Phorum.com.gr

talaipwros έγραψε: 05 Ιουν 2021, 00:59

Awesomatic έγραψε: 05 Ιουν 2021, 00:51 Είχα δώσει σχετική γνωμοδότηση του ευρωπαϊκού δικαστηρίου σε μια υπόθεση που έλεγε πως μπορεί να θεωρηθεί προσωπικό δεδομένο μόνο όταν υπάρχει τεχνικά η δυνατότητα να συσχετιστεί με το άτομο αλλά πέρασε στα ψιλά γιατί εδώ μας αρέσει το δράμα.

το ειχα γραψει και πιο πριν, δε βαριεσαι.

talaipwros έγραψε: 05 Ιουν 2021, 01:00

Δημοκρατικός έγραψε: 05 Ιουν 2021, 00:53

Awesomatic έγραψε: 05 Ιουν 2021, 00:51 Είχα δώσει σχετική γνωμοδότηση του ευρωπαϊκού δικαστηρίου σε μια υπόθεση που έλεγε πως μπορεί να θεωρηθεί προσωπικό δεδομένο μόνο όταν υπάρχει τεχνικά η δυνατότητα να συσχετιστεί με το άτομο αλλά πέρασε στα ψιλά γιατί εδώ μας αρέσει το δράμα.

Εδώ παρατίθεται ευρωπαϊκή νομοθεσία καθώς και πολύ συγκεκριμένες ερμηνείες απο ελληνικά δικηγορικά γραφεία. Το τι ερμηνείες κάνει ο κάθε μη νομικός, δεν νομίζω να ενδιαφέρει κανένα δικαστήριο.

αγαπητε τα πραγματα ειναι απλα.
Πας, δινεις λεφτα, κανεις αγωγη και περιμενεις να δεις τι θα σου πω ο δικηγορος που πληρωσες.
Μαλλον εσυ δεν μπορεις να κανεις αγωγη γιατι δεν ειναι η δικια σου IP αυτη που δημοσιευθηκε ( αν δημοσιευθηκε)

Awesomatic έγραψε: 05 Ιουν 2021, 00:51 Είχα δώσει σχετική γνωμοδότηση του ευρωπαϊκού δικαστηρίου σε μια υπόθεση που έλεγε πως μπορεί να θεωρηθεί προσωπικό δεδομένο μόνο όταν υπάρχει τεχνικά η δυνατότητα να συσχετιστεί με το άτομο αλλά πέρασε στα ψιλά γιατί εδώ μας αρέσει το δράμα.

talaipwros έγραψε: 05 Ιουν 2021, 00:59

Awesomatic έγραψε: 05 Ιουν 2021, 00:51 Είχα δώσει σχετική γνωμοδότηση του ευρωπαϊκού δικαστηρίου σε μια υπόθεση που έλεγε πως μπορεί να θεωρηθεί προσωπικό δεδομένο μόνο όταν υπάρχει τεχνικά η δυνατότητα να συσχετιστεί με το άτομο αλλά πέρασε στα ψιλά γιατί εδώ μας αρέσει το δράμα.

το ειχα γραψει και πιο πριν, δε βαριεσαι.

Ruling of the ECJ

The ECJ decided that a dynamic IP address does not only constitute personal data with respect to the internet service provider (which has the means to link the IP address to the individual behind the address in any case), but also with respect to the operator of a website, if this website operator has legal means to identify the visitor with the help of additional information from the visitor’s internet service provider. The ECJ confirmed this with respect to German law. Although the operator of a website does not have any direct claims against an internet service provider to provide the name of an individual behind an IP address, the court found it to be sufficient, if the website operator can obtain the information required to identify the visitor of the website from the internet provider via a competent authority which requests the information to prepare criminal proceedings, e.g. in the event of cyberattacks. As a consequence, the processing of IP addresses by website operators is subject to and has to comply with the applicable member state data protection requirements. Beyond this specific case, the ECJ has provided sufficient tools to determine whether information constitutes personal data, if the information cannot be directly linked to an individual, but only by using additional information which is held by a third party. According to the ECJ, this is not the case, if the identification of the data subject was

prohibited by law or
practically impossible on account of the fact that it requires a disproportionate effort in terms of time, cost and man-power, so that the risk of identification appears in reality to be insignificant.

The classification of dynamic IP addresses as personal data required the ECJ to have a closer look on the German data protection rules dealing with the processing of personal data in the online environment. Currently applicable law allows the processing of personal data without the data subject’s consent only in specific comprehensive cases. A general provision which provides for the possibility of a balancing of interest in a particular case is not included. According to the ECJ, this lack of a statutory permission is not complaint with Article 7 lit. f) of the Data Protection Directive. This finding also has a fundamental impact going beyond the case at hand as all member state data protection laws now have to be reviewed whether they allow for balancing of interests, at least in individual cases.

Conclusion

The decision of the ECJ forces all operators of websites, irrespective of whether they are public administration or private businesses, to review the collection, processing and use of IP addresses in connection with their websites. However, the ECJ has also strengthened IT security as it pointed out that member state law has to provide for the possibility to process personal data without consent for cybersecurity purposes.

https://blogs.dlapiper.com/privacymatte ... jan-pohle/

talaipwros έγραψε: 05 Ιουν 2021, 01:16 διαβασες τι λεει αυτο που εβαλες;

Δημοκρατικός έγραψε: 05 Ιουν 2021, 01:14

talaipwros έγραψε: 05 Ιουν 2021, 00:59

Awesomatic έγραψε: 05 Ιουν 2021, 00:51 Είχα δώσει σχετική γνωμοδότηση του ευρωπαϊκού δικαστηρίου σε μια υπόθεση που έλεγε πως μπορεί να θεωρηθεί προσωπικό δεδομένο μόνο όταν υπάρχει τεχνικά η δυνατότητα να συσχετιστεί με το άτομο αλλά πέρασε στα ψιλά γιατί εδώ μας αρέσει το δράμα.

το ειχα γραψει και πιο πριν, δε βαριεσαι.

Aγγλικά ξέρεις γιατρέ:

Ruling of the ECJ

The ECJ decided that a dynamic IP address does not only constitute personal data with respect to the internet service provider (which has the means to link the IP address to the individual behind the address in any case), but also with respect to the operator of a website, if this website operator has legal means to identify the visitor with the help of additional information from the visitor’s internet service provider. The ECJ confirmed this with respect to German law. Although the operator of a website does not have any direct claims against an internet service provider to provide the name of an individual behind an IP address, the court found it to be sufficient, if the website operator can obtain the information required to identify the visitor of the website from the internet provider via a competent authority which requests the information to prepare criminal proceedings, e.g. in the event of cyberattacks. As a consequence, the processing of IP addresses by website operators is subject to and has to comply with the applicable member state data protection requirements. Beyond this specific case, the ECJ has provided sufficient tools to determine whether information constitutes personal data, if the information cannot be directly linked to an individual, but only by using additional information which is held by a third party. According to the ECJ, this is not the case, if the identification of the data subject was

prohibited by law or
practically impossible on account of the fact that it requires a disproportionate effort in terms of time, cost and man-power, so that the risk of identification appears in reality to be insignificant.

The classification of dynamic IP addresses as personal data required the ECJ to have a closer look on the German data protection rules dealing with the processing of personal data in the online environment. Currently applicable law allows the processing of personal data without the data subject’s consent only in specific comprehensive cases. A general provision which provides for the possibility of a balancing of interest in a particular case is not included. According to the ECJ, this lack of a statutory permission is not complaint with Article 7 lit. f) of the Data Protection Directive. This finding also has a fundamental impact going beyond the case at hand as all member state data protection laws now have to be reviewed whether they allow for balancing of interests, at least in individual cases.

Conclusion

The decision of the ECJ forces all operators of websites, irrespective of whether they are public administration or private businesses, to review the collection, processing and use of IP addresses in connection with their websites. However, the ECJ has also strengthened IT security as it pointed out that member state law has to provide for the possibility to process personal data without consent for cybersecurity purposes.

https://blogs.dlapiper.com/privacymatte ... jan-pohle/

Όποιος δεν ξέρει να του το μεταφράσουμε. Είναι πολύ εύκολο να καταλάβει κάποιος τι σημαίνει.

Δημοκρατικός έγραψε: 05 Ιουν 2021, 01:27 Γι αυτό ακριβώς και κάθε σάητ επιτρέπεται να επεξεργάζεται νόμιμα τις IP των χρηστών. Δεν επιτρέπεται να τις επεξεργάζεται μη-σύννομα. Δημοσίευση IP χρήστη αποτελεί παράνομη επεξεργασία.

if this website operator has legal means to identify the visitor with the help of additional information from the visitor’s internet service provider