 |
| Photo: © Thorben Wengert via pixelio.de |
informational self-determination versus state and lobby interests provide
How "Google Street View and transparent citizen and the authorities for overriding privacy
" The free use of free space we must preserve .(...) We need Geo services for traffic management, civil protection, modern agriculture, housing search or preparing a holiday. "
A statement by the Federal Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, according to his will, the geographic data services industry until the seventh December 2010, a self-controlled Privacy code is to impose so as a Entscheidungserzwingung the Federal Interior Ministry on really politically motivated but is free movement of citizens and geo-data to first deal successfully.
A "CE" marking is simply no "GS" Mark
A voluntary self-regulation should, in the words de Maizières make a further, unnecessary government regulation. Google would therefore "constructively in the formulation of the commitment" to work.
The right of citizens
The right of every citizen to "informational self-determination" is bypassed by nature with such lax practices from among the political leaders. It is this right and has comprehensively regulated the handling of data clearly in his place. The balancing act between the rules of informational self-determination, personal rights and freedom enshrined in the Constitution of the dissemination of information designed was tough. Difficult for those who have not yet realized that the personal rights of citizens fundamentally different interests are to be preferred.
A clear, legal regulation is needed
Such advocated and commitment of the data-driven industry is simply unusable. It is not in a position to guarantee the fundamental rights of citizens. As well comparatively in the nuclear power industry and is here clearly favored lobbyists politics operated during the civil rights fall by the wayside.
But what ever German to our privacy?
example registration offices: Democratic or dictatorial?
a citizen wishes to object that is not equal to any natural person notified when asked to by the registry office's residential address is, there are similar problems. Here because of existing, regional to "Registration Act" (state reporting laws), a justification to be recognized to be submitted, the audacity of the reason is because the individual to want the authority to prohibit the transfer of its data. If it turns into this framework not just to detect threats to the registration office retains "sole discretion" on the grounds of the citizen simply does not recognize and therefore still very generous deal with the distribution of his data.
What the citizens often do not know
The state reporting laws But the right to informational self-determination, which is itself derived from the applicable legal personality and regulated in the Constitution are subordinate to regularly. This means that every citizen has the unrestricted right to the registration office also request without obligation to state reasons, that his data without his express consent may not be sold to third parties, except that there was a proven and legitimate interests on the part of state institutions and authorities (law enforcement, etc.). If the registration office that is the wish of information block does not want to meet, this is a violation of the Privacy Policy, to be considered against the personal rights and thus the right to informational self-determination. This process would need to protect the privacy rights of the public prosecutor made available and be inevitably bear on the right path.
What the state does not regulate the citizen must take in hand!
So it is with many things in terms of the Privacy Policy or our own personal interests. Conflicts of interest between citizens, government, lobbyists and companies have become a daily occurrence. Here it is important that each individual among us as part of its statutory rights and duties of care to ensure that its interests are also optimal. Whether Google or Hupf Pustekuchen thus lies in the hands of the citizen.
information on personal rights:
The right to informational self-determination (RIS) was established in the main by the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) by the Census Case 1983rd This includes in particular privacy and data protection. The general personality right (APR) is next to an absolutely full right to respect and personal development. It is Article 2, paragraph 1 in conjunction with article 1, section 1 of the Basic Law (GG)-based. There are three different protected spheres:
first The individual sphere (self-determination right to informational self-determination and following)
second The privacy (eg: the violation of privacy by the publication of data to unauthorized third parties and following)
third The privacy of (The private and intimate sphere is closed to the public access). A consideration on the basis of the proportionality test does not occur.
from a breach of the general right (APR) can a claim for damages (§ 823, paragraph 1 in conjunction with APR, Civil Code) or injunctive relief, respectively Correction claim (§ 1004 BGB) result. Thus, publications and editions of transaction information to a person to a third party for no particular reason in principle a violation of privacy, which is not justified in general by way of public interest in information.
After the Constitutional Court was also regulated that each individual can decide in principle, even as he wishes to third parties or the public representations made. Here, too, the right to informational self-determination is performed after each individual himself can determine that their personal information to government agencies and reach should be kept there. This would exclude even a direct or indirect obligation of the citizen in principle or question, shall declare to the competent registration office at all a permanent resident or have to.
The Parliament of the European Union derives the right to informational self-determination as well as under Article 8, Section 1 of the European human rights conventions:
" Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. "
Based on this reasoning had the EU Parliament against the European Commission brought an action because the mandatory retention of traffic data in breach of EU citizens against this scheme.
The right to informational self-determination is a broad one. No distinction is made whether more or less sensitive information of individuals are affected. The Constitutional Court found that under the processing and linking of information technology also could be seen for a pointless date get a new place and so far it is no trivial data. requires
In the light of current case law any link and publication of personal data for purposes of third parties of the individual's consent, if not the legal right of the parties should be restricted. These agreements are possible, which are made between the parties and to document the express consent of the parties.
This law regulated provisions make clear how much that can distinguish democratic rights in words taken by some dictatorial rights-failure to respect in practice.
Julien Germain
(Original publication: September 21, 2010)
0 comments:
Post a Comment