Post by juthi52943 on Jan 3, 2024 23:27:36 GMT -7
Meta was also not liable under Article . GDPR, because this provision imposes an obligation on the data controller, which Meta is not. The Austrian authority did not dwell at length on the qualification of Meta of the GDPR, only considering that in the present case there is insufficient evidence to qualify Meta as a data controller. As for Articles and of the GDPR, they concern.
The controllers relationship with the processing entity, therefore Job Function Email List they do not confer subjective rights on data subjects which would enable filing a complaint. The position of the supervisory authority in the case of an Austrian company However, the supervisory authority accepted the complaint against the Austrian media company administrator. First of all, the mere fact that the company deactivated Facebook tools after submitting the complaint was not enough to exclude a violation of Article of the GDPR et seq., because the violation had already occurred.
Moreover, the authority clarified the scope of application of the journalistic activity exception provided for in Austrian law in accordance with Article of the GDPR. In the light of the CJEU judgment C , personal data are processed for the purpose of carrying out journalistic activities, if the processing is aimed solely at the public dissemination of information, opinions or thoughts. In the present case, the Facebook tools available on the controllers website were implemented for other purposes user tracking and to facilitate the login procedure. Furthermore.
The controllers relationship with the processing entity, therefore Job Function Email List they do not confer subjective rights on data subjects which would enable filing a complaint. The position of the supervisory authority in the case of an Austrian company However, the supervisory authority accepted the complaint against the Austrian media company administrator. First of all, the mere fact that the company deactivated Facebook tools after submitting the complaint was not enough to exclude a violation of Article of the GDPR et seq., because the violation had already occurred.
Moreover, the authority clarified the scope of application of the journalistic activity exception provided for in Austrian law in accordance with Article of the GDPR. In the light of the CJEU judgment C , personal data are processed for the purpose of carrying out journalistic activities, if the processing is aimed solely at the public dissemination of information, opinions or thoughts. In the present case, the Facebook tools available on the controllers website were implemented for other purposes user tracking and to facilitate the login procedure. Furthermore.