Im Gutachten "Modernisierung des Datenschutzrechts" im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums des Innern, verfasst im Jahr 2001 von Alexander Rossnagel, Andreas Pfitzmann and Hans Jürgen Garstka were first made comprehensive proposals for adapting the law to the new realities of electronic networking, which can be described by the terms globality, virtuality, convergence and transparency. The proposals were but weiterverfolgt.Nun not for many years are proposals from the Independent Centre for Privacy Protection Schleswig-Holstein (ULD) for the regulation of personal Internet data releases from:
law on the regulation of Internet publications in the Federal Data Protection Act (as of 10/27/2010)
https: / / www.datenschutzzentrum.de/internet/20101027-gesetzentwurf-internetveroeffentlichungen.html
The draft formulated the main guidelines for a specific specification, such as a regulated self-regulation can be observed and substantiated and need. In this respect, he takes up the key points of the Federal Ministry of the Interior during the peak call "Digitalization of urban and rural areas" of 20.09.2010 on.
I reach out this time only two changes, but I recommend the text read at the link above.
Ad 2 Amendment to § 3 para 1 (Relevant data)
The increased collection of factual data to which a personal reference can be made, for example via the Internet of things "(such as smart phones, intelligent household") or through the acquisition of property (for example, automobiles, houses, properties) as the content data of Internet publications, is an uncertainty in the determination of people to mere factual data formed. The Art 29 Data Protection Working Party of the European Union has this worked out an opinion that is not the be placed on the theoretical Personenbeziehbarkeit a material date, but whether the subject date is in a context of a natural person or may be made functionally and thus there is a moral rights meaningful. The Article 29 Working Party established the first results from the context, 2 or 3 contents context context purpose (Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 4 / 2007 by 20.06.2007, WP 136). The text of the law is that reasoning by law.
Ad 3 Further to § 3 para 4 (Term of publishing)
Until now subsumed the provision of personal data to an unlimited number of recipients within the definition of "transmit" (Federal Constitutional Court NJW 1988, 2031, and further evidence for Weichert Däubler / Adhesive / Weddington / Weichert, BDSG, 3rd ed § 3 footnote 46). The application of this transmission concept has meant that the practice of publishing personal data in electronic networks, particularly the Internet, practically a plurality of transmission schemes no longer apply, you do not want to exclude this publication legally complete. This is especially true for the Establishment of automated retrieval procedure (§ 10) and the basic rules of § 29 paragraph 2 to the data processing for the purpose of transfer. The Supreme Court took in reliance on article 5 of the Basic Law in its Spickmich rating this conclusion and reasoned from basic legal considerations, the practical inapplicability of § 29 paragraph 2 in the practically most relevant range of expression on the Internet (BGH NJW 2009, 2888 - Spickmich). This inapplicability is ultimately the transmission rules into question. The introduction of the concept of publishing This form of data processing is now subject to a separate regime and conceptually from the "Submit" separately. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has solved the problem of practical unenforceability of the transfer rules in that it in Internet publications, the applications of the term transfer denied, but without deriving a self-control (ECJ RDV 2004, 16). With the creation of the new § 29a this gap is filled.
0 comments:
Post a Comment