blog and to wish you Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year! We’ll be back in the first week of January 2012.

Till then, stay safe!

Any questions can be submitted to: dan@e-crimeexpert.com

Additional information can be found at: www.e-crimeexppert.com

Hit the “subscribe” button in order to be notified when new videos and Articles are posted on this blog.

EU National Data Protection Authorities

December 14, 2011 1 comment

Today, E-Crime Expert presents the contact details of all the (EU) National Data Protection Authorities in order to help citizens/users know where to address and complaint in case their fundamental right to the protection of personal data it is breached. This right is granted by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of European Union. Also, the Directive 95/46 sets forth the National Data Protection Authorities to protect the right to privacy and personal data of the data subjects.

Briefly, the main roles of National DPA are:

-Investigations

-Interventions

-Hear claims and engage in legal proceedings

-Advisory

-Awareness.

Here are listed the up-to-date contact details of all EU National EU DPAs:

Austria

Österreichische Datenschutzkommission
Hohenstaufengasse 3
1010 Wien
Tel.
+43 1 531 15 25 25; Fax +43 1 531 15 26 90
e-mail:
dsk@dsk.gv.at

Belgium

Commission de la protection de la vie privée
Rue Haute 139
1000 Bruxelles
Tel. +32 2 213 8540; Fax +32 2 213 8545
e-mail:
commission@privacy.fgov.be

Bulgaria

Commission for Personal Data Protection
Mrs Veneta Shopova
15 Acad. Ivan Evstratiev Geshov Blvd.
Sofia 1431
Tel. +3592 915 3531; Fax +3592 915 3525
e-mail:
kzld@government.bg, kzld@cpdp.bg

Cyprus

Commissioner for Personal Data Protection
Mrs Panayiota Polychronidou
1 Iasonos Street,
1082 Nicosia
P.O. Box 23378, CY-1682 Nicosia
Tel. +357 22 818 456; Fax +357 22 304 565
e-mail:
commissioner@dataprotection.gov.cy

Czech Republic

The Office for Personal Data Protection
Urad pro ochranu osobnich udaju
Pplk. Sochora 27
170 00 Prague 7
Tel. +420 234 665 111; Fax +420 234 665 444
e-mail:
posta@uoou.cz

Denmark

Datatilsynet
Borgergade 28, 5
1300 Copenhagen K
Tel. +45 33 1932 00; Fax +45 33 19 32 18
e-mail:
dt@datatilsynet.dk

Estonia

Estonian Data Protection Inspectorate
(Andmekaitse Inspektsioon)
Director General: Mr Viljar Peep (Ph.D)
Väike-Ameerika 19
10129 Tallinn
Tel.
+372 6274 135; Fax +372 6274 137
e-mail: viljar.peep@aki.ee

Finland

Office of the Data Protection
Ombudsman
P.O. Box 315
FIN-00181 Helsinki
Tel.
+358 10 3666 700; Fax +358 10 3666 735
e-mail:
tietosuoja@om.fi

France

Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés
8 rue Vivienne, CS 30223
F-75002 Paris, Cedex 02
Tel.
+33 1 53 73 22 22; Fax +33 1 53 73 22 00

Germany

Der Bundesbeauftragte für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit
Husarenstraße 30
53117 Bonn
Tel.
+49 228 997799 0 or +49 228 81995 0
Fax +49 228 997799 550 or +49 228 81995 550
e-mail: poststelle@bfdi.bund.de

Greece

Hellenic Data Protection Authority
Kifisias Av. 1-3, PC 11523
Ampelokipi Athens
Tel. +30 210 6475 600; Fax +30 210 6475 628
e-mail: contact@dpa.gr

Hungary

Data Protection Commissioner of Hungary
Parliamentary Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information: Dr András Jóri
Nádor u. 22.
1051 Budapest
Tel. +36 1 475 7186; Fax +36 1 269 3541
e-mail: adatved@obh.hu

Ireland

Data Protection Commissioner
Canal House
Station Road
Portarlington
Co. Laois
Lo-Call: 1890 25 22 31
Tel. +353 57 868 4800; Fax +353 57 868 4757
e-mail: info@dataprotection.ie

Italy

Garante per la protezione dei dati personali
Piazza di Monte Citorio, 121
00186 Roma
Tel.
+39 06 69677 1; Fax +39 06 69677 785
e-mail: garante@garanteprivacy.it

Latvia

Data State Inspectorate
Director: Ms Signe Plumina
Blaumana str. 11/13-15
1011 Riga
Tel. +371 6722 3131; Fax +371 6722 3556
e-mail: info@dvi.gov.lv

Lithuania

State Data Protection
Inspectorate Director: Mr Algirdas Kunčinas
Žygimantų str. 11-6a
011042 Vilnius
Tel. + 370 5 279 14 45; Fax +370 5 261 94 94
e-mail: ada@ada.lt

Luxembourg

Commission nationale pour la protection des données
41 avenue de la Gare
1611 Luxembourg
Tel.
+352 2610 60 1; Fax +352 2610 60 29
e-mail: info@cnpd.lu

Malta

Office of the Data Protection Commissioner
Data Protection Commissioner: Mr Joseph Ebejer
2, Airways House
High Street, Sliema SLM 1549
Tel. +356 2328 7100; Fax +356 2328 7198
e-mail: commissioner.dataprotection@gov.mt

The Netherlands

College bescherming persoonsgegevens
Dutch Data Protection Authority
Juliana van Stolberglaan 4-10
P.O. Box 93374
2509 AJ Den Haag/The Hague
Tel. +31 70 888 8500; Fax +31 70 888 8501
e-mail: info@cbpweb.nl

Poland

The Bureau of the Inspector General for the Protection of Personal Data
Inspector General for Personal Data Protection: Mr Wojciech Rafał Wiewiórowski
ul. Stawki 2
00-193 Warsaw
Tel. +48 22 860 70 81; Fax +48 22 860 70 90
e-mail: sekretariat@giodo.gov.pl

Portugal

Comissão Nacional de Protecção de Dados
R. de São.
Bento, 148-3°
1200-821 Lisboa
Tel. +351 21 392 84 00; Fax +351 21 397 68 32
e-mail: geral@cnpd.pt

Romania

The National Supervisory Authority for Personal Data Processing
President: Mrs Georgeta BASARABESCU
Str. Olari nr. 32
Sector 2, BUCUREŞTI
Cod poştal 024057
Tel. +40 21 252 5599; Fax +40 21 252 5757
e-mail: anspdcp@dataprotection.ro

Slovakia

Office for Personal Data Protection of the SR
President: Mr Gyula Veszelei
Odborárske námestie č. 3
817 60, Bratislava
Tel. + 421 2 5023 9418; Fax + 421 2 5023 9441
e-mail: statny.dozor@pdp.gov.sk or gyula.veszelei@pdp.gov.sk

Slovenia

Information Commissioner
Ms Natasa Pirc Musar
Vošnjakova 1
1000 Ljubljana
Tel.
+386 1 230 9730; Fax +386 1 230 9778
e-mail:
gp.ip@ip-rs.si

Spain

Agencia de Protección de Datos
C/Jorge Juan, 6
28001 Madrid
Tel. +34 91399 6200; Fax +34 91455 5699
e-mail:
internacional@agpd.es

Sweden

Datainspektionen
Drottninggatan 29
5th Floor
Box 8114
104 20 Stockholm
Tel. +46 8 657 6100; Fax +46 8 652 8652
e-mail:
datainspektionen@datainspektionen.se

United Kingdom

The Office of the Information Commissioner Executive Department
Mr Christopher Graham
Water Lane, Wycliffe House
Wilmslow – Cheshire SK9 5AF
Tel. +44 1 625 54 57 00

Stay posted as the next blog  post will bring you the individual EU National Data Protection legal act that transpose the Directive 95/46 into National Law.

Any questions can be submitted to: dan@e-crimeexpert.com

Additional information can be found at: www.e-crimeexppert.com

Do you have any complaint? Did you know where to address in case of DP breach?

Hit the “subscribe” button in order to be notified when new videos and Articles are posted on this blog.

Case law: leak of personal data (information)

December 5, 2011 Leave a comment

This month E-Crime Expert is presenting relevant Case law and rulings regarding data protection rights, law applicability and enforcement.

The purpose of this new series is to show actually how the relevant law should be applied in order to properly balance the right to free access of public information, free flow of information and the right to Privacy and Personal Data protection.

The series will balance both the applicability of Data Protection law in the private and public sector, focusing mostly on the Directive 95/46/EC (private sector) and Regulation 45/2001/EC (rights to data protection of individuals working with/for EU Institutions and bodies).

T-259/03, Nikolaou v. Commission, 12.9.2007

Action for non-contractual liability based on acts and omissions of OLAF. OLAF had disclosed certain information about its investigation concerning the applicant: a leak of information to a journalist; its annual report with information about the investigation; and its press statement. Applicant had requested access to the file and the final case report.

Burden of proof for establishing non-contractual liability: Normal rule: The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish: i) Illegal action of an institution; ii) Damages; iii) Proof that damages were caused by the illegal action of the institution. However, burden of proof shifts to the institution when a fact giving rise to damages could have resulted from various causes, and the institution has not introduced any element of proof as to which was the true cause, even though it was best placed to do so. Court concluded OLAF staff member leaked information (including PD) to a journalist, which were published, and OLAF’s press release confirmed the veracity of facts (including PD) that had been mentioned in several press articles. PD definition: The information published in the press release was PD, since the DS was easily identifiable, under the circumstances. The fact that the applicant was not named did not protect her anonymity. Processing definition: 1. Leak (unauthorised transmission of PD to a journalist by someone inside OLAF) and 2. publication of press release each constitute processing of PD.

Lawfulness:

Leak constitutes unlawful processing in violation of Article 5 of Reg. 45/2001 because it was not authorized by the DS, not necessary under the other sub-paragraphs and it did not result from a decision by OLAF. Even though OLAF has a margin of discretion on transmissions, here it was not exercised because leak is unauthorised transmission. OLAF is best placed to prove how the leak occurred and that the Director of OLAF did not violate his obligations under Article 8(3) of Reg. 1073/99.

In the absence of such proof, OLAF (Commission) must be held responsible. No concrete showing of an internal system of control to prevent leaks or information in question had been treated in a manner that would guarantee its confidentiality.

Publication of press release was not lawful under Article 5(a) and (b) because public did not need to know the information published in the press release at the time of its publication, before the competent authorities had decided whether to undertake judicial, disciplinary or financial follow-up.

Damages for violation of DP rules: violation of Reg. 45/2001 qualifies as an illegal act of an institution conferring rights on an individual. Objective of Reg. is to confer such rights on DSs.

A leak of PD is necessarily a grave and manifest violation. Director has margin of appreciation on prevention, but made no showing.

OLAF gravely and manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion in the application of Article 5(a) and (e), which was sufficient to engage the responsibility of the Community.

Credits and acknowledgment go to Laraine Laudati, OLAF DPO.

This was the last case law analyzes from this series.

Any questions can be submitted to: dan@e-crimeexpert.com

Additional information can be found at: www.e-crimeexppert.com

What do you think about the findings? Do you think that the applicant was right? 

Hit the “subscribe” button in order to be notified when new videos and Articles are posted on this blog.

%d bloggers like this: