Trans­pa­ren­cy

Pri­va­cy Icons launched 

The Pri­va­cy Icons asso­cia­ti­on laun­ched the Pri­va­cy Icons today. They are pic­to­grams that com­ple­ment pri­va­cy state­ments and are thus inten­ded to incre­a­se trans­pa­ren­cy. Respon­si­ble par­ties can each per topic – type of data, source, spe­cial pro­ces­sing such as pro­filing, dis­clo­sure to third parties,

CNIL fine against Goog­le confirmed 

France’s hig­hest admi­ni­stra­ti­ve court, the Con­seil d’E­tat, upheld the CNIL’s fine against Goog­le on June 19, 2020 (Janu­a­ry 21, 2019, EUR 50 mil­li­on). The Con­seil d’E­tat first con­firms that Goog­le LLC does not have a princi­pal place of busi­ness in the EU or, at the time

LfDI Lower Sax­o­ny: FAQ on infor­ma­ti­on requirements 

The Data Pro­tec­tion Com­mis­sio­ner of the Sta­te of Lower Sax­o­ny has published FAQ on the infor­ma­ti­on requi­re­ments accord­ing to Art. 13 and 14 GDPR. The fol­lo­wing points, among others, are note­wor­thy: For the indi­ca­ti­on of the respon­si­ble per­son it seems to be necessa­ry, not (only) the name of the company,

Acti­vi­ty Report of the Saxon Data Pro­tec­tion Com­mis­sio­ner 2017/2018

The Saxon data pro­tec­tion com­mis­sio­ner has published his acti­vi­ty report for the years 2017 and 2018. Among other things, it sta­tes the fol­lo­wing: Pro­per­ty mana­gers are not order pro­ces­sors of the homeow­ners, but inde­pen­dent respon­si­ble par­ties. In any case, the use of a dash­cam is not in the legi­ti­ma­te interest,

VG Trier: Excep­ti­on to the duty to inform affirmed 

On Dec. 2, 2019, the Trier Admi­ni­stra­ti­ve Court, in a deci­si­on not avail­ab­le to the public (7 L 4487/19.TR), held that when a file was crea­ted, a public aut­ho­ri­ty was not requi­red to inform the data sub­ject under Arti­cle 13 GDPR becau­se the data subject’s file was

DSK: Pro­gress report on the GDPR; pro­po­sal of faci­li­ta­ti­ons and tightenings 

On Novem­ber 6, 2019, the Con­fe­rence of Inde­pen­dent Data Pro­tec­tion Aut­ho­ri­ties of the Fede­ra­ti­on and the Län­der (Data Pro­tec­tion Con­fe­rence, DSK) adop­ted a report on the expe­ri­en­ces with the app­li­ca­ti­on of the GDPR. Among other things, the DSK comes to the fol­lo­wing con­clu­si­ons – which are not conclusive

6B_1188/2018: Usa­bi­li­ty of pri­va­te dash­cam record­ings in cri­mi­nal pro­ce­e­dings denied here 

In its ruling 6B_1188/2018 of Sep­tem­ber 26, 2019, the Federal Supre­me Court com­men­ted on the con­tro­ver­si­al que­sti­on under which cir­cum­stan­ces pri­va­te record­ings from dash­cam came­ras can be used in cri­mi­nal pro­ce­e­dings. The District Court of Bül­ach had affir­med the usa­bi­li­ty in the pre­sent case, as did the Hig­her Court of Zurich. The BGer