42 results were found for your search terms Rights of honour, privacy and self-image
The installation of a video surveillance system inside the classrooms of municipal kindergartens could be proportionate in the face of reasonable indications of the possible commission of a serious illegal act by a person working any of the children, exceptionally and for a limited time, and provided that information is provided in accordance with article 89 of the LOPDGDD. The person in charge, however, would not have sufficient legitimacy to install this system so that parents and/or legal guardians can view live images of the activities carried out by their children.
- SECTORIAL AREA
- PERSONAL DATA
- Child data
- Employees' data
- FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
- Rights of honour, privacy and self-image
- HABEAS DATA RIGHTS
- Right of information
- Public administration
- Local administration
- Impact assessment
- Lawfulness principle
- In the public interest or in the exercise of official authority
- Data minimization principle
- VIDEO SURVEILLANCE
The councilors' access to personal data included in the Municipal Register of Inhabitants may be enabled when, taking into account the specific purposes of the Register, access is necessary and provided for the development of the control functions of the activities of the municipal corporation, or other functions that may be attributed to the councilor, in the terms provided for in the LRBRL. It is not justified for the councilor to access the municipal register of inhabitants to configure the electoral program of the municipal group in relation to the tax ordinances, to perform the relevant calculations, identifying the people who are registered there.
The municipal policy for the use of digital information systems and devices must cover clear rules on the management to be made of the personalised corporate email account, and on the access to the information contained in it, both for the purpose of ceasing the employment relationship and in the event of temporary absence of the worker. It must also include specific provisions regarding the proper use of information systems by its staff and the control that the City Council can make of them to ensure their safety and good functioning. With regard to requests for access to and copying of e-mails by ex-workers, the observations made in this opinion must be taken into account.
Activation of the camera during online classes can generally be considered a lawful treatment, given the obligation of schools to ensure and ensure the educational function in relation to the students affected and the fulfillment of a mission in public interest (eg art. 6.1.e) RGPD), and the forecasts established by the health and education authorities in the context of a pandemic, without the need for the consent of those affected. In any case, the principle of proportionality must be taken into account. The Foundation may urge students to have the camera activated during the online class if necessary for its development, without prejudice to the possibility that the affected persons may exercise the right of opposition in view of their particular situation.
It is considered that the disseminated image does not allow identification. In the denied case that the image allowed the identification, in a case like the analyzed one, it is considered that this image would have served to illustrate of accessory form an information, since the news in any person in particular is not personalized, which would be in accordance with the regulations.
The diffusion of identified or identifiable images of physical persons who occupied a public charge or a profession of public projection, or of persons who turn up as merely accessory (especially in the event of images of persons under age), in events or public sport events organized by the Town Council, sufficient juridical basis (art. 6.1.e) could have RGPD), whenever the Town Council takes the considerations that expose themselves in this judgement into account.
The consent of the physical persons who at present are part of the educational community or who have been part,means a suitable and sufficient juridical basis for the publication of photographs of these persons in the commemorative book (art. 6.1 a) RGPD). Regarding photographs of identified physical persons or identifiable that are not part of the educational community any more, its publication in the commemorative book can find sufficient juridical basis in the article 6.1.f) RGPD, in connection with the HIM 1/1982, without having to have the consent of the ones affected, whenever the Foundation applies specific guarantees.
Article 24 of the EC would cover the person's access to the information on whether students of the IES where they work and respect those who were in a disciplinary proceeding, as a consequence of a claim made against their person who might attack Their right to honour, have been sanctioned and if the aforementioned penalty is firm, as necessary information to exercise their right to effective judicial protection.
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 regulations of data protection are not applicable to the engraving of images on the part of the assistants during the process of burial whenever the engraving is carried out with a purpose that can be qualified as staff or domestic. Whenever the purpose of the engraving is circumscribed to the personal and family area and that the posterior use does not exceed this area, the workers who carry out the process of burial will have accessory character and, therefore, illegitimate interference will not be able to be appreciated in the personal right to the image itself.