07/06/2013

NEXT POST
Constitution Finally, some databases obtained information from other public databases, cameras, pension entities, registers, etc. Add to this the fact that, on many occasions, this circuit complement certain personal data which, strictly speaking, should not be traded. The biggest problem is, beyond some considerations on own information management can be made and are not subject of this brief article in the publication/update or correction of the information. The circuit described, if same, it is not harmful and is designed precisely to the contrary. However, perhaps by intricacies resulting, perhaps by the actors involved, perhaps by errors, by endogenous or exogenous factors, for some people, physical or legal, ends up being harmful. As an abstract example of the foregoing, and without exhausting all different situations and scenarios that occur as a result of this circuit, we can mention: persons who, being regular customers of different companies, end informed on the different databases as debtors. People who, having had financial or economic problems (especially as a result of the latest crisis which traverses our country) and cancelled obligations, remain as debtors in databases beyond the time limit established by law. Databases, private in general, tend to retain historical data, and were empowered to do so, for the term of 2 years. They were not until the sanction of the law 26343, which comes to modify the Act 25326 on this point. People whose qualification, mensura in numbers, is not in keeping with their actual financial situation. People who, as a result of a scam or identity theft (this usually begins with the loss or theft of documentation) end up being holders of a lousy credit rating by products that they never hired. I.e., third parties that with apocryphal documentation manage and obtain products or services on behalf of another person who, as of...
PREVIOUS POST
Judicial Amendments THE amendment is still being immoral does little more than one month said that our President is committed to forcing the Venezuelans to go to the polls to express our opinion on his re-election or not. We argued that the amendment not is illegal immoral, and undemocratic. The amendment is a mechanism constitutional, substantially different from the formal point of view to reform. It is absolutely legal President or any Venezuelan request fulfilling the constitutional formalities for an amendment. Now in the world of the law the lawyers know that above the law and its lyrics, by being in a referential and circumstantial framework this justice, respect for the will of the sovereign. Law is the daughter of junior interests many times men but the justice, the latest and top end of society. The problem is not the interpretation of the 345 or 340 of the Constitution the unusual is that on 2 December 2007, the people told him not to article 230 of the constitutional reform bill which envisaged, as is It intends to do with the request for amendment, the possibility of re-election, so indefinite or continuous as says the jurist CILIA FLORES and what most characterizes a Government that will define how democratic is not respect the Division of powers or the autonomy of each of them, that it is equally important, but respect for the will of the majorities. The amendment is not illegal, it's IMMORAL and this if you must worry about the President. THE request for amendment is a EUPHEMISM JURIDICO which repeats tomorrow to be defeated Chavez then talk of presenting a new Constitution. Until when we are in this game? What they really want? LIFETIME DEMOCRACY? Or all will be IMMORAL La democracy imposes a free game and not as intended do...

Recent Comments