We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.

New answers tagged

0

You would have to look at whether the way you anonymize the IPs. If there is a way to decipher what they originally were, you are not GDPR compliant. That could technically even included being able to feed random IP addresses into the algorithm until you got a match, if they are not randomized.


1

The app is likely GDPR compliant. However the organization has a remaining obligation, namely that of Art 11.2 GDPR. A user who can show exclusive control of that IP address (i.e. that the IP address uniquely identifies him or her) still has the usual GDPR rights. It is not necessary to offer these rights via the app itself. Another reasonable mechanism ...


1

I know this is a old question but I saw it and thought to just answer it. Facebook says that the message is deleted from the servers (only if both parties remove a message). And then I was thinking, why? As part of GDPR the part where it states: (a) the personal data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or ...


0

The legal jargon for this is CYA which stands for "Cover Your Donkey" only you spell Donkey with an "A" and it's three letters long and I'd prefer not to find out that I'm not allowed to use that word on Stack Exchange, thank you. Essentially, even if it's legal to film in public, it's a rather simple way to quickly make sure that your immunized, even if ...


4

This has some basis in law. You need permission from a person to commercially exploit their likeness especially in California, and a waiver is a way of staving off future lawsuit over right of publicity. YT has a privacy policy whereby a person who have been filmed can request removal of the video (see also this, because they don't explain the policy in a ...


4

It probably does, up to a point. Roe v. Wade asserts a right to privacy, discussed in §VIII. Granting that there is no explicit enumeration of a right to privacy in the Constitution, its implicit presence is discerned via a long series of constitutional rulings of a diverse nature. It is not clear what is the extent of This right of privacy, whether it be ...


3

Non-secret voting is the norm Secret ballots are usually limited to governmental elections because they are logistically harder than open ballots requiring a trusted third party. Secret ballots are also a much newer invention than companies, having their origin in the 19th and 18th centuries respectively. There is no law that prevents a company from ...


2

If "instructions are to be notified to the company office in advance", then the company has to know who Y's proxy is, and how they are instructed to vote (which may, of course, be as they see fit). This would normally be made public, to cover the instances where somebody falsely claims to be a proxy, or when a proxy is appointed to vote against a motion when ...


0

There are also regulations to go with the bill passed by the legislature. The proposed regulations are open for comment until Dec. 6 2019. In the regulations, "Household" is given a definition (§999.301(h)): “Household” means a person or group of people occupying a single dwelling You can't add anything to that: the persons do not have to be ...


-1

It does not mean or not mean the people must be CA residents. It's saying the household or device is in CA to fall under CA laws.


3

This is not a HIPAA violation. HIPAA requires that personal information not be revealed to people lacking a statutorily-defined interest, without the patient's consent. A password itself is not "personal information", though having it could lead to such information. An example of personal information would be the fact that you personally had a certain tooth ...


Top 50 recent answers are included