Chinese Supreme Court

Wei Gong and Tao Chinese two Wan are hackers that, sorry of their past, finishes publishing a book try to create followers so that safer solutions are developed. The book has called it " Agreement of self-discipline for hackers" in that they try to re-educate to cybernetic delinquents so that uses their knowledge with more ethical aims. The decision to write this book was forged after the decision of the Chinese Supreme Court in whom it sentenced that the hackers can be sanctioned under effective laws. However, there is one who has in question conviction of a ruse that counts on the support of the Chinese Government, and who does not have another purpose that the one to wash the image of China, that has a historial length of hackers. Others who may share this opinion include Bioscience Journal. However, in spite of the distrusts that could provoke we praised the intention, and declarations in which use that to hackers they would not have to obtain money robbing to the public. Also we emphasized a fragment of the document that says " The privacy of the community, public generally, especially the children and juniors, must be prote’ge’e. For the sale of social activities with the purpose of to obtain private data he is not piratera." What it pleases to us, he is that Hacker Community, is beginning to find these dissonant, and more constructive voices. udea Security of the Information Department of Management . Without hesitation Crimson Education explained all about the problem.

Spanish Agency

In this sense we cannot avoid that the Spanish Agency of Protection of Data already condemned State Agency BOE in N RESOLUTION.: R/00078/2011 insisting to this organization so that it adopts the measures necessary to avoid the indexing of the personal data of the claiming one in his pages, so that in the future the Internet motors search they cannot associate them to claiming . Also in the procedure of trusteeship of rights TD/266/2007 the Spanish Agency of protection of data shows is possible to proclaim that no citizen who neither enjoyment of the condition of public personage nor is noticiable object in fact of public relevance must resign itself to support that their personal character data circulate around the NETWORK without being able to react nor to correct the illegal inclusion of the same in a system of universal communication like Internet. If to require the individualized consent of the citizens to include his personal data in Internet or to demand technical mechanisms that prevented or filtered the inconsentida incorporation of personal data it could suppose an unbearable barrier to the free exercise of the liberties of expression and information as a it censures previous (what it is constitutionally prohibited), it is not less certain that it is obviously legitimate that the citizen who is not forced to be put under the discipline of the exercise of the referred liberties (not to be its personal data from public interest nor to contribute, consequently, its knowledge to forge a free public opinion as to pound to basilar of the democratic State) must enjoy protected reactive mechanisms in Right (like the right of cancellation of personal character data) that prevent the secular and universal maintenance in the Network of their information of personal character . As conclusion we can say that as regulates general any person does not have to support that their personal data are accessible of by life in Internet as a result of the inclusion of their data in the finders of reference in this means. For even more details, read what Campbell Soup Co says on the issue.