question of the Kyrgyz Republic

[Андрей Захаров]

In order that the essence of the issue would be clear, I give an interpretation of the concepts specified in the Law:
- Personal data - any information relating to a specific person (subject of personal data) defined or determined on the basis of such information, including his last name, first name, middle name, year, month, date and place of birth, address, family, social, property position, education, profession, income, other information.
-Processing of personal data-collection, systematization, accumulation, storage, clarification, updating, modification, depersonalization, blocking, destruction, use, distribution and transfer.
Thanks in advance for the answers)))

The Law on Personal Data is very complicated. Not only that, there are some nuances buried in the depths, but it also changes, constantly updated.
This is due to the fact that this Law was adopted in a hurry because it was necessary to comply with some of the international obligations.
As an example, I can say about the data from the Internet that it became possible to collect after amendments to the Law were made, which, in turn, was a reflection of the grievances about its inconsistency with the realities.

Therefore, if you want an answer in a general way, it is something like this: "Not every person’s data collection or storage is automatically covered by the ZoA." If you want specifics, then it is best for you to contact Alexander Tokarenko, outlining the essence of the specific situation that has raised your questions. This is one of the leading experts on Trade Secret and Personal Data. Both theory and practice are known to him better than the vast majority of people. And, as far as I know, he also works in commissions on changes in ZoPD.
Alexander is also a member of the Community of Practitioners of Competitive Intelligence.

Here you can chat with him:
https://www.facebook.com/alex.toparenko?ref=ts&fref=ts

Regarding the fact that the Law is not simple and actually has an explicitly blank form (referring to other normative acts, which also do not have clear definitions of certain concepts), that’s for sure ... Regarding the collection of information from publicly available sources, where the information in principle, it is posted by the inspectors themselves, of course, of course, there will be no violations of the law in this part ... (however, this information will obviously not be enough to make any decisions). And thanks for the expert advice, thank you))) I will definitely keep in mind))))

 

[Роберт]

Means, my case with a card of violations of the law does not have ?! : D

 

[Ющук Евгений Леонидович]

Regarding the fact that the Law is not simple and actually has an explicitly blank form (referring to other normative acts, which also do not have clear definitions of certain concepts), that’s for sure ... Regarding the collection of information from publicly available sources, where the information in principle, it is posted by the inspectors themselves, of course, of course, there will be no violations of the law in this part ... (however, this information will obviously not be enough to make any decisions). And thanks for the expert advice, thank you))) I will definitely keep in mind))))

Yes - it is better to clarify each specific case, if it raises questions. Because he already has a law enforcement practice and knowledge of changes.
In general terms, in case of doubt, I see offhand at least two solutions.

1. Make the defendant confirm that he himself posted the information. In many cases, this is quite possible to do (of course, not motivating by the fact that work is being done on it, and not even on its own behalf).

2. Give this fee to the jurisdiction of another state, to which our ZoPD is a damn thing.

The technique of both is a separate issue. But technically, both are feasible.

 

[Роберт]

Strangely enough, everyone ignores me. : D in fact in the law the keyword "collection"! If I received this information not by its purposeful collection, but "by chance", then the law cannot be applied to me!
And the problems are solved: D

 

[Роберт]

The customer wants something, but receives it not from me personally, but in a completely different way, which has nothing to do with the performers. He put his hand in the mailbox, and there is a postcard: D: D: D

 

[Ющук Евгений Леонидович]

Strangely enough, everyone ignores me. : D in fact in the law the keyword "collection"! If I received this information not by its purposeful collection, but "by chance", then the law cannot be applied to me!
And the problems are solved: D

I think yes. In fact, there are many different solutions to the problem. Starting from the fact that, perhaps, in some case there is no problem, and ending with not having to do the collection. Or this type of storage and processing, which falls under the ZoPD (and not all storage and processing fall under it either).

 

[Андрей Захаров]

There are many ways and tricks to avoid responsibility ...: lol:

 

[Роберт]

I'm talking about many ways that do not provide for liability at all: D

 

[Андрей Захаров]

Since ways are considered in which there is no responsibility at all, then this is the way to find options for avoiding responsibility ...

 

[Роберт]

Since ways are considered in which there is no responsibility at all, then this is the way to find options for avoiding responsibility ...

Not. This is primitive. The best way is not to break the law or to do what is not covered by it (the law), is not provided. I would like to discuss this. : D