Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

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.

Asking why you are asking to use the diaper collection service is excessive. If the legal basis is consent, when providing the information to the data subject, information must be informed about the right to withdraw it at any time.

Dept. EDU, as the controller of the treatment, did not enforce the right of information when it collected the data of the relatives or legal tutors of the pupils attended at the UEC Girona of the Oscobe Foundation.

The processing of images by cameras for safety purposes is not based on the consent of the person concerned, but on the fulfilment of a mission in the public interest. Camera location should not be reported. The right to information is made effective by means of information posters on the existence of cameras, which must be supplemented by other means.

The City Council is admonished as responsible for a very serious infringement by having dealt with personal data of its Local Police agents obtained through the installation of geolocation receivers (GPS) in various police vehicles, without having previously informed them of the ends provided for in Article 13 of the GPD, including the purpose of treatment (Art. 13.1.c GDPR). In particular, with regard to this latest information (Art. 13.1.c GDPR), on the possibility of dealing with data obtained for the exercise of worker control functions (disciplinary procedure). In the initiation agreement the part of the complaint was archived regarding the use of recordings through video surveillance cameras by work control, without having previously reported them, since it is not known that through this system the City Council has treated personal data from the agent denouncing for this purpose.

Forms provided by the entity in which personal data was collected did not contain all the extremes provided by Article 13 GDPR. Within the procedure, other facts that had been the subject of complaint were also filed, the most relevant: a) that the foundation did not implement security measures in data processing in unautomated formats. It is archived because there is no evidence to prove this, even uncritically. Presumance of innocence.b) Communication of data by the Foundation to other companies. As for some of the companies, it was archived for lack of proof, presumption of innocence. As far as the second company is concerned, there is no communication insofar as there is a contract for treatment between the Foundation and the aforementioned entity.

Cameras installed for traffic control, regulation, surveillance and discipline are regulated by the specific regulation and, supplely, by the personal data protection regulation. The poster can be limited to reporting the existence of the camera or speed control device. Additional information on the processing of personal data must also be provided.

Persons participating or having participated in a staff selection process, as well as workers' representatives, shall have the right to access certain personal information contained in the resulting file, in the terms indicated in the opinion, and may exercise their right of access as long as the health consortium has this public information available. It may be a good practice to inform aspiring recipients of your data as a result of their participation in a selection process.

Within the framework of the contracting of a private home aid service, the entity did not make effective the right of information of the person concerned.

Sorry, the report is archived. The complainant complained that he had not been given the information provided for in the art.14 of the GPD when his data was collected in two documents from 1992 and 1996, a time when the law regulating data protection (LORTA) did not provide for the reporting obligation. Furthermore, in the event that the GPD had been in force, the reported facts would not have constituted a violation either, since they are data that the entity would exercise its powers in the field of the municipal sponsorship (Royal Decree 1690/1986, of 11 July), and would therefore be a waiver of the fulfilment of the duty to inform (Art.14.5.c GDPR).