-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message <[email protected]>, Jeremy Rowley <[email protected]> writes
>Wacky court decisions are always a risk. However, the EU has established that >data collectors must delete public facing personal information at the >information holder's request. nope it says that the data processor must balance the rights of the data subject with the reason for doing the processing and the legitimate rights of the public to see the result of that processing after that balance has been done then it may well be (as in the Costeja case) that deletion is the correct thing to do. However, in many other cases the data can remain available (and indeed Google regularly rejects requests to remove search results). in this context one might also pay attention to Breyer v Deutschland (where the court held that dynamic IP addresses were capable of being personal data) because the judgment also observed that processing IP addresses in order to keep web servers secure was legitimate... viz: even though it's personal data you can still use it provided that your processing is appropriate IANAL (but I drink coffee with them regularly) - -- Dr Richard Clayton <[email protected]> Director, Cambridge Cybercrime Centre mobile: +44 (0)7887 794090 Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, CB3 0FD tel: +44 (0)1223 763570 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBWBomizu8z1Kouez7EQKzKQCfXKSrK/BpEGbcYJswm27fBkFPLC4An3QB gOFqMnS8fbRVvUReB8cHigA/ =pvrt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
