Your dynamic IP address is now protected personal data under EU law

[redlukas]

The EU's court has ruled that dynamic IPs can no longer be stored by websites without there being a explicit reason like protecting the website against attacks. The plaintif (a member of the german pirate party) has argued that by storing his IP a website owner could over time build up a profile of his interests and should therefore be counted as "personal data" and be protected as such.

Since the EU has begun enforcing stricter policies on cookies (such as having a banner that warns users that they are being tracked) it has been increasingly difficult for website operators to track its customers for statistics and advertising purposes.

In its argument, the EU court has emphasized the legitimate need of website owners to guard against cyberattacks and that it views storing each visitors IP as a reasonable means to ensure cybersecurity. It is therefore likely that dynamic IPs will still be stored going forward, but only for administrative purposes, not for statistics and marketing. as ArsTechnica notes: " The case now goes back to the German Federal Court of Justice, which will make its judgment based on the CJEU's opinion. Given the top court's reasoning, it seems likely that Breyer won't be granted an injunction restraining Germany's federal sites from storing data about his visits. "

 

 

Source 1: Ars Technica (20.10.16 1000 GMT+1)

Source 2: Der Strandard (German Source) (20.10.16 1000 GMT+1)

[LAwLz]

Hey that's pretty good.

Kind of weird that it does not apply to static IPs as well.

[Bouzoo]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Kind of weird that it does not apply to static IPs as well.

From the article, this is the first sentence:

Quote

Europe's top court has ruled that dynamic IP addresses can constitute "personal data," just like static IP addresses, affording them some protection under EU law against being collected and stored by websites.

This is kind of confusing, since it says they "are on pair" with static addresses, which implies they already are protected, but I can't find a concrete article/document about that. It may be that old.

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

From the article, this is the first sentence:

This is kind of confusing, since it says they "are on pair" with static addresses, which implies they already are protected, but I can't find a concrete article/document about that. It may be that old.

Oh right, so static addresses were already protected, and this new ruling extends the protection to dynamic addresses as well.

[Prysin]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Hey that's pretty good.

Kind of weird that it does not apply to static IPs as well.

well, those have been mostly done away with for private consumers out of lack of static adress licenses. Until IPv6 started rolling out in force that is.

[redlukas]

57 minutes ago, Prysin said:

well, those have been mostly done away with for private consumers out of lack of static adress licenses. Until IPv6 started rolling out in force that is.

My ISP wants 20$ per month for a static IP. My VPS provider only charges 1 Euro. i guess it depends wheter they bought blocks early on...

[VerticalDiscussions]

Are these guys really gonna sneak peak into other people's profile and depending on theyr activity basis, consider themselves as data thieves? Well heck, this world's population is more sensitive than some fresh red berries . But nope, your still being watched, wether you like it or not xD. Unless you have a multi-array of servers with more CBA's than football stadium at full capacity and shady tactics to prevent someone from getting triggered!