Global ETD Search

1	Vad lärare kan om GDPR på sociala medier : En kvantitativ studie om lärares digitala kompetens sett inom GDPR Uselius, Lovisa, Åhlén, Åsa January 2023 (has links) Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka om lärare har fått utbildning om GDPR i skolan och om de vet vad de får publicera på sociala medier i sin profession som lärare. För att samla in data användes en kvantitativ metod genom enkäter där 100 lärare svar analyserades. Information till enkätsvaren samlades in genom samtal med Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten (IMY), jurister och med en dataskydssamordnare för utbildningsförvaltningen i en kommun i Mellansverige. Den insamlade datan analyseras med hjälp av informationskulturens tre nivåer Studiens resultat visar att 72 % av informanterna inte tagit del av de riktlinjer som IMY och GDPR tagit fram. Resultatet visar även att endast 6 informanter av 100 placerar sig på nivå 3 av informationskultur och har därmed god kunskap om hur personuppgifter får hanteras. I analysen framkommer det att det finns en skillnad i lärares kunskap och förståelse kring GDPR i skolan. En av dessa bidragande orsaker är att flertalet informanter saknar utbildning om GDPR. Det framkommer även genom kunskapsfrågorna att lärarnas egna skattning till kunskap om GDPR inte helt stämmer överens med de svar de angivit. GDPR Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten (IMY) lärare elevrelaterat material Pedagogy Pedagogik
2	Kamerabevakning utan tillståndskrav på platser där allmänheten inte äger tillträde – ett hot mot den personliga integriteten? / Camera surveillance without permit requirement in places where the public does not own access – a threat against personal integrity? Khatun, Rahima January 2022 (has links) In Sweden, camera surveillance in places where the public own access is regulated by a permit. This entails a lack of permit requirement for camera surveillance in places where the public does not own access. Such places can consist of a privacy- sensitive character. Surveillance constitutes processing of personal data where- upon the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) must be complied with.Article 6 of the GDPR stipulates various legal bases that must be met in the processing of personal data. The ones who conduct surveillance in places where the public does not own access often fails to make correct legal assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, as displayed by various supervisory de- cisions issued by the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection. In this light, the purpose of the thesis is to examine and analyze how the ones who conduct sur- veillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection consider the personal integrity of the camera monitored individual in the assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR during camera surveillance without permit requirement in places where the public does not own access. Because of the differences be- tween the legal assessments made by the ones who conduct camera surveillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, the thesis also intends to shed light on the consequences that arise for the camera monitored individual by the fact that their personal integrity is assessed in different ways.The thesis also aims to evaluate the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protec- tions’ supervisory work in relation to both personal integrity and the compliance with Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR during camera surveillance without permit requirement in places where the public does not own access. The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protections’ supervisory work is important as most of the camera surveillance takes place without a permit requirement and the fact that there is a lack of knowledge prevailing to the number of cameras in use. It is important that the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protections’ supervisory work is well-functioning since the ones who conduct surveillance carry out the legal assessments incorrectly. The risk with insufficient supervisory work is that per- sonal integrity is violated and that the GDPR is ineffectual in the long run.In general, it can be said that the legal assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR are poorly carried out by both the ones who conduct surveillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection. This primarily affects the cam- era monitored individuals’ personal integrity. Because of the indications of short- comings in the supervisory work, there are several improvement measures that can be taken to maintain personal integrity and ensure that the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection continue to constitute an important function. Artikel 6 GDPR Artikel 6.1e GDPR Artikel 6.1f GDPR Personlig integritet Integritetsskydd IMY Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten Kamerabevakning Law Juridik
3	Kamerabevakning utan tillståndskrav på platser där allmänheten inte äger tillträde – ett hot mot den personliga integriteten? Khatun, Rahima January 2022 (has links) In Sweden, camera surveillance in places where the public own access is regulated by a permit. This entails a lack of permit requirement for camera surveillance in places where the public does not own access. Such places can consist of a privacy-sensitive character. Surveillance constitutes processing of personal data whereupon the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) must be complied with. Article 6 of the GDPR stipulates various legal bases that must be met in the processing of personal data. The ones who conduct surveillance in places where the public does not own access often fails to make correct legal assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, as displayed by various supervisory decisions issued by the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection. In this light, the purpose of the thesis is to examine and analyze how the ones who conduct surveillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection consider the personal integrity of the camera monitored individual in the assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR during camera surveillance without permit requirement in places where the public does not own access. Because of the differences between the legal assessments made by the ones who conduct camera surveillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, the thesis also intends to shed light on the consequences that arise for the camera monitored individual by the fact that their personal integrity is assessed in different ways. The thesis also aims to evaluate the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protections’ supervisory work in relation to both personal integrity and the compliance with Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR during camera surveillance without permit requirement in places where the public does not own access. The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protections’ supervisory work is important as most of the camera surveillance takes place without a permit requirement and the fact that there is a lack of knowledge prevailing to the number of cameras in use. It is important that the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protections’ supervisory work is well-functioning since the ones who conduct surveillance carry out the legal assessments incorrectly. The risk with insufficient supervisory work is that personal integrity is violated and that the GDPR is ineffectual in the long run. In general, it can be said that the legal assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR are poorly carried out by both the ones who conduct surveillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection. This primarily affects the camera monitored individuals’ personal integrity. Because of the indications of shortcomings in the supervisory work, there are several improvement measures that can be taken to maintain personal integrity and ensure that the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection continue to constitute an important function. Kamerabevakning Kamerabevakning utan tillståndskrav Artikel 6 GDPR Artikel 6.1e GDPR Artikel 6.1f GDPR Personuppgiftsbehandling Kamerabevakningslag KBL Personlig integritet Integritet Integritetsskydd Fri-och rättigheter IT Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY Datainspektionen Law Juridik
4	Försäkringsskydd för skadeståndsansvar vid dataskyddsöverträdelser : En undersökning av försäkringsvillkorens omfattning och eventuella begränsningar i förhållande till art. 82 GDPR och grupptalan / Insurance coverage for liability in case of data protection breaches : An investigation into the extent and potential limitations of insurance terms in relation to art. 82 GDPR and class action lawsuits Nahlbom, Robin January 2024 (has links) I uppsatsen utreds försäkringsskyddet för skadeståndsansvar vid dataskyddsöverträdelser. GDPR är den centrala regleringen för personuppgiftsbehandling och fastställer ett antal principer som måste upprätthållas för att den ansvarige ska få behandla personuppgifter. Bryter den ansvarige mot förordningens principer har den registrerade rätt att kräva skadestånd enligt art. 82.1 GDPR. Förordningen fastställer tre kumulativa krav som måste vara uppfyllda för att skadeståndsskyldighet ska föreligga. Det innefattar att en överträdelse av GDPR har skett, att materiell eller immateriell skada till följd av denna överträdelse har uppstått och att det föreligger ett orsakssamband mellan skadan och överträdelsen. Förordningen innehåller även en bestämmelse som tar över medlemsstaternas nationella skadeståndsrättsliga bestämmelser, vilket innebär att GDPR ska tillämpas enligt sin ordalydelse och att de kumulativa kraven enligt art. 82.1 GDPR måste följas. Det innebär att nationella skadeståndsrättsliga begrepp inte bör jämställas med begrepp som framgår av art. 82.1 GDPR eftersom begreppen har tillkommit i en helt annan kontext. Exempelvis översätts i vissa fall materiella och immateriella skador till ekonomiska och ideella skador. Begreppen är inte synonyma och bör inte tillställas samma betydelse eftersom terminologin i art. 82.1 GDPR kan misstolkas. Försäkringsvillkoren som reglerar skadeståndsskyldigheten för dataskyddsöverträdelser och som även hänvisar till art. 82.1 GDPR, innehåller i vissa fall nationella skadeståndsrättsliga begrepp och även andra begrepp som inte framgår av förordningen. Det kan leda till att kongruensen mellan villkorens utformning och förordningens ordalydelse medför tolkningsproblematik vid bedömning om skadeståndsskyldighet föreligger. Därför bör försäkringsvillkoren endast innehålla sådan terminologi som framgår av art. 82.1 GDPR. Dataskyddsöverträdelser medför oftast att en stor grupp människor lider skada varför förordningen tillåter registrerade att föra grupptalan med hjälp av en ideell organisation enligt art. 80 GDPR. Teoretiskt sett kan skadeståndsbeloppen bli högre än försäkringsbeloppen varför det i sådana fall saknas ett försäkringsskydd för grupptalan för den personuppgiftsansvarige. Försäkringsvillkoren anger däremot ingenting om att försäkringen inte täcker ett sådant anspråk. Därmed ställs försäkringsbolagen inför utmaningen att hantera sådana anspråk, varför försäkringen bör uppdateras för att möta skadestånd i en grupptalan vid dataskyddsöverträdelser. / The essay investigates insurance coverage for liability for damages in the event of data protection breaches. GDPR is the central regulation for the processing of personal data and establishes a number of principles that must be upheld for the data controller to process personal data. If the data controller breaches the principles of the regulation, the data subject has the right to claim damages under Art. 82.1 GDPR. The regulation sets out three cumulative requirements that must be met for liability for damages to arise. This includes that a breach of the GDPR has occurred, that material or immaterial damage as a result of this breach has arisen, and that there is a causal link between the damage and the breach. The regulation also includes a provision that supersedes the national tort law provisions of Member States, which means that the GDPR shall be applied according to its wording and that the cumulative requirements under Art. 82.1 GDPR must be followed. This means that national tort law concepts should not be equated with concepts as set out in Art. 82.1 GDPR as the concepts have arisen in a completely different context. For example, in some cases, material and immaterial damages are translated into economic and non-economic damages. The concepts are not synonymous and should not be attributed the same meaning as the terminology in Art. 82.1 GDPR can be misinterpreted. The insurance terms and conditions that regulate liability for damages in the event of data protection breaches and also refer to Art. 82.1 GDPR, in some cases contain national tort law concepts and other concepts that are not evident in the regulation. This may lead to a lack of congruence between the wording of the terms and conditions and the wording of the regulation, resulting in interpretation issues when assessing whether liability for damages exists. Therefore, the insurance terms and conditions should only contain terminology as set out in Art. 82.1 GDPR. Data protection breaches usually result in harm to a large group of people, which is why the regulation allows data subjects to bring a collective action with the assistance of a not-for-profit organization under Art. 80 GDPR. Theoretically, damages awarded may exceed insurance coverage, which means there is no insurance coverage for collective actions for the data controller in such cases. However, the insurance terms and conditions do not specify that the insurance does not cover such a claim. Therefore, insurance companies are faced with the challenge of handling such claims, which is why the insurance should be updated to cover damages in a collective action in the event of data protection breaches. GDPR General Data Protection Regulation protection Insurances breach insurance Class action lawsuit terms and conditions Personal data Personal data protection Registered Privacy protection Insurance coverage sum insured Damages compensation Tort law Material damages Immaterial damages Violation Economic loss Insurance company European Union Personal Data Act Data integrity Confidentiality Confidentiality protection Information protection Personal data protection Insurance contract Liability for damages Data controller DPO Data processor Compensation for damages Claim for damages Insurance coverage Principles Data protection principles Compliance Insurance compensation Tort law Regulation Directive Law Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection Data protection officer European Data Protection Board Article 29 workgroup Article Article 82 Data controller responsibility Sanctions Administrative fines Data Protection Directive Artikel 82 GDPR Dataskydd Försäkring Försäkringar Databrottsförsäkring Grupptalan Försäkringsvillkor Personuppgift Personuppgifter Personuppgiftsskydd Registrerad Registrerade Integritetsskydd Försäkringsbelopp Skadestånd Skadeståndslag Materiell Immateriell Kränkning Förmögenhetsskada Försäkringsbolag Dataskyddsförordningen EU Personuppgiftslag Dataintegritet Sekretess Sekretessskydd Informationsskydd Personuppgiftsskydd Försäkringsavtal Skadeståndsskyldighet Skadeståndsansvar Personuppgiftsansvarig Personuppgiftsbiträde Skadeståndsersättning Skadeståndskrav Försäkringsskydd Principer Dataskyddsprinciper Regelefterlevnad Försäkringsersättning Skadeståndslagen Förordning Direktiv Lag Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY Dataskyddsombud Data EDPB Artikel 82 Personuppgiftsansvar Sanktioner Sanktionsavgifter Dataskyddsdirektivet DPO Artikel 82 GDPR Artikel 82 Europeiska unionen Law and Society Juridik och samhälle

1

Page generated in 0.0276 seconds