|
search / subscribe / upload / contact |
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| RSS-Feed Depeschen |  |
|
|
||
|
||
Date: 2000-01-13
US: Verbot von Datenhandel fuer Behoerden-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- US: Verbot von Datenhandel für Behörden Der Oberste Gerichtshof der USA hat einstimmig beschlossen, dass es den Bundesstaaten auch fürderhin nicht erlaubt sein soll, die Daten von Führerscheininhabern weiter zu verkaufen. -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- In an opinion released today, the Supreme Court has unanimously held that Congress did not exceed its constitutional authority when it enacted legislation establishing privacy safeguards for motor vehicle records held by state agencies. Several states challenged the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, arguing that Congress had violated the Tenth Amendment. Central to the Court's decision in Condon v. Reno was the fact that information obtained by state motor vehicle agencies is now routinely sold in interstate commerce. The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, said that "the motor vehicle information which the States have historically sold is used by insurers, manufacturers, direct marketers, and others engaged in interstate commerce to contact drivers with customized solicitations. The information is also used in the stream of interstate commerce by various public and private entities for matters related to interstate motoring. Because drivers' information is, in this context, an article of commerce, its sale or release into the interstate stream of business is sufficient to support congressional regulation." The Supreme Court rejected the argument made by South Carolina that the Drivers Privacy Protection Act violated the Tenth Amendment, holding that "the DPPA does not require the States in their sovereign capacity to regulate their own citizens. The DPPA regulates the States as the owners of databases." EPIC filed an amicus brief in the case arguing in support of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act. EPIC said in its brief: The Drivers Privacy Protection Act safeguards the personal information of licensed drivers from improper use or disclosure. It is a valid exercise of federal authority in that it seeks to protect a fundamental privacy interest. It restricts the activities of states only to the extent that it concerns the subsequent use or disclosure of the information in a manner unrelated to the original purpose for which the personal information was collected. The states should not impermissibly burden the right to travel by first compelling the collection of sensitive personal information and then subsequently disclosing the same information for unrelated purposes. The decision is remarkable, particularly in light of recent cases where the Supreme Court has typically deferred to state Tenth Amendment claims and struck down federal statutes or claims brought in federal court. The decision in Condon v. Reno (US 2000) is available at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1464.ZO.html EPIC's Amicus Brief in Condon v. Reno is available at: http://www.epic.org/privacy/drivers/epic_dppa_brief.pdf -.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- - -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- edited by published on: 2000-01-13 comments to office@quintessenz.at subscribe Newsletter - -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- 
|
|
|
 |
CURRENTLY RUNNING |
q/Talk 1.Juli: The Danger of Software Users Don't Control
|
|
|
!WATCH OUT! |
bits4free 14.Juli 2011: OpenStreetMap Erfinder Steve Coast live in Wien
|
|