Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

It is decided to admonise the City Council of Tarragona since, in a call made by the person denouncing the Urban Guard of this City Council, he was collected personal data (name, surnames, DNI number and voice) and was not informed of the content provided in Article 13 GDPR. In addition, the city council is also credited with violating the principle of confidentiality since the Guardia Urbana informed the House denouncing that the "Seva Más" would have called, from the same home, to denounce the same facts. With regard to the collection of personal data, which the complainant considers excessive, it is appropriate to archive the facts since, according to the rules of administrative procedure, when a citizen submits a complaint, it must be identified.

It resolves to admonise the City Council since for an unspecified period, which at least covers the months of November 2020 until January 2021, it did not have a risk analysis of the personal data it processed, nor had it implemented all the security and technical measures, in accordance with the National Security Scheme, as required by Article 32 GDPR, in relation to the recording of telephone calls maintained by the local police. On the other hand, the dissemination by a local police officer to other agents of the body, of the content of a telephone conversation held by the complainant with a Medical Emergencies Service worker, contravened the principle of confidentiality.

It is considered unlikely that the City Council does not have the requested recording, although the right of access to the recording is recognised, unless the City Council does not have a copy and is not within its reach.

The person who makes the call on a telephone of emergencies as well as the patient have the right to obtain a copy from the recording corresponding to the maintained conversation between that one who makes the call and the professionals who attend to it. Regarding the recording related to the conversation that the professionals only maintain for the purpose of deciding the performances to carry out, the transcription of this conversation could be facilitated to the persons concerned or, if is necessary, copy of the previous distortion recording of the voice of the affected professionals.

The School published during an indeterminate time but at least, until February of year 2018, a series of videos that collected images and/or sees of minors, attracted during the concert of Christmas, without having the consent of its progenitors/him since in the model of authorization he did not specify the Canal You Tube that the data could also be published.

The collection of images and sounds from which physical persons can be identified, on the occasion of the collection of tests linked to complaints or certificates of inspection, it constitutes a treatment subjected to the LOPD, even if it cannot be qualified as videovigilància. Consequently, it will be subjected to the duties and duties established to the regulations of data protection. Regarding the use of videovigilància cameras for agents of the EXPENSIVE one in outer spaces to provide security to the performer agents in the face of possible aggressions or attempts of aggression, or in its functions at police judicial or of administrative police special, it would only be possible if counted, if it is proper, with the foreseen corresponding authorization in the regulations of videovigilància police. This would determine the terms in which the treatment, including, can be produced if it is proper, its incorporation in the Register of authorizations, and the terms in which it would be necessary to the affected persons to give information.

In so far as the University orders of the unambiguous, previous, express consent and informed of the affected persons, in the exposed terms in the judgement, it is possible to deposit the data of the researches (engravings) of the projects in open access subsidized by the Program H2020, although it is advisable from spreading them in the foreseen conditions to appraise the ownership, especially, in those suppositions in which deserving data could be revealed of special protection. The recording of physical persons focused on in the movement of the lips while they pronounce preestablished sentences, in order to facilitate the learning of the reading of lips, does not seem that in this case it has to be considered a data processing biometric, in the sense established in the article 9 of the RGPD.

The data processing carried out by the municipal Group, as a responsible (art. 3 d) LOPD), through the recording and posterior diffusion of the intervention of its spokesman, he has to undergo the principles and guarantees of the regulations of data of personal character protection. The municipal Group, with character previous at the beginning of the treatment, it should create the corresponding file of data (article 20 LOPD), by agreement of the same municipal Group, in accordance with what foresees the article 52 of the RLOPD, to publish it and to notify it to the Register of Data Protection of Catalonia, in accordance with the article 11 of the Law 32/2010.

The recording of the conversation with the doctors of the ICAM, for the person subjected to medical inspection and/or its escorts, constitutes a data processing personal (art. 3 c) LOPD), that he will have to undergo the principles and duties to the regulations of data protection. The recording of the conversation in question can require, normally, the previous consent of the doctor. If the consent is not conceded, and there is not another juridical basis that can fit out the treatment, in principle this will not be legitimate, even though it cannot be discarded that in some suppositions a legitimate interest coincides that could fit out the treatment, the fulfillment of the principles and duties regrets necessary, in this case, that it imposes the regulations of data protection.

The recording of the conversation of a member of the team of government for a citizen in principle requires the previous consent of the affected one. However, it could be legitimated if it is made in order to use it with occasion of the demand of responsibilities. The diffusion, without consent, of this conversation could be legitimated when the recorded information is truthful, given public significance has the object matter of the information or the implicated person, and its diffusion is proportionate to the general interest that justifies.