Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Data Protection Review Court (DPRC) is a three-judge panel, established in Executive Order 14086 of 7 October 2022, ...
Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner [2016] IESC 18 [1] is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court referred the question of what constitutes as personal data to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). [2] In this case, the Court saw for the first time an applicant contending that an exam script is his personal data.
2018 United States Supreme Court case Microsoft Corp. v. United States Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 27, 2018 Decided April 17, 2018 Full case name United States v. Microsoft Corp. Docket no. 17-2 Citations 584 U.S. ___ (more) 138 S.Ct. 1186 Case history Prior Microsoft Corp. v. United States, S.D.N.Y. reversed, warrant quashed, and civil contempt ruling vacated (2nd Cir ...
In December 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a preliminary opinion in the Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland case (also known as Schrems II). It outlined various scenarios that may result from the conflict in regimes.
The court accepted two fundamental points: [6] first, that the protection given by the legislation is for the privacy of personal data, not documents, the latter mostly retrievable by a far cruder searching mechanism than the former; and second, of the practical reality of the task that the Act imposes on all data controllers of searching for ...
OpenAI has told an Indian court that any order to remove training data powering its ChatGPT service would be inconsistent with its legal obligations in the United States, according to a recent ...
Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González was a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union holding that an internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal information which appears on web pages published by third parties.
The court considered the material scope of the Directive first. The court rejected Google's submission, supported by the Advocate General, that it could not be regarded as a data controller within the scope of the Data Protection Directive, adopting a literal interpretation of article 2(b), giving definitions and relying on Lindqvist.