-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The article at http://www.bger.ch/index/press/press-inherit-template/press-mitteilungen.htm?id=tf1 in translation reads:
"In its recommendation of 9 January 2008 held the FDPIC, the question Aktiengesellschaft (AG) search using the software developed by the peer-to-peer networks to illegally offer copyrighted works. When you download these works were different transmission data recorded and stored in a database. The data thus collected would then be passed on to the copyright owners and used by them to identify the owner of the Internet connection. To this end, the copyright holder filed a criminal complaint against, among other things unknown and procured the identity data in the inspection law. This data could then be used to assert claims against the suspected copyright infringers. The FDPIC has concluded that this action violated the Privacy Act and recommended the immediate cessation of data processing. After the AG had rejected the FDPIC came to the Federal Administrative Court, which dismissed his action, however." So an agent acting on behalf of a content copyright owner who used the IP address of an alleged infringer to contact their ISP was deemed to be in violation of the Swiss privacy act? Madness. Dave. Thomas Mangin wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Until I see some clearer explanation of the court decision and its > consequence, I will refrain from commenting, hence why I sent the message > untouched. > This is however clearly something to watch closely and quite a different > stance that what we have been used to see. > > Thomas > > On 8 Sep 2010, at 11:25, David Freedman wrote: > >> Fail. >> >> I can see where the judge may be coming from when a residential/consumer has >> a static address (and it becomes in their mind like their personal phone >> number) but what about for business? >> >> Dave. >> >> >> >> On 08/09/2010 13:15, "Thomas Mangin" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> FYI >>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>>> From: Pascal Gloor <[email protected]> >>>>> Date: 8 September 2010 11:25:18 GMT+01:00 >>>>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: [swinog] IP address are now personal data >>>>> >>>>> Dear community, >>>>> >>>>> something important for us happened today that may have some impact on our >>>>> daily business. >>>>> >>>>> Our Federal Court just decided that IP addresses are personal data and the >>>>> federal law about data protection must also be followed also for IP >>>>> addresses. Collecting IP adresses for private (corporate) investigation is >>>>> not legal. Companies like Logistep have to stop their activities >>>>> immédiately! >>>>> >>>>> As ISP be carefull not to publish traffic information containing IP >>>>> addresses. >>>>> >>>>> see you, >>>>> Pascal >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> swinog mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog >>>> >>> >>> >> -- >> >> David Freedman >> Group Network Engineering >> >> [email protected] >> Tel +44 (0) 20 7685 8000 >> >> Claranet Group >> 21 Southampton Row >> London - WC1B 5HA - UK >> http://www.claranet.com >> >> Company Registration: 3152737 - Place of registration: England >> >> All the information contained within this electronic message from Claranet >> Ltd is covered by the disclaimer at http://www.claranet.co.uk/disclaimer >> >> > > - -- David Freedman Group Network Engineering [email protected] Tel +44 (0) 20 7685 8000 Claranet Group 21 Southampton Row London - WC1B 5HA - UK http://www.claranet.com Company Registration: 3152737 - Place of registration: England All the information contained within this electronic message from Claranet Ltd is covered by the disclaimer at http://www.claranet.co.uk/disclaimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkyHjjgACgkQtFWeqpgEZrLWAACdFYPCiSnF42vTlBriuIEDAcFP 204An26CpgOEupPGpH9OTbRZ9DqsSYnS =BOg2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
