4. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION ON

FIRST: the state founded by the complaint against Mr Saint Martin School SAC Company for violation of the law regulating the use of unsolicited commercial email (SPAM) and the Consumer Protection Law.

SECOND: order SAC School of Business, as a corrective measure of trade that meets not send commercial email to the email address of the complainant. Also, to safeguard the collective interests of consumers, ordering that SAC School Company complies with its matching sending commercial e-mail, as prescribed by existing rules on regulating unsolicited commercial e-mail.

In that sense, it requires a School of Business at SAC for a period not exceeding ten (10) working days of notification of this resolution, to report to the Commission on actions taken to implement the remedy ordered.

THIRD: to declare inadmissible the claim made by Mr Saint Martin in respect of payment of compensation. (NOTE: I asked that we require the payment of compensation to each person affected by SPAM. Under the Act compensation is 1% of the ITU for each email received).

FOURTH: to punish SAC School of Business with a fine amounting to 5 Tax Tax Units (UIT), which will be reduced by 25% if the alleged consent to the resolution and then cancel it within five (5) days notification, as stipulated in Articles 37 ° and 38 ° of Legislative Decree No. 807, Powers Act, Rules and Organization of the thirteenth and INDECOPI provision of Law No. 27809, General Law System Competition.
FIFTH: Sort SAC School Company within a period not to exceed five (5) working days of this notification, to comply with Mr Saint Martin pay the costs of the procedure, which to date amount to the sum of S/.34.50 , That, notwithstanding the complainant’s right to request reimbursement of costs and expenses, once the administrative instance.

That took the optimal play DIRECTORATE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS OF THIS MINISTRY.

That this action is issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 29, subsection 1, paragraph b) of Act No. 25326 and Article 29, paragraph 5, paragraph a) of Annex I of Decree No. 1558/01.

Therefore,

THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA

AVAILABLE:

Article 1 – The communications for direct mail, database issuer must include a notice to inform the owner of the information on the rights of withdrawal or blocking all or part of its name from the database, the mechanism is planned to pursue further the transcription of Article 27, paragraph 3 of Law No. 25,326 and the third paragraph of Article 27 of Annex I of Decree No. 1558/01.

2 – Establecese post when direct communication is not required or prior owner of personal data must be noted prominently in that it is an advertisement. If such communication made through an e-mail header to be included in the single term “advertising.”

3 – In the communications that refer to previous articles, the data sender must verify that the mechanisms for exercising the right of withdrawal or blockade have sufficient operational capacity to respond to any exercise of this right from the data.

Article 4 – Communicate, published,? wish the National Official Registry and filed. – Juan A. Naughty.

It acts like a firewall mailing address: a protective shield between your email reader (Outlook, Eudora, etc) and your email server, you receive the email from your account and will be returned free of threats.

This service allows you to get up to 100% effectiveness without losing any messages.

It has two modes of protection: automatic filtering and filtering guaranteed.
The first checks and validates the origin of messages received by guaranteeing almost 100% effective, this mode is based on two lists.

The second analyzes and classifies the messages as mail or SPAM valid depending on the score obtained by each of them after verification from more than 600 rules. A higher score, the greater likelihood that a message is SPAM.