Monday, April 24, 2006

First Spam decision in Latin America

First Spam decision in Latin America

On April 7, 2006 a federal judge from the City of Buenos Aires (Argentina) issued the first decision in a spam case. Plaintiffs Gustavo Daniel Tanus and Pablo Andres Palazzi sued a well known spammer under the new data protection law of Argentina.

In their complaint the two plaintiffs argued that section 27 of the 2000 Argentine Data Protection Law gives them a right to opt out, which the spammer did not comply with when they asked to be removed from the database (They demanded that their email be deleted from the database).

In November 2003, the judge issued an injunction, declaring that during the process the defendant should refrain from sending plaintiffs additional e-mails. The injunction also forbade the transfer of the plaintiffs emails to third parties. His decision was based on the data protection law, section 1, 2, 5, 11 and 27.

This month the judge issued the final decision, ordering the defendants to stop dealing with, in any way, the personal data of the plaintiffs and delete their personal information. The decision asserted (confirmed?) that the sending of spam infringed the plaintiff´s privacy and data protection rights.

Spam is starting to be regulated throughout Latin America. Recently, bills were introduced in Congress in Brazil, Argentina and Chile,and there is already a special law in Peru. Brazil also has an open relays black list project, and there are web sites and non for profit movement in Argentina (Rompecadenas, Spambusters and iCAUCE Argentina) and Brazil (see

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Saturday, September 17, 2005 -

Habeas data para acceder a informacion del Gobierno.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

HONDURAS:: Congress ratifies constitutional reform establishing principle of "habeas data" in Honduras

The Honduran legislative chamber has ratified a reform to Article 182 of the Constitution, establishing the principle of "habeas data". The measure was announced in the February 2005 edition of the government gazette.

The change to the Constitution establishes the right of all individuals to access information concerning themselves or their property, whether that information is contained in private or public records.

Only the person to whom the information pertains can submit a habeas data request. The Supreme Court's Constitutional Chamber is tasked with ensuring that the rights to privacy and safeguarding one's honour are not violated.

The legislature first approved changes to the Constitution, establishing the habeas data principle in January 2004. The measure could not take effect, however, until the legislature approved it on second reading, in accordance with the Constitution.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Argentine Court rules use of webcam lawful

An Argentine Court of appeals has ruled that the use of CCTV in the entrance of building is lawful under the Data Protection Act (Law 25,326) and that an individual has no right to claim damages for the storage of his image.

The plaintiff, an attorney sued the administration of the building alleging that the security organization in charge of the entrance took a photo of him with a web cam when he was entering the premises. But instead of requesting access or opposing the treatment of his personal data under Law 25,326, the plaintiff initiated a claim for damages based on the right to privacy, the right of image and the Data Protection Act. He argued the lack of express consent for the capture of his image.

The Civil Court of Appeals for the city of Buenos Aires affirmed the dismissal of the first instance court. The Court ruled that the requirement of being photographed to enter the building was not unlawful. The administration of the building has enough powers to impose such a requisite. When someone is entering a building with such a requisite, he is waiving his right to privacy. Such situation neither involves the right of publicity (article 31 Law 11,723) because the image was not used in commerce.

Finally, the court said that the Data Protection Act does not applied to this case because the image of a person is not mentioned as personal data under the Data Protection Act, and because the database was not a "register whose purpose was to provide reports" in the sense of Article 1 of the Data Protection Act.