The information on which the search is based has been translated by a computer system without human intervention. It may contain errors in vocabulary, syntax or grammar. The translation may also produce mistakes in the searches performed.
18 results were found for your search terms Social networks
There are not elements enough which they allow to deduce from the origin of the leak being the Town Council. Application of the of presumption of innocence.
A residents association sent a mail with an attached file to the Town Council. The file contained the particulars of 55 partners|members, in particular, name|noun and surnames, and DNI. Later, in a group of WhatsApp created by an individual a photo of the listing of partners|members turned up published. The Town Council brought a technical report of a computer company which he|she|it concludes did not find any evidence that the information had distributed to itself from the computers of the Town Council. The accusing person did not bring any evidence which it|he|she allowed to deduce from the Town Council being the responsible for the diffusion|broadcast of the document either, beyond the fact that it|he|she sent the controversial document by|out of|for electronic mail in the Town Council. There was not evidence in head|boss of the messages of the groups of WhatsApp brought by the accusing person either.
The is filed, since the origin of the information nor publication the profile of have been able to be proved.
The accusing person complained that from a determinate profile of Twitter information was published about its|his|her|their penal antecedents, as well as its|his|her|their photograph|photography. He|She affirmed that the profile of Twitter was managed by police. But of the information brought (a screenshot of a message of WhasApp that a third person would have sent to its|his|her|their daughter, which|who contained the photograph|photography of the accusing person and the denounced information), the authorship of the same was not evident, and it was not seen either that it|he|she was a tweet.
The Authority started a phase of previous research to find out the denounced facts and could be evident that the denounced account|bill had been suspended by the social network to contravene the conditions of Twitter use, that from different|distinct user profiles several tweets had been made similar to the accusing facts and that the information about the penal antecedents and the photograph|photography had also been published by several digital media. Everything made think that the origin of the information was in the publications of the digital newspapers and in the debate of posterior opinion about the newsworthy facts that took place in Twitter. In this case, it could not be determined who was behind the profile of Twitter denounced, because the account|bill was suspended and no information could be accessed.
Publication of and engravings of two municipal plenums in the web municipal and in .
A Town Council with an admonition|warning for having harmed sanctions the principle|beginning of minimization, since it|he|she published some minutes and an engraving of a municipal plenum revealing the surname of neighbors that they had lodged contentious resources|appeals against the Town Council in urbanistic matter|subject, when it|he was unnecessary. The part of the complaint|denunciation referring to the diffusion|broadcast of the surname of a town councilor and its|his|her|their linking with a company is filed, its|his|her|their condition of town councilor attended to, the fact that part of the spread information was public, the public significance of the spread information, and that these demonstrations were made in the exercise of the functions typical of the members of the Plenum.
Publication in digital newspaper of the positive in of the mayor and of a town councilor of the Town Council.
The mayor of a Town Council complained that some of the members of the municipal group of the opposition|entrance examination would have spread that the mayor and a town councilor had faced|given in Covid-19. The diffusion|broadcast would have been carried out to|in a means digital and in social networks. The facts are filed with regard to the fact that the information about the positives for Covid-19 of the mayor and of the town councilor had kept on stretching for the people|village before taking place you denounce. On the other hand, that in spite of that the town councilors of the municipal group seems that they had had an active paper|role in the diffusion|broadcast of the information, it was not possible to determine that they had knowledge of the positive in Covid due to its|his|her|their public charge|post, nor the origin of the information that was published has been able to be established in the digital newspaper, and neither the origin of the information of publication of the town councilor in the WhatsApp of the club of reading. Therefore, in this case the presumption of innocence prevails.
Breach of the of legality of the treatment. Publication of data of location that allow the identification of physical persons.
The Town Council, through its|his|her|their profile of Facebook, an air image spread of Google Maps that identified two marked houses|housings with a blue circle. This image correlated with two photographs and a text where a dump|spill of wastewaters|sewage was denounced on the public way|railway. The principle|beginning of legality is harmed, since particulars are treated without respecting the principle|beginning of relative legality to|in the data processing personal.
Publication of data of a minor in social networks.
Publication to|in the social networks linked to the Town Council, of the data of a minor who, on the occasion of the campaign that had been arranged to pick up material against the COVID-19, had made a donation. Breach of the principle|beginning of confidentiality.
Publication minor images
Breach of the principle|beginning of confidentiality. Publication in the web of the School of minors images, without consent of its|his|her|their progenitors.
Contribution of private WhatsApp messages with a request for intervention from a university commission for alleged sexual harassment.
The complainant, a university professor, sued the university for considering that his study coordinator had violated his duty of confidentiality when he revealed the content of some WhatsApp messages in the face of alleged sexual harassment by this teacher to a student to whom he had sent these messages. The complaint is filed to consider that: 1) the communication of personal data arising from the meetings held by the coordinator of studies with the Dean and the Head of Department, was covered by the legal basis provided in art. 6.1.c) of the RGPD (the coordinator was obliged ex lege to attend and advise the student, and to communicate the facts to the Dean of the Faculty and the head of the Department), and also by the legal basis provided in art. 6.1.e) RGPD (the coordinator communicated personal data in the exercise of the functions of direction and control of a teaching that he coordinated); and 2) the contribution and subsequent access to the messages by the members of the university commission was covered by the same legal bases, because the communication was covered by a protocol of action approved by the university (art. 6.1.c RGPD) , and because the coordinator acted in the exercise of the functions of prevention of sexual harassment in its field of action (art. 6.1.e RGPD).
Consent for the processing of data of minors in networks
It is filed on the basis of the principle of presumption of innocence, insofar as it has not been proven that consent for the processing of images of minors is not have lent freely.
Publication on the municipal website and on social networks of the City Council's response to an application.
The complaint is filed when it is established that the written response published by the City Council on the municipal website and on various social networks in front of an application submitted by the complainant, was previously anonymized. On the other hand, the erroneous link of the instance to an association -of which the complainant is the president-, instead of doing so to the complainant -who states that he presented it in a private capacity-, is reasonable, given that previously the complainant had submitted numerous instances on behalf of the association, and the content of the same referred to a matter of public interest, content that would at the same time justify its dissemination. And in any case it does not have enough entity to initiate a sanctioning procedure.
Total number of pages: 2