Awards are not publicly available sources
The judgments are public. So ... in my blog I can mention the name of a Judge, if I'm looking at one of the sentence handed down?
Court rulings are public, but are not considered publicly available sources, according to the present wording of Article 3 of Law 15/1999 and 7 of the Rules of Development. Therefore not available (or published) any personal data collected on them.
Case Study:
On 15 July I wrote an article entitled New posit: Judges for New Technologies , regarding the sentence that condemns Julio Alonso payment of damages to the SGAE for not censoring comments that his readers had left in his blog.
If you look, instead of putting the names of the judges, I replaced them by a XXXXXXX. Why?
In the post, mentioned and linked the Conviction of Ordinary Judgement 743/07 and another sentence than that of 26 Feb. 2007 in the Provincial Court of Madrid. Both appointments are contained in the image illustrating this post, boxed in green, preceded by what might have been the name of the Magistrate Judge of each (boxed in red). Following these links you can easily find out who were the speakers in each of the trials. Therefore, although not written the name, the words could be interpreted as indirect personal data, Article 5.f Development Regulation of the Law 15/99, as it can identify an individual without more effort than it is to click:
f) Personal data: any numerical, alphabetical, graphic, photographic, sound or any other type relating to identified or identifiable natural persons.
Because if I was producing occasional existential doubt, I raised a query to the Spanish Agency for Data Protection. These were their responses:
- A ruling is not a publicly accessible source.
- Not available or published data are subject to a sentence.
- In a newspaper article about a particular Judgement, can not name the judge or any of the parties involved. However, we may, in some cases, it may be argued the Right to Information for current news.
- Place a link to the place where the name of the Magistrate Judge is a good practice.
So therefore, I now could say that "a court" has issued a ruling could say what sentence is to link, and show you a finished even darosla and point the name of Judge, But I can not write in my blog!
Debate: Does the Data Protection Law exceeds Top Advertising Awards?
In my opinion, there are certain individuals and collective actors at trial, on whom the Data Protection law must always prevail, for example, minors, victims of sexual abuse, people who have suffered abuse ...
As lawyers and prosecutors believe they should always be protected by the Data Protection Law, despite the principle of publicity.
In contrast, in the case of Judges and Magistrates, I see no reason why or why their names should be hidden. Such persons or public institutions administer justice on behalf of the People. In many cases they even determine or establish legal criteria for the interpretation of legislation. Their names appear for reference in case law databases, mementos, law books, yearbooks ... Does it make sense to maintain this limit on the publication of their names in media? In my opinion, does not.
But while I believe that the judgments should be included in the list of sources available to the public (at least for information purposes and in reference to the Magistardos and Judges), the reality is that they are not, and we must act accordingly.
Here you Article 7 of Royal Decree 1720/2007 of 21 December, approving the Regulation implementing Law 15/1999 of 13 December on the protection of personal data, so that seek after what sources are currently considered as accessible to the public:
Article 7. Publicly available sources.
1. For the purposes of Article 3, paragraph j) of Act 15/1999, it is understood that only have the character of publicly available sources:
a) The promotional census, regulated under the provisions of Law 15/1999, of 13 December.
b) Directories of electronic communications services, as provided by specific legislation.
c) The lists of persons belonging to professional groups that contain only the data of name, title, profession, activity, grade level, business address and an indication of their group. The business address data may include complete mailing address, telephone number, fax number and email address. In the case of professional associations can be reported as group membership data as number of college, date of incorporation and professional situation.
d) Newspapers and Official Gazettes.
e) The media.
2. In any case, that the cases listed in the previous paragraph can be considered publicly available sources, it is necessary that your query can be performed by anyone not hindered by a rule limiting, or without further requirement that, where appropriate, payment of a fee.
Note: In the case of positive again: Judges for New Technologies , could have invoked the principle of quality information and advertising, among others. But I wanted to leave it to lead to this explanation that are sure many will open their eyes about how irrational can become current legislation on data protection.
If this article was helpful, invite me to a half pint (Hint: 3 € for 1 / 2 pint)
It is curious because there are statements in the AGPD in which to place a statement in the bulletin board of a union, where the names of complainants will not be considered by the AGPD punishable. Interestingly considered in that case that the Law on Freedom of Association precedence over that of the people reflected in the sentence.
However, the very AGPD when government makes its decisions, eliminating references to people, and for quite some time.
Does not this sound weird?
According to case is admissible. I think the AGPD uses double standards and lately it is beginning to see the plume.
From my point of view is taking the first clear signs of politicization.
Someone is looking AGPD prize?
Good initiative.
Luck
The first to breach the legislation itself is the documentation center, all statements published both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court containing full names of Justices, Judges, Lawyers, Attorneys, parties etc. Of what use is the Data Protection Act according to teorisa exposed?
In response to message Stash: details are important. That said, the commentary is too coarse a grain. Surely if they had Internet publidado the sentence would have been punished, but if placed in a bulletin board in the company union in which workers are involved, they are entitled to that information and the union did not breach the Data Protection Act.
You have to read the relevant resolution and go to details.
By the way, that final decisions are sometimes lost in details that if you see the complete procedure. Do not expect to find everything in resolutions publidadas. Sometimes details are omitted, whether by error, or by other legally protected, they discover the real reason the decision.