Source of the data. The data of the interested parties may be provided to SegurCaixa Adeslas by the interested parties themsel- ves or the policyholders at any time during the rela- tionship (pre-contractual and contractual) with Segur- Caixa Adeslas for the purposes described in section
Source of the data. Q4.2 Identify the source of the data. • A fully executed sponsored project agreement. • A collaborator with whom there is no funding and/or executed agreement/contract • A commercial entity. • A publicly available source. (Provide link) • A pending award. (Indicate expected start date below) • Controlled access data set (Identify below) • Other (Describe below)
Source of the data. Lemon Way collects personal data directly through a contract, a legal obligation, the consent of the person or the legitimate interest of the company. Lemon Way also collects personal data indirectly in order to comply with the anti- money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regulations.
Source of the data. The data of the interested parties may be provid- ed to SegurCaixa Adeslas by the interested parties themselves or the policyholders at any time during the relationship (pre-contractual and contractual) with SegurCaixa Adeslas for the purposes described in section 2. “Purpose of the personal data process- ing”. Also, within the context of the management of the formalised policies and, if required, to deal with losses, personal data may be received from policyhold- ers, insured parties and third parties, including through service provider companies subject to the coverage of the policies (healthcare centres and professionals, ve- hicle repair workshops, domestic repair professionals or companies, experts or other similar professionals). Interested parties shall be responsible for the accura- cy and veracity of the personal data provided to Se- gurCaixa Adeslas, which reserves the right to rectify or delete false or incorrect data, without prejudice to its right to take other relevant legal actions in each case. When the data provided relate to a third par- ty, the interested parties must inform and obtain the consent of the third party concerning the processing described in this text. As we have already indicated, data from public sourc- es from official bodies are also processed, in order to complement the information provided by interested parties during the insurance contracting process. As we have already indicated, data made public by the interested parties may also be processed in order to adopt the measures required to prevent fraudulent conduct relating to insurance. In particular, Segur- Caixa Adeslas may process data obtained from public profiles on social media about the interested parties for this purpose.
Source of the data. The data for the dependent variable comes from a lawsuit filed against the Secretary of State in September of 2016 by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Lawyers’ Committee), Project Vote, Campaign Legal Center, and the Voting Rights Institute of the Georgetown University School of Law, along with the New York City office of Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx and Xxxx LLP and Atlanta-based firm of Xxxxxx Xxxx LLP, acting as pro xxxx counsel, on behalf of the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP (GA NAACP), Georgia Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda (GCPA), and Asian Americans Advancing Justice Atlanta. The suit claimed that the exact match system used to verify a voter’s identity against the Social Security Database (SSD) and the Department of Drivers’ Services (DDS) disproportionately affected black, Latino and Asian American applicants. The plaintiffs subpoenaed the data as part of the litigation, and a member of counsel from the Lawyers’ Committee sent it to me after I contacted her requesting it. The data include information on all 646,287 registration applicants that were rejected between July 2013 and July 2016. For reference, during the November 2014 elections there were 6,036,491 registered voters in Georgia, meaning that the number of rejected applicants represents more than 10% of the entire electorate (SOS “Voter Registration Figures”). In the data set, each entry includes the following identifiers: name, address, county, race, gender, year of birth, reason for rejection and date of rejection. Out of the pool of 646,287, the lawsuit focused on the 34,874 applicants who were canceled due to being “Not Verified,” which comprised 5% of the whole set. Based on an interview with a representative from the Secretary of State’s office, “Not Verified” means that the application was entered and sent for verification with DDS, as all paper applications are, and DDS could not match all of the fields from the form with its system, and after the county did not hear from the individual in 40 days, the application was canceled (Xxxxxxx 2017). Further explanation of the verification process proceeds in the next section, as well as explanations on the different reasons for rejection, but it is important to note that as a result of the lawsuit the Secretary of State’s office stopped using the exact match system.3 In other words, the suit was successful in demonstrating that this particular reason and method for verification was affecting minorities disproportionately. ...
Source of the data. All Data in TIS/OBI is provided by the IMs, RUs and terminals. The Data which can be retrieved by the TIS-User for reporting purposes is based on the signed TIS User Agreement and TIS Data Sharing Declarations and assigned to the company the TIS-User is linked to.
