Cervical Mucus Flow Before Menstruation

The AEPD vs. Google

Yesterday they were the media and the Internet rather mixed with the news that Google go to the High Court to avoid having to remove search results, both for the story itself, for the clarifications Director of English Agency for Data Protection (AEPD) . For time, the AEPD and Google have had an intense relationship, how could it be otherwise, a relationship that, while not going through its best time, you have to finish because I think we are doomed to be understood . The fact is that we face the common problem of an individual wants Google to stop providing, among its findings, a link to information about him that is detrimental for any reason.

Although there have been any exception (what would the AEPD no exceptions to its usual doctrine?), Usually estimated requests for protection of rights of those affected (as in this case and this ), so that the AEPD believes that Google has to address the right of opposition from those affected and remove from your data for these results. And the news (it's not news, in the sense that there is nothing that was unknown until now) is that Google uses the AEPD resolutions before the Board before the Contentious-Administrative Court.

In line with this, I should clarify and comment on several points:

- The AEPD is directed to Google Spain, SL, an entity that is not operated by the finder. There is only going to Google Terms of Service to see that the entity holding the seeker is "Google Inc., a company established in 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA." Come on, Google is an American form, surprise surprise.

- The AEPD not ignored (as it can not be otherwise) that website owners can opt out of the search, using robots.txt files . Even the AEPD has called in a procedure the web hosting personal data to arbitrate "Necessary measures to prevent the indexing of data [...] and prevent their being susceptible to recruitment by Internet search engines" .

- AEPD The criterion is based on that there are occasions in which the owner of the website that hosts the information is prevented by law to cease the processing of data (eg, an official) impairment that does not occur in the case of search, that " must take steps not only to cease the processing of information, but also to prevent future access to it through of their service. " He explains the Agency's Statement on Internet search engines.

- The AEPD has the important backing of the Working Group Article 29 (a consultative body European Union Data Protection), which, in its "Opinion on data protection issues related to search engines" , estimated e n relation to deletion of personal data of its indexes and search results, search engines have enough control to be considered responsible for treatment (either alone or jointly with others) in those cases. "

I look forward the decision of the Court, but whatever it is sure to have just in the Supreme. Meanwhile, since Google does not attend the exercise of rights, which are interested in to be removed from the searches, you can follow these tips , although Google probably argue as in the procedures discussed, namely that the complaints , the master armorer.

minimally

What Colour Table Light Couch

The record does not collect personal forums, e-mail even

Anyone who knows the rules on data protection think we have no idea of \u200b\u200bthe subject or directly, we have gone crazy to write the title of this post. However, following a resolution of the English Agency for Data Protection (AEPD) that have given us, we can say this without any problem.

This resolution reflected that, to perform the registration a forum , are set apart as "username", "confirm email address " and "password." However, for the AEPD, "the data being requested do not have to identify the person that makes the fact that normally occurs in this type of forum in which the affected hides behind an alias or conflicting data identifiable with the holder. " This sentence deserves to be framed must consider two aspects:

- First, understand the Agency, as "normally" in these forums " the affected hides behind an alias, can not be identifiable to the facilitator. It is rather curious that the phrase itself is accepting the opposite possibility: if" normally "used an alias, it means that there will be occasions, albeit abnormal, which can provide a real name. That is, the same resolution granting the possibility (quite real, otherwise) that used, for example, the name of the person, for which not think it necessary to go into identifying capacity for one person.

- On the other hand, as noted earlier, one of the data provided on the registration of the forum is the e-mail address . Is an interpretation rather than established by the English Agency for Data Protection to consider the email as a personal data, even in those cases where the address can not directly identify a person (eg , in an address like arhkjdfasd@gmail.com). So what is said "Forever", as you can read this well-known legal report, which said that "even in those cases where the email address does not appear to display data related to the individual account holder [...] e-mail address will necessarily referenced to a specific domain, so that identification may be made by consulting the owner of the server that manages the domain, but this can be considered which carries a disproportionate effort on the part of those who made the identification ". However, returning to the resolution we comment, now it appears that the email address "does not need to identify the person." And they are so wide, as it somehow.

not yet recovered from my amazement, however this outrageous decision, I urge the perpetrators of forums to consider that the collection of data made for registration in their forums is within the scope of the Data Protection Act and therefore , take appropriate action.