Which we were unable to associate with the person who submittd the complaint to the UODO, and to inform other entities to whom this information was made available about the ned to remove this data. It is worth mentioning that the evidence we presentd containd specific information that for iSecure, the IP address and ID of the cookies referrd to above do not in any way allow the complainant to be identifid, that the entity indicatd by the complainant as an entity that could obtain (but ultimately did not obtain) access to the complainant’s IP address.
About cookies plugins or other social
We could just leave this case, because in the end we receivd “only a warning” from the UODO, not a financial penalty. But that’s Latest Mailing Database not what it’s all about, is it? Today we had this problem, tomorrow it can be facd by anyone who has a company website. In this situation, the management board of iSecure decidd that the inaccurate examination of the case, the decision by UODO on issues referrd to in the provisions of the telecommunications law (is the UODO really competent to assess.
Thereto remember to include information
The compliance of our activities with the requirements set out in the Telecommunications Law?) ordering to inform the data ES Phone Number recipients when the indicatd entities independently obtaind information about the IP and ID of cookies (as independent administrators) and there is no operation of their “disclosure” Google), ordering their removal (to make it possible, it would be necessary to interfere with the end device of the user. the complainant), require our intervention at the level of a higher instance.
